Stacy/Differences in each author’s personal values based on their works
Our interpretation of these lines was very similar as we both thought the group of people these authors were referring to were similar, but not the same. I thought your interpretation of how society has impact on them was very interesting as I had not looked at it in that way. It seems that all of these people are able to deal with the struggles society puts on them and can overcome their problems. Each author may have different interpretations of the people in San Francisco, but it seems they all believe the community and struggles that come with it affect these people’s daily lives.
Nick Furnal/Differing social conditions, same people
Nick, I strongly agree with the point you made concerning altered social conditions as having little effect on the subjects of these pieces. Throughout time, there have always been the slovenly in contrast with the elite. These binaries have filled our civilization for centuries, thus the only difference between, say, the “angel-headed hipster” and one with burlap feet lies in language usage. Though the poetic styles of Ferlinghetti and Ginsberg are both stark, they each offer their own unique insight into the lives of their subjects – subjects who are inherently the same breed of man: poor, destitute, hysterical, raving, searching for any wisdom the universe can dispense. Granted, each author is influenced by the time in which they composed the poems in question. But within the vast expanse of time, Nick is also correct that the downtrodden have basically remained constant, unchanging entities in society.
Hi Superman, I found your article very engaging, especially considering that I have also had very close friends jumped, held at gunpoint, mugged, harassed, etc. by the "locals" here. At one extreme point, some friends of mine held a party which was later crashed by about ten large, burly SC local men. They literally beat the hell out of a strong majority of the people there (including women), leaving around eight in need of intensive hospital care. All of that aside, however, I have few qualms with the homeless in Santa Cruz. I, too, mostly feel pity and find myself torn between simply strolling by "help needed" signs and actually giving money/food. Typically I'll offer a to-go box or whatever I happen to have, but clearly that's just not enough to ebb pangs of hunger. I can't provide shelter, or sustained nourishment of any kind. I guess it's just difficult to take in sometimes.
Nick/All three poets mean the same genre of people.
While I think you have made a very insightful point and I do agree with you that all three poets were talking about the same kind of person--the homeless, down-and-out, victims of societal greed--I don't agree with your judgment. If I understand you correctly, you believe that regardless or perhaps despite the various ways this particular caste of people (or any people for that matter) have been portrayed over time, the people themselves have not changed, that is, their material and physical existence has remained unaltered (aside from, of course, generational/cultural changes in customs, fashion, technology, etc.). In other words, the personal world and the actual world are isolated spheres, at least in so far as the personal, or imaginary, affects the actual. My argument is that human imagination, subjectivity, opinion, whatever you want to call it, does effect material reality. Simply put, people think in unique but biased ways and act according to these thoughts. This may be anything from holding the door open for your elders to voting in an election, or writing a poem. Poetry, philosophy, history... language in general, have the power to move people, to show them different ways of looking at the world, to enlighten them, all of which influences how they will act in the future. My point is that the differences in the way the three poets described the same type of person actually changes the character of that person for the very reason that it alters how readers see the world. People and places, as they exist in the object-world, change interconnectedly with our conceptions of them. Because the meaning of these people has changed overtime, that means that the people themselves have changed. I think in this respect it is misleading to stick all three descriptions into the same genre, although otherwise it makes complete sense.
I think you had a lot of really good ideas about the differences about each author's description of destitute people. Particularly, your references to drugs in Ginsberg were things I had just glanced over in my reading of the poem so in that regard I thought it was really interesting. The only real problem I had with your post/comment thing was that you could've said more about where the three authors' interpretations converge more than just the fact that all three groups of people are both lower class.
Lilja's poem picks up on an interesting difference betwen "Howl" and "I saw one of them," namely Ginsberg's frequent use of "us" and "we" vs. Ferlinghetti's use of "them" and Williams' use of more descriptive and still more removed terms like "Everyone in this life" (he does use 'we' but it seems refers to all Americans, or even mankind in general--although perhaps, only the ladies and gentlemen who would qualify as such...")
Aaron/Interactions between the material world and perspective.
Aaron gets into a quite interesting complexity when he writes: "My argument is that human imagination, subjectivity, opinion, whatever you want to call it, does effect material reality."
It migh also be intersting to ask whether our material conditions have an effect on whether we are able to romanticize the homeless in the way of Ferlinghetti, consider ourselves amongst their ranks, in the way of Ginsberg, or take a more abstract/constitutional position like that of Williams.
I find your argument that each author writes about the same person from different perspectives very engaging. My interpretation was fairly similar, but I prefer your comparison of Ginsberg and Williams to mine. There is definitely an authorial closeness to the "angelheaded hipsters" in "Howl" that is missing from the other two. Ginsberg could have lived among them, could have been one of them. He seems to have more to say about the down-and-out person on the street than the other two authors do.
Williams is definitely more reserved. The fact that his quote is found in a forward to the poem instead of in his own creative work removes him from the subject. He comments on the comment on this demographic. I like how you pointed out this relationship; it's something I failed to articulate.
The place where I'm not sure I agree is your interpretation of Ferlinghetti. I fully agree that he is much more distant; his repetition of the phrase "one of them" separates him from these men. I can even see where you might imagine a documentary instead of a political statement. I do feel, however, that Ferlinghetti has more to say about these people than a simple acknowledgment of their existence. There is a distant respect and romanticizing of the San Franciscan homeless. I'd be more apt to say that Ferlinghetti speaks of another group entirely than to say that he holds no esteem for the "angelheaded hipster."
Addie / Ginsberg and drug ddicts, Ferlinghetti and the homeless
While I interpreted Ferlinghetti and Ginsberg as both referring to people on the outskirts of society who are rejected by the majority, I enjoy how you differentiate between each group discussed. I originally understood Ginsberg's words "angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night" to depict those who are overlooked by society and are left to wander without any direction because they, much like Ferlinghetti's conception of the dog in his poem "Dog," are given some perfect, idealized vision of life that does not exist in reality that they cannot conform to. This social conformation is not natural, and it makes perfect sense upon re-reading this segment of "Howl" that Ginsberg is discussing intelligent people that have ruined their lives. They have seen and understood a different side of consciousness, and have perhaps both a mental and physical desire to return to “the ancient heavenly connection” and return to that alternate state. They have rejected assimilation to our artificially constructed society and even with all of the potential in the world, they are disregarded as something meaningless and useless-- "one of them."
I feel that there is a relationship between these lost individuals that do not assimilate to the norm and Ferlinghetti's discussion of the homeless. Perhaps there is a connection between these descriptions; misguided and desolate intelligent individuals easily become just "one of them," which is what these two subjects "shared among the teeth and excrement of this life" as Williams writes.
I agree with your discussion of Ginsberg and, in particular, his ability to categorize a wider range of individuals (as they exist in the societies that they pertain to). His poems categorize these individuals differing traits, but as you said, they are linked by the very role in society or their "position on the outskirts of society."
I also agree with your analysis of the ambiguity of the character that Ferlinghetti presents. His view of these "great minds" differs quite noticeably from that of Ginsberg and Williams, and this contrast provides for a unique analysis of these poets.
kelsey cat mcbride: own view of best minds of generation
I really enjoyed your poem about the best minds of our generation. I love your commentary on the isolation of the school and the perceived liberal-ness of the school despite still having all the same bureaucracy and grades as other schools. Santa Cruz definitely projects itself as a contrast to Silicon Valley and San Jose with all the technology. However, it takes a strong kind of person to be able to drop out of society, "live in the woods," and "quite their job." What is really better?
I like the creativity of your post as well as your use of parallel syntax. I also feel that you are very correct in your assessment of Santa Cruz's hidden conservative "[shielding] our weird" and the university's isolation and separation from the town by being placed on top of the hill. I have often found UCSC's geographical location to be a very interesting feature as it alone can say many things about the university's relationship with the town. It differs greatly from campuses like UCSB where local residential life bleeds into student life as well in the infamous Isla Vista.
Although I do feel that most students are sheltered and are not "the ones who know the world," some do seem to try. Not everyone here is taking their education and opportunities for granted, not everyone here receives a weekly allowance from mommy and daddy (who also pay rent, utilities, gas bill, and once a quarter for books), not everyone here receives the same safety or security mentioned above. I do agree that those who are more advantaged/privileged financially tend to easily make it known-whether they mean to or not--but at the same time, there are many people here with amazing stories of achievement and appreciation. Just something you may want to keep and eye out for.
Nate there is a quality of defeat in your poem that does not echo Ginsberg's "Howl". Although there are readers of "Howl" who saw it as bleak. Ginsberg himself said it was about hope and I believe there was hope in there especially considering "Footnote of Howl" with it's repetition of "Holy! Holy! Holy!". However, your poem which ends on "The trash sometimes...is trash." An statement which removes all humanity from the people described earlier in the poem. Do you really see such hopelessness in the streets? Doesn't everyone have a story, something to say that may give them value? Are there not street performers out there too creating a world of beauty and hope? Or does everything really and truly seem like trash to you?
