Talk:Beat Generation/Archive 2

Beat poetry and Rap/Hip Hop
Okay, Beat poetry and the rock and roll connection, yada, yada, yada, Jim Morrison, I got ya. Fine, but the whole reason I wanted to learn about beat poetry was because of its (purported) link to rap music and hip hop poetry. I have heard from several people that rap is derived or influenced or in the same style as beat poetry. So, the link between Charlie Parker and beat poetry granted, where and how does rap fit in? Oh yeah, and whats the meter or beat poetry? Is that the wrong question? I know a lot of poetry is in iambic pentameter and such -does a discussion on meter belong in this article? More importantly, muse, tell me about how rap and beat poetry are related. Teetotaler 22 December, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the beats liked to read poetry to jazz music, so there's a certain similarity to some of the things Gil Scot Heron did, but I don't think there's a really direct connection between the beat poets and rap music. For one thing, the beats were more into free verse without any obvious meter to it.  Though, on the other hand, I wouldn't be hugely surprised if, say, "The Last Poets" were Allen Ginsberg fans. Where did you hear the claim that rap and beat were connected? -- Doom (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I love this question, but I don't know how relevant a good answer would be to the article. I've actually looked into this a little bit and couldn't find much.  There are a lot of connections between Amiri Baraka and the Last Poets, but arguably that's more of a Black Arts Movement thing.  You could argue more broadly that the Beats democratized poetry readings which made the Last Poets possible and rap is a very democractic (in the Whitman sense) form of poetry. Of course, that's far from a direct connection.  Another indirect connection is Saul Williams who is one of the most popular slam poets.  He was friends with Ginsberg and Baraka and he's very active in the hiphop community (w/ Mos Def and Talib Kwali for example). But, again, not a connection I'd say justifies a mention in the article.  If anybody else has better info about this, please let me know.  It's a great subject, and I think as Beat lit becomes more academic (as happens with most rebel lit when the squares start accepting it) the similarities between hiphop and beat lit show the rebelious vitality it had in its own time.  But I could go on and on.


 * Meter in Beat poetry is another very fascinating issue all together. Strictly speaking, "meter" is not the right word since most Beat poetry is technically free verse.  However, Ginsberg argued quite frequently that Beat poetry did have an identifiable form (his own anaphoric long lines for example).  He talked a lot about this in Spontaneous Mind and Deliberate Prose.  I believe Michael McClure also talked about it in Scratching the Beat Surface. It goes back to Charles Olson's open form.  I inserted a long time ago a rambling section about open form, but of course, as with all the little rambling sections I insert, I haven't had time to improve it.  I think a broader discussion of open form composition would be very worthwhile.F. Simon Grant (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything that Doom and F. Simon Grant have said above. There are a number of tantalizing possibilities, but not much beyond supposition and conjecture.  The Beats-Amiri Baraka-Gil Scot-Heron-Last Poets trajectory makes sense, within a more general trend in late '60s soul toward songs that featured a "rap" backed by music, examples of which would include 100% Pure Poison's "Windy C" and The Temptations "Papa Was a Rollin' Stone".  But, again, this is just supposition. After all, there had been "talking blues" since at least the '20s, which could well be regarded as predecessors to rap.  In addition to that, Modernist poets experimented with combining music with poetry in the '10s and '20s, as well.  So, I think it impossible to trace one line of descent and influence, it is far more likely that there are multiple lines of influence in multiple directions. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  04:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There's just not something within the Beat-Rap connection as clear cut as Ginsberg hanging out with Dylan, the Beatles, etc.  There are great broad similarities between beat and hip hop that are lots of fun, just no direct biographical connection nearly as significant as the Ginsberg-Dylan connection or the Cassady-Kesey-Grateful Dead connection or the Burroughs-Patti Smith connection, etc.  It's a great subject for a pop culture conference paper, maybe, but not Wikipedia unfortunately.F. Simon Grant (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What's overlooked here is The Fugs - founded in 1964. Ed Sanders and Tuli Kupferberg were both Beat poets and Sanders' the author of various novelistic memoirs like Tales of Beatnik Glory. Also very Beat in outlook from the same time was the original Mothers Of Invention (e.g. Absolutely Free album) The Beat scene was so coffeehouse connected to all of the folk music protest stuff of the 50 / 60s, a lot of which concerned civil rights and social inequality - so related to any rap and hiphop that addresses these. Altcult101 (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Fugs are definitely worth mentioning in the article -- Tuli Kupferberg "jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge this actually happened" in "Howl" for christ's sakes, so there's no argument their significant to the Beats -- but saying coffee house poets and protest musicians = civil rights activism = hiphop is a big stretch. Looking at Baraka and the Black Arts movement and 70's performance poets like Gil Scott Heron and The Last Poets as protohiphop artists is a much more potent connection -- though still, arguably, a stretch.F. Simon Grant (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of a fact I agree with you. Oddly enough there is a film out last year called Corso: The Last Beat which you can read about here on Wikipedia but in its IMDB summary there is the line: "In high humor he (Corso) dramatizes how they changed American society, paving the way for youth culture, the sexual revolution and even hip-hop." One thing the film reminded about is Patti Smith, who is featured in it, and a later strong connection between rock and Beat. Altcult101 (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there is enough of a link with Gil Scott Heron and The Last Poets and Saul Williams to mention rap, or perhaps Beat poetry to Slam poetry to rap.
 * And they both draw from Jazz with their spontaneity... several of the rappers interviewed in the book How to Rap mention how they often scat their lyrics and that their flows were influenced by Jazz musicians, which is also seen in the improvisation of freestyle rap. I don't think you'll find a direct quote to link Beat poetry directly to rap though, unless you find an interview with a rapper who was influenced by one of those poets, which is possible. 86.96.229.88 (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, love the topic, more should be written about it -- that connection is begging to be well established -- but unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place to do that. Saul Williams is the only one I know of to make that sort of connection, but to my recollection it's nothing substantial enough.  Somebody should find or make something substantial elsewhere before it ends up on this page, as much as I'd love for it to be here.F. Simon Grant (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

the shooting of joan vollmer
I agree completely that we shouldn't call Joan Vollmer's death merely an "accidental shooting".

None of us really know whether or not this was really an accident-- unless you're equipped with mind-reading capabilities, there is no way to know Burroughs intent-- and by the same token, neither would I insist that Burroughs intentionally killed Vollmer.

This is an interesting subject to me because it seems to me that fans of William Burroughs are always trying to take his side in the story, and yet they sincerely don't regard this as being "biased".

But on the other hand, if we just state the facts, there are missing subtleties that genuinely are significant. If we just say: "he shot her", it sounds like an intentional killing, and we don't know that that was the case.

Myself, I would just put the word accidental in quotes (which some people insist on calling "scare quotes"), because it's certainly true that this shooting is often called accidental, and yet it quickly and succinctly indicates to the reader that there's a controversial point there.

If you try to put quote marks on the word, however, this strikes many people as "editorializing" (this appears to be a common linguistic peeve, it just sets some people off... I've had to defend their use on "beatnik" and "hippie" in the introduction many times).

If just adding the quotes isn't good enough, should we explicitly state the range of possible interpretations? This is a version I tried once:


 * [...] she has gone down in history as the wife of William S. Burroughs, killed by him in a shooting incident. (This is sometimes termed "accidental" but the actual events allow for multiple interpretations, ranging from murder to "assisted suicide".)

If you'd like to try that again, I could add an additional reference or two (there's a Ginsberg quote pushing the "assisted suicide" view).

One thing is clear: since we do not know if this was an accident we should not be calling it an accident. -- Doom (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The reference says it was an accident. We follow sources.  Ty  03:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The reference does not declare it accident. Try actually reading the Grauerholtz account. -- Doom (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with comrade Doom. And he is also right about the Grauerholtz pdf. I do not assume or suggest, that Burroughs murdered his wife to get rid of her or something ("in cold blood"...) or because he was impotent with her. He still fetched his gun, aimed a loaded shotgun calmly at something very close to the head of a human being and pulled the triggger, everything probably with great care: he did not miss his wife and did not use a machine gun either. He can not have been that stoned or drunk or anything. Also, he simply was convicted (very leniently) and then ran of, evaded justice, whatever reasons or excuses might be handed out for that. "Accidental" is pure POV.--Radh (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, it wasn't a shotgun. -- Doom (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles
I have "The Birth of the Beat Generation: Visionaries, Rebels, and Hipsters, 1944–1960" in front of me. Neither John Lennon or the Beatles are mentioned at all in the book. What was written in this article is misinformation. Lennon was said to have named the band after Buddy Holly and the Crickets. It's well documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.184.53 (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The disputed passage, for future reference, is:
 * The Beatles spelled their name with an "a" because John Lennon was a fan of Kerouac.
 * And the reference on that is:
 * Watson, Steven. The Birth of the Beat Generation: Visionaries, Rebels, and Hipsters, 1944–1960. NY: Pantheon, 1998. ISBN 0375701532
 * The Beatles article refers to The John Lennon Encyclopedia of (2000) as the source of the idea that the chain of association was from Crickets to Beetles. The question is whether the intentional mis-spelling as "Beatles" (or "Beatals", which was apparently the earliest form) was just a reference to musical beats or to the Beat Generation.  -- Doom (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that information, Doom. If the source quoted does not say that, the ref. should be removed, but that does not mean the information itself is untrue. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  00:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rewording the sentence to say "John Lennon may have been a Kerouac fan" is weasel-wording and not at all helpful. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 17:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are so attached to this sentence. I was surprised to read this statement that "The Beatles spelled their name with an "a" because John Lennon was a fan of Kerouac", so I checked the book out of the library and I suggest you do the same thing. As I wrote above there is absolutely no mention of John Lennon or the Beatles at all in this book. If you can find another source of this statement, do so, but do not maintain that it is in the book "The Birth of the Beat Generation."

PS - I would hardly describe removing a false citation as "vandalism." In what way is that vandalism?


 * I've also looked through the Steven Watson book ("Birth of the Beat Generation"), and agree that it doesn't look like there's any mention of a Beat=>Beatles connection in it. Certainly it's not in the index, and it's not in the places you'd expect to find it (there's a historical overview near the beginning, and a long section at the end that shows a timeline of beat events in parallel with other things going on at the time, and there's no "Beatles" name dropping in either place).


 * It's not hard to find assertions in print that "beatles" was meant to be a "beat" reference, but I haven't seen one I'd call authoritative. Looking at "The John Lennon Encyclopedia" through the keyhole of google books, it looks as though there is some documentation there of students in liverpool having an interest in beat generation things... but I can't tell where they go with that without the book in front of me.


