The Beat Movement
The Beat movement developed in the 1940s, mainly in New York
City and San Francisco. The Beat poets were
men and some women who experienced the Great Depression, World War II, racial segregation
and other social injustices. They
responded to the world they lived in by rebelling against conformity and
advocating a change in the perception of the world. They often used hallucinogenic drugs, dressed in unconventional ways, meditated, and were involved in liberation movements.
Source:(http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/5646 )
Source:(http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/5646 )
Allen Ginsberg - Mugging
Allen Ginsberg and his friends Jack Kerouac and William
Burroughs were some of the most influential Beat poets. His writings were controversial (his
publisher was arrested in San Francisco for publishing his famous book, Howl and Other Poems) but they were also
regarded as powerful and revolutionary. He
had a hard life, marked with periods in prison and heavy drug use. He was influenced by other writers, such as William Carlos Williams who taught him the style of writing the way people actually think and speak, with natural pauses for breath. He was actively involved in anti-war demonstrations (and was arrested multiple times) and coined the term "flower-power." Source: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/allen-ginsberg
Theme: Spirituality
Common themes of Ginsberg’s writings (and Beat work in
general) were politics and spirituality.
Since spirituality can be seen in the piece, Mugging, we will focus on that.
Buddhism had a major influence on Beats writers. The meditative mindset can be seen in the
narrator of the Mugging. Buddhism stresses awareness of surroundings
and detachment to physical possessions.
In the beginning of the piece, the narrator is reflecting on the sights
he sees daily. He finds beauty in the
ordinary. He is aware of nearly
everything around him and yet he does not sense his attackers’ bad
intentions. He observes the “young
fellows with their umbrella handles and canes” but he does not suspect that
they will use the objects as weapons against him. As the
narrator is being attacked he repeats “Om Ah Hum.” This mantra is associated
with the purification of the body, speech, and mind.
 |
| (om-ah-hum.com) |
In the second part of the piece you get a sense of the commonality of mugging in the way people reacted when he went for help. No one is shocked. Despite the number of people the narrator described the minutes before he was mugged, no one admits to seeing anything. Witnesses are too afraid to speak up about what they saw. When the police arrive, they follow procedure and do the minimum: they briefly check the ground for his wallet and ask the victim to fill out a form. Life goes on.
Setting: East 10th Street |
| (image of present day East 10th Street from Google maps) |
William Burroughs- Background
William S. Burroughs is another famous Beat poet. He lived
from 1914-1997 and had many interesting experiences throughout his lifetime. As a child, Burroughs grew up in St. Louis,
Missouri and came from a wealthy family.
From a young age Burroughs knew that he was homosexual, but did his best
to hide it until later in his life. After
high school Burroughs attended Harvard University for English literature. He travelled a lot and looked into the
homosexual cultures of places like New York, Austria, and Hungary. It was on his journeys that he met his first
wife who he would later divorce. When
Burroughs returned back to America he joined the Army, but was ultimately
unhappy and had his mother get him released.
After being released he met his second wife, Joan Vollmer, and a man
named Herbert Hunke who would play a large role in his book Junky and introduce him to drugs. Junky put
Burroughs on the map as a talented writer, but at the same time it made the
police aware of his illegal activities involving heroin. He was constantly on the move to avoid
getting in trouble with authorities, especially after shooting his second wife
in the head. Burroughs’s life was messy,
but many of the events in it became topics for his writings. In
1997 his life came to an end after dying of a heart attack.
Character Descriptions in Junky
 |
| Source: http://www.clt-photography.com/wp-content/uploads/120422_103rdStreet_1280.jpg |
The excerpt that we read written by William Burroughs came
from his book Junky. Ginsberg pushed Burroughs to write it because
he saw Burroughs’s potential. The book
primarily focuses on his time as a heroin addict and drug dealer. In the beginning of the excerpt, Burroughs
describes the location that the “oldtime” junkies revolved around. 103rd
street and Broadway was a prime location for them because it was very busy. Throughout the excerpt Burroughs talks about
the junkies that work the street and the way a drug deal goes down. A quick description
of each character can be seen as follows:
“Irish”- Drug peddler, fifty years old but looked thirty, “Irish
face”, unreliable
“George the Greek”- Kind, went to jail for 3 years, won’t be
a pusher anymore, arbiter, usually sick, his face bore marks of a constant
losing fight, disappeared
“Joe the Mex”- Lined and ravage face but not old looking,
bright and young eyes, a liar
“Louie the Bellhop”- Shoplifter, wore long shabby overcoats,
disliked by George “Fritz the Janitor”- Pale thin little man, acted crippled, spent 5 years in prison, dope peddler
“The Fag”- Successful drug dealer, always on top of things, top lush-worker, made homosexual passes, dressed well in tweed sports coats and gray flannels, European charm, envied
There are many symbolic elements in Burroughs’s
writing. For example in the second paragraph
he uses the terms “haunts” and “ghost” when referencing heroin suggesting that
drugs are something that follow you for life.
He also makes many references to nationalities as well as age and
appearance. Each of these things is
important to Burroghs’s message and is why the descriptions of the characters
are so important. Additional ideas behind this
will be addressed in the questions below!
 |
| Source: http://ginsbergblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/william-s-burroughs-junky-canadian-tv.html |
This is an interview with Burroughs that talks about his life.
This is an interview with Burroughs that talks about Junky and his opinion on drugs.
Here is a link to listen to Burroughs read our section of Junky!
1) Why do you think Ginsberg wrote this piece? Do you think he did a good job in explaining what it feels like to be mugged or did the narrator perceive things and respond in a way most people would not?
2) Did Ginsberg introduce the setting well? Did you feel like you were there? What kind of descriptions stood out to you?
3) What effect does the point of view of the poem have on the reader?
4) What kind of structure does the poem have? Do the spelling and grammar errors enhance the poem in any way?
6) Throughout the excerpt Burroughs refers to the men as “oldtime junkies”. If this is the case then why is it significant that he describes some as having young faces when talking about their appearances?
7) After watching part of the clip were you surprised by Burroughs sense of humor? Can this humor be seen in his writing style? Why or why not?8) Why does Burroughs constantly reference nationality in this piece? Do you think that his travels had any influence on these perceptions? Explain the quote, “They were of various nationalities and physical types, but they all looked alike somehow. They all looked like junk”. How does Burroughs personify junk?
9) In the other interview of Burroughs he explains how he doesn’t feel that using drugs is a bad thing. What is your opinion on this? Do you think that good writing must come from personal experience?
10) What similarities, if any, can you see in the pieces written by Ginsberg and Burroughs?
I really appreciate some of the points that you made on Allen Ginsberg. I remember studying him in my high school literature class and he is the ultimate example of an individual. He does things to the beat of his own drum and hates the idea of conformity with a passion. His strong belief in self I believe is portrayed in your points about spirituality. Allen Ginsberg is one of the few people who would maintain the type of composure that he shows throughout the mugging in his poem. Ginsberg remains calm while these people mugged him, people that took him by surprise.
ReplyDeleteWhenever Ginsberg talks during the mugging he always says "Om Ah Hum" as you point out meaning body, speech, mind. I believe this eludes to Ginsberg's strong sense of tranquility. The only thing that allows Ginsberg to maintain the calm collected approach to his situation is his strong spirituality. However, perhaps the most important part is what I feel is his interpretation of the spirituality of the people of the neighborhood. Muggers aside all of the people Ginsberg sees after the event more or less brush off what just happens, they have no desire to step in and get involved. I believe their inaction and heartlessness towards Ginsberg is him making a statement about the lack of good hearted people in his neighborhood in New York.
First of all I really liked this blog post, it is very informative and I loved the links! After reading the blog I had a lot better sense of the meanings of the pieces we were assigned and who the writers were.
ReplyDeleteI am going to answer the first few questions about Ginsberg’s piece. I think that he wrote this piece to give his perspective on his mugging, since it was a common occurrence at the time. As it was stated in class his repetition of Om Ah Hum was related to his Buddhist background, which shaped his experience in a different way. I don’t think most people would have remained that calm and seemed so unconcerned about someone taking their belongings. I personally would not have handled the situation that calmly and I don’t think I would have behaved so obligingly. I don’t think it was a traditional mugging experience, but I do believe that there were some aspects that really portray what it was like to be mugged. I think a lot of the description of what happened, such as them dragging him into the building and searching for his money were accurate. Ginsberg’s descriptions of his surroundings really allowed me to visualize the setting and what was happening during the mugging. One of the things that stood out to me was the “F.B.I. plots” line because up until that point he was just describing everything he was walking past and then there was this glimpse into his thoughts (926). I have no idea what he meant by that but I found it interesting. Also after he was mugged and he walks outside he states, “Whole street a bombed-out face, building rows’ eyes & teeth missing” (928). To me this really described how terrible his surroundings were and I found the way he personified the street to be very interesting. The first time I read the poem it was really hard to understand, but the explanation in class about the lines being written like thoughts made a lot more sense to me and helped me to understand the piece better. I feel like by writing the piece this way and using the first person point of view it really allows the reader to imagine the situation.
Just to touch on the last question briefly, I think that a similarity between these two pieces is that the subject matter of each piece portrays the negative side of New York City. In the first piece by Ginsberg there is the portrayal of a mugging, which was a common occurrence. Then in Burroughs piece there is the discussion of drug addiction. Each of these things was written about as being common, yet they are not typically topics that you would choose to read about. Basically each piece gives insight on the harsh reality of New York City at the time.