Nate there is a quality of defeat in your poem that does not echo Ginsberg's "Howl". Although there are readers of "Howl" who saw it as bleak. Ginsberg himself said it was about hope and I believe there was hope in there especially considering "Footnote of Howl" with it's repetition of "Holy! Holy! Holy!". However, your poem which ends on "The trash sometimes...is trash." An statement which removes all humanity from the people described earlier in the poem. Do you really see such hopelessness in the streets? Doesn't everyone have a story, something to say that may give them value? Are there not street performers out there too creating a world of beauty and hope? Or does everything really and truly seem like trash to you?
Sebastian Dario Fernandez/ the Howl poem of our generation
I feel like every generation is recycled into the next generation and your poem exemplifies this. Your line “Men and Women finding truth between tokes in forts made of twigs” is very Beat-esque of our generation, but it is also (more so I think) our present counter-culture in action—it is rebellious, and I feel like searching for an answer while being under illicit substances is something that the Beat Generation cycles over to our generation; we are just as disillusioned and rebellious as the Beats. Problems also recycle through the generations. Our generation, as in us as students in college, is also equally defeated and weighed down as the Beats’. The Beats had the problem of poverty, violent drug addictions, etc… and we, as rebellious counter-culture students, still have the same problems, but we are (like you wrote) “weighed down by student debt…national debt…global warming, water shortage.” The Beats never had to deal with these problems, these problems are on such a big scale—a global scale where it affects everyone. Also I think materiality is another theme that has been brought over to our generation from the Beat Generation. I feel like some Beats were “posers,” where they would dress like the Beats, try to write like the Beats, etc…thus these “Beats” wanted to be trendy and were materialistic, and nowadays many people are like fake “Beats” in that, for example, people buy into the “Go Green” movement because movie stars and pop musicians are doing it so it is “cool” and trendy—but it doesn’t really help solve anything. One last thing, I really like the line “who scream at their I phones for a real solution to the energy crisis” and how you spelled iPhones as “I phones” which I see taking the notion of the iPhone and turning it into something egotistical (which I think it actually is) and unhelpful to problems we need to work together to solve.
The images in this poem were fantastic. I love how the second line in the piece "the lost lambs are in-" is an unfinished thought and continues to be used through the rest of the piece. I never have the courage to write an unfinished line like that.
I feel like the first few stanzas are rich in imagery and thoughtful language. I particularly like "in grocery store women’s restrooms guzzling Tecate from tall cans." However, I feel as the poem continues there is some degradation from the original purpose. The images are beautiful, but do they really represent the best minds from Santa Cruz?
That is an interesting idea; I agree all three men are speaking about the same people but from different perspective. Ferlinghetti does seem to look at the Beats with a comical vision as if he sees some of them as not truly holding themselves to the same ideals he does. That is why he is so strict about separating himself from them. Ginsberg describes them with a more positive aspect because he is living in the generation—experiences it for himself. Williams is talking about Ginsberg saying that he is a man who has lived a vivid life and “shared the excrement of life
Allison/Ferlinghetti's view of the 'ones with burlap feet'.
I thought your argument for Ferlinghetti feeling more detached from the homeless people he writes about was useful in identifying points where these three authors diverge, because he definitely seems to feel less compassionate towards the men he describes. I focused more on the generational differences between these authors in my response, but emotionally I feel that the these men are also on different levels. The beatitude shared by Ginsberg and Williams really comes through in their work, while Ferlinghetti's piece provides a less evoking experience.
Dana— I thought your response was incredibly well thought out and insightful. There were several moments when I was completely captivated by your words, and at other times I shuddered to think of the truth behind them. The powerful theme of love and the torment it can cause (from staying in an abusive relationship to hiding one’s sexual orientation) is brutally honest—and I love how you never try to downplay or ignore the ugly side of these situations, as so much of the media does today. Overall, the openness and candor of your poem struck me as very genuine and enlightened, and I look forward to reading more of your work soon.
Addie/The differences in each of the authors ideas
I definitely agree with some of the ideas you presented. I hold the same idea that each of the authors are talking about those of a lower class, and I agree that they each have their own interpretation of what it means to be apart of that class. I do feel however, that you do not take into account the way in which society has had an impact on them as a people. I viewed it very optimistically, not to say that you did not, but I saw it as a different way in which each author portrayed how we are all just people.
