Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Gets Kept

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 85 posts

Re: What Gets Kept

#11

Post by saagarjha »

keiferski wrote: post #9
huhkerrf wrote: post #7

Maybe it's because I never had my On the Road phase, but this review on Kerouac I always found really strong: > On the Road is a terrible book about terrible people. Jack Kerouac and his terrible friends drive across the US about seven zillion times for no particular reason, getting in car accidents and stealing stuff and screwing women whom they promise to marry and then don’t. > Jack Kerouac’s relationship with Dea…

It must be so exhausting to go through life only enjoying things that match one’s up-to-the-minute current moral views. I guess all biographies of influential people are basically out, as being successful in 1000BC or 1500AD required one to do things considered unethical today. It feels a bit like religious fundamentalism with a different veneer.

Ok but you do realize that he was alive in the 1900s, not 1000 BC.

Re: What Gets Kept

#12

Post by huhkerrf »

keiferski wrote: post #9
huhkerrf wrote: post #7

Maybe it's because I never had my On the Road phase, but this review on Kerouac I always found really strong: > On the Road is a terrible book about terrible people. Jack Kerouac and his terrible friends drive across the US about seven zillion times for no particular reason, getting in car accidents and stealing stuff and screwing women whom they promise to marry and then don’t. > Jack Kerouac’s relationship with Dea…

It must be so exhausting to go through life only enjoying things that match one’s up-to-the-minute current moral views. I guess all biographies of influential people are basically out, as being successful in 1000BC or 1500AD required one to do things considered unethical today. It feels a bit like religious fundamentalism with a different veneer.

You're jumping to some wild conclusions there. This isn't about wokism (if you know the author, that would be clear) or political correctness.

It's more: wow these guys are jerks, and they get on my nerves.

A protagonist doesn't need to be perfect. But, ultimately, you should be rooting for him.

Re: What Gets Kept

#13

Post by keiferski »

huhkerrf wrote: post #12
keiferski wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It must be so exhausting to go through life only enjoying things that match one’s up-to-the-minute current moral views. I guess all biographies of influential people are basically out, as being successful in 1000BC or 1500AD required one to do things considered unethical today. It feels a bit like religious fundamentalism with a different veneer.

You're jumping to some wild conclusions there. This isn't about wokism (if you know the author, that would be clear) or political correctness. It's more: wow these guys are jerks, and they get on my nerves. A protagonist doesn't need to be perfect. But, ultimately, you should be rooting for him.

I wasn't making it about wokism at all.

And I don't agree that you should be rooting for protagonist. That's an extremely limited way of looking at literature, much less history. I can think of half a dozen books offhand that have unpleasant or anti-hero type protagonists.

Re: What Gets Kept

#14

Post by keiferski »

saagarjha wrote: post #11
keiferski wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It must be so exhausting to go through life only enjoying things that match one’s up-to-the-minute current moral views. I guess all biographies of influential people are basically out, as being successful in 1000BC or 1500AD required one to do things considered unethical today. It feels a bit like religious fundamentalism with a different veneer.

Ok but you do realize that he was alive in the 1900s, not 1000 BC.

The moral views of the average person circa 1930 are very different from one today.

But I read old books for their interesting stories, viewpoints on life, literary quality, etc. – not to tut-tut someone for having different moral views than me, a hundred years later.

So it doesn't bother me. Like I said, I really cannot understand the mindset of someone that reads a book from another era/civilization and focuses on critiquing the author's ethics. Just feels like such a limited way to interact with the world.

Re: What Gets Kept

#15

Post by jodrellblank »

keiferski wrote: post #9
huhkerrf wrote: post #7

Maybe it's because I never had my On the Road phase, but this review on Kerouac I always found really strong: > On the Road is a terrible book about terrible people. Jack Kerouac and his terrible friends drive across the US about seven zillion times for no particular reason, getting in car accidents and stealing stuff and screwing women whom they promise to marry and then don’t. > Jack Kerouac’s relationship with Dea…

It must be so exhausting to go through life only enjoying things that match one’s up-to-the-minute current moral views. I guess all biographies of influential people are basically out, as being successful in 1000BC or 1500AD required one to do things considered unethical today. It feels a bit like religious fundamentalism with a different veneer.

> up-to-the-minute current moral views

“You shall not steal” is the eighth commandment from the Bible, two thousand years ago.

Re: What Gets Kept

#16

Post by keiferski »

jodrellblank wrote: post #15
keiferski wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It must be so exhausting to go through life only enjoying things that match one’s up-to-the-minute current moral views. I guess all biographies of influential people are basically out, as being successful in 1000BC or 1500AD required one to do things considered unethical today. It feels a bit like religious fundamentalism with a different veneer.

> up-to-the-minute current moral views “You shall not steal” is the eighth commandment from the Bible, two thousand years ago.

So you don't read or enjoy any books about people that have broken any commandments?

Re: What Gets Kept

#17

Post by Jtarii »

keiferski wrote: post #9
huhkerrf wrote: post #7

Maybe it's because I never had my On the Road phase, but this review on Kerouac I always found really strong: > On the Road is a terrible book about terrible people. Jack Kerouac and his terrible friends drive across the US about seven zillion times for no particular reason, getting in car accidents and stealing stuff and screwing women whom they promise to marry and then don’t. > Jack Kerouac’s relationship with Dea…

It must be so exhausting to go through life only enjoying things that match one’s up-to-the-minute current moral views. I guess all biographies of influential people are basically out, as being successful in 1000BC or 1500AD required one to do things considered unethical today. It feels a bit like religious fundamentalism with a different veneer.

Maybe try reading the review first before criticising it.

Re: What Gets Kept

#18

Post by keiferski »

Jtarii wrote: post #17
keiferski wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It must be so exhausting to go through life only enjoying things that match one’s up-to-the-minute current moral views. I guess all biographies of influential people are basically out, as being successful in 1000BC or 1500AD required one to do things considered unethical today. It feels a bit like religious fundamentalism with a different veneer.

Maybe try reading the review first before criticising it.

I have, awhile ago. There isn’t much more to it than the quoted section.

It’s not really surprising to me that the author didn’t like it; Kerouac is probably the exact opposite person to him. But that doesn’t make it a good review.

Re: What Gets Kept

#19

Post by huhkerrf »

keiferski wrote: post #13
huhkerrf wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're jumping to some wild conclusions there. This isn't about wokism (if you know the author, that would be clear) or political correctness. It's more: wow these guys are jerks, and they get on my nerves. A protagonist doesn't need to be perfect. But, ultimately, you should be rooting for him.

I wasn't making it about wokism at all. And I don't agree that you should be rooting for protagonist. That's an extremely limited way of looking at literature, much less history. I can think of half a dozen books offhand that have unpleasant or anti-hero type protagonists.

Fair enough, I withdraw the "rooting for" comment. More accurate to say that you shouldn't be actively annoyed at the protagonist.

Re: What Gets Kept

#20

Post by [deleted] »

ktallett wrote: post #3

Jack Kerouac has always felt like a gateway for early 20 year old guys looking to be seen as literary explorers. Similar to how Orwell seems to be commonly found around your mid teens (15-17) and many are seem reading 1984. I guess it's almost a right of passage. I know many will say those are stereotypes or tropes but having worked with people from 15-28 over the course of many years in a range of roles, it's very m…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN