Throughout the book, I was struck by Kerouac’s sense of geo-location. He names so many specific places, usually in relation to the people he is hitch-hiking with. For instance, on page 118, he mentions stopping in Davenport, Iowa. How many people in the class have been to Davenport? I have, but only because my mom grew-up there. This really made me wonder about Kerouac’s intended audience. He throws out all these locations–New York, Chicago, Iowa, Montana, Ohio, Utah, Denver, Texas, San Francisco–as if he expects each place to carry its own connotation among the readers. Do Kerouac’s characterizations of cities hold up?
HOw Kerouac seemingly throws cities at his readers is similar to Whitman’s use of listing. It doesn’t really evoke one idea but rather a bunch of connotations, unique to the reader.
I found this video, and I think it does a good job of capturing the randomness of hitchhiking. As seen in the video, the man doesn’t really know if/when he will be picked up. It does a great job of exemplifying the life-philosophy that Kerouac seems to perpetuate throughout the book, especially with Neal–never being tied down, letting the current of life carry you on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqfEyav5008
I had read On the Road in High School and found it captivating because of the uncertainty of what was to happen, and since I had hardly traveled then I found the story even more alluring. Three years after having personally traveled more than at the age of my first reading I appreciate the honesty in which he describe the compromises one makes, while traveling, as on Pg. 119 : “…for one of the biggest troubles hitchhiking is having to talk to innumerable people, make them feel that they didn’t make a mistake picking you up,even go so far as to entertain them almost,all of which is a great strain when you’re going all the way and don’t plan to sleep in hotels”.
Kerouac describes the roles that we all play in different periods of out lives and the trade off between having independence and money but not much time, or having plenty of time, not a penny and relying on others. Pg. 121 : ” He was a real rednose drunk of 30 and he would have bored me to death ordinarily except my sense were sharp for any kind of human friendship”.
What also left a larger impression in the second reading was Kerouac’s ability to describe the people he encounters (no matter the duration of time spent together, either in NY for years or on the road for minutes) with a keen mixture of scrutiny,fascination and empathy. Page 112: ” In all, what Neal was, simply, was tremendously excited with life, and though he was a con-man he was only conning because he wanted so much to live and also to get involved with people that would other wise pay no attention to him. he was conning me,so-called, and I knew it, and he knew I knew but I didn’t care and we got along fine”.
I’m interested in the comparison you’re drawing in this post to Whitman and Kerouac’s use of the list (or listing) as a formal element. A list can have many different effects, and indeed both Whitman and Kerouac’s use of listing have several significant implications. As you note, Kerouac mentions many different places, and types of places (states, cities, etc.). If Whitman’s lists have the effect of repositioning minorities, the oppressed, and the base as equal to (rather than less significant or less valuable) the majority, the powerful, and the elevated, what might the implication be behind Kerouac’s reference to so many places?
Ps I meant to post on the blog as an independent post not a reply to this blog post, my mistake!
Go ahead and post it as a main post. I want to make sure everyone can get a chance to read it.