I think you made an interesting point regarding realism, or the lack thereof, in these refrences to homeless people. I, too, am seeing Beatitude as I see many other trends of practical activism: a whole lot of talk, but little concrete social change. (I'm not sure any of the poets hoped to change the world, but I might say they hoped to change poetry.) And I agree that it can be viewed as hypocritical for poets like Ginsberg to "worship" the poor and then go home to a mansion in Portola. But I don't know that he has one of those, and I think these poets could just as easily be referring to how we all would live in a perfect world (like Jesus Christ, or maybe like Socrates). I don't think anyone would choose to live like a homeless person in SF, though. Pretty unforgiving.
I think you pointed out a very good observation, which is that "angel dust" is a street term for PCP, which came about in 1952 and was popular among drug addicts for its hallucinatory effects, and "angelheaded hipsters" is referring to the people who used that drug. You also made a good point when you said that Ferlinghetti describes a different population of people in his poem than Ginsberg does. Ginsberg speaks of drug addicts and Ferlinghetti speaks of homeless. While their positions in society tend to overlap, we must not assume that they are the same. Homeless people are not necessarily drug addicts, and drug addicts are not necessarily homeless. Therefore Ginsberg and Ferlinghetti are describing different people in different situations. W.C.W. is also describing a totally different set of people because he is being very specific when he refers to Ginsberg and Solomon, who can definitely relate to the drug addicts and the homeless, but would not necessarily consider themselves as part of the same categories of society. Your comment was very concise and you came up with some interesting observations that I had not considered before. Your response is strong but I think you could make it even stronger by discussing your ideas about whether Ferlinghetti makes a reference to St. Francis in his poem.
While I do agree with you partially that, arguably, “genres” of people may indeed exist, and that the authors were may have been referring to a certain type of person, I do not think that your determination of exactly which genre of people they were referring to is correct. If I understand you correctly, you are saying they are referring to the homeless. I’m not sure there is enough evidence to support that. However, I myself am no more clear on what that group may be; I just do not think they were referring to the homeless.
That was a really nice idea about the reality of what Ginsberg said about the beatniks and how they may have actually lived. It conjured up the image of the stereotypical starving artist who devotes himself wholly to his work. My brother is a painter and tattoo artist and I have definitely seen a lot of what you discussed. He would bring home different people all the time. I met a songwriter from New York with shunts in his neck that tried to check himself into suicide watch at Huntington Hospital but was turned away because they didn't take him seriously. There seems to be a sense of melodrama that comes with creativity. The self-deprecation, the feelings of elitist enlightenment, and the frequent lack humility that you talked about are all there. I've met enough down and out musicians and artists to have seen it with my own eyes.
I liked what you had to say about the American dream. I think it's true that poets like Ginsbery showed us a different way to look and what has been shoved down our throats. In a society where we are constantly being pushed in a corner to adhere to others values, a "bright mind" of our generation would be one who would release the gates, and not only tell us what else to think ,but show us that is it OKAY to think this way.
I enjoyed your imitation of Howl, there was some good insight here and it was certainly easier to interpret. Some of the descriptions were very beautiful: "People sitting with cardboard signs of life decorated with black ink hoping...down the street". I thought this was a great descriptive observation. I also liked the paragraph: "People living on a hope and a dream...world we have." You tell it like it is, nice work!
Pablo I agree with your notion of the difficulty in distinguishing the various types of homeless. I think this is the key issue in comparing the three descriptions by Ferlinghetti, Williams, and Ginsberg. I believe that Ginsberg and Solomon because of their involvement in the beat generation had a somewhat romantic notion of this counter-culture. The beats are described as a group of cultural dissent that spoke and participated in the language of experimental drugs and revolution. As some of our other classmates pointed out, the “angle-headed hipsters” seem to refer to individuals under the influence of PCP. Ginsberg and Solomon associated themselves with the disenfranchised, eccentric, and experimental. On the contrary, Ferlinghetti paints a more realistic picture of the homeless in San Francisco. He addresses the romanticizing of the homeless and real life situations of the disavowed. He describes individuals shoed away from establishments made for supporting the homeless and the contemplation of suicide. These are individuals who have no notion of a counter-culture or the fight against standard academic teachings. Instead, these are individuals who have no food or homes and lack the support system of people like Ginsberg.
27 comments:
Stacy/Differences in each author’s personal values based on their works
Our interpretation of these lines was very similar as we both thought the group of people these authors were referring to were similar, but not the same. I thought your interpretation of how society has impact on them was very interesting as I had not looked at it in that way. It seems that all of these people are able to deal with the struggles society puts on them and can overcome their problems. Each author may have different interpretations of the people in San Francisco, but it seems they all believe the community and struggles that come with it affect these people’s daily lives.
