I thought I was a beat, but I was just a boy, part 10

I thought I was a beat, but I was just a boy  
Notes on Re-Reading Kerouac in my 50s
Part  10

Luanne Henderson, the model for Marylou.


I call On the Road a young man’s novel, and it’s important to make it clear that the emphasis is both on young and on man.

Consider this description of Lee Ann, his friend Remi’s girl:

She was a fetching hunk, a honey-colored creature, but there was hate in her eyes for both of us. Her ambition was to marry a rich man. She came from a small town in Oregon. She rued the day she ever took up with Remi. On one of his big show off weekends he spent a hundred dollars on her and she thought she’d found an heir. Instead she was hung-up in this shack, and for lack of anything else she had to stay there. She had a job in Frisco; she had to take Greyhound bus at the crossroads and go in every day. She never forgave Remi for it.

Lee Ann is the gold-digger shrew. She is out for the money, hooks up with Remi, thinking him rich,  and targets Remi and anyone connected with Remi with a deep resentment. Or so we are led to believe. Remember, On the Road is written in the first person. Everything we see, every bit of information, is filtered through Sal, and it is fair to ask whether this description is accurate.

I’d argue that it’s more complicated, that Sal — and Kerouac himself — can’t see the nuances because his view of the world is constrained by an ingrained sexism. Every female character is placed within one of a set of categories or archetypes.

Carolyn Cassidy — Camille.

Lee Ann — along with Dean Moriarty’s girls Marylou and Camille — serves as shrew, as ball and chain, as weight around her man’s neck. She is a fairly typical archetype in literature and one of the boxes in which Kerouac traps his women characters.


Babe Rawlins is the “beautiful blonde,” “a tennis-playing, surf-riding doll of the West,” an “enterprising blonde” whose utility in the novel is limited to helping the men, facilitating their kicks or smiling as they go off and do their man things.

The unnamed wife of Walter, an African American that Sal and Dean meet in a bar in San Francisco, fits this same stereotype. The trio goes back to Walter’s tenement flat, where his wife was sleeping. The apartment had only a single bulb, and the men needed the light in the kitchen, where they sat to drink and talk. It was late, of course, and the bulb was above the wife’s bed; Dean climbs up and removes the light and, then, again to plug in the extension chord. the unnamed misses just “smiled and smiled. She never asked Walter where he’d been, what time it was, nothing” (203). When it was time to leave, they “repeated the insane thing all over again. She never said a word.”

And this sums up the book’s relationship to and views about women. As Dean says after they leave Walter’s:

“Now you see, man, there’s a real woman for you. Never a harsh word, never a complaint, or modified; her old man can come in any hour of the night with anybody and have talks in the kitchen and drink the beer and leave any old time. This is a man, and that’s his castle” (203).

Galatea Dunkel is both shrew and enabler. Galatea enters the story as ghost, as hearsay, and reappears periodically. Galatea is Ed Dunkel’s wife; Dunkel is Dean’s Denver pal, a Moriarty acolyte. Galatea is described as sniffing around after Ed, who ultimately marries her so she can pay the costs of a cross-country trip. Dean, Marylou and Ed ditch her in New Mexico, She’s described simultaneously as angry but needy; she blames Dean but desperately wants Ed back. In this way she is both Marylou and Babe, both Camille and Walter’s wife.

Only two women get extended treatments — the Mexican Terry that Sal hooks up with and Mary Lou, who goes on a mad cross-country car trip with Sal and Dean.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2397641/Inspiration-Jack-Kerouacs-On-The-Road-Beatrice-Kozera-dies-aged-92.html
Bea Kozera, Terry, and a friend the year she met Kerouac.

The figure of Terry is an interesting one. It is probably the tenderest portrait drawn by Kerouac, the one least bogged down by the mythology of his bias. There is real affection in Sal’s words, a sense that he has found something to which he can commit. But not completely. The world hangs over him — the need for money, in particular, but also a general sense of foreboding. After being hooted at by carloads of teens on a dark road outside Arcadia, he offers an internal monologue in which he explains how he “hated everyone of them” (88).


Who did they think they were, yaahing at somebody on the road just because they were little high-school punks and their parents carved roast beef on Sunday afternoons? Who did they think they were, making fun of a girl reduced to poor circumstances with a man who wanted to belove? 

The teens pass, and Sal and Terry make their way to “high-school soda fountain,” the only place open, where they come across the teens again. The teens remembered them, and realized that “Terry was Mexican, a Pacheco wildcat; and that her boy was worse than that” (88-89). This is one of the few passages in the book that acknowledges strong current of racism in the United States, a recognition undercut by his needing to refocus the eye on himself.  This is white privilege before it had a name, but also evidence of Sal/Jack’s emotional narrowness, his inability to fully get outside of himself.

But the lovers leave — she leading “with her pretty nose in the air, and they wander along the highway. This is still early in their relationship, and one might expect it to create an unbreakable bond, but Sal cannot make that kind of commitment. It is not in his emotional DNA. 

Consider his inability later in the novel to commit to Lucille: “She wanted him to be her way” (125). He was 

willing to marry her and take her baby daughter and all if she divorced the husband, but there wasn’t even enough money to get a divorce and the whole thing was hopeless, besides which Lucille would never understand me because I like too many things and get all confused and hung-up running from one falling star to another until I drop. This is the night, what it does to you. I had nothing to offer anybody except my own confusion (125-126).

The divorce argument is nothing more than justification; even if Lucille could extricate herself from her marriage, Sal would find other reasons not to stick around. His fatalism and restlessness ultimately doom his relationships, which no woman can understand — save Terry, who promises to follow him east knowing full well it will never happen. She has a restless soul, as well, and so she understands him and that understanding is presented as a willingness to let him walk.

Terry is the one female character who is given agency, though it is limited both by the patriarchal society of America after the war and Kerouac’s limited gender imagination. She is generally described in sympathetic terms, but both as child — a naive, angelic presence — and as a wise, almost Buddha-like presence. She is strong, but also a child, independent yet dependent on family. Her complications deserve an entire book, but we get just a sketch, and she ultimately stands as an example of the minor roles women are given in the beat world.

Marylou, Dean’s sometime-girlfriend-sometime-wife, gets more ink, but is no more fleshed out. Traveling with Dean across country to pick up Sal and then making the trek back west, we are presented with a woman who has many of the same appetites as Dean and Sal, but is painted as a more dangerous presence, as a schemer and, at times, a brake on the men’s adventures. Marylou has ulterior motives, as described by Sal, pits Sal and Dean against each other, seeks to make other women jealous.

But her presence is limited and, in the end, she is drawn with a little more detail, but lacks the shading, the color, of any of the men in the book. She’s two-dimensional, often an after thought like all women in the novel except for Terry. There is a scene in New Orleans that typifies this attitude: Sal, Dean and Ed run across rail tracks in New Orleans so Dean could show Sal his brakeman moves; they leave “Marylou and Galatea were waiting in the car” (155), unconcerned about what they might do or whether they OK with this temporary abandonment — they were out for a drive as a group, after all. Then, when the men get “back to the girls an hour late,” the girls “of course … were mad” (155). He writes this matter-of-faculty, as though it was just the price men pay for their attraction to women, for letting them tag along. Marylou, Camille, Dorothy Johnson — they present as obstacles, impediments, not real fleshed-out characters, not partners in loving relationships, but as objects.



Jessica Mendoza and the privilege of the booth

Jessica Mendoza when she was on the United States Olympic softball team in 2008. She is now ESPN’s first female baseball analyst. Credit Al Bello/Getty Images

The outdated assumption that there are men’s realms and women’s realms has been a stubborn one to eradicate. It infects much of our cultural and political discourse, is at least partially responsible for the way people react to women politicians like Hillary Clinton, and have kept women from fully entering some areas — sports writing and broadcasting, for instance.

Doug Glanville addresses this in The New York Times, focusing on the sexist response to ESPN broadcaster Jessica Mendoza. Mendoza is a solid commentator, probably the best on a bad booth team, and makes a strong effort to get past the shallowness that diminishes the national approach to the game — specially when compared with the outstanding Mets’ broadcast team, and probably many other locals that live each day, each game with the teams they cover.

 Criticizing Mendoza — or any color commentator, or anyone, really — is fair. There are things she does well and things she does not. But focusing on her gender, assuming that she is disqualified from doing a good job based on her being a woman, that’s where the sexism comes in. We’ve seen this in other areas: Comics, video games, politics, television roles. The geeks — and by geeks I mean the passionate ones (anyone who thinks that hardcore sports fans are not geeks is lying to themselves) — have invested a lot of time in “things as they’ve always been”; male geeks, in particular, tend to respond as though their very passion and existence is being threatened.