 * Speaking for myself, I'm not at all attached to this particular factoid (in point of fact, I'm slightly prejudiced against tracing influences forward-- I think it often degenerates in to trainspotting trivia that balloons out of control). If documentation for this "beat/beatles" thing is weak, I'm happy to leave it out. -- Doom (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How about this one? (Available on Google Book Search) Ellis Amburn Subterranean Kerouac: the hidden life of Jack Kerouac Macmillan, 1999 ISBN 0312206771, 9780312206772. pg. 342. It's a brief reference, but it's worth considering, even just to show that the concept didn't appear out of nowhere.F. Simon Grant (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's another one for your consideration: Walter Everett The Beatles as musicians: the Quarry Men through Rubber soul Oxford University Press US, 2001 ISBN 0195141059, 9780195141054 pg. 46. This is the first one I've read that said the inspiration wasn't Kerouac but Ginsberg.


 * The detail about "The Daily Howl" could be pretty good... but it's too bad that Google Books makes it hard to trace Everett's footnote number 76. From some sources, I get the impression that Lennon started using that name some years before Ginsberg's "Howl" -- if it was when he was 12, that was 1952.
 * Bill Harry's "John Lennon encyclopedia" could be all you need. Google books shows a tentalyzing fragment from page 196: "A name coined by Bill Harry for a loose-knit group of friends ... at Liverpool College of Art when America's Beat Generation was popular with British students."
 * http://books.google.com/books?ei=jCzYS6SpMcH6lwfrwqDxAw&ct=result&id=494TAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22The+Daily+Howl%22+Lennon&q=beat+generation#search_anchor
 * -- Doom (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Since this is such a minor detail in relation to the Beat Generation and since we have at least decent, if not definitive, citations, we could handle this with a quick, "According to Walter Everett in the book blah blah blah and according to Bill Harry's blah blah blah the misspelling of the name was inspired by the Beat Generation." Also, I want to say thanks for the collaboration, Doom.  Researching for Wikipedia is not a full time job for any of us, so stuff like this goes much more smoothly when people are helping each other instead of shouting each other down.  I wish all Wikipedia exchanges were done in this spirit of collaboration.F. Simon Grant (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't what we have there right now good enough at present? I changed it to: "It's commonly believed that The Beatles spelled their name with an "a" as a Beat Generation reference [40]", where I reference an assertion in the New York Times Book Review.  We could certainly add a few more references to support the point better, but myself I'd just let that stand until one of us gets a chance to look at a good reference work on Beatles history.
 * As for "spirit of collaboration" and all, well thanks... but then the RepublicanJacobite's itchy trigger finger on reverts is also helpful. -- Doom (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

eastern religion or eastern spirituality ?
A while back, someone (I think RepublicanJacobite) decided that there wasn't any point in re-labeling the link to "eastern religion" as "eastern spirituality". I think I still like "spirituality" myself: it suggests more interest in the ideas behind a religion, and less interest in doctrine or organizations. Any opinions?

Oh, and I just changed "rejection of mainstream values" to "rejection of materialism", which I think is a bit more precise, and less of an empty cliche. (Democracy is a mainstream western value, but the beats were not anti-democratic...). -- Doom (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a tricky thing to phrase accurately: they were interested in Easter Religion -- Buddhism is a religion, after all -- but their practice was less in line with the mainstream practice of it, so is it accurate or helpful to just call it "sprituality"? Would that leave out those who were much more serious about the religious aspects of Easter Religion, Snyder for example?  That's a question to which I don't have an answer, but I'd suggest more explanation instead of just choosing a single word: explain their approach to both religion and spirituality instead of just choosing one.  Also, I support your change to "materialism".  One thing that gets neglected in so many summaries of the Beats is how mainstream they actually were.  I point out all the time that Harlem Renaissance poets are far more likely to be Communists than Beat poets.  If we consider Kerouac a central figure, it's also difficult to reconcile his conservatism with the concept of rejecting mainstream values; Kerouac may have rejected materialism, but not much more than that.F. Simon Grant (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Many of them were very interested in formal religious practices, not just "spirituality." Snyder largely went to Japan to study Rinzai Zen. Phil Whalen became a Soto monk and master. Ginsburg went nuts for first Bhakti yoga, then Tibetan Buddhism. On and on and on. And Kerouac was an ardent Buddhist for five minutes before re-embracing Catholicism. They were not dabblers. And most first generation Buddhist teachers and practitioners in all traditions began as Kerouac-reading "Beatniks." Safe to say that "religion" was as deep an interest as spirituality - and religion is perhaps more precise.Tao2911 (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Coming into this discussion cold, the term "spirituality" would be my preference. A quote from the Religion article may be useful here. "One of the more influential theories of religion today is social constructionism, which says that religion is a modern concept suggesting all spiritual practice and worship follows a model similar to Christianity; social constructionism suggests that religion, as a concept, has therefore been applied inappropriately to non-Western cultures." From the Spirituality article, about 25% of the US population describe themselves as "spiritual but not religious" and the term "religion" has become slightly toxic, even to those following relatively mainstream eastern thought. Greenman (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality
Not much mention of their sexual identity here. Is this irrelevant? Or is someone trying to make the point that sexuality is irrelevant to Beat culture? If that is someones POV, let's say so out loud and give them credit for this idea.

I heard that Ginsburg and some of the others were gay and that their homosexuality was a significant aspect of the literary output and social influence. Can someone help me track this down? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality in general was the main reason of the storm and outrage directed towards Beat fiction, I don't know about LGBT specifically. Before this addition the article didn't even include any context or details on this.--Sum (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding more to this page about beat sexuality has been on my list of things to do for ages. Two of the three big names among beat writers were homosexual (Ginsberg and Burroughs), and both were not shy about writing about this. As the intro mentions and has mentioned for some time, both "Howl" and "Naked Lunch" were the focus of obscenity trials, and no doubt their explicit discussion of homosexuality was part of this (e.g. "Howl" has the passage "fucked in the ass by saintly motorcyclists, and screamed with joy").


 * Kerouac was less obviously queer (though there's a school of thought that he was closeted and/or in denial). Kerouac's original claim to fame was writing about Neal Cassady, but "On the Road" neglects to mention that Cassady was bisexual ("Visions of Cody" does though).


 * I've been known to call the beats "the first subculture", but really you need to add the caveat that the queer underground has been around longer, and arguably the "beat generation" was a spin off of it, or at least strongly influenced by it. --- Doom (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I couldn't let stand "SummerWithMorons" edits to the introduction (aka "lede") of the page. Something like that might work somewhere in the page, but I'm not sure about putting it in the second sentence, and I can't fathom why someone would reference some Thomas Pynchon stories concerning censorship in the 50s.  -- Doom (talk)


 * Let me go into more detail on what I think some of the troubles with this passage are:
 * In a period in which the institutionally established literary tradition was nervously [prudish] about sex, There are already severals places where we remind the reader that the 50s were a very conservative, conformist time.  It's not clear to me that this needs to be said in the second sentence (everything can't go in the introduction).
 * and even the softcore pornography avoided describing it I'm afraid that's a nonsensical phrase: softcore pornography by definition avoids explicit description of sexual acts. If it includes explicit descriptions, then it's hardcore.
 * the Beat fiction opened new possibilities, pushed the boundaries of what was considered allowed, exploring territories that were strongly felt taboos at the time, causing an "exciting, liberating, strongly positive" cultural effect, which in turn encouraged other writers to stop self-censoring themselves; I'm afraid that the tone here isn't terribly neutral, and I think the factual content here is already there in the article: the end result of these obscenity trials was to liberalize what could be published in the US.
 * the reaction to this was a series of censorships and law enforcement excesses.[1] I personally don't know what you're talking about here exactly, and that reference to a collection of Pynchon stories published in 1984 isn't illuminating at all. If you're making an assertion about history, you really should have a historical reference, no? -- Doom (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, maybe I get it. That quote: "exciting, liberating, strongly positive", is that from the Thomas Pynchon book?  If so, then the trouble is you've got the ref in the wrong place. Really it should immediately follow the quote... (Hm... doing web searches, I gather than Pynchon was specifically talking about Kerouac, wasn't he?  Update: Ah, no, it was "Kerouac and the other Beats".) -- Doom (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

recent reversions (paging Ed Poor)
I just undid a large number of edits, including many by Ed Poor who I would suggest should learn to ask questions in the talk page rather than in the description of an edit.

Let me try to address some of the issues Ed Poor raised:


 * About women being edited out of the history of the beat generation.
 * This is indeed discussed in the immediately referenced book by Willis, it also isn't a terribly controversial point these days.
 * It's a shame that everything isn't available on-line, but yes, we wikipedia researchers often have to make trips to the library.
 * That section already quotes or paraphrases things said on the subject by Corso and Diane di Prima, it wouldn't be made much stronger by a quote from the Willis book.


 * David Kammerer is indeed fairly significant in the history of the beats -- he, along with Lucien Carr were the links that brought together the big three writers, and the stabbing of Kammerer by Carr was a major event in their lives.


 * The kind of "rapping" that someone like a Neal Cassady did was not much like the kind of rap the hip-hop guys are into (the term "rapping" was in use long before rap music, it originally just meant a deep, involved, informal talk). I'll take it under advisement that there's an ambiguity there that needs to be resolved.  Dropping the point might be better than just linking to rapping.

-- Doom (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your point about asking questions on the talk page is well taken. Thanks! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Avoid Ownership of articles
A reminder about Ownership of articles. The recent bulk revert of 11 edits, with removal of referenced material and tweak edits (typo fixes, wikilinks), paired with declaring on the talk page that there are edits "I couldn't let stand" (there aren't self-appointed officers on wikipedia) and telling other editors what they "should learn", are negative examples on how to behave on wikipedia. Everybody should refrain from Ownership instincts and be more constructive.--Sum (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Good reminders all. We should also learn how to collaborate with other authors, and avoid edit wars. -- Doom (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, in my own defense: I looked at every one of those 11 edits I reverted carefully, and am not aware of dropping any typo fixes (there *were* two wikilinks I know of that I thought were inconsequential and could be easily added in later if need be). As I remember it there was a single reference I dropped, which appears to have been in the wrong place. I also went through some trouble to explain why I was doing the reverts, and none of those comments have been answered. -- Doom (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Beatific in the late 40's? or 54?
Doom, I respect all the work you've done for this page, but I question a recent addition: I'm pretty confident the concept of beat as "beatific" was there from roughly the beginning of its usage. They got it from Hunke of course but Kerouac very quickly, in his very Catholic way, saw the connection. I read the article from The New Yorker which phrases it vague, the article in Playboy about the beginning of the Beat Generation "in which" beatific is added. I believe the "in which" refers to the origin, not the article. I admit I may be entirely wrong, but I have a strong feeling, so I'm going to look for a source to back me up. I know for certain Ginsberg knew the "beatific" connection long before he wrote Howl, but I'll look for one that specifically discusses when Kerouac made that connection. Give me a while and I'm sure I'll find something.F. Simon Grant (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this one. It puts the coinage in 54, later than I originally thought, but in time for Ginzy to use it in "How" (the line, by the way, is "who fell on their knees in hopeless cathedrals something something something until the soul illuminated its hair for a second" or something like that -- it's attributed, by Ginsberg at lest, to Kerouac's discovery of the connection between "beat" and "beatific").  Here it is http://books.google.com/books?id=7xKVLcpVsoYC&pg=PA31&dq=Jack+Kerouac+beatific&hl=en&ei=igN4TNHPH4GB8gbxr_29Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Jack%20Kerouac%20beatific&f=false.
 * Here's the citation: Kevin J. Hayes.Conversations with Jack Kerouac. Univ. Press of Mississippi, 2005.ISBN 1578067561, 9781578067565. pg. 31.
 * Most of the ones I'm finding with the quick search method don't have a year connected, but this one also says 54: http://books.google.com/books?id=bN0PJn6VCNIC&pg=PA405&dq=Jack+Kerouac+beatific&hl=en&ei=-AV4TLDGNoT48Abdx5ixBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=beatific&f=false
 * Here's the citation: Ellis Amburn. Subterranean Kerouac: the hidden life of Jack Kerouac. Macmillan, 1999. ISBN 0312206771, 9780312206772. pg. 205.
 * Rereading the "origin of name" section, i realize now why I was thinking late 40's, because Kerouac for some reason too six years to add beatific to the meaning. I think it's relevant to the add the church vision summary to that section.  Would these two sources work to support that it was 54?F. Simon Grant (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is an interesting one for us to go around on, but what exactly is at stake as far as this wikipedia page is concerned? Currently it says that beat originally meant "tired", but "over time" the meaning was expanded to included other things, like "beatific". It doesn't at present say anything about how long it took (I do have that Menand footnote that claims it wasn't until 1959 but I don't use that date in the main text... and to tell you the truth, I wouldn't be distressed to see Menand proved wrong, I think he's a lightweight).