Nick Furnal/Differing social conditions, same people
Nick, I strongly agree with the point you made concerning altered social conditions as having little effect on the subjects of these pieces. Throughout time, there have always been the slovenly in contrast with the elite. These binaries have filled our civilization for centuries, thus the only difference between, say, the “angel-headed hipster” and one with burlap feet lies in language usage. Though the poetic styles of Ferlinghetti and Ginsberg are both stark, they each offer their own unique insight into the lives of their subjects – subjects who are inherently the same breed of man: poor, destitute, hysterical, raving, searching for any wisdom the universe can dispense. Granted, each author is influenced by the time in which they composed the poems in question. But within the vast expanse of time, Nick is also correct that the downtrodden have basically remained constant, unchanging entities in society.
Superman/Hippies and Homeless People Scare Me
Hi Superman,
I found your article very engaging, especially considering that I have also had very close friends jumped, held at gunpoint, mugged, harassed, etc. by the "locals" here. At one extreme point, some friends of mine held a party which was later crashed by about ten large, burly SC local men. They literally beat the hell out of a strong majority of the people there (including women), leaving around eight in need of intensive hospital care. All of that aside, however, I have few qualms with the homeless in Santa Cruz. I, too, mostly feel pity and find myself torn between simply strolling by "help needed" signs and actually giving money/food. Typically I'll offer a to-go box or whatever I happen to have, but clearly that's just not enough to ebb pangs of hunger. I can't provide shelter, or sustained nourishment of any kind. I guess it's just difficult to take in sometimes.
Nick/All three poets mean the same genre of people.
While I think you have made a very insightful point and I do agree with you that all three poets were talking about the same kind of person--the homeless, down-and-out, victims of societal greed--I don't agree with your judgment. If I understand you correctly, you believe that regardless or perhaps despite the various ways this particular caste of people (or any people for that matter) have been portrayed over time, the people themselves have not changed, that is, their material and physical existence has remained unaltered (aside from, of course, generational/cultural changes in customs, fashion, technology, etc.). In other words, the personal world and the actual world are isolated spheres, at least in so far as the personal, or imaginary, affects the actual.
My argument is that human imagination, subjectivity, opinion, whatever you want to call it, does effect material reality. Simply put, people think in unique but biased ways and act according to these thoughts. This may be anything from holding the door open for your elders to voting in an election, or writing a poem. Poetry, philosophy, history... language in general, have the power to move people, to show them different ways of looking at the world, to enlighten them, all of which influences how they will act in the future.
My point is that the differences in the way the three poets described the same type of person actually changes the character of that person for the very reason that it alters how readers see the world. People and places, as they exist in the object-world, change interconnectedly with our conceptions of them. Because the meaning of these people has changed overtime, that means that the people themselves have changed. I think in this respect it is misleading to stick all three descriptions into the same genre, although otherwise it makes complete sense.
Addie/Differences in authors ideas
I think you had a lot of really good ideas about the differences about each author's description of destitute people. Particularly, your references to drugs in Ginsberg were things I had just glanced over in my reading of the poem so in that regard I thought it was really interesting. The only real problem I had with your post/comment thing was that you could've said more about where the three authors' interpretations converge more than just the fact that all three groups of people are both lower class.
Lilja & Us/Them Dynamics
Lilja's poem picks up on an interesting difference betwen "Howl" and "I saw one of them," namely Ginsberg's frequent use of "us" and "we" vs. Ferlinghetti's use of "them" and Williams' use of more descriptive and still more removed terms like "Everyone in this life" (he does use 'we' but it seems refers to all Americans, or even mankind in general--although perhaps, only the ladies and gentlemen who would qualify as such...")
Aaron/Interactions between the material world and perspective.
Aaron gets into a quite interesting complexity when he writes: "My argument is that human imagination, subjectivity, opinion, whatever you want to call it, does effect material reality."
It migh also be intersting to ask whether our material conditions have an effect on whether we are able to romanticize the homeless in the way of Ferlinghetti, consider ourselves amongst their ranks, in the way of Ginsberg, or take a more abstract/constitutional position like that of Williams.
diegosf/Different Perspectives
I find your argument that each author writes about the same person from different perspectives very engaging. My interpretation was fairly similar, but I prefer your comparison of Ginsberg and Williams to mine. There is definitely an authorial closeness to the "angelheaded hipsters" in "Howl" that is missing from the other two. Ginsberg could have lived among them, could have been one of them. He seems to have more to say about the down-and-out person on the street than the other two authors do.
