You're post here is a superb example of the fan who tries to elevate his favorite writer by trying to tear down the critic who has an unfavorable opinion. It is remarkable that the most used defense of Kerouac was that he was social phenomenon..Precious little is said about the quality of his prose, and still less is mentioned about why his technique was reputedly superior to what else was happening in American writing. His importance is more sociological than literary, based on what's been presented here as a counter-assertion, and none of this he-was-good-because-he-broke-t­he-rules stuff is convincing on examination. There's a difference between ignoring the rules, which is what I think Kerouac did, and actually breaking the rules and creating a truly new and radical narrative style, which is what William Burroughs succeeded in doing. Burroughs , in my view, was the real genius of the Beats.

Hopefully your mother will have preceded you in death, because you wouldn't want her around would you? Only losers like Kerouac have anything to do with their mothers, right?

This ranks as the most absurd non sequitur in this entire thread. Even if you gathered you thoughts and turned this out-of-nowhere blurt into a comprehensible remark, it would still have the burdon of irrelevance. You're not an effective button pusher, friend.

So to your claims of the greatness and sparkling innovation of your own writing: um, sorry old man, but you don't have the fare to ride that particular bus.

How about a direct quote of me claiming greatness and sparkling innovation? You can't ,because I don't makes claims for my own writing other than maintaining that I think I write well enough. Good thing you're not the bus driver, because you'd miss most of the stops.