I see that what you have with the Hayes book is a later interview with Kerouac where he claims he had a beat=beatific insight in 1954 (and the interview is dated 1959, isn't it?). To put it bluntly, I don't really regard Kerouac himself as a very reliable source. He said all sorts things that don't quite check out, and often don't agree with each other (was it 2 weeks for "On the Road"? Or was it 3 weeks? Did he refuse to edit, or just forget how much he edited?). Here, in this interview, he admits they learned the word "beat" from Huncke, but I've seen footage of him claiming it was something he picked up from some "old black guys down south" (because that makes it sound like authentic Americana?).

My personal take on this (not that that's terribly important) is that there was quite a bit of drift in the meaning of "beat generation", and in the early days they were indeed primarily thinking of it as "tired". Note that "furtive" is a better fit with "tired" than it is with "beatific" (and "found" is just a silly joke: they were the lost, so we're the found). The way that I think it goes is that once you've got a scene going, the temptation is to expand it's territory. A concept like "beaten down" starts seeming too negative, too limiting, so you start looking for other associations. --Doom (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My main point was that 59 is not right. I wasn't just going by Kerouac.  If you read carefully what I said, Ginsberg references the story of the vision in the church where Kerouac made the connection, and that ended up in "Howl," '55 -- '59 in that case being way too late.  So I have plenty of Ginsberg sources to back up that it's pre-'55. I wanted to find Kerouac sources to back it up. Yes, I was originally looking at what seemed to me to be a misreading of Menand more so than an inaccuracy of Menand (very poor phrasing on Menand's part, the very misleading "in which", so in that way the fault belongs with Menand).  However, beyond just correcting the footnote, this is something viable to include in the body. True, Kerouac in his self mythologizing mode is unreliable, but since the vision -- probably in '54 -- is important to the concept of Beat according to Kerouac and Ginsberg, I think it's worth including in the body. We could say then "According to both Kerouac and Ginsberg, he had this whole crazy vision thingy that's kind of sort of important, gets referenced in 'Howl' as 'Who fell on their knees in hopeless cathedrals ...' etc."  For Ginsberg sources I always go back to the Miles biography, the interviews in Spontaneous Mind, and the essays in Deliberate Prose -- I believe they can all back up what I'm saying here.  I can go back to those for where he discusses this, if you're interested, but I don't have them with me at the moment.  I believe this is a worthwhile change to the body of the text and something we could easily support with reliable -- or at least mostly reliable -- evidence.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To my eye there are two things we're talking about here (two big things anyway, plus a bunch of satellite issues): (1) the evolution of thought people like Ginsberg and Kerouac, and (2) their public statements about their thinking, the points of contact where they influence the wider world. In '52, Holmes made a few nods toward "spirituality" and "faith", but they aren't his main thrust. The '57 "On the Road" had some of these aspects ("inconceivable radiances shining in bright Mind Essence"; "... don't you know that God is Pooh Bear?"), and in the '58 "Dharma Bums" spirituality is the central subject. Then in '59 in Playboy, Kerouac played the "beatific" card.
 * It would seem that there's a shift in thinking going on there, and if there's some support for an epiphany in a church in '54 being a critical turning point, that's an interesting bit of information (to me, at any rate). If there's a way to add the detail to the text here without bogging things down too much, I've got no problem with it.
 * I see that Ann Charters talks about some letters in late '54 from Kerouac to Ginsberg that are about this return to Lowell, and the word "beatific": http://books.google.com/books?id=SO9R4u25xMkC&pg=PA389&lpg=PA389&dq=kerouac+beatific+1954&source=bl&ots=g_OFmGVoOW&sig=CBGrjy-GAV_BUhqGVFuZ_PhqomI&hl=en&ei=afN9TNm7Ko7ksQPYw4WlCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=kerouac%20beatific%201954&f=false


 * And Bill Morgan has put out a collection of Ginsberg-Kerouac letters, which would be interesting to look at: http://books.google.com/books?id=NPVjQgAACAAJ&dq=Bill+Morgan+Ginsberg+letters&hl=en&ei=FAx-TLHML4z2tgPNgqipCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBw


 * Anyway you look at it though, what we have here is a concept that was evolving over time. The beat/beatific association wasn't there at the beginning, it came in a bit later...  Kerouac essentially said as much, in '59: "I went one afternoon to the church of my childhood and had a vision of what I must have really meant with "Beat"... the vision of the word Beat as being to mean beatific... "  -- Doom (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Small change: that's a quote from the '59 Playboy article, but according to Charters (in the introduction to "Beat Down to Your Soul"), Kerouac actually wrote that the year before and did a drunken reading of it at Hunter college. So we could push back the date on this to '58. -- Doom (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the satellite issues: I went looking through the annotated "Howl" (edited by Barry Miles), and I don't see any explication of what the "hopeless cathedrals" line was about. It's mildly interesting that it wasn't there in the first draft (it was added in the fourth).  -- Doom (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the right way to go about a disagreement/confusion/whathaveyou -- I wish the other side of the neverending NAMBLA debate would treat it this way, but I guess pedophilia's a more heated topic than when Kerouac thought of beat as beatific. Anyway, I rely heavily on the Annotated Howl, so now I'm wondering where I got the notion that "hopeless cathedrals" was the "beatific" vision. I'll have to look that up and I fully admit I might be wrong about it (I even had to look at the explication I did on the Howl page thinking I had it on there, but maybe I couldn't find a source to back that up either, hmph) -- but, in reference to the bigger issue, I know for certain Ginsberg has talked about the discovery of beat/beatific as predating "Howl" -- 58 still wouldn't work in that case, but then again that info may be as reliable as my "hopeless cathedrals" reading. Still, the best way to go about is to find sources to back it up, so that's what I'll do ... hopefully.F. Simon Grant (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Still looking for "hopeless cathedrals" but ran across the Anne Charters biography of Kerouac which says he wrote Ginberg about "beatific" in November 54, see also Aronowitz interview, "Beat Generation" -- I'll try to track that down too (I swear I read that at some point but can't remember where).F. Simon Grant (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, pieces coming together, Aronowitz interviewed Kerouac in 59 for New York Post, summarized in Hayes.F. Simon Grant (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't find exactly what I'm looking for but out of time. 54 looks easy enough to prove, much easier than "Hopeless Catherdals" -- Oh well, I vote for adding a quick summary of the vision, supported by sources, keep it controlled so it doesn't overwhelm the main point: the meaning of beat. I'll keep plugging away later.F. Simon Grant (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Conner sole quote in 'other critics'
Re: this passage: "Bruce Conner stated: "I don’t know any artist that would call himself a beat artist... If somebody did, you’d consider him a fake, a fraud running a scam."[47]"

Bruce Conner is a renowned West Coast artist who came to prominence in the Bay Area in the 60's. He's often been associated loosely with the Beat movement, but he always underplayed any association, didn't like it. He rightfully is pointing out here that the beat movement was a literary movement - there is no visual art component, or direct equivalent. He is NOT criticizing the Beats themselves or the movement - including this quote in a section of "critics" of the Beats as saying such is a complete misnomer, misinterpretation. He is saying that artists who claimed association with the Beats are perpetrating a falsity, a "fraud", to capitalize perhaps or piggyback on the Beats for success etc.

Hence, I removed it. Not a bad thing to have somewhere, in a possibly discussion about visual arts and the Beats (a short discussion, since there really wasn't a connection in any meaningful way), but not as criticism of the Beats themselves. That just ain't what this is.Tao2911 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes and Conner also may not be completely right either. Brion Gysin also was an artist (no real Beat?); one of the last guests of the Beat Hotel in Paris was an Afroamerican painter. Robert Frank? Frank's co-filmmaker on Pull My Daisy, the famous painter Alfred Leslie, produced a one-shot poetry magazine The Hasty Papers in 1960. Then there is Wallace Berman, of whom Wikipedia says he belonged to the Beat community (L.A.). Ira Cohen is a photographer and poet, Piero Heliczer was a filmmaker and poet. Burroughs worked with a (def. non-Beat) designer/artist in London and they produced a story for a short-lived comic newspaper./P.S.: Hammond Guthrie also is a painter. --Radh (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * yeah there was cross over all over the place, of course (Larry Rivers could be brought up, other Bay Area artists, etc). But no definitive "beat art" movement, per se. Which is all that Conner is saying, and which isn't in any way a clear criticism.Tao2911 (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I know Berman. By the def of the Beats in the entry, I question whether he knew ANY of them personally - we are talking about a specific circle of people, not who was influenced. A "Beat community in LA"? Well, sort of - but that point ends up debatable. Beat inspired - ie "Beatnik community" - for sure. Gysin a Beat? Clearly not, though collaborator with Burroughs and influence. On and on. But I think we agree on the gist here.Tao2911 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What then are we to make of Robert LaVigne, Jess Collins and Michael Bowen? Or Wally Hedrick? They were all thoroughly involved / played significant roles in what was in a wider sense, Beat Generation culture. Beat connections fed out and in of the San Francisco Art Institute and a lot of the North Beach coffeehouses like Coffee & Confusion were informal art galleries. At the benefit held for ailing painter Arthur Richer (at the SF Mime Troupe’s studio) the artists that came to support him were the stars of the late 50s - early 60s SF art scene and a number from the Venice West group including Wallace Berman. They were joined by Ginsberg, Ferlinghetti and McClure. Altcult101 (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * let's not get into the nitty gritty of a general discussion of this topic (against WP guidelines for discussion pages). None of the artists you mention are ever officially mentioned as part of the very small true Beat circle, despite any general associations. They would surely agree with Conner and say "We are not "Beat Artists". There is no such thing." There simply was not a "Beat Art Movement." Period. This is Conner's point in his comment - a comment that was being posited as a criticism of the Beats, which it wasn't. Let's drop this, unless someone wants to speak to Conner's point, and argue why it should be replaced as a criticism of the Beat movement (I have clearly, I hope, explained how it isn't.)Tao2911 (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've no objection to deleting the Conner quote -- it was always borderline, and at the very least needs further explication about what Conner meant.
 * On the wider subject, I would guess the solution is to say something like "The Beat Generation was originally primarily a movement among a group of writers, though there were a number of artists on the scene who might later have been regarded as "Beat artists", such as ..."
 * The problem with this is going to be the temptation to be over inclusive on the list of examples. It will take some work to keep it down to a manageable length.  -- Doom (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In short, no way. That would be "original research" (please review guidelines.) Unless you have a source that says this. I know we can find sources that say the opposite - like say, Bruce Conner.Tao2911 (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I attempted but apparantly failed at one point to clarify issues like this by making the three levels in the definition of "beat" clear at the beginning of the article: beat as a small group of friends; beat as a wider artistic movement; beat as a genuine generation, as Kerouac originally intended it. Bruce Conner could easily fit the second, though not the first (which is what I assume his referencing). This would not be original research since there are plenty of sources to support the idea of the wider movement (including, for example, New York School & Black Mountain) as part of a broader Beat Generation. In that case, it would be the problem Doom identifies, keeping the potential explosion of extra names controlled and focused. I don't personally consider this necessary with Bruce Conner, but as the page presently stands it's difficult to properly integrate non-writers like Robert Frank and Robert LaVigne and David Amram for that matter who clearly belong. We need to first establish a good structure that can welcome valid inclusions like that in a clear, reader friendly way and then we can argue about who actually belongs.F. Simon Grant (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