Williams is definitely more reserved. The fact that his quote is found in a forward to the poem instead of in his own creative work removes him from the subject. He comments on the comment on this demographic. I like how you pointed out this relationship; it's something I failed to articulate.
The place where I'm not sure I agree is your interpretation of Ferlinghetti. I fully agree that he is much more distant; his repetition of the phrase "one of them" separates him from these men. I can even see where you might imagine a documentary instead of a political statement. I do feel, however, that Ferlinghetti has more to say about these people than a simple acknowledgment of their existence. There is a distant respect and romanticizing of the San Franciscan homeless. I'd be more apt to say that Ferlinghetti speaks of another group entirely than to say that he holds no esteem for the "angelheaded hipster."
Addie / Ginsberg and drug ddicts, Ferlinghetti and the homeless
While I interpreted Ferlinghetti and Ginsberg as both referring to people on the outskirts of society who are rejected by the majority, I enjoy how you differentiate between each group discussed. I originally understood Ginsberg's words "angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night" to depict those who are overlooked by society and are left to wander without any direction because they, much like Ferlinghetti's conception of the dog in his poem "Dog," are given some perfect, idealized vision of life that does not exist in reality that they cannot conform to. This social conformation is not natural, and it makes perfect sense upon re-reading this segment of "Howl" that Ginsberg is discussing intelligent people that have ruined their lives. They have seen and understood a different side of consciousness, and have perhaps both a mental and physical desire to return to “the ancient heavenly connection” and return to that alternate state. They have rejected assimilation to our artificially constructed society and even with all of the potential in the world, they are disregarded as something meaningless and useless-- "one of them."
I feel that there is a relationship between these lost individuals that do not assimilate to the norm and Ferlinghetti's discussion of the homeless. Perhaps there is a connection between these descriptions; misguided and desolate intelligent individuals easily become just "one of them," which is what these two subjects "shared among the teeth and excrement of this life" as Williams writes.
Sadie/Rough Similarities/Noticeable Differences
I agree with your discussion of Ginsberg and, in particular, his ability to categorize a wider range of individuals (as they exist in the societies that they pertain to). His poems categorize these individuals differing traits, but as you said, they are linked by the very role in society or their "position on the outskirts of society."
I also agree with your analysis of the ambiguity of the character that Ferlinghetti presents. His view of these "great minds" differs quite noticeably from that of Ginsberg and Williams, and this contrast provides for a unique analysis of these poets.
kelsey cat mcbride: own view of best minds of generation
I really enjoyed your poem about the best minds of our generation. I love your commentary on the isolation of the school and the perceived liberal-ness of the school despite still having all the same bureaucracy and grades as other schools. Santa Cruz definitely projects itself as a contrast to Silicon Valley and San Jose with all the technology. However, it takes a strong kind of person to be able to drop out of society, "live in the woods," and "quite their job." What is really better?
Kelsey/ Sheltering vs. Struggling
I like the creativity of your post as well as your use of parallel syntax. I also feel that you are very correct in your assessment of Santa Cruz's hidden conservative "[shielding] our weird" and the university's isolation and separation from the town by being placed on top of the hill. I have often found UCSC's geographical location to be a very interesting feature as it alone can say many things about the university's relationship with the town. It differs greatly from campuses like UCSB where local residential life bleeds into student life as well in the infamous Isla Vista.
Although I do feel that most students are sheltered and are not "the ones who know the world," some do seem to try. Not everyone here is taking their education and opportunities for granted, not everyone here receives a weekly allowance from mommy and daddy (who also pay rent, utilities, gas bill, and once a quarter for books), not everyone here receives the same safety or security mentioned above. I do agree that those who are more advantaged/privileged financially tend to easily make it known-whether they mean to or not--but at the same time, there are many people here with amazing stories of achievement and appreciation. Just something you may want to keep and eye out for.
Nate Winslow/The Trash Sometimes...
Nate there is a quality of defeat in your poem that does not echo Ginsberg's "Howl". Although there are readers of "Howl" who saw it as bleak. Ginsberg himself said it was about hope and I believe there was hope in there especially considering "Footnote of Howl" with it's repetition of "Holy! Holy! Holy!". However, your poem which ends on "The trash sometimes...is trash." An statement which removes all humanity from the people described earlier in the poem. Do you really see such hopelessness in the streets? Doesn't everyone have a story, something to say that may give them value? Are there not street performers out there too creating a world of beauty and hope? Or does everything really and truly seem like trash to you?
Nate Winslow/The Trash Sometimes...
