Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.4k reviews for:
On the Road (Penguin Classics) by Kerouac Jack (2002-12-31) Paperback
Jack Kerouac
3.28 AVERAGE
4.4k reviews for:
On the Road (Penguin Classics) by Kerouac Jack (2002-12-31) Paperback
Jack Kerouac
3.28 AVERAGE
This was terrible. If this is how straight white males still think I will never ever be a part of it. I thought it couldn’t get worse and then the last 50 pages really did it
The one thing that we yearn for in our living days, that makes us sigh and groan and undergo sweet nauseas of all kinds, is the remembrance of some lost bliss that was probably experienced in the womb and can only be reproduced (though we hate to admit it) in death. But who wants to die?
After hearing about this book for years, I have finally read On the Road by Jack Kerouac. The “stream of consciousness” writing is raw and gritty, making it a difficult read.
Kerouac wrote this on a massive scroll of paper with no breaks. With no attempts for organization, the result is not the polished novel of modern day life. Rather than reading it continuously through, I read it in bits and pieces at a time.
I should have read this as a teenager when the carefree attitude and sense of adventure appealed to me more. It’s not ground-breaking today as it was in 1957 when published, but I appreciate it for being a product of its time, a world that simply doesn't exist anymore.
Kerouac wrote this on a massive scroll of paper with no breaks. With no attempts for organization, the result is not the polished novel of modern day life. Rather than reading it continuously through, I read it in bits and pieces at a time.
I should have read this as a teenager when the carefree attitude and sense of adventure appealed to me more. It’s not ground-breaking today as it was in 1957 when published, but I appreciate it for being a product of its time, a world that simply doesn't exist anymore.
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
the actions of the characters pissed me off a lot, i didn't like how women and homosexuals were portrayed and treated, and their non-stop criss-crossing the country was exhausting, but the idea of just going was exhilarating.
Based on his own travels across the United States Kerouac's On the Road is an impressive piece of work.
Equally as impressive is the 120 foot "scoll" which Kerouac typed and taped together.
Reminiscent of Thoreau's [b:Walden|16902|Walden|Henry David Thoreau|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1465675526l/16902._SY75_.jpg|2361393] (in a super beatnik kind of way)
Equally as impressive is the 120 foot "scoll" which Kerouac typed and taped together.
Reminiscent of Thoreau's [b:Walden|16902|Walden|Henry David Thoreau|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1465675526l/16902._SY75_.jpg|2361393] (in a super beatnik kind of way)
challenging
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This book could have been much better written. Material, regardless of its quality, tends not to make a work in itself great.
I can't help but agree with Capote, this is not writing, it's just typing.
For me, books can be reviewed based on two main aspects: plot and writing. An excellent book will have excellent examples of both, for sure, but it doesn't mean a book can't be excellent without having both of the aspects perfected. So don't think of me as a snob perfectionist, I'm willing to give a book its credit if it's good.
This book is not very good, however. As you probably know, it does not have a strong plot (being a semi-autobiography also contributes to this fact); some might say it's refreshing and it breaks the rules, because it's not about the destination, it's about the "journey". When the book doesn't have a plot, I turn to the writing; because a plot is the easiest way out for a book: Even if your writing is shit, with a decent plot, you can get away with a "meh" (or better, the combination of a really compelling story and shit writing might be enough to make you famous (read: [b:If I Stay|4374400|If I Stay (If I Stay, #1)|Gayle Forman|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1347462970s/4374400.jpg|4422413] etc.)). So no plot means the author is aiming high: They're going to make up for the plot with their incredible writing! They're going to make us think deep and question our existence with their eloquent sentences and magical mix of words!
On the Road is famous for having invented a new style: Typing whatever comes to the mind at that moment, without stopping or going back right then. (Of course the plot idea guides the typing at the moment, and Kerouac went back and edited it when the first draft was completed.) This was revolutionary! they said. The new generation was breaking out of the mold created by the former ones!!, they wrote. What might have excited the critics at the time was not very exciting when time cleared the first impression. You see, making the reader think and alter their worldview was not very easy when you were heavily under the influence of drugs and barely coherent. You know how those incredibly interesting ideas you think of when you're stoned doesn't make any sense when you're sober? Yeah. On the Road, ladies and gentlemen.
The style is one thing, it still wouldn't have kept those amazing ideas from going across to the reader. The main problem is, it doesn't have any ideas to convey. This can also be traced back to Kerouac and his friends' worldview. They're a group of young people who know there's something wrong with the current system, want to change it, but don't know how (or can't find a solution that can be done while sitting around taking various drugs), so they just read French poetry (and take drugs - seriously though, I think their "trying to change the world" is just an excuse to be jobless bums).
Kerouac thinks himself extremely entitled to everything without working for anything - just for being white and male. Also, just because racism and objectification of women was common at the time, doesn't mean it was okay (just look at Austen - do you think she was taught feminism at school?). And Kerouac doesn't even give me the slightest idea that he went along with it but actually thought it wasn't okay.
For me, books can be reviewed based on two main aspects: plot and writing. An excellent book will have excellent examples of both, for sure, but it doesn't mean a book can't be excellent without having both of the aspects perfected. So don't think of me as a snob perfectionist, I'm willing to give a book its credit if it's good.
This book is not very good, however. As you probably know, it does not have a strong plot (being a semi-autobiography also contributes to this fact); some might say it's refreshing and it breaks the rules, because it's not about the destination, it's about the "journey". When the book doesn't have a plot, I turn to the writing; because a plot is the easiest way out for a book: Even if your writing is shit, with a decent plot, you can get away with a "meh" (or better, the combination of a really compelling story and shit writing might be enough to make you famous (read: [b:If I Stay|4374400|If I Stay (If I Stay, #1)|Gayle Forman|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1347462970s/4374400.jpg|4422413] etc.)). So no plot means the author is aiming high: They're going to make up for the plot with their incredible writing! They're going to make us think deep and question our existence with their eloquent sentences and magical mix of words!
On the Road is famous for having invented a new style: Typing whatever comes to the mind at that moment, without stopping or going back right then. (Of course the plot idea guides the typing at the moment, and Kerouac went back and edited it when the first draft was completed.) This was revolutionary! they said. The new generation was breaking out of the mold created by the former ones!!, they wrote. What might have excited the critics at the time was not very exciting when time cleared the first impression. You see, making the reader think and alter their worldview was not very easy when you were heavily under the influence of drugs and barely coherent. You know how those incredibly interesting ideas you think of when you're stoned doesn't make any sense when you're sober? Yeah. On the Road, ladies and gentlemen.
The style is one thing, it still wouldn't have kept those amazing ideas from going across to the reader. The main problem is, it doesn't have any ideas to convey. This can also be traced back to Kerouac and his friends' worldview. They're a group of young people who know there's something wrong with the current system, want to change it, but don't know how (or can't find a solution that can be done while sitting around taking various drugs), so they just read French poetry (and take drugs - seriously though, I think their "trying to change the world" is just an excuse to be jobless bums).
Kerouac thinks himself extremely entitled to everything without working for anything - just for being white and male. Also, just because racism and objectification of women was common at the time, doesn't mean it was okay (just look at Austen - do you think she was taught feminism at school?). And Kerouac doesn't even give me the slightest idea that he went along with it but actually thought it wasn't okay.
I wish Francis Ford Coppola could have adapted this in the 70s, I feel it would be much better. Send me to that alternate universe please.