All fine ideas - if arguable. Which is the point. You've completely gone beyond purview of this thread however, so I'd suggest a new one. And I'll repeat: if you want to take this sort of extensive editing on, it will come down to SOURCES making these arguments. You can't just say it's so. We reflect sources, not personal attitudes, however well considered or thoughtful.Tao2911 (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Kumbaya, my lord. (There is no one correct way to get to the ideal wikipedia article.  You can start with the references and try to summarize them, or you can start with your impression of what's correct, and then see if you can find references to support it.)


 * "Women of the Beat Generation" has a short section titled "The Artists" that includes Jay DeFeo, Joan Brown and Gui de Angulo.


 * The beatmuseum.org site has a (probably over-inclusive list) Jackson Pollock, Franz Kline, Marcel Duchamp, Ed Kienholz, Ed Ruscha, Jay Defeo, Wallace Berman, John Altoon, Ed Moses, Lenore Jaffee.


 * The John Natsoulas Center for the Arts in Davis, CA has a take on "Abstract Expressionism and Beat Generation" that includes: Michael Bowen, Ralph Du Casse, Jay De Feo, Lilly Fenichel, Sonia Gechtoff, Miriam Hoffman, Ralph Johnson, Jose Ramon Lerma, Seymour Locks, Arthur Okamura, Clayton Pinkerton, Deborah Remington, Charles Strong, Barbara Spring, Hassel Smith, Horst Trave, Jean Varda, Carlos Villa, Julius Wasserstein, William T. Wiley


 * Web searches on phrases like "beat artist" turn up people like Michael Bowen.


 * Bruce Conner's objections to being categorized as a "beat artist" are by no means the last word on the subject. -- Doom (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"you can start with your impression of what's correct, and then see if you can find references to support it." This is simply not correct. You can have an idea of a more accurate page, based in personal experience or knowledge of the subject - but wikipedia, if you are at all familiar with the editing guidelines, is emphatically clear: entries are to summarize and reflect secondary and tertiary source material, secondarily primary sources, IN ALL CASES. You don't just write your opinions and hope everyone likes them. It is first last and in between about sources. And good, reliable ones at that.Tao2911 (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the part of the bigger structural problem mentioned above by me and discussed below by Doom. I fear we have to fix that structural problem (which will unfortunately take a lot of time) before we can successfully tackle the issue. There are plenty of sources out there, Tao. That's not the problem (the biggest problem is, again, the amount of time it takes, but that's beside the point). Once we get sources, each source is using a different definition of the word "beat." Despite what you say, Tao, I believe this really is the original problem this thread was meant to address. Conner was using one definition of "beat," but by a different definition of "beat" he's wrong. Another basic example: It's conceivable to call Jackson Pollack "beat" by a very broad definition -- and there are plenty of sources that do this -- but calling him "beat" by the more specific definition used throughout much of this page seems ridiculous. I think Jackson Pollock has a place on this page in recognition of the wider movement and the interconnections, for example, but we'd have to make it clear that he doesn't consider himself a beat nor is he in any way a core member. Even though the original thread is about Conner as a beat, the issue really is the differing definitions, and simply finding sources is not going to solve that, though it is the right step to take, because these sources have same problem we have. Finding a source that proves Conner's not a beat could be easily contradicted by a source proving he is. The problem is not that one source is better. They both may be right but simply using the word differently. So it begins ends & middles with sources, but we have to consider them with the correct context.F. Simon Grant (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think what's going on is that F. Simon Grant is talking about the difficulty of accurately representing the material, because he's actually interested in improving the page; and Tao2911 is only interested in grandstanding about wikipedia processes, and hence isn't actually paying any attention to the stunningly obvious fact that we are not ranking our personal opinions above published sources. -- Doom (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Pollock as Beat? You are kidding right? If we are going to talk about how any vital trend in the arts in the 1950's can be tied (however tenuously) to the beat movement, I think the reason you can't find a structure for this is because that's just nonsense. There's no structure for nonsense. But again, this all gets easy when you have a source in front of your face and it says something. You summarize it and find, or make, a place to insert - then its merits can be evaluated. You can blather on all the live long day about your ideas. But we are here to reflect sources, not our pet theories.

This thread was only ever meant to explain why I deleted the Bruce Conner quote (top) that was being cited as a criticism of the Beat movement. It has devolved from there.Tao2911 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * and Doom, No personal attacks, or you could be banned. Keep it on topic.Tao2911 (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point. And maybe you should try treating other editors with respect, and try to avoid sneering at things they sort-of-said, dismissing it as "nonsense".


 * Pollock: It is indeed unusual to classify Pollock as a "beat artist", and yet he is indeed spoken of that way by some sources... Presumably the reason Pollock came to mind is I just quoted a potential source that mentions him. -- Doom (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The profound and disconcerting irony of the way you are approaching this topic, Tao, is that you claim we are using our own opinions, not relying on research, and using personal attacks. You are making this point by personally attacking us and relying on your own opinion, not research. You are also not actually reading what we have to say. It seems like you see a small phrase like "Pollock as Beat" and go off on a rant. This is not productive (as Doom & I have been saying, though based on your pattern so far it doesn't seem like you'll listen to this either). You can feel that Pollock is not a beat or you can feel O'Hara is not a beat and you can cite their own claims, but this is neither academic nor the actual point. The point -- and unfortunately I'm saying this for about tenth or millionth time -- is that the word "beat" has several definitions. You are clearly using one of them. So let's frame our argument based on only one definition of "Beat Generation", of a small group of exclusively literary artists: Ginsberg, Kerouac, Burroughs, Corso, & Orlovsky. Based on this single definition, clearly Pollock and O'Hara are not beats. I agree with you entirely. If I was using only this definition of "beat generation" and claimed Pollock and O'Hara were beats, of course I'd be "blathering nonsense" (which is not a personal attack somehow? it's academic? that's not something to get banned for but speaking the truth is? I'm trying to understand your logic, Tao). But again, this is not the only definition of "beat generation" which invalidates your poorly contextualized argument. Notice the word "generation" (I'll go slowly because clearly you are only scanning for trigger words). When Kerouac coined the term in conversation with John Clellon Holmes, he put the word "generation" on there for a reason. Do we know the reason? Is it because he thought his small group of writer friends deserved to be called a "generation" that would exclude anyone else outside of this poorly named "generation"? No, it was because he was recognizing a tendency within the culture, a tendency embodied by artists like Jackson Pollock. This is not my opinion, however much you want to think it is. This is recongition of the broad way in which the word is used -- something you seem to obstinately refuse to recognize. I would propose settling this the only way ridiculous arguments like this can be settled on Wikipedia -- a Cite Off! -- but this has two distinct problems: Doom has already started this process and you, Tao, have just ignored it, basing your opposition solely on your own opinion (it's as if the conversation went like this: Tao: "Show me some citations." Doom: "Here are some citations." Toa: "Um ... no.") which indicates that this approach will not be fruitful. The second problem is that different sources use "beat generation" differently without acknowleging it. I was hoping we'd avoid that here, but then again, this is wikipedia. Hoping for something like that is clearly delusional. I still propose this as a course of action, even if it will yield few definitive results.F. Simon Grant (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

overall structure
"I attempted but apparently failed at one point to clarify issues like this by making the three levels in the definition of "beat" clear at the beginning of the article: beat as a small group of friends; beat as a wider artistic movement; beat as a genuine generation, as Kerouac originally intended it." -- F. Simon Grant


 * Calling it a "failure" is a bit strong, but I have to say I couldn't see how to get it to work the way you wanted it to. I tried to re-write it several times, but it kept feeling like something that wouldn't make sense unless you knew what it meant already.  (Sometimes I think about trying to draw a bullseye graphic, a Venn diagram of nested sets...).  I hope it doesn't bug you too much that I moved that material further down a little while back (it seemed to fit fairly well as a lead-in to the section on collaborations).


