So, I had to read this book for a class on Beat writers and writing. Not sure I would have read it otherwise. That being said, I didn't hate this - but honestly, I think Kerouac is better at writing prose than poetry.Mexico City Blues is, to put it simply, Kerouac's ruminations on a variety of subjects while he was hiding in Mexico City in 1955. Lots of reflections on religion (Buddhism in particular), existentialist sorts of questions, jazz, and personal, autobiographical events. If these subjects interest you, you might find it more interesting than the next person.For my class, though, my professor found it necessary to give us a handout sheet on the Buddhist terms used in the choruses because none of it was something that any of us, as undergrad students, knew about. That's a nitpicky thing I have about this book of poems - the choruses aren't necessarily accessible to the average person. Some research is necessary to really glean any meaning from some of these choruses, and research is not something I want to do (or should have to do) when I'm reading a book of poems. And I often felt that these poems were meant for Kerouac himself rather than anyone else, which was frustrating.Another thing that really put me off about Mexico City Blues was the fact that many of the poems (ex. choruses 78, 30, 213) are completely unintelligible. And I know that that making sense wasn't always part of Kerouac's purpose (sometimes he was just playing with rhythm), but maybe some of the more out-there rhymes and rhythms should have stayed in Kerouac's steno pad.I also found the themes to be repetitive occasionally - I couldn't count the number of choruses that were mere ruminations on the Buddha/Tathagata, and by the end of the book I was quite irritated with that repetition.I did enjoy the rhythm that some of these poems created. Going with the theme of jazz, these choruses often remind me of the amazing imagery found in modern slam/spoken word poems that I've heard (and a lot of the nonsense sounds loads better when read aloud). I particularly liked some of the choruses that blended into each other, that Kerouac seemed more intentional about writing. (Some examples are the reflections on Einstein/pantheism in choruses 132 and 133, his family reflections in choruses 89 through 100, the still life sequence in choruses 151 and 152, and the eulogizing of Charlie Parker in choruses 239 through 241). It's true that Kerouac has a lot to say, and he was definitely a talented writer - if he had laid off the drugs, he might have been an even better writer.In conclusion, Mexico City Blues is a fair book of poetry. Just don't expect to enjoy every chorus (or even over half the choruses), and be sure to try reading them aloud to get a feel for what Kerouac's going on about.
Beautiful and surreal at its best. Hiccuped and unintelligible at its worst. Perhaps, however, that is too harsh of a criticism, because much of the poetry in this book is an experiment of sound and language. The unintelligible sections should be enjoyed for its poesy, not meaning. Kerouac truly emerges as a talented jazz and blues poet. Overall, this is a beautiful book of poetry. Kerouac is at his best during his meditations on death, meaning, and childhood -- all of which are pervasive throughout this collection."The sound in your mind is the first sound That you could sing."
What do You think about Mexico City Blues (1994)?
one of kerouac's finest moments for it's differency. open to any page and engage.om. hare rama. hallelujah. mexico. new orleans. sweet denver.jack will always be cliche to one demographic and a god to another. an innovator too plagiarized today, in the same vein that bob dylan stole from woody g before the trend had been set. be ahead of your time, but not too ahead of it.fame always leads to critics. kerouac was probably an asshole, but i have a special place in my heart for anyone who lived out their authenticism.
—Luke Redfield
At moments brilliant but mostly drug addled crap, Mexico City Blues is Jack Kerouac's career in microcosm. There are times when his poetry and prose are truly great, when he can incite or captivate or evoke a sensation like a master, but most of the time he is a hack. I know, I know, y'all love him and think he is a literary god, but he really isn't. He and his friends (he is no Ginsberg or Ferlengetti, after all) came at a moment when they could do anything they wanted with no worries about editors or quality. In some moments and in some cases this was a boon, but it was not always so, and Kerouac's ouevre is too littered with the latter for him to be truly great. Read Mexico City blues and you'll see what I mean. (p.s. it's more fun to read in French.)
—Brad
"There is no Way to lose."Kerouac's poetry is a predictably strange combination of spiritual wisdom, meandering white negro jazz-like improvisation, slightly domesticated Finnegans Wake punning, autobiographical meditation, and the proverbial kitchen sink. 20 per cent or so of the 244 poems--Kerouac conceived of them as choruses of a really long jazz performance--are high end keepers (the closing sequence on Charlie Parker among them); a quarter are random muddling; the rest somewhere in between. Required reading for beat afficionados; a curiosity for most everyone else.
—Craig Werner
