Re: Kerouac
Matthew_Stevenson@baylor.edu
Mon, 09 Nov 1998 10:42:38 -0600
erin--
as i've already said, i admit the lack of clarity in my post. i was hoping
someone on this god forsaken list would see the irony of a girl who would
probably be tossed into the category of "generation x" by virtue of her age
was hurling the self-same accusations that many in the media hurl against the
so-called "generation x". you didn't get it. nobody else did. i'm not
funny. i surrender. the white flag is up. what more do you people want from
me?
--matt
On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 08:18:23 -0800 (PST) erinseyes@hotmail.com (Erin
McLaughlin) wrote:
>Nope. I don't think so. Not only do I have no idea what "Generation X"
>is supposed to mean (but PLEASE don't try to explain it--I've heard them
>all before), and not only do I think the people who use the term have no
>idea what it's suppsed to mean, but the whole idea of grouping people in
>an age bracket under a letter is a little disconcerting. It made sense,
>at least, for the "Post-War" generations, because, well, there WAS a
>war. But Generation X? ANd the idea of even the majority of a generation
>being without ambition and grubbing from others, though quite endearing,
>is only as true for our generation as it was for the Beats, and the
>Post-War, and the Post-Depression, and the y, z, and AA Genreations.
>
>----Original Message Follows----
>Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 10:48:22 -0600
>From: Matthew_Stevenson@baylor.edu
>Subject: Re: Kerouac
>To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
>Reply-to: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
>
>>They all leached off
>>relatives and they had no ambition.
>
>generation x anyone?
>
>
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com