 * Anyway, myself, I like the historical approach for this as a readable way of structuring things. This is the "stone dropped in the water" model: a small disturbance that gradually spreads outwards.  The trouble with it is the it only literally works if the Beat Generation is something the Beats created... if you take the idea the Beat Generation as something that Kerouac observed, then the "spreading over time" idea is too limited by itself.  -- Doom (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the problem we should be discussing because I consider it the most important problem and I don't know how to fix it alone. I don't mind that you moved it lower though I think if we're considering the general reader and the way it's supposed to function, to clear up confusion, having it at the beginning would work better. That's why I call it a failure: it failed to do what I wanted it to do which was to clear up confusion. It just weighed down the beginning of the article with too much information, so for now keep it at the bottom. I like the idea of the venn diagram, but we could maybe do something simpler. I tried to do a chart (like the one I was more successfully able to do on the Howl page) for the Surrealism page that clarified who was a member when (then somebody just up and erased the whole thing because it didn't have citations without asking me -- to which I would've replied, "It's going to take a million billion years to get enough proper citations. I have a life. Please be patient. I'll get to it eventually.") That was meant to substitute for just a random, uncontextualized list of names (and not there's just nothing there which is not necessarily better). For us it's less a matter of who was a member when and more a matter of how they are most properly called a "beat." This wouldn't work with the third definition because we don't need to list James Dean, Marlon Brando, on and on. I'm not married to this idea, but let me show you what it would look like just to see if it would work. (The added advantage of a chart like this is that the format could potentially intimidate casual editors who are besotted with listitis diseases)




 * If the goal is to be user friendly for non-experts, this is one way to do it, but we definitely 9need some sort of guide post, at least for our own clarity (and yes, Tao, it will be cited -- be patient). I'm open to criticism/suggestions. Anyone with a better idea, please discussF. Simon Grant (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought the way you just put it informally before was a little better "beat as a small group of friends; beat as a wider artistic movement; beat as a genuine generation, as Kerouac originally intended it". I think the first two categories can be covered by the "phenomena spreading from a central source" model, the joker in the deck is when you try to take that third definition seriously (as many critics do).  Marlon Brando?  James Dean?  -- Doom (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I just emphatically disagree with your premise. Dylan was in no measure and in no way involved with the "Beat movement". He was profoundly influenced by it. Pollock for instance was in no way influenced connected or even aware of the Beats. The Beats were a small though heavily influential LITERARY cadre. O'Hara is completely different, and spoke out against the Beats! The Beats were friends with artists, filmmakers, etc. NONE of whom ever called themselves "Beat Artists". Not looking at the page again right at this second, I'm remembering the "influence of the Beats" (and who they were influenced by) discussed at length. That influence, again, is pervasive - and their inspirations were many. But the Beat movement itself is discrete and relatively small. I will continue to argue against turning everyone into a "Beat." it's not accurate.Tao2911 (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We're under no obligation to treat an artist's self-assessment as the last word on how to categorize that artist -- it's not at all unusual for an artist to object to critical consensus about themselves (e.g. Eldritch of the band "The Sisters of Mercy" insists that he is not a "goth").


 * By the way, if you want to contribute to a discussion about how to improve the Beat Generation page, you really do need to read the page. -- Doom (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about your suggestion, Doom (we'll just ignore Tao here where hopefully some actual work will get done) & I don't know if the ripple effect approach will work. The real problem is this: Kerouac originally proposed it as a "generation," not as a small group. Holmes popularized the term in his article & in Go. After "Howl" and On the Road, the press was like "Oh, so you two guys are the Beat Generation I guess." When Burroughs published Naked Lunch they were like "Oh so there's three people in this generation now?" It's a basic philological mistake that just stuck. Another factor: When Donald Allen came out with New American Poetry in 1960, he put together NY Beat, San Fran Ren, Black Mountain, and New York School poets who started to become referred to collectively as "New American Poets," "Postmodern Poets," "Projectivist Poets," or "Beat Poets" because the press already loved that word. So somebody might call O'Hara beat poet based on this while somebody else might make the idiotic and uninformed and poorly phrased statement "Dylan was in no measure and in no way involved with the 'Beat movement.'" (Yes, a personal attack, ban me beyotch, I dare you.) So the broader definition wasn't simply a ripple effect -- it's not like O'Hara saw what Ginsberg was doing and said, "Hey, I want to jump on that train." O'Hara was writing a couple of years before Howl even came out. It's that the word was used so many different ways it just stuck around. I don't think we need to actually handle Brando and Dean, though Kerouac included them originally, but we need to handle SFR, BM, & NYS as related movements and other satellite artists -- yes, visual artists too -- as being included under the broader definition.F. Simon Grant (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

3 Definitions of Beat vs. No such thing as a "Beat Artist" -- A Cite Off! Round One!
The best way to solve our disagreement: Use citations (but this is just Wikipedia, kids, so just have fun with it).

I'll open up with this one directly from Kerouac: "Members of the generation that came after World War II who supposedly as a result of disillusionment stemming from the cold war, espouse mystical detachment and relaxation of social and sexual tension." Shows Kerouac using "generation" as "generation." Steven Watson. The birth of the beat generation: visionaries, rebels, and hipsters, 1944-1960. Pantheon Books, 1995. ISBN 0679423710, 9780679423713.F. Simon Grant (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Your turn (and the "I'm not a beat" stuff only proves they're using definition one, but give it your best try!). Go:


 * "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Make a proposal to be considered, and I will be happy to comment. This entire entry is at this point, from its lead-in sentence, about the Beat literary movement. If you wish to propose something different, draft it, and we can review. However, the page now reflects the majority view that "Beat" specifically means the literary movement, not the general cultural shift you seem to wish to indicate (which is already discussed in the page, as effects of said movement). So again - not the place for general discussion of topic.Tao2911 (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Jesus Christ, dickhead. Get the stick out of your ass. It's just wiki-freakin'-pedia. Use the rules when you want to be a dipshit but fail to actually prove any point whatsoever. We are discussing the actual page itself, not a general discussion. Read what we say. In all caps maybe then you'll listen: READ WHAT WE SAY YOU STUBBORN ASSHOLE. I don't seem to wish to indicate jack shit. I seem to wish to indicate accurate truths. You are one frustrating motherfucker because you are just not listening. The page now reflects what you claim to be the "majority view" not basing it on sources, basing it on your own bullshit, uninformed view. You claim I'm not being encyclopedic, but you're being even less encyclopedic. Please listen to your own dumbass bullshit please please, I beg of you. If you're not going to listen to us, just listen to yourself. Follow your own goddman rules or shut the fuck up. Seriously.F. Simon Grant (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How about I try this: How about I try to communicate with you by repeating myself two hundred times instead of just one hundred times: Prove you're right with sources.Prove you're right with sources.Prove you're right with sources.Prove you're right with sources.Prove you're right with sources.Prove you're right with sources.Prove you're right with sources. This is not general discussion, dumbass. This is genuine content. I repeat, this is genuine content. Prove you're right with sources. Where have I heard that before? Oh, I heard that before from you. (Don't worry Doom, I'm antagonizing one of the crazies by going crazy -- you know why? because it's fun). Prove you're right with sources. This is not a discussion forum, Tao. This is a forum for trying to improve a page. You seem to be the one who has entirely forgotten that. In all your bullshit about proving you're right with sources you have made zero attempt to, I don't know, prove you're right with sources. You know why I want you to prove you're right with sources? because I want to have a discussion forum? No, because I want to improve the page. What you call a "majority" view is not a majority view. I'll repeat this again because you love ignoring and not reading: What you call a "majority" view is not a majority view. That is precisely the problem. The page reflects what you claim to be a majority view which is not a majority view. This is a way of discussing the content of the page to try to figure out how to make it a better page. We make it a better page by having more accurate information. We have more accurate information by proving we are right with sources. We don't make it a better page by sticking with some stupid bullshit and trying to use Wikipedia rules (that's a an oxymoron right?) to back up our empty hollow bullshit. What we use to back up our claims is a valid source. The reason we use a valid source to back up our claims? because we want to make the page accurate instead of basing it on personal opinions like "This is the majority opinion because I've just decided it was without actually listening to reason or using sources." Please ignore my ranting because i love ranting. It gets nothing done. Look in the mirror, dude. You are the essence of getting nothing done. Reprimand me in the fake Wikepedia way, I don't give a shit. Doom will still be here with good intentions. I do this because it's fun, I rant because it's fun. But I also want to make this page accurate. You "blather" on with your bullshit because you have some sort of agenda not based on truth. Who wins? Me. Go fuck yourself and shut the fuck up.F. Simon Grant (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, look. I haven't gotten banned yet. The banning concept is a toothless foucaultian panopticon. Maybe your threats are hollow justifications meant to hide the lack of content in your claims. Perhaps everything you've said so far is meaningless. How about stop making threats, Tao, and start doing something productive. If you really are serious about making this page better, look below.F. Simon Grant (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, still not banned. Let's see how long it takes, pal. (I'm genuinely intersted, though I don't think it'll happen)F. Simon Grant (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: still not banned yet. I'm waiting, guys. Tick tock tick tock.F. Simon Grant (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoa...Tao2911 (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I'm going to write a memoir called "Journal of the Non-Blocked Years": Chapter one: "Day five. Still not blocked. I trusted the validity of what Tao said because he was so wise and backed up whatever he said with evidence. Maybe his threats were all empty after all, diary. But maybe one day they'll come. Maybe one day they'll put me out of my misery. If there is a 'they.'" "Whoa" is about the equivilent of your mental processes, you dumb bastard.F. Simon Grant (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Too bad I finally got blocked. Oh well, guess I'll never ever edit on Wikipedia again. Oh wait ... suddenly I feel very reincarnated. It's a miracle! 15:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitions of Beat vs. No Such thing as "Beat Artist" Cite Off! Round Two: The Formal Argument edition!
Now let's get down to some actual business. Formal argument is necessary because this argument has degenerated so far (by me, mostly, just for fun). I'll break it down piece by piece so it's easier to digest for people unwilling to read what others are saying:

Purpose of this argument: To fix a very serious problem with structure, clarity, and reader friendliness inherent in this page and in the topic as a whole. The problem is that the term "Beat Generation" is used in multiple ways to the degree that it becomes confusing for the general reader and leads to arguments about who "is" and "isn't" a "beat."

Proposal: We should fix the structure of the page in order to clear up the confusion in an accurate but reader-friendly way.

First claim from opposition: The term "Beat Generation" is only accurately used for a small group of writers. Sub-claim: The term "Beat Generation" cannot be used for writers and artists outside of this small group. Example: Bruce Conner is not a "beat." (I'm working backward here.) Support: Bruce Conner claims he is not a beat.

Counterclaim: The opposition's argument is weakened by two fallacies. Fallacy 1: cherry picking. With a broader analysis of evidence, we can perhaps come to a more accurate understanding of how the term is used; if we accept the claim that the term is used multiple ways, choosing only one source without broader context is highly problematic research methodology. Fallacy 2: the fallacy of identity. An author is not the final word on how he or she is defined.

Support for my claim: I have presented evidence from Jack Kerouac that goes against the opposition's first claim (that the term is used solely for a literary movement). I present below another piece of evidence from one of the core members of the movement, Allen Ginsberg. He gives a thorough explanation of the different ways the term "beat generation" is used. This is meant to counteract the first fallacy in the opposition's argument, the cherrypicking. To fully counteract it, we need more evidence, but this is a positive step, the right kind of step to make. Admittedly, it contains the second fallacy the opposition's argument suffers from, but compared side by side, the Ginsberg quote has significant advantages in two areas: 1) authority on the subject matter; 2) thoroughness. To address the opposition's original argument: this does little to prove that Bruce Conner was truly a "beat". I'm perfectl willing to concede that point. However, this does much to counteract the more significant claim, that "beat generation" can only be used one way. Notice Ginsberg includes Frank O'Hara and Kenneth Koch, from the New York School, and many others not within what the opposition claims to be a small literary group. Notice also Ginsberg mentions visual artists. We can parse out some ambiguous phrasing -- that's a valid approach and a conversation worth having. However, what's hard to argue against in that way is that "Beat Generation" is used in at least two ways: to refer to a group of friends and to refer to a genuine "generation".