The impact on politics is particularly dangerous, or course, because it re-enforces gender and race biases, grants legitimacy to the kind of ranting BS we hear from Donald Trump and his most avid supporters. They will claim that it is not about race or gender, but Trump’s language always comes back to racial and gender stereotypes, often framed as a threat, and his fans/supporters react as though these changes represent existential threats to their own lives.

But this is not about a threat to existence. It is about privilege, about defending “things as they’ve always been,” about power and who gets to claim it.

Send me an e-mail.

I thought I was a beat, but I was just a boy, part 9

I thought I was a beat, but I was just a boy  
Notes on Re-Reading Kerouac in my 50s  Part 9



When I started posting these entries as a public journal to my blog, Truman Capote’s name came up thanks to his famous quip about Jack Kerouac. The comment takes various forms and may not have been directed at Kerouac but at the loose group of writers identified as Beat. Essentially, the various versions can be summed this way: “That’s not writing, it’s typing.”
It’s certainly a pithy remark, though I’m not sure it’s entirely fair. A writer’s style is personal, an extension of his personality. Ernest Hemingway’s terse, almost matter-of-fact syntax has been described as muscular and masculine. I’m not sure how a prose style can take on alleged gender qualities, but it does match his persona and the reticence of his characters. John Cheever writes with what can be called an urbane delivery, fitting his stories of upper class New York.
And Capote, in Breakfast at Tiffany’s and other novels, writes with a precision that reminds me most of Edith Wharton — each detail signaling something small to the reader, something perhaps imperceptible until the details accumulate. This approach serves his stories well, but slows them down, dampens the pace.
Kerouac’s style was all his own, as well, a kind of breathless lack of specificity that matched the manicness of his adventures — as if he had to rush to get it all down. This manic element reminds me most of Walt Whitman, whose long lines build from lists of nouns and accretions of prepositional phrases, something new at the time, lending a sense of bigness and inclusiveness to his poetry. Whitman read aloud becomes a race against breath, a sometimes futile effort to get each line and all of its information out in a single breath.
Kerouac’s manic episodes function the same way, though not syntactically. He builds this momentum through the use of open-ended adjectives and repetition — it’s all mad and gone and holy,  and if he stops to be more precise, well, he just might miss it. His approach to writing is similar to his attitude about jazz in that he views the act of getting everything down as being as important or even more important than the final product. And he views this act through a religious lens, as though the experiences and their recounting function as revelation. Mad. Holy. Angelic.
His depressive episodes have the same feel; they are descents into self-doubt that shift his focus — and some of his language — away from the ecstatic toward a similarly indefinite descriptive architecture that also has a religious feel.
“And for the moment,” he writes as a trip to San Francisco crashes on the rocks,
I had treacherous the point of ecstasy that I always wanted to reach, which was the complete step across chronological time into timeless shadows, and wonderment in the bleakness of the mortal realm, and the sensation of death kicking at my heels to move on, with a phantom digging it’s own heels, and myself hurrying to a void of uncreated emptiness, the potent and inconceivable radiancies shining in bright Mind Essence, innumerable lotus lands falling open in the magic mothswarm of heaven. (173)
One sentence rushing forward, no, falling into an abyss. This sounds heavier than it is, but it does give a glimpse into a mind struggling in the darkness. He tingles with bliss, as he considers the stability of what he calls “the intrinsic Mind” that created the space in which “birth and death took place.” Sal says he’d “died and had been reborn numberless times,” couldn’t remember the transitions between. They’re “so ghostly easy, a magical action for naught” — because it doesn’t matter. It’s out of our hands.
I though I ways going to die the very next moment. But I didn’t die, and walked four miles and picked up ten long butts and took them back to Marylou’s hotel room and poured their tobacco in my old pipe and lit up. I was too young to know what had happened.
And he gets lost in the food smells of the city, receding deeper into himself. It is not quite stream of consciousness, but it is crafted to have that feel. And that’s why I think Capote was not being fair. Style, in this case, matches the substance, the improvisational feel matches the argument Sal is making, matches his sense that he lives in the moment, matches the energy of the protagonists.
I’m not arguing that Sal/Kerouac’s pseudo-religiosity/philosophizing is complex or particularly well thought out. It’s a mashup of elements of his Catholicism and the Buddhism he had been dabbling in; but he’s not really getting below the surface.
That doesn’t matter. It’s the energy that matters — especially to the 20-year-olds who have long been this book’s primary audience.

I thought I was a beat, but I was just a boy, part 8

I thought I was a beat, but I was just a boy 

Notes on Re-Reading Kerouac in my 50s Part 8

 
There was a night in New Brunswick, probably in 1981, well before redevelopment remade the city. We had driven in to see The Rocky Horror Picture Show at the Art Cinema, a theater that had certainly seen better days and now was known for running XXX films and midnight showings of Rocky Horror.

We got there early, had time to kill. There were for of us. Bill was there, and Rich, I think, and Wayne. Wayne would eventually move to Colorado and take up a conservative variation of Christianity. He died about five years ago from a brain tumor.

Wayne was, at this moment, the wild one in our group. Not Dean Moriarty wild, but he certainly was the one most likely to do something reckless or stupid — like the night, also in New Brunswick, when several of us (not me) were up on the rail trestle a block from the theater and down the street from the train station. I was down below — I was and remain the cautious man. I heard the whistle/horn of an oncoming train, then Bob scream out “where’s Wayne.” then just “Wayne,” as the train barreled through and past. Silence. No answer. Then, from out of the darkness he appears, laughing. H. e’d waited until the last moment, he’d ducked off the track on the other side out of sight. It scared the shit out of us, and he found it funny.

This particular night, we ducked into a small bar called the Stagecoach (I think) a couple doors down from he theater. We were going to get a drink — though we were probably underage, and it’s likely we were already stoned. We walked in and there was a small combo playing jazz in the back. We ordered and sat at a table and just listened. We were the only white people in the place, aside from the guy playing vibes. The band was tight with a strong bottom put down by the bass and drums. Atop this rode the vibes. My wanna-be Beat, late-adolescent mind imagined sparks coloring the air, the rolling swell of notes rising and swirling like a storm.

We finished our drinks, paid the bill, and left with what, in our youthful, white-boy minds, was a great story, an adventure. And for a bunch of suburban kids, I guess it was —but I see now that this sense of adventure was based entirely on a perceived danger, on the “otherness” of the situation, its exotic nature. New Brunswick was a place of “darkness” and we went straight into its heart.

The allusion to Conrad is intentional because, as great and important a writer as he was, he also trucked in racist views like most of his contemporaries. Books like Heart of Darkness and


Lord Jim are rife with ugly stereotypes and, even when a person of color is to be presented in a positive light, it is through the dimming lens of racial typecasting. Kurtz has gone native in Heart of Darkness, which in the English mind circa 1900 was unforgivable. (See Kipling’s The Jungle Book.)


This comes across most strongly in On the Road when Kerouac writes of jazz, as I said, though there are numerous other passages in which his racial reductiveness impairs his perception of reality.

A more extreme variant of this occurs in Denver. A morose Sal “walked with every muscle aching among the lights of27th and Walton in the Denver colored section” (180). He wishes he was black, or more accurately “a Negro,” the use of a noun rather than an adjective reinforcing the sense of difference. The “best the white world had offered,” he says, “was not enough ecstasy for me, not enough life, joy, kicks, darkness, music, not enough night.”

He wants to shed his skin, to get closer to the bone, to the essence of life. To be a Negro, “a Denver Mexican, or even a poor overworked Jap, anything but what I was so drearily, a ‘white man’ disillusioned.” He wanted to shed his “white ambitions” and “exchange worlds with the happy, true-hearted, ecstatic Negroes of America.” The sadness of the passage can make it easy to overlook Kerouac’s use of racial stereotyping, especially because his intention is praise for groups he thinks somehow are more primitive and, therefore, more pure of heart and soul.

Kerouac, writing a scene that takes place in 1947 in a book that’s published in 1957 ignores the legal impediments and segregation imposed on black communities in the south and the de facto segregation of the north. The Civil Rights movement is in its infancy, but the Montgomery bus boycott is making national headlines as he moves the book toward publication. But in Sal/Kerouac’s mind, African Americans can be reduced to types, to caricatures; they are noble savages, primitives who are somehow holier and more pure, closer to a state of bliss unsullied by (white) civilization.

This is common thinking — or was — among the artistic class, especially in the 1950/. It is the central trope in Norman Mailer’s essay, “The White Negro,” in which he describes a cultural marriage between black Americans and
the American existentialist — the hipster, the man who knows that if our collective condition is to live with instant death by atomic war, relatively quick death by the State as l’univers concentrationnaire, or with slow death by conformity with every creative and rebellious instinct stifled (Mailer 304). 
Mailer is correct to describe black existence in 1950s America as living with “danger from his first day” — an observation that still holds. “(N)o experience can ever be casual to him, no Negro can saunter down a street with any real certainty that violence will not visit him on his walk” (306).