Thank you. I’m glad you liked it! I agree with you that it did not portray a typical mugging experience but that his descriptions made the setting easy to visualize. The first time I read the piece I was confused. I was able to appreciate it a lot more knowing the context, like his experimentation with “stream of consciousness” writing and broken sentences. And both pieces certainly do highlight the negative side of living in New York or any city for that matter. Both are rather removed and objective yet they elicit an emotional reaction because of the topics and possibly because they are unexpected subjects that are not usually written about.
DeleteThis is in response to the first few questions. I thought that he did do a good job of introducing the setting well. What I really liked about the setting descriptions is the amount of detail that he added. One example of really good detail is in the line about the corner pharmacy. Ginsberg explains how the posters are fading and scraped on the brick of the wall. He also goes on to describe the different ethnicities are in this neighborhood. There are black and Spanish children, who have oiled hair, crowded in front of the houses that line the street. To me, I can see these kids sitting on the porches or playing in the yard. Despite this great detail, there are only certain parts that I can envision being there. I feel this is because of the missing grammatical words like “the.” The lack of grammar really bugs me. It does not flow as well, and to me a poem needs to have more flow then what this piece does. In addition, with the breaks in mid-sentence, I cannot imagine Ginsberg getting hit like some people discussed in class. With the issue of flowing, it makes me really not like this piece.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the first question, I think Ginsberg wrote this piece not to describe what it is like to be mugged, but show it from a side that people would not expect someone to respond. The mantra he keeps repeating, almost brings a calm to the scenario as he is not describing himself as panicking or fighting back, as he is not attached to his material items, but does not that his poetry has not been touched, meaning the muggers appreciated the material value of what they were looking for and were more focused on the object. The narrator definitely responded in a way someone else would not have, even if the people who witnessed the mugging and the police officer treated it like business as usual. I think the mantra and the purification of his mind, body and speech were what allowed him to remain so calm. In the beginning he sees the simplicity of everything, and it's almost like he sees the simplicity of the mugging and knows it will be over soon enough and no one that saw it will claim so and there will be nothing he can do about it.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to go out on a bit of a limb here and answer question 9. I think that drugs being carefully monitored by a doctor for medical purposes are okay, assuming the doctor knows what he is doing and doesn't allow the patient to become addicted or suffer other consequences. Recreationally, I think drugs should be avoided at all costs. Burroughs himself says in the clip that drugs affect your perception of reality and your appetite. Even if the person using the drugs feels perfectly happy, I would say that they have a responsibility to their loved ones to stay in control of their life and not succumb to addiction.
ReplyDeleteThe second half of the question goes back to what my group presented on for Maggie, about realism. Like we talked about then, I think that all writing comes from experience in a way, but the experience might not necessarily be first hand. Experience can be a collection of impressions gleaned from others, or astute observation of patterns in the world around us. I think that even though I have zero experience with drugs, I could write a story about a character suffering from addiction simply because I have read things like Burroughs' writing that gives me a kind of indirect experience. Realism is simply how well the writing reflects the real world, whether the author has first hand experience of it or not.
In response to the second half of your question I agree that first hand experience may not be necessary to be successful in writing about an issue such as drug use. We don't need first hand experience because we are able to see the way that drugs influence people in documentaries and other writings. I think that Burroughs's piece offers a unique insight that others wouldn't be able to provide, but I don't think this is necessary in order to successfully write on the topic. On the other hand, this just made me wonder how successful a person could be in describing the effects of a drug and withdrawal if no first hand accounts existed at all. Would we even be able to become close to understanding? Without someone, somewhere experiencing it I don't think that we'd be able to successfully describe a character suffering from an addiction. It is interesting to think about whether we'd be able to describe something with no background knowledge on it at all. Another question that I have is why is it that so often artists are drawn to drugs? We see it all the time in musicians, writers, and artists. Is it because these people use it as their source of creativity and originality? Or did they get sucked into the lifestyle? I believe that Burroughs began using drugs because he was influenced by Hunke and not as a muse for writing, but others may be different. I found two interesting links of a progression of drawings that artists did while on LSD. It definitely had an impact on their work but I'm not so sure it was for the better even if it did allow them to create something unique. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Deletehttp://youtu.be/n4Sb8jCJUTw
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tabathaleggett/self-portraits-drawn-during-an-lsd-trip
I completely agree with you that someone somewhere has to have experienced and recorded the thing in order for us to describe it accurately. I guess otherwise we would just be writing a type of fantasy, guessing at what might happen instead of researching real possibilities. I could probably try my hand at writing a story about a drug addict, and I might even be able to come up with a good realistic story, but someone who wrote a similar story and HAD firsthand experience with drugs would probably be able to pull it off better than I could!!