Allen Ginsberg, "Definition of the Beat Generation", Deliberate Prose: "The phrase 'beat generation' rose out of a specific conversation with Jack Kerouac and John Clellon Holmes around '50-51 when, discussing the nature of generations recollecting the glamour of the lost generation, Kerouac said, Ah, this is nothing but a beat generation ... not meaning to name the generation but to un-name it."

He discusses the origin of the term "beat" in "hip language" froom Huncke and then discusses how it became associated with "beatific" in 1959 (and on a side note, that reinforces Doom's side of a previous disagreement, though Ginsberg says "articulated" which could mean it was conceived of earlier).

"A fourth meaning accumulated, that of the 'beat generation literary movement.' This was a group of friends who had worked together on peotry, prose and cultural conscience from the mid-forties until the term became popular natuionally in the late fifties. The group consisting of Kerouac ... Neal Cassady, William Burroughs ... Herbert Huncke, John Clellon Homes ... Allen Ginsberg, myself; we met Carl Solomon and Philip Lamantia in '48; encountered Gregory Corso in 1950, and we first saw Peter Orlovsky in 1954.

"By the mid-fifties this smaller circle, through natural affinity of modes of thought or literary style or planetary perspective was augmented in friendship and literary endeavor by a number of writers in San Francisco, including Michael McClure, Gary Snyder, Philip Whalen and a number of other powerful but lesser-known poets such as Jack Micheline, Ray Bremser, and ... LeRoi Jones -- all of whom accepted the term at one time or another, humorously or seriously, but sympathetically, and were included in a survey of bet general manners, morals, and literature by Life magazine in a lead article in the late '50s by one Paul O'Neill, and by the journalist Alfred Aronowitz in a large series on the Beat Generation in the New York Post.

"By the mid-fifties a sense of some mutual trust and interest was developed with Frank O'Hara and Kenneth Koch, as well as with Robert Creeley and other alumni of Black Mountain ...

"The fifth meaning of the phrase 'Beat Generation' is the influence of the literary and artistic activities of poets, filmmakers, painters, writers and novelists who were working in concert in anthologies, publishing houses, independent filmmaking, and other media. Some effects of the aforementioned groups refreshed the bohemian culture which was already a long tradition (in film and still photography, Robert Frank and Alfred Leslie; in music, david Amram; in painting, Larry Rivers; in poetry publishing, Don Allen, Barney Rosset, and Lawrence Ferlinghetti) extended to fellow artists such as Susan Sontag and Norman Mailer." etc.

Proposal based on this support: More thoroughly flesh out this notion, using Ginsberg's article as support. This will not solve the problem of reader-friendliness, but it will go toward the problem of accuaracy.F. Simon Grant (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Accurate, middle-of-the-road definitions? Ideas? You decide.
Here's another approach. To make sure my research isn't tainted by cherrypicking, I typed a neutral term into google: "Definition Beat Generation". Here are the defnitions that I found going through four google pages, only excluding repition and irrelevant sites. These are hardly formal sources, but the purpose of this exercise is to show that confusion about this term and how it is to be used is a genuine issue. Simply saying the one definition is the "majority" without putting effort into supporting the claim is not a valid way to prove a point.

Sources that place subculture/generation first and group of writers second: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/the-Beat-Generation

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861685998/Beat_Generation.html

Sources that place group of writers first, subculture/generation second, and also mention "artists": http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Beat+Generation

http://www.directhit.com/ansres/Beat-Generation-Definition.html

Sources that only mention the group of writers, not the subculture/generation: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/beat+generation

Sources that only mention the group of writers, not the subculture/generation, but also mention "artists": http://www.answers.com/topic/beat-generation

Sources that only mention the subculture/generation, not the group of writers: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=beat%20generation

http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/beat_generation.htm

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/the-beat-generation

http://www.bluesforpeace.com/beat.htm

http://www.mnemonicdictionary.com/word/beat

[If this method genuinely points to a "majority" opinion, then clearly this would be it]

Iffy: http://www.gradesaver.com/dharma-bums/study-guide/section8/

http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/beat-generation

Now for serious sources I encountered when typing the same term into Google Book search: Lawlor here identifies the exact problem I identified as being the major problem with this page. A page like this which strives for accuracy should acknowledge that there is no set definition (no "majority", no consus) on how the term should be used:

"Several key questions are central to the study of the Beat Generation. The first is whether a Beat Generation actually exists. If the Beat Generation consists of Kerouac, Ginsberg, Burroughs, and a few others, then the Beat Generation does not exist because a generation cannot be based on just a few people. On the other hand, if the Beat Generation includes dozens and dozens of artists, including not only writers but also dancers, painters, sculptors, musicians, then the Beat Generation does not exist because the concept is too loose, too vague."

William Lawlor. Beat culture: lifestyles, icons, and impact. ABC-CLIO, 2005 ISBN 1851094008, 9781851094004. pg. 78.

For this one, there may be some confusion by what Kerouac means by “people who had been beaten down” since that could apply to either the small group or the broader subculture. However, Morgan provides the same definition I presented earlier in which Kerouac identifies it as “certain members of the generation that came of age after World War II who affected detachment,” etc. It’s conceivable that one might argue Kerouac meant his group of friends by “certain people, but from many other sources, he meant the broader subculture (open for debate, but let’s have that debate instead of blindly dismissing without evidence to support counterclaims). Here’s the quote from Morgan:

“Once the press began to identify those writers collectively as ‘the Beat Generation,’ some within the group began to struggle with a definition for the word beat. Since it was Jack Kerouac who had originally coined the phrase, he was asked repeatedly what he meant by it. Initially he said that the Beat Generation was composed of people who had been beaten down, worn out, and exhausted. As time passed, he refined his definition to emphasize the beatific, blessed, or sympathetic qualities of his generation.”

Bill Morgan, William Morgan. The Typewriter Is Holy: The Complete, Uncensored History of the Beat Generation. Simon and Schuster, 2010. ISBN 1416592423, 9781416592426.

There's more, but I'm out of time.F. Simon Grant (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for phrasing change in intro based on evidence given above
I reread some of the comments by the opposition in this disagreement (novel concept, right?) and realized in my attempt to do a broad search not tainted by cherrypicking that Wikipedia is one of the minority of sources -- at least based on the search I did, considering the limitations of my search method -- that identifies the "Beat Generation" as primarily a literary movement. It also subsequently identifies it as the "cultural phenomenon" they wrote about secondarily and thirdly as the "cultural phenomenon" they inspired. This is suitably vague to cover, in the notion of the "cultural phenomonon they wrote about" the original intent of the phrase and the common use of the phrase, as more accurately a generation. As is obvious from the opposition's treatment of the topic, claiming the intro identifies it solely as literary group and "phenomenon" inspired by the group, ignoring the "they wrote about" section, that it is not sufficient enough to communicate the accurate point to the general reader. The problem with this, I propose, is the use of the term phenomenon. Here's the phrase as it is right now:

The Beat Generation is a term used to describe a group of American writers who came to prominence in the 1950s, and the cultural phenomena that they wrote about and inspired (later sometimes called "beatniks").

It should more accurately and clearly identify the notion of a group of people and shouldn't be treated within the structure of the sentence as a throw away concept or something secondary. We could say it is "a trend within the culture recognized and named by Jack Kerouac which came to be the name used to identify a substantial subculture prominent in the United States from the end of WWII through the sixties. It also describes a group of American writers," etc. I have -- without very much difficulty at all -- found sources that support this as a more accurate representation of what we are attempting to define here. To truly prove this, I need more sources, of course, but I believe this is something serious and worth debate. (Forgive me for over-indulging, but I can't help but be a teacher when I see really, really, really terrible argumentation going on).F. Simon Grant (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know about anyone else, but I'm simply not going to read this. This isn't a proposal. It's a diatribe couched as a half-baked undergraduate thesis outline - sorry, professor. A proposal would be the specific text to be included in the page. But I'm going to concentrate more on that block for you than on what you might have to generally say on the topic - that is, if this kind of behavior continues. Please read WP civility guidelines.Tao2911 (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, you're an idiot. Here's my imitation of Tao (include immature mocking tone): "I think I know things. I think I can get people blocked. I think I no rules. Provide evidence you guys. Oh know there's some evidence, my bwain hurts, my bwain hurts, I forgot how to read, waaaaaaaah." It is a proposal you fucking idiot. It shows you're wrong. You refusing to read it does not make you right. It just makes you stupid. You call it "undergraduate" as if it lacks validity when you refuse to read it which makes you not only and idiot, but a stubborn baseless idiot. Block me, bitch, I fucking beg you. What's taking you so long.F. Simon Grant (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Practical proposal for change based on evidence provided above
Simple to read for assholes who refuse to read: Proposals: 1) change phrasing in intro 2) do not change focus of the majority of the page on the "close circle" 3) perhaps make "writers" section more reader friendly for casual readers with a chart, or something quick and simple to read 4) change naming of "writers" section to something reflected broader scope 5) I would like something like 3 & 4 to be closer to the top, but I do recognize Doom's concern that it weighs down the intro, so we can see for now if it works.

I'm suggesting no change beyond that, but I feel I have provided the beginning of sufficient evidence to support the necessity of this change.F. Simon Grant (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Close circle
People want accurate, middle-of-road, definitions from wikipedia, not ideas. They also don't want to always have to endure endless articles. I think it would be best to concentrate on Kerouac, Burroughs, Ginsberg, Corso. And have a list of all other similar writers - most of them have wikipedia-entries: the San Francisco Renaissance (Ferlinghetti, Snyder, Lamantia), Black Mountain (Olson, John Wieners, Ed Dorn), second generation (DiPrima, Leroi Jones/Amiri Baraka), Beats in Europe (Harold Norse), from Kansas (Charles Plymell), on the West Coast (Bob Kaufmann), New York (Ira Cohen, Ed Sanders, Malanga).
 * And have a further small chapter on the whole mass-media buzz around the "Beats". The hip painting in the the 1930s, 40s, 50s in the USA was first regionalism, then WPA-mural painiting, surrealism, abstract expressionism. There are good entries on A E and The New York School, even if the West Coast art of the late 1950s is under-represented.--Radh (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. My list of Beat and Underground writers, some names are obviously missing, but I wanted to concentrate on some lesser known writers first.And: most are Beat writers only in a very loose sense.--Radh (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

What an excellent, practical solution. Thanks Radh.Tao2911 (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing personal Radh, I appreciate the input. My rant is directed at Toa mostly. I realize, Tao, you are being a smart ass as if my suggestion is not practical. You like to use so called wikipedia rules to hide your empty, meaningless claims. How about this for a rule: 1) before you comment on other people, read what they say; 2) before you comment on the page, read the page. You seem to refuse to do either and continue to make smart ass comments for what seems to be the sole purpose of antagonizing well intentioned posters. You have refused to do the one thing necessary to anyone who genuinely intends to help imporove this page: actually read the page and actually read others' comments. While I believe Radh is well intentioned, he or she partly suggests things that already exist on the page (please see the "writers" section, what used to be the lead section which Doom, who has been working ont his page for a very long time, moved lower -- both Doom and I have been working on this page a very long time; both Doom and I have actually read the page because both Doom and I have actually written much of this page; the comments Doom and I make on the discussion page are well intentioned, practical, and based on knowledge of the page, none of which applies to your comments, Tao). Not only have your comments suggested a stubborn refusal to actually read the page or read the comments of others; they also demonstrate a pervasive hypocricy and your comments thoroughly contradict one another. I suggested mention of the abstract expressionists as a part of broader concept of the beat generation and you go ape shit. Radh suggests it and it's an excellent and practical solution. It makes no sense to me. I can't help thinking you have tourettes or something, finger tourettes, that causes you to be incapable of typing anything but bullshit.


