THE
JOAN ANDERSON LETTER: THE HOLY GRAIL OF THE BEAT GENERATION
By Neal Cassady (Introduction by A. Robert Lee)
Black Spring Press. 188 pages. £20. ISBN 978-1-913606-33-6
Reviewed by Jim Burns
According to Jack Kerouac the “Joan Anderson Letter” was “The
greatest piece of writing I ever saw”, an enthusiastic approbation
by a man given to spontaneous responses to a variety of experiences.
Did Kerouac really feel that way? And did the letter truly influence
the writing of On the Road,
the book that launched him into the limelight and created the myth
of Dean Moriarty, the fictional character based on the real-life
Neal Cassady? There are those who believe that there is little to
choose between the two, but
On the Road is a novel and best read as such.
So what was the “Joan Anderson Letter”, and why is it said to have
made such an impression on Kerouac? It was sent by Cassady to
Kerouac in December, 1950, and laid, out in some detail, Cassady’s
activities in Denver during a period around 1945/46. Perhaps I
should qualify this and say that the letter mostly involves his
encounters with various young females, including Joan Anderson.
A. Robert Lee, in an
informative introduction, rightly points out that Cassady was
writing as much for Kerouac as to him.
He knew what Kerouac wanted to hear in a way that would help
create an image of Cassady as a dynamic and hyper-active new hero.
Writers and intellectuals, engaged as they are in largely sedentary
occupations, often admire others who are more physically active. And
for Kerouac and Ginsberg, Cassady seemed to “embody the figure of
life-force and resuscitation, little short of a Rocky Mountain
messiah”. Others, like John Clellon Holmes and Alan Harrington, had
a more down-to-earth notion of him. Holmes’ portrayal of Cassady as
Hart Kennedy in Go
certainly doesn’t invest him with legendary qualities. And
Harrington once said that, by any definition he knew, Cassady was a
“complete psychopath”.
Cassady claimed to have
stolen hundreds of cars, seduced any number of women, and had seen
the inside of prison cells. His childhood had involved being dragged
around hobo hangouts, bar-rooms, and doss-houses by an alcoholic
father, That he had managed to pick up some sort of education on the
way is to his credit. Those who knew him said he read voraciously,
and he did have ambitions to become a writer. He drops the names of
Celine, Dostoyevsky, and Herman Melville into the rush of words in
the letter. And some time later he did manage to put together a
narrative of his early life that Lawrence Ferlinghetti’s City Lights
Books published with the title,
The First Third & Other
Writings, the latter being a handful of fragments. But
The First Third is a
more-sustained piece of work. If someone who now only knows
Cassady’s writing through
the Anderson letter reads it they might be surprised by the relative
formality of the prose. But letters frequently are looser in their
use of language, unless the writer is aware that he’s writing for
posterity to read. I doubt that Cassady had any such aim in mind
when he sent his letter to Kerouac.
The letter, however, achieved legendary status over the years.
People talked about it, but no-one seemed to know where it was or if
it still existed. It was said by Kerouac to have been 40,000 words
long, but was actually nearer 16,000. At some point it was passed to
the poet Gerd Stern in the hope that he might persuade Carl
Solomon’s uncle, who ran Ace Books, to publish it. Ace published
William Burroughs’ Junkie,
but that had commercial potential as a pulp paperback.
When nothing happened Stern
then sent the letter to the publishers of
The Golden Goose, a West
Coast little magazine. Its editor later gave it to the owner of Gold
Coast Records, and it stayed with him, hidden in a box, until his
daughter discovered it when sorting out his possessions in 2011.
What happened after that, in terms of the letter accumulating in
value and being auctioned, is explained by A. Robert Lee. It might
be worth mentioning that, during the years it was assumed “lost”,
Allen Ginsberg added fuel to
the fire by suggesting that Gerd Stern had destroyed it. This no
doubt heightened the legendary status of the letter as people
thought about what might have been in it, and why it had been so
highly rated by Kerouac and Ginsberg.
Now, seventy or so years after it was written, it can be looked at
with a degree of detachment. It certainly does seem to have had an
effect on Kerouac. He had produced one novel,
The Town and the City
which was straightforward in terms of its overall structure and
writing style. It did hint at some of his later concerns when it
talked about night-life in New York and what might be seen as the
first stirrings of the Beat Generation. But Kerouac was looking for
something different, and it’s debatable
if he would have led a writing life of literary conventionality had
Cassady and his letter not arrived on the scene. Cassady’s loose
oral style, with asides and interventions, and the words tumbling
over reach other, supposedly led Kerouac to writing
On the Road in the way
that he did.
But It does occur to me to
consider whether or not Kerouac would have produced a fresh style,
anyway, if Cassady had not written to him? Other people had urged
him to look at prose in a different way, suggesting he write quickly
and in a sketch-like manner.
Lee says that “Kerouac‘s styling of the novel lies as much at the
centre of its appeal as the events it records”. And that’s true
enough. I’ve met people with no particular interest in the Beats,
and no idea of who Dean Moriarty was created from, but who have
enjoyed On the Road. They
may not have thought too much about what the characters get up to –
“So, what’s new?” one person said with a shrug. But they liked the
pace, the energy, the enthusiasm in the narrative. The same could be
said about Cassady’s letter. There isn’t all that much under the
surface of what he’s saying, but the account is racy and bright and
keeps going on its speed and enthusiasm. The difference between the
letter and the book is that Kerouac had a better idea of how to
“style” his novel. I’ve also long been of the opinion that some
editing was involved. The book gave the impression of spontaneity,
but had been shaped to do that.
I mentioned earlier that Alan Harrington thought of Cassady as a
“complete psychopath”. It’s a comment he made in his book,
Psychopaths
(Simon & Schuster, New
York, 1973), and his general view of Cassady is a fairly critical
one, and based on personal observation. Harrington appears in
On the Road as Hal
Hingham. Was his description of Cassady accurate? Certainly the
personality that comes across from the letter would suggest that it
is. In his behaviour with women generally he appears to have little
or no sense of responsibility. His relationship with Joan Anderson
is such that she attempts suicide at one point. Other females,
including a sixteen year old, are treated in an offhand manner and,
like the cars he stole, are abandoned once he has used them for his
own gratification. Perhaps we shouldn’t comment on Cassady’s
character, and his moral flaws, and should simply look at the letter
now in terms of its literary value in relation to
On the Road, and its
place in Beat history. But it’s frankly hard not to wonder why
people ever saw Neal Cassady in any sort of positive light.
It’s useful that the Joan Anderson letter finally came to light, and
that it’s now available in an edition making it available to a wide
audience. The introduction
by A. Robert Lee places Cassady and the letter in a wider Beat
context. There are
useful notes, and an ample bibliography.
|