Nate there is a quality of defeat in your poem that does not echo Ginsberg's "Howl". Although there are readers of "Howl" who saw it as bleak. Ginsberg himself said it was about hope and I believe there was hope in there especially considering "Footnote of Howl" with it's repetition of "Holy! Holy! Holy!". However, your poem which ends on "The trash sometimes...is trash." An statement which removes all humanity from the people described earlier in the poem. Do you really see such hopelessness in the streets? Doesn't everyone have a story, something to say that may give them value? Are there not street performers out there too creating a world of beauty and hope? Or does everything really and truly seem like trash to you?
Sebastian Dario Fernandez/ the Howl poem of our generation
I feel like every generation is recycled into the next generation and your poem exemplifies this. Your line “Men and Women finding truth between tokes in forts made of twigs” is very Beat-esque of our generation, but it is also (more so I think) our present counter-culture in action—it is rebellious, and I feel like searching for an answer while being under illicit substances is something that the Beat Generation cycles over to our generation; we are just as disillusioned and rebellious as the Beats. Problems also recycle through the generations. Our generation, as in us as students in college, is also equally defeated and weighed down as the Beats’. The Beats had the problem of poverty, violent drug addictions, etc… and we, as rebellious counter-culture students, still have the same problems, but we are (like you wrote) “weighed down by student debt…national debt…global warming, water shortage.” The Beats never had to deal with these problems, these problems are on such a big scale—a global scale where it affects everyone. Also I think materiality is another theme that has been brought over to our generation from the Beat Generation. I feel like some Beats were “posers,” where they would dress like the Beats, try to write like the Beats, etc…thus these “Beats” wanted to be trendy and were materialistic, and nowadays many people are like fake “Beats” in that, for example, people buy into the “Go Green” movement because movie stars and pop musicians are doing it so it is “cool” and trendy—but it doesn’t really help solve anything. One last thing, I really like the line “who scream at their I phones for a real solution to the energy crisis” and how you spelled iPhones as “I phones” which I see taking the notion of the iPhone and turning it into something egotistical (which I think it actually is) and unhelpful to problems we need to work together to solve.
Marcus/Minds of our Generation
The images in this poem were fantastic. I love how the second line in the piece "the lost lambs are in-" is an unfinished thought and continues to be used through the rest of the piece. I never have the courage to write an unfinished line like that.
I feel like the first few stanzas are rich in imagery and thoughtful language. I particularly like "in grocery store women’s restrooms guzzling Tecate from tall cans." However, I feel as the poem continues there is some degradation from the original purpose. The images are beautiful, but do they really represent the best minds from Santa Cruz?
Alexandra Velasquez/Oedipus Riddle
That is an interesting idea; I agree all three men are speaking about the same people but from different perspective. Ferlinghetti does seem to look at the Beats with a comical vision as if he sees some of them as not truly holding themselves to the same ideals he does. That is why he is so strict about separating himself from them. Ginsberg describes them with a more positive aspect because he is living in the generation—experiences it for himself. Williams is talking about Ginsberg saying that he is a man who has lived a vivid life and “shared the excrement of life
Allison/Ferlinghetti's view of the 'ones with burlap feet'.
I thought your argument for Ferlinghetti feeling more detached from the homeless people he writes about was useful in identifying points where these three authors diverge, because he definitely seems to feel less compassionate towards the men he describes. I focused more on the generational differences between these authors in my response, but emotionally I feel that the these men are also on different levels. The beatitude shared by Ginsberg and Williams really comes through in their work, while Ferlinghetti's piece provides a less evoking experience.
Dana Campbell/What I Have Seen
Dana—
I thought your response was incredibly well thought out and insightful. There were several moments when I was completely captivated by your words, and at other times I shuddered to think of the truth behind them. The powerful theme of love and the torment it can cause (from staying in an abusive relationship to hiding one’s sexual orientation) is brutally honest—and I love how you never try to downplay or ignore the ugly side of these situations, as so much of the media does today. Overall, the openness and candor of your poem struck me as very genuine and enlightened, and I look forward to reading more of your work soon.
Addie/The differences in each of the authors ideas
I definitely agree with some of the ideas you presented. I hold the same idea that each of the authors are talking about those of a lower class, and I agree that they each have their own interpretation of what it means to be apart of that class. I do feel however, that you do not take into account the way in which society has had an impact on them as a people. I viewed it very optimistically, not to say that you did not, but I saw it as a different way in which each author portrayed how we are all just people.
Pablo/"the best minds of my generation"?
