My Reading Journal for Sociology of Culture (unedited)

‘When David Amram Was My Age’

I think it’s interesting that you are interested in the past, and David always wants to talk about the present. It makes sense when I think about it- that you as a professor and someone who is interested in studying society is focused on knowing about and understanding the past, while David the artist, wants to be a part of it and create.

I think I identify more with Amram. It’s interesting to think about the past and to read about the beat artists, but I feel like I’m doing more when I’m creating something like they would, rather than studying them.

Your conclusion that Amram is right, and living our lives in the “now” is hard because there are so many traps to fall into. There’s another trap in thinking that our lives should be like those of a movie heros, or a character we admire on television, or an artist we admire (Kerouac and Amram). It’s easier to admire someone else than to be yourself.

“Blues People”

Amiri Baraka makes the point in his book that African-Americans have constantly been trying to make their marks as free men with music. First they created blues, and when white European people identified with the blues, they created jazz. When white people became interested in jazz, Africa-Americans again had to redefine themselves by making bebop.

To some extent I think that’s right. The pattern certainly follows true- African-Americans were the first pioneers of many popular music forms of the 20th century. I don’t know if it was a conscious effort to define themselves though. In art there’s always an urgency to do something new, and these musicians were artists. Perhaps because they were African-American and were looked down on by whites anyway, they found it easier to try more experimental, far out things.

“Ghost World”

I didn’t really like Ghost World. The book doesn’t really have a cohesive story, or even a real substantial plot. I don’t have any idea what the overall message is. The two characters are mean, and spend the whole book sitting and criticizing people who are enthusiastic, or trying to live their lives. I guess that we aren’t supposed to relate to them, or even like them- so maybe the point is that you shouldn’t live your life like that. If anything, maybe you should even be like the people they’re criticizing and be enthusiastic. Don’t pay attention to people that put you down because they aren’t that great themselves.

That’s reading a lot into it, and thinking about it hard. I could attach a good life lesson to what you see walking down the street if I tried hard enough. Doesn’t substitute for good storytelling.

“Catcher in the Rye”

I didn’t really like the narrator of Catcher in the Rye at first. He’s a real negative guy- he calls everyone a phony, and criticizes everything. But Holden has redeeming qualities the main character in Ghost World doesn’t have. He is a crusader- a guardian of innocence. He wants Jane to guard her virginity, he wants to protect the idea the woman on the train has that her son is a nice kid, and he wants to protect his sister from leaving school and reading profanity on the walls.

He gives a negative narration because he’s coming to realize what a negative place the world is. I also sympathize with his dilemma over whether school is worth his time. Mr. Antolini tells him that school helps organize the ideas of brilliant and creative people, but I think that’s a lie. School doesn’t have anything to do with learning to organize creative ideas, it’s about spending your money and putting your time in- passing a test so you’re qualified for a job. And if Antolini is right, then school is just bad at doing what it’s supposed to.

“The Bell Jar”

Maybe I’m sexist, but I don’t like either of the coming of age stories with female main characters. Or maybe I can just better relate to the experiences particular to men. It just seems the Catcher in the Rye was more artful in expressing these ideas. The Bell Jar doesn’t hint at the themes, it beats you over the head with them. We think Holden’s had a break down, and is in a mental hospital. We have clues to that, but that’s not what the book is about- it’s about what lead up to that, and the internal struggle building inside the main character. The Bell Jar is about psychiatrists, and electroschock and suicide, and the results of having a break down. But Esther is depressed from the beginning of the book, and I don’t think the progression to the breakdown is as interesting. It kind of starts at the top (or near the top) and makes its way down, rather then starting at the bottom and taking the time and the work to make it to the top (the top being a grasp on the negative parts of life I guess).

The first half of “Vibrations”

I really liked the first half of Vibrations. I think individual stories are really entertaining, and a lot can be learned from them. I liked following the story of Amram from kid to an adult musician/composer, because I could relate to a lot of it. Not the parts about living in Washington or on a farm, but the musical development. It was nice to see that he didn’t start great, and he began with amateur orchestras just like I did. It seems obvious to say that nobody starts out great, but a lot of time is spent in the world convincing you that some people are just great. I don’t know if there is an artistic gene or not, but I think even if there is there are a lot of people who have it that suppress it because they don’t realize that people like David Amram start by playing in local orchestras and writing music for a friend’s college plays.

The second half of “Vibrations”

The second half of the book is alright. It’s not bad or anything- I just think that it’s more entertaining and useful to read about the rise of an artist, or a famous or important person than about what their life was like when they started to be successful. What does that say? I guess it’s more exciting to dream than to live. That must be why it’s so much fun being creative, because it’s a chance to bring a piece of your dreams to life.

“Pull My Daisy”

Pull My Daisy was interesting as a record of these great artists and writers hanging out and joking around with one another. I didn’t really get much out of the story. It seemed like a long round about way of saying that Allen Ginsberg and pals made for interesting company for a bishop.

The entertaining part was Jack Kerouac’s narration. The improvisation is a chance to see how his mind worked, and it’s amusing to hear his silly thoughts. His attention bounces from one thing to the next- he talks about a chair or something subtle one second, and about poetry the next, and it’s so scattered that it’s funny. I think improvisation is a good way of really expressing yourself, because you don’t have time to filter and shape your words to make yourself look better. It’s not something that you’re born being able to do either. It’s not hard, but you have to do it a little before you can improvise a whole film’s narration. You should learn to be spontaneous, to be creative, and how to improvise in school.

“Birth of the Cool”

I really liked Birth of the Cool. I knew a lot of the jazz stuff already, from watching the Ken Burns ‘Jazz’ documentary several times. They’re common stories. The great thing about the book is how it ties everything together. How cool progressed from Gillespie to Kerouac to Warhol and Dylan. Everything is connected, and this helps show how.

I wish it spent more time in the sixties. The book didn’t mention Ken Kesey at all, and I think he was an important figure in cool. Even still I was able to make connections with outside knowledge, because some of the people (older people usually) he was involved with were mentioned because they were important for other reasons (like Neal Cassady). Similarly, Hunter S. Thompson wasn’t mentioned in the book, and I think that the work he did had their roots in the earlier movements of cool. I suppose that these two people weren’t ‘cool’ in the traditional sense, and that the book couldn’t cover everything. Overall it was good though.

“The Conquest of Cool”

Even though it may be a little surprising- I don’t mind the conquest of cool. Commercialization is necessary for some people. While it isn’t what drives or is the incentive for the great artists, it allows them to exist and survive. Commercialization also forces artists to stay on the cutting edge of what is cool. To constantly redefine and make advancements in their art, because once something is popular it isn’t long before it’s no longer cool. Money not only makes the world go round, but it also makes sure that art continues to evolve, which I think is a good thing. It reminds me of something Andy Warhol once said- “The greatest art is business art”. In some ways it’s easier to paint or make music without boundaries then it is to figure out what is cool and what will sell, and how to keep something popular.