 * Now a direct response to Radh. What I am suggesting is an accurate, middle-of-the-road definition. They are not simply ideas. Please read my comments above. According to sources I found through a search method intended to eliminate prejudice, "beat generation" means most commonly a subculture, not a close circle. I'm not suggesting we change the page to focus less on the close circle. I'm suggesting we change it to more accurately represent the truth so that certain dumbasses have context with which to argue whether or not someone belongs in the group. If someone says there is no such thing as a beat artists, we can point at reliable sources and point to places on the page that clear this up in a neutral, accurate way. So, while I appreciate your good intentions, Radh, this is not an "excellent and practical solution" because it's not an actual change -- which would be clear to certain other posters if they actually read the article. Here, I'll make it easy for you Tao: Beat Generation.  It's just right there.  One click away. Take ten minutes, take an hour, whatever. Being an effective smartass means being a well informed smartass.F. Simon Grant (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You know what, peace out, ya'll. I'm bored with this. Having an intellectual debate with Tao is like boxing a five year old. There's no sport in it. You want him to put up some defense but then he passes out and babbles some meaningless cliches. I would be worried about Tao ruining the page (and this is about improving the page, at the end of the day) with his complete lack of knowledge on the subject, but so far he's demonstrated such an intense devotion to laziness, I doubt that'll happen. I'd even guess he's illiterate except that he's using words, even if they're meaningless words. Maybe he got his mommy to write it for him. Anyway, been real! (p.s. still waiting to get blocked, seriously, how long does it take?)F. Simon Grant (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a terrible habit of not following through w/ saying I'm out, but I just reread his thing where he says "If this behavior continues" -- kind of a pussy way to be lazy. Block me. I'm genuinely asking you. Please. Plus check out contribs: nothing on Beat Generation. Totally clueless on this subject. This behavior would continue, Tao, if you didn't bore me so goddamn much. Peace out!F. Simon Grant (talk) 06:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

F Simon Grant blocked for 48 hours for incivility
I was traveling for a few days and couldn't address Grant's desire to be blocked - plus he needed a warning, and to be uncivil again. Mission accomplished - in spectacular fashion (someone needs anger management - and an editor). But he's blocked now. I think Radh has a good handle on an appropriate way forward, and I'll leave it to you guys.Tao2911 (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Radh's suggestion is not different from the brilliant F. Simon Grant's revision and the current state of the page, which you haven't actually read yet. Please prove that Radh's suggestions are in any way different. Seriously. Sock puppet out!!! 17:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories
We now have the categories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Beat_poets and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Beat_writers. Shouldn't they all be simply Beat writers? --Radh (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Many of the "writers" were mainly poets. Some of the "poets" (Lenny Bruce?) are questionable. And many of them wrote prose too. So I would support combining the groups, and eliminating the sub-heading.Tao2911 (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There also is a category http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Beat_Generation . I think this should be reserved for non-authors, magazines, titles of books, publishers, teachers, critics, Lenny Bruce.
 * Also: http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Outlaw_poets . Which seems to be based on the Outlaw anthology, which is a mishmash of everything from Norman Mailer to Sapphire. It also has no article.--Radh (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No but seriously, let's get down to business and solve this thing
Okay, I'll be serious, no personal attacks. Here's the issue, plain and simple, no diatribe. 1) I (that is the non-sockpuppet me) made the claim that the page as it currently stands is inaccuarte, and if we narrow our focus to something manageable, the claim that the Beat Generation is just a small group of writers is inaccuarate. 2) I presented plenty of citations to support this claim. I can present plenty more. 3) Radh made a suggestion, though well intentioned, not an actual change to the page as it stands right now. If indeed it is a change, please explain with specific reference to the existing content of the page and citations to back up the claims. 4) Please provide a genuine counterclaim showing why my claims are wrong. I am willing to listen to reasonable arguments supported by valid sources. It's unfortunate that I have to keep saying that. If you ignore the ranting -- which was just for fun, don't need anger management when it's just for fun -- that's what I've genuinely been asking for over and over again, yet I've been ignored. If posters on this talk board are serious about making positive changes, please do it the right way, by making valid claims supported by sources. Thank you. 18:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, but seriously. You will be IP banned soon.Tao2911 (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I will be IP banned because I have good intentions here? Please, just focus on the topic. Please, just take it seriously. Please, just set aside the personal attacks of the past. I called you lazy because it bothers me how little genuine effort you are putting into this. Please, do what you are supposed to be doing here: improving the page. What you have demonstrated so far is not an intention to improve the page. That genuinely bothers me and worries me. I don't really care if I get banned. It's kind of cool actually. But what I want above all else is for someone on this page to take seriously the call to improve it. I have provided back up for what I am saying. If you do not listen to this, if you just ignore it, you're being much more harmful to the page than I ever could be. Seriously, do the work. I beg you. At the end of the day, that's what this is all about. Wikipedia laziness is a virus. Don't be a virus.134.224.220.1 (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You will (hopefully) be IP banned because you've egregiously broken just about every wiki-quette rule listed, created a sock to avoid a ban, and edit warred on the page. You continue to insult me. I see no reason to amend my assessment.Tao2911 (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * User Grant/Taois/134... is now blocked for 30 days+.Tao2911 (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * User Grant/etc. harassed me again on my talk page using yet another IP, initiating a block of that (second) IP address.Tao2911 (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"This Page is Too Long"
So says Wikipedia (when editing the page, you'll notice it is flagged "This page is 86 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size."). I concur.

It's excessively word-y in numbers of places, and consists too much of uncited theory and conjecture. From editors comments here recently, I can see how it got there. While much of the material isn't necessarily particularly off-base, I think as Radh has suggested and as the page is flagged, I think we should look to condense, and create sub-topics where possible.Tao2911 (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The more I dig in, the bigger the mess this page reveals itself to be. So much of it needs to be split off into sub-topic pages. Then all of this in many cases quite excellent info and research can be utilized, and even expanded further. Of particular concern are the 'hippie' 'beatnik' 'hippie v. beat' sections. Way too much for this page. And then you have the 'women and beats' 'collaborations' etc etc - all of which should be sub topics.Tao2911 (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have tried to cut (well written, I know) stuff, simply because the page is way too long. Also some strange looking interpretations, which had not been referenced. If you undo my revert, please try to think about those aspects.--Radh (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've not reverted your edits, but you left some peculiar spelling, italics, phrasing and whatnot I felt needed adjusting (at least it was possibly you - I'm not tracking your edits). But I appreciate the work you're doing.Tao2911 (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do keep track. I really should not have started with this today.--Radh (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have erased Terry Southern: He was in Paris from the early 1950s when he started to get published. I also think there must be "serious" literature influenced by the Beats. Hubert Selby?, certainly Norman Mailer, Leslie Fiedler. Perhaps Henry Miller simply overshadowed the Beats?--Radh (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Unknown Beat Poets
[Erased stuff, had mentioned Herschel Silverman, he will get his own page] --Radh (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * NO NEW SECTIONS. We have to shorten this entry, not lengthen it. It's too long, by half (according to Wiki itself.) While there is no fixed length, there is a recommended length - about 40 kb. We are probably about 80 now after my shaving a few sections. Some help creating sub pages would be appreciated - you seem to have a good handle on much of this material and an interest in seeing it well-covered (as do I). So let's give stuff it's due - I'd suggest yous start with "Women and Beats" since you added to that section. It needs its own page.Tao2911 (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * actually it's 62 kb! Getting there...Tao2911 (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Much Better Length - need sub-pages
We have it down to 45 kb. or so, which is in the ballpark. There's plenty more work to do, but I would recommend any editors who are missing something (and who haven't been banned) start creating some of the nifty new sub-topic pages that this topic deserves. I will too, but will have less time in coming days, so may not be so active.Tao2911 (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid unsourced hyperbole
I'm noticing a persistent tendency for some folks to use "colorful" or hyperbolic language, without citing sources. For instance, "Beat culture included experimentation with drugs and alternative forms of sexuality, an interest in Eastern religion, a rejection of conformity, work and materialism, attacked with a "mad", exuberant, bohemian embrace of hedonism and spontaneity." The language in bold was added after a solid version was crafted, and simply is unsuitable for the neutral editorial tone that is the Wiki standard, for an encyclopedic entry.

Remember, we aren't here to put our personal "touch" or flair on things. Let's just craft a well-sourced, informative entry.Tao2911 (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Those words had been in the article before we started to rewrite it (though not in this order), but you are of course right.--Radh (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Reminders about policy concerning article size
Since some recent editor(s) have cut about half of the text from this article, I just wanted to remind people to review the details of Wikipedia policies on Article_size.

In particular, the Beat Generation article was around 85kb before the recent edits. For articles of this size, the guideline suggests that the article "Probably should be divided", but conceeds that "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time".

Further, as stated in Policies_and_guidelines: "Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules"

The point is that the length of an article alone can not be used to justify deleting large portions of it (or even, necessarily, require it be subdivided into other pages).

The current edits appear to favor a very narrow interpretation of the scope of the subject. While this makes it easier to write a concise article, it does the reader a disservice, because the term under discussion is also often used in a sense that has a much wider scope. A number of references have already been offerred in the discussion above that show the term "Beat Generation" used in a very wide scope. The case made for ignoring this appears to be little more than personal opinion.

Please remember: Policies_and_guidelines: "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." -- Doom (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree, in a couple of respects. First, the article is much more manageable now (including for future inclusions), though far from perfect. There are numbers of significant holes, hazy descriptors, and a great need for better sourcing throughout. Second, as the editor who removed the bulk of the material, I didn't do so with any agenda whatsoever, except to make the article more readable, and impose some modicum of greater cohesive organization. The previous version had the patchwork feel that develops when the article is added to ad hoc without respect to overall readability.


 * As I've said repeatedly, the subject deserves a number of sub-pages. I encourage editors to start making some. You allude to some disagreement about the definition of Beat discussed above. I didn't actually even change the definition that was already there - I didn't write new material. So the definition is simply the one there already - as is the rest of the material. Not to mention that the def. there now, embellished on thoroughly, includes (from its fist sentence) both the specific literary movement and its figures, to that movement's effects in the culture at large - discussed at length. The discussion above, as I pointed out, was not about any specific point on the page. And once again, I would suggest that if you have specific issues in the entry, bring them up here for discussion. Again, this is not the place for general discussions of the topic - some editors have seemed to confuse this place with a chat room.Tao2911 (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of the entry: "The Beat Generation is a term used to describe a group of American post-WWII writers who came to prominence in the 1950s, as well as the cultural phenomena that they both documented and inspired." The article then has section on the Beat effect on the culture, on Beatniks, on Hippies, on music, on other literature, etc. I'm at a loss as to what you think could be missing - unless it is excessive embellishing on any of these aspects, any of which could potentially be addressed by sub-pages.Tao2911 (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place
Tao1911 has said: "Again, this is not the place for general discussions of the topic - some editors have seemed to confuse this place with a chat room".