I think you made an interesting point regarding realism, or the lack thereof, in these refrences to homeless people. I, too, am seeing Beatitude as I see many other trends of practical activism: a whole lot of talk, but little concrete social change. (I'm not sure any of the poets hoped to change the world, but I might say they hoped to change poetry.) And I agree that it can be viewed as hypocritical for poets like Ginsberg to "worship" the poor and then go home to a mansion in Portola. But I don't know that he has one of those, and I think these poets could just as easily be referring to how we all would live in a perfect world (like Jesus Christ, or maybe like Socrates). I don't think anyone would choose to live like a homeless person in SF, though. Pretty unforgiving.
Addie/Drug addicts, homeless, poor
I think you pointed out a very good observation, which is that "angel dust" is a street term for PCP, which came about in 1952 and was popular among drug addicts for its hallucinatory effects, and "angelheaded hipsters" is referring to the people who used that drug.
You also made a good point when you said that Ferlinghetti describes a different population of people in his poem than Ginsberg does. Ginsberg speaks of drug addicts and Ferlinghetti speaks of homeless. While their positions in society tend to overlap, we must not assume that they are the same. Homeless people are not necessarily drug addicts, and drug addicts are not necessarily homeless. Therefore Ginsberg and Ferlinghetti are describing different people in different situations.
W.C.W. is also describing a totally different set of people because he is being very specific when he refers to Ginsberg and Solomon, who can definitely relate to the drug addicts and the homeless, but would not necessarily consider themselves as part of the same categories of society.
Your comment was very concise and you came up with some interesting observations that I had not considered before.
Your response is strong but I think you could make it even stronger by discussing your ideas about whether Ferlinghetti makes a reference to St. Francis in his poem.
Nick Furnal- “Genres” of people
While I do agree with you partially that, arguably, “genres” of people may indeed exist, and that the authors were may have been referring to a certain type of person, I do not think that your determination of exactly which genre of people they were referring to is correct. If I understand you correctly, you are saying they are referring to the homeless. I’m not sure there is enough evidence to support that. However, I myself am no more clear on what that group may be; I just do not think they were referring to the homeless.
Pablo/Questioning Ginsberg's realism
That was a really nice idea about the reality of what Ginsberg said about the beatniks and how they may have actually lived. It conjured up the image of the stereotypical starving artist who devotes himself wholly to his work. My brother is a painter and tattoo artist and I have definitely seen a lot of what you discussed. He would bring home different people all the time. I met a songwriter from New York with shunts in his neck that tried to check himself into suicide watch at Huntington Hospital but was turned away because they didn't take him seriously. There seems to be a sense of melodrama that comes with creativity. The self-deprecation, the feelings of elitist enlightenment, and the frequent lack humility that you talked about are all there. I've met enough down and out musicians and artists to have seen it with my own eyes.
Scott/American dream
I liked what you had to say about the American dream. I think it's true that poets like Ginsbery showed us a different way to look and what has been shoved down our throats. In a society where we are constantly being pushed in a corner to adhere to others values, a "bright mind" of our generation would be one who would release the gates, and not only tell us what else to think ,but show us that is it OKAY to think this way.
Superman/ world around you...Ginsberg piece.
I enjoyed your imitation of Howl, there was some good insight here and it was certainly easier to interpret. Some of the descriptions were very beautiful: "People sitting with cardboard signs of life decorated with black ink hoping...down the street". I thought this was a great descriptive observation. I also liked the paragraph: "People living on a hope and a dream...world we have." You tell it like it is, nice work!
I left this on the main page too.
Pablo – Comment on the Categorization of Homeless
Pablo I agree with your notion of the difficulty in distinguishing the various types of homeless. I think this is the key issue in comparing the three descriptions by Ferlinghetti, Williams, and Ginsberg. I believe that Ginsberg and Solomon because of their involvement in the beat generation had a somewhat romantic notion of this counter-culture. The beats are described as a group of cultural dissent that spoke and participated in the language of experimental drugs and revolution. As some of our other classmates pointed out, the “angle-headed hipsters” seem to refer to individuals under the influence of PCP. Ginsberg and Solomon associated themselves with the disenfranchised, eccentric, and experimental. On the contrary, Ferlinghetti paints a more realistic picture of the homeless in San Francisco. He addresses the romanticizing of the homeless and real life situations of the disavowed. He describes individuals shoed away from establishments made for supporting the homeless and the contemplation of suicide. These are individuals who have no notion of a counter-culture or the fight against standard academic teachings. Instead, these are individuals who have no food or homes and lack the support system of people like Ginsberg.
Rosa
October 14, 2008 7:09 PM
Post a Comment