While Beats were rising to fame in the mid 1950’s, media at the time warped and manipulated the image and identity of the Beat Generation. The public media response to Beatniks was published in a variety of forms. Commercialized items, such as advertisements, comic books, and movies, illustrated the Beatnik as an interesting and novel character that was in essence, harmful to American Society. While magazine and newspaper articles written by esteemed authors, shunned the Beats and considered them a threat to peaceful and prosperous America (Ziegler, 2). Popular media heavily manipulated the Beat Generations identity, and although Beats received such extreme criticism, their counter culture continued to draw in America’s youth, and to spread new ideals of art, music, literature and lifestyle.
Magazines and newspapers in the 1950’s were widely considered authorities that governed mainstream America. Publications such as LIFE Magazine and the esteemed New York Times were easily and readily accessible to all Americans. To the journalists of the fifties, the Beat Generation was widely recognized as a topic to condemn (Ziegler, 4). Many magazine articles insulted Beat’s intelligence even though their literature was based off of highly esteemed and academic writers. Thus, journalists often criticized their lifestyle as opposed to their literature (Ziegler, 4). Once such article was published in LIFE Magazine in 1959, titled “The Only Rebellion Around” by Paul O’Neil. The article opens with an elaborate description of what a typical Beatnik home looks like. O’Neil includes a mock image of a Beatnik home, complete with props and models. The home is extremely messy and unkempt and is exaggerated by the fake couples baby lying among the mess, described as a “beat baby who has gone to sleep after playing with beer cans” (O’Neil, 230).
O’Neil continues to condemn the Beatniks by comparing them to the likes of fruit flies who refuse to acknowledge the “seeping juices of American plenty and American social advances, but scrape their feelers in discordant scorn of any and all who do” (O’Neil, 237). The article continues to attack their lifestyle and personal beliefs while omitting any analysis or criticism of the Beatniks famous literary works such as Ginsberg’s “Howl” or Kerouac’s “On the Road.” Instead, O’Neil mentions Ginsberg in reference to religion, stating, “Ginsberg’s influence extends beyond poetry. He has been one of the first to insist that the Beat Generation is a religious phenomenon… ‘I have seen God’, says Ginsberg. ‘I saw him in a room in Harlem’”(O’Neil, 238). However what O’Neil fails to acknowledge is that this quote is taken out of context, and merely suggests that Beat literature is tied to religion in that it inspires and guides those who revel in its literature. Ginsberg is not claiming that Beat lifestyle is religion, but that the Beatnik’s passion for art, music and literature is comparable to people’s passion and faith in religion.
O’Neil continues to condemn the Beatniks by comparing them to the likes of fruit flies who refuse to acknowledge the “seeping juices of American plenty and American social advances, but scrape their feelers in discordant scorn of any and all who do” (O’Neil, 237). The article continues to attack their lifestyle and personal beliefs while omitting any analysis or criticism of the Beatniks famous literary works such as Ginsberg’s “Howl” or Kerouac’s “On the Road.” Instead, O’Neil mentions Ginsberg in reference to religion, stating, “Ginsberg’s influence extends beyond poetry. He has been one of the first to insist that the Beat Generation is a religious phenomenon… ‘I have seen God’, says Ginsberg. ‘I saw him in a room in Harlem’”(O’Neil, 238). However what O’Neil fails to acknowledge is that this quote is taken out of context, and merely suggests that Beat literature is tied to religion in that it inspires and guides those who revel in its literature. Ginsberg is not claiming that Beat lifestyle is religion, but that the Beatnik’s passion for art, music and literature is comparable to people’s passion and faith in religion.
O’Neil continues to ridicule Beat lifestyle by stating that “Ginsberg is among the most vehement of the Beats who insist that US citizens have a constitutional right to all the narcotics they want” (O’Neil, 240). Media consistently relied on the Beatnik’s drug use as evidence of their criminality. However many of the recreational users were not damaging society, but simply using these substances out of curiosity and exploration, not disillusionment (as John Cleon Holmes previously pointed out in his Beatnik Manifesto).
O’Neil asserts that the “Bulk of Beat writers are undisciplined and slovenly amateurs who have deluded themselves into believing their lugubrious absurdities are art simply because they have rejected the form, style and attitudes of previous generations and have seized upon obscenity as an expression of total personality” (O’Neil, 241). Yet he later contradicts himself admitting that, “It is impossible to honestly discount all Beat Literature…A few Beat writers demonstrate that gift of phrase and those flashed of insight which bespeak genuine talent” (O’Neil, 241-42). While O’Neil does concede to some Beat literary value, his article leaves readers of the 50’s with a sense of disbelief. Yet the image that O’Neil painted was purely fictional and heavily exaggerated for shock-value. Mainstream America was accustomed to a ‘correct’ lifestyle, and any that challenged that notion were immediately rejected. O’Neil omitted to discuss the quality of Beat works and positive exploration of global cultures and religion in addition to lowering levels of censorship in society (Ziegler, 6).
O’Neil asserts that the “Bulk of Beat writers are undisciplined and slovenly amateurs who have deluded themselves into believing their lugubrious absurdities are art simply because they have rejected the form, style and attitudes of previous generations and have seized upon obscenity as an expression of total personality” (O’Neil, 241). Yet he later contradicts himself admitting that, “It is impossible to honestly discount all Beat Literature…A few Beat writers demonstrate that gift of phrase and those flashed of insight which bespeak genuine talent” (O’Neil, 241-42). While O’Neil does concede to some Beat literary value, his article leaves readers of the 50’s with a sense of disbelief. Yet the image that O’Neil painted was purely fictional and heavily exaggerated for shock-value. Mainstream America was accustomed to a ‘correct’ lifestyle, and any that challenged that notion were immediately rejected. O’Neil omitted to discuss the quality of Beat works and positive exploration of global cultures and religion in addition to lowering levels of censorship in society (Ziegler, 6).
Beatniks were avid travelers, and thus their influence was not only confined to America (Ziegler, 13). When a group of teenagers wrecked havoc on a jazz festival in England, and English Newspaper, The Sunday People, published an article titled, “Blame These 4 Men for Beatnik Horror” in 1960. The four men displayed in the image were the Beat Generation’s most prestigious authors, Jack Kerouac, William Burroughs, Allen Ginsberg and Gregory Corso. The article asserts that these four men were the culprits of mass violence, “Nothing matters to the Beatniks save the ‘kicks’ or thrills to be enjoyed by throwing off inhibitions” (The Sunday People). The article describes the Beat Generation as a cult, and Beat youth as “disciples” of Beat leaders such as Ginsberg and Kerouac. The article demonized the Beat Generation and stated that the relationship to the ‘delinquents’ was similar to a ‘cult master-disciple’ while their relationship to the general public was something “to be wary of” (The Sunday People).
It remains unclear whether the four Beatnik writers were held accountable for the mayhem at the Jazz festival in England. However, society continued to be threatened by the counter culture of the Beat Generation that inspired such ‘rebellion.’ These articles compare the Beats to a ‘normal citizen’ and conclude that Beats are destroyers of peace and prosperity (Ziegler, 17). With press stories such as “The Only Rebellion Around” and “Blame These 4 Men for Beatnik Horror” it is hard to believe that society would take the Beat Generation lightly. Beats were not only considered a nuisance, they were considered a threat to the American way of life. These judgments grew from a place of uncertainty, and fear of deviance (Ziegler, 20). Without considering the positive impact that could result from questioning common linear thought and religion, society was preconditioned to reject any and all things counter culture. However, despite such widespread criticism, the Beats continued to write, to create, and to question.