Re: Kerouac
Erin McLaughlin (erinseyes@hotmail.com)
Mon, 09 Nov 1998 08:47:16 -0800 (PST)
That's interesting. I guess I'll have to chck it out, because I was just
thinking, while I was checking my miserable 130 messages, about how you
wrote that even if Kerouac did write that crumby book =) in one big
spurt and then spent so much time revising it, etc., that it still
wouldn't matter because a bad start is a bad start is a tautology, I
think.
I mean, if you're inspired to paint a picture, and you sit down not
knowing much about painting, and you end up painting a crappy (but
somewhat unique) picture, you could "revise it" all you want. Crap
begets crap.
Now despite the fact that little of what I post here is well said or
even well thought out, I'm just wondering what the implications are of
Kerouac actually mulling around that book for years. I think I'd lose
even more respect for him.
No offense, obviously.
Erin
----Original Message Follows----
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 18:16:31 -0600
From: Matthew_Stevenson@baylor.edu
Subject: Re: Kerouac
To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
Reply-to: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
one more little bit about kerouac...in the back of this week's TIME
magazine
is a review of some book that purports to debunk the myth of kerouac's
having
written On The Road all in one three-month-long,
benzedrine-and-caffeine-fueled sprint. the article says there are
something
like three years of notebooks outlining plots, characters, etc. for the
book.
beating a dead horse,
matt
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com