I am afraid I remain confused on this point. Which editors would that be? Can you point to an example of an inappropriate general discussion taking place here? -- Doom (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer we just concentrated on the specific issues on the page itself. This is my point.Tao2911 (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I see. Well then I suppose I'll have to remain confused about who is confused.  Meanwhile, I shall endeavor to discuss the page without discussing the topic.  -- Doom (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

recent edits
I've at last read through most of the recent blizzard of edits in the last few weeks. A lot of the edits are better than I expected, and may actually tighten up the text without losing anything of significance. Quite a few of the edits I'm afraid miss some subtleties-- a lot of the writing in the introduction, for example, was crafted to accommodate the opinions of multiple different editors over the years. The changes in order aren't too bad, though some of them only make sense from a particular point of view (e.g. "beatnik era" belongs under "influences" only if you think it's something separate from a narrowly-defined "Beat Generation"). Many of the out-right deletions I will probably restore as the material actually was there for a reason (WP:Article size: "There is no need for haste") -- Doom (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please be careful "restoring" "subtleties." I get exactly what everyone was saying on this (The Beat Generation) page. But as is often the case when you have a lot of editors trying to include their own "subtle nuances" you end up with a mish mash that reads horribly. Not to mention hardly anything had a citation. This is not the place for an in-depth nuanced analysis or dissertation on the beats. It's a brief encyclopedic overview. I happen to know this topic fairly well. I taught at Naropa in fact, and knew Ginsburg and Burroughs personally if not intimately. So accusations that I do not know this topic or wish to give it short shrift are simply not true. But I know what wikipedia is for, and many of the ways in which it goes amiss, and this page was a disaster in numbers of respects. Radh and I are on the same page with the direction we want to see it go. Tao2911 (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * and per you comment "(e.g. "beatnik era" belongs under "influences" only if you think it's something separate from a narrowly-defined "Beat Generation")": "beatniks" is not a sub-heading under "influences", which includes some of the influences" on the Beats, not those influenced. Rather, its a sub-heading under "countercultural effects", which is a sub-heading under "Influences on Western Culture." "Beatniks" in this position is not in any way different from what was there previously. In fact, I softened an even harder distinction that was redundantly there in other places.Tao2911 (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

this is not the place, part ii: subtle nuances
"Subtle nuances" are indeed problematic, if only because later editors don't understand why something is phrased the way it is, and tend to hack it up later. The alternative to that approach, however, is to attack the issues head-on and attempt to discuss them explicitly, with the risk of some unwieldly, unreadable passages. Finding a balance between these concerns is one of the challenges of working on this page. -- Doom (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Again: please just bring up specific points to address any issues in the entry. I don't know how else to ask so that you will end these aimless tautologies and vague hypotheticals.Tao2911 (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, my thoughts exactly. Time to get down to some concrete work -- when I've got the time.
 * But I would've thought that it was clear that I'm discussing things like the issues raised here recently. For example, if you're confronted with several valid definitions for the subject at hand, you can take Grant's approach, and try to discuss them explicitly, or you can try to do something like what I've been at least trying to do, and convey these things implicitly (or at least, without a *lot* of exposition).  Grant's approach seems logical and straightforward, but I think it tends to kill readability.
 * By the way "aimless tautologies"? Where's an "aimless tautology"? -- Doom (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * points? Again, there don't seem to be any. You don't seem to understand that, unlike your long lost pal Grant, I have no desire to engage in philosophical musings here, or "general discussion of the topic." This really isn't that complicated. So when you have some actual edit you'd like to make, backed up with solid source material, I'll be thrilled to contribute my opinion.Tao2911 (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Translation: your way is the only way, and there's no need to listen to anyone else? Once again: try actually paying some attention the the fourth pillar.-- Doom (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A case in point: AndrePeltier just made an edit to correct what looks like an actual factual error. Ken Kesey arguably did have a direct connection with the beats, e.g. he hung out with Neal Cassady.  You reverted it instantly because you like the way your wording sounds better.  Did you make any effort to understand why AndrePeltier thought the edit was necessary? -- Doom (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I understood it perfectly. I reverted it because the way the sentence is structured it is already clear that it is referring to the latter two, and not Kesey. His change was therefore unnecessary, redundant, and awkward. As I explained in edit summary.Tao2911 (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I reordered the sentence, bring the last to the lead, to make absolutely clear what was said. And to be clear, I did not write this material orginally - it is unsourced, and I think needs not only that to be addressed (where do Pynchon and Robbins say they were influenced by Beats?), but to have a couple more names included as further examples. But only if those names are sourced by a decent citation, and not just concocted.Tao2911 (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * So you deny that the clarification was needed, but fixed it anyway. That was nice of you.

It was clear enough to me; you seemed confused. In any case, I made a better sentence. You're welcome.Tao2911 (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I believe you're correct. There was a period in there that I (and apparently AndrePeltier) was reading as a comma.  Just as well to clarify it. -- Doom (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is, or was (I'd need to check to see if it survived the purge) a quote from Pynchon in the introduction raving about the writing of Kerouac and the other beats. And Robbins used to hang around with Burroughs, didn't he?  (I didn't write this material either). -- Doom (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a quote that claims Kerouac as an influence on Robbins. A source that might be used, though perhaps not a great one. -- Doom (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Kelly Jack Kerouac's On the road (1996) "... writers such as Ken Kesey, Tom Robbins, and songwriter Bob Dylan produced works influenced by Kerouac's spontaneous, confessional, free-thinking style."

Published by Research & Education Assoc. ISBN 0878910379, 9780878910373

http://books.google.com/books?id=xjeiB3BdTlQC&pg=PA1&dq=%22tom+robbins%22+burroughs&hl=en&ei=TLH-TJD7JI7prQfA4JCnCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=%22tom%20robbins%22%20burroughs&f=false

I just undid one of your recent edits, I restored this comment "Once these two works had won their trials for obscenity, almost any book could be published." and added two detailed references. Can I ask why you choose to delete that remark? You didn't actually believe it was wrong, did you? (I would think it's one of the first things anyone would learn about this subject). -- Doom (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, one of the references I just looked up was something I'd looked up before, but the point it was attached to was deleted in the great purge. You might want to make an effort to preserve referenced material. -- Doom (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Give me a break. Very little on this page was/is cited, and I didn't remove anything that had a clear citation, and that wasn't extraneous. I removed that line because it's an absurd claim to make without a citation, certainly arguable. The cases were significant, but hardly the first or last of their kind. And to say 'after them, anything could be published" is just a bad sentence. Quit with the digs and concentrate on the page.Tao2911 (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies if this seems like an excessively personal comment, but for someone who talks a lot about citations (and claims detailed knowledge), it's a little peculiar that you haven't done anything to improve the citations.
 * That bit was by no means an "absurd claim to make without a citation", but something that "everyone who knows anything knows". It certainly doesn't hurt to add cites for things that "everyone knows", but deleting things just because they sound funny to you is a little extreme.  -- Doom (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Gee, well if everyone knows, then I guess why bother with any citations at all, anywhere in Wikipedia? This is an argument you seem to like. The page sure suffered/s from that attitude. The line didn't "sound funny." It was an emphatically assertive declaration of something that is easily argued against - and frankly it sounded stupid, or at best sophomoric. Simply going to the source cited provided the moderated language suitable. As it should be. Review the guidelines. If it ain't cited, it can be removed if found problematic. Says this at the top of the page, in case you lose track.Tao2911 (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Shall I say what you seem to like? Or would that be off topic? -- Doom (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * @Doom. Why do the Beats need blurbs from famous people? Wasn't Kerouac a better writer than Dylan? I can't see what the Beats have to gain from being associated with dreary stuff like Tarantula. Richard Farina might be more interesting in relation to Kerouac, than his friend Pynchon.--Radh (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The point of quoting Pynchon on the beats is that Pynchon is an acknowledged Notable person. The point that he was making, about the beats extending the range of allowed literary style is certainly not a small point.  That said, it wasn't really my idea to include that Pynchon quote, or to put it up in the introduction... Once it was there, I decided to try to find a use for it rather than just delete it (if you don't actually enjoy edit wars, it's necessary to try to try to work with the other editors, you know?)
 * As to evaluating who is a "better" writer, I wouldn't know where to begin, and even if I had an opinion there are limits to how much my opinion would matter as far as the task at hand goes. -- Doom (talk)


 * Not every edit I do on Wikipedia is perfect, I know, but not all edits you don't like are editwarring. @evaluation. There are tons of critics inside and outside of universities, many people evaluate literature, not always with great results. Pynchon is a very big name, Robbins is not. And simply nobody thinks that Tarantula is a good book, no need to rely on "original research" there.--Radh (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't really know the point of this argument, but I will simply say that while you clearly don't like Robbins, he's probably outsold Pynchon 100 to 1, or more, and he has at times been reviewed quite favorably by the likes of the NYT, etc. I'm not a fan myself, but he's notable by any measure. And you can't just make blanket statements like "nobody thinks" or "everybody knows" which both of you seem wont to do. Sources, please.Tao2911 (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right.--Radh (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There are roughly 40 footnote citations in the current version of the page, and looking through the list, I believe I entered about 30 of them. The rest look to me like largely the work of the late-lamented F. Simon Grant, with a handful from a few other editors.


 * (Hm, at what point did I use the phrase "everybody knows"? Could you supply a citation for that?  What was the context of what was being said at the time?) -- Doom (talk)

"That bit was by no means an "absurd claim to make without a citation", but something that "everyone who knows anything knows"." You. Above.Tao2911 (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Now try this bit: It certainly doesn't hurt to add cites for things that "everyone knows" -- Doom (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And 40 citations on this page is simply still insufficient at this point. That number could probably be trebled. Considering the page is now one third the size it was (the material removed almost wholly unsourced original research and opinion) that point is only underscored.Tao2911 (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, back at the point, none of the citations have been added by you. Your continual grand standing about how you understand what references are for, and I don't is seriously annoying.  Once again, the fourth pillar.  -- Doom (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's simply not true. I added a numbers of citations and two new sources. Pardon me for having a life and not wholly taking this page completely on my shoulders. Shut up about your fourth pillar already, and bring up some actual points. I've never grandstanded about anything, and I am the one who actually overhauled this total disaster of a page. I've gotten two other pages to GA status, and after many hours of work, took this one much further toward that possibility. Roll up your sleeves and do some work, instead of whatever it is you do here. If you review the thousands of words you've written here in the last weeks, none of it concerns or has resulted in concrete improvements to the page, being mainly personal attacks against me.Tao2911 (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)