However, he then makes the leap to ugly stereotyping, painting the black American as “following the need of his body” as a survival technique and eschewing, because he has to, because he can’t afford not to, the “sophisticated inhibitions of civilization” (306).

The Negro, he writes, has therefore
kept for his survival the art of the primitive, he lived in the enormous present, he subsisted for his Saturday night kicks, relinquishing the pleasures of the mind for the more obligatory pleasures of the body, and in his music he gave voice to the character and quality of his existence, to his rage and the infinite variations of joy, lust, languor, growl, cramp, pinch, scream and despair of his organism.
The beat/hipster has bought into this essentialism, he writes, and is using his search for authenticity and spiritual purity, his efforts to become more like The Negro or Kerouac’s fedahin, to escape rather than press for social change. Mailer is far more political than the Beats — the essay originally appeared in Dissent in the fall of 1957 — about the same time that On the Road is published and rockets up the bestseller list. That Mailer ultimately is critical of this new hipster is unimportant — intention in this case does not override Mailer’s overly broad description of The Negro, who is purer in his relation to the world than the American mainstream (read white). He may want more from the new Beat Generation politically, but he still sees blacks as archetypes, as noble savages, as something apart from the rest of polite society.

We see this in Patti Smith’s “Rock ‘n’ Roll Nigger,” a song that compares the American artist, the visionary, the rebel to blacks as an oppressed group, as the principled outsider: the “black sheep,” the “whore,” are unwilling to conform, must stand “outside of society,” are a “rock ‘n’ roll nigger.”

The song, which she performs as an anthem, growling and spitting fire over a rumbling guitar-driven hard rock soundtrack, uses the pejorative ironically, of course, stripping it from its ugly history as an element of control and dehumanization beginning in slave times; it’s also meant to shock — “now that I’ve got your attention….”

The comparison here is meant to be flattering, but intention does not matter. That’s the great misconception when it comes to race issues. One can still be racist or express or hold racist ideas without having any animus toward blacks, Latinos, Asians and so on. Racism means seeing people as the embodiment of their race; it means objectifying people, robbing them of their individual agency. When Jack Kerouac wished he were a Negro because, as he believes, blacks are simpler and, therefore, closer to the essential truth, he’s engaging in racist thinking. When my friends and I transformed this accidental experience of a joyful noise, so to speak, into a white-kid adventure, when we played up the novelty and exoticness of the moment, we were engaging in racist thinking.

That’s one of the points made by Dr. Ibram X. Kendi in Stamped from the Beginning, his important book on the history of racist thinking. All of us, he says, are capable of racist thinking, and that there is a long history of it in the United States, even among those working hardest to end slavery or Jim Crow or even now in the battle against police brutality.

I have a better understanding of this than I did when I was 19 — that I did when I was 29, 39, even 49. I do my best to avoid essentialist thinking, but I’d be lying if I said I’ve rooted it completely from my thought process.

I cringe now at my naivety, at my youthful lack of understanding of this, but rereading On the Road has raised a lot of questions and it’s important that I be honest about that night, even as I try to hold on to the sensation of hearing that music.

Let’s call Trump what he is

President Donald J. Trump is a bigot.
I wasn’t going to put it so plainly, but I’m done mincing words. Trump sees the world in broad categories, and he judges individuals based on the identity tags he’s assigned. Mexicans, Muslims, Jews, “the blacks” — they all exist as types in the Trump world view. And these types dictate just how much of a citizen you might be.
That’s the context we should use to try and understand today’s announcement that transgender people will now be excluded from the military.
Forget his rationale. Like earlier opposition to gay and lesbian troops, or bebfoe that to desegregating the Armed Forces, this is not about military readiness or unity. It is about citizenship.
Being allowed to serve in the military — like being able to vote or engage in other civic activities is a sign of full citizenship. Proscriptions against gays and lesbians in the service drove them into the shadows and sent a signal to he broader culture that they were less equal as citizens than heterosexuals, a point underscored by bans on same-sex marriage.
Trump, who made the announcement of his transgender ban via a series of tweets (a gutless and disrespectful move), has signaled once again that he sees some Americans as being more equal as others. And yet, the mainstream press, much of Washington, his supporters and many others are willing to give him a pass.
Enough is enough. It’s time to call Trump what he is — a bigot, pure and simple.