> From: Terrence Mc Donough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [PEN-L:11669] Re: Barabara Ehrenreich
> The thesis that beatniks and Playboy magazine had more to do with the
> breakdown of the patriarchal family than the women's liberation
> movement and the increasing economic options of women as they were
> drawn into the capitalist labour force is simply incredible. . . .
I don't disagree at all, but by way of
clarification of something I said in a previous
post in a related vein, Burroughs differed from
the rest of the Beats in some important respects.
I surfed a few web pages after going through
some of the previous posts and was informed
and/or reminded of a few things:
WSB was one of the few Beats not involved in
Buddhism. This comes out, among other ways,
in his view of violence (and his personal
affection for firearms). He was untypical in
other ways as well.
The main issue was here was on family, and in
this area (and elsewhere) WSB had some truly
loopy ideas. In this sense BE's characterization
has some faint relevance, but it is faint because
WSB's negative view of families was not typical
of the Beats. Contrast Ginsberg's landmark poem
on the death of his mother, and his joint
appearances at poetry readings with his father,
notwithstanding the fact that pop was not much of
a poetic force, to put it politely.
Of course, more incredible than the idea of the
Beats fomenting an erosion of family values is
the idea of WSB diverting the course of
mainstream culture's view of the family.
Cheers,
MBS
"As one judge says to another, 'Be just, and if
you can't be just, be arbitrary."
WSB (Naked Lunch)
==================================================
Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200
202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW
202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036
===================================================