DeleteI'm intrigued by your observation that artists are drawn to drugs. I don't think I've noticed if artists are any more prone to addiction than people from other walks of life. That would be something interesting to know. For myself I feel like my imagination is fruitful enough to supply me with stories as long as I pursue a writing career - the thought of using drugs as escapism or inspiration never occurred to me. If there are a significant number of writers that use drugs as a muse, as you say, then that is really fascinating! Not something I'd aspire to, but fascinating nonetheless.
In response to question 9, I feel like I probably hold a sort of...conservative view on drugs? I like to consider myself more of a progressive person, so the fact that I feel 'conservative' on this issue is, in my opinion, a bit strange. I feel that drug use, or really the use of any substance that alters the way your mind and body work, should not be okay. I don't want this to turn into a 'preaching' post, so I'll keep this part short. Some people argue that certain drugs, like marijuana should be legal because they aren't as bad for you as legal substances such as cigarettes or alcohol, whereas I feel that perhaps alcohol and cigarettes should be made illegal for the same reasons that the other side is trying to point out.
ReplyDeleteAs for the second part of he question, I don't feel that experience is necessary for good writing, but I feel it necessary for great writing. The fact that Burroughs has said that he is in support of drug use, and the fact that his piece seems fairly well-informed, I feel that he himself may have gotten stuck like a junkie at some point in his life. If not, he must have gotten really close. But for that to be true, he must have gotten himself out somehow, and I feel like most people that get out of situations like that either relapse eventually or learn to never touch the stuff again. So for Burroughs to have quite possibly once been in a terrible situation with drugs, yet still be able to say he thinks recreation drug use is fine, is a little weird to me. Then again, I've never personally dealt with anything of the sort, so I can't really write this with experience, thus making this post less than fantastic, furthering the point I made about the second half of question nine.
I will be responding to questions 1 and 2.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Ginsberg wrote the piece to show us New York through his point of view. He makes these great, simple descriptions to take us in to his body and place. He used it to show a common occurrence also. From the attitudes of the people at the end, mugging is a common occurrence in New York. As for his response, no matter how many times it happens, I think he responded in a way that most people would not. It was like he was at peace in the midst of fear and there is always the possibility of death. This takes complete confidence in yourself and your situation to stay calm when your life hangs in the balance. At the end of the conflict, it didn't matter that they had taken most of what he had with him. It mattered that they hadn't taken his poems, which he equated to $10,000. That could be a symbol that they didn't take his life, and his mind with his poems contained within. Or, it could be as simple as he was going to sell those poems and he figured they would sell for that.
Ginsberg was excellent at creating a vivid image of the setting of New York where he trekked through. He seemed to notice the key points of the area where he was walking, without boring us with too much detail. Instead of lingering too long in one area, he gives the basic characteristics and moves on. Throughout the piece, the setting keeps adapting to how far he walks. He still notices where he is dragged when he is being mugged, so that we still know where he is and still have a picture in our minds, but the short choppy sentences make the setting a little blurry, as he probably was while being beat up. Later on in the piece, after he gets mugged, the area is described with darker tones: "whole street a bombed-out face" and "burned apartments half the long block, gutted cellars, hallways' charred beams" and others set the face for New York after being part of a violent mugging. These vivid descriptions make me feel like I was there with him throughout the whole scene he laid out before us.
This will be in response to question 5.
ReplyDeleteAll of the descriptions of the junkies paint a vivid picture of the individual, despite the fact that each description isn’t very long. I feel that Burroughs focuses on the junkies in this case to show that junkies can be anyone and that there is no cookie cutter junkie. Each description of a junkie seem to focus on the personality and characteristics of the individual in relation to junk and the life style need to maintain the habit. Instead of discuss someone’s job, Burroughs describes where they get their drugs, where the drug dealers are, and what each man does to earn money to buy drugs. Many of these men steal to support the habit and Burroughs goes into detail on the success’s, failures and techniques of some of the men. From their descriptions it is easy to see that no two are alike as all come from different nationalities, physical descriptions and former occupations. However, despite all of their differences Burroughs ties them all together through their common vice, junk. It is this similarity that holds the group together and allows the description of so many different otherwise unrelated people to make sense. Burroughs appearance in the interview connects with this view of junkies being all manner of people that he presents earlier. While not an addict at the time of the interview, Burroughs has the appearance of a very upright important member of society that has never had any history with heroin or any other drugs. Because of this appearance, as well as what Burroughs writes and says in the interview, the point that an addict can be anyone is thoroughly reinforced to the reader and/or viewer.