What do you think?
Rate this book


560 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
Dnf p. 119. This starts off alright speaking from the viewpoint of the author as a young man. Then it goes into a history of popular drug use starting w/ beats. Idk how it goes after that b/c I reached a point at which I quit. There's nothing wrong w/ the chosen material, but after the author quits speaking about himself he sees to lose his ability to really relate the material. It's not bad, just not great. Additionally, if you are someone already familiar w/ the goings-on of the beat era, jazz, & the drugs of the period, then there's nothing new in here & therefore kind of boring. At the point I put the book down Hunter S. Thompson had entered & Kesey was giving acid to the Hell's Angels. Again, if you already know how that all plays out, this is just another re-hash.
Partly my boredom was due to above related issues, but partly it was b/c the author focuses heavily on people I just can't stand. Specifically, Ginsburg & Kerouc I am sick to death of hearing about. Get a grip people. The more interesting types to me, Huxley, Ram Dass, Alan Watts, Walter Pahnke, & William S. Burroughs, are in here, but receive little focus. They are the heavy hitters, but the story is decidedly carried out through more grown-up children, like Kesey, Kerouc, & Ginsberg. Not new info., & not people I care to read any more about. (Leary is necessarily included, but I think he falls somewhat into both categories. Ironically, even Thompson was more cautious about the disbursement & use of psychedelics than were the lot aforementioned adult children.) That said, for some readers these louder personalities that really caused a lot of trouble & kind of derailed a lot of better possibilities will be just the thing to interest them....presuming of course they are not already familiar w/ these people.
Finally, boredom aside, the reason I finally decided to forego further reading was encountering a pet-peeve of mine. Earlier in the text the author properly uses the word "anarchy"in association w/ socialists & by way of referencing those associating w/ a specific type of political thought. On p. 119 however, he incorrectly utilizes it in association w/ the Hell's Angels when what he was trying to convey would appropriately have been expressed by the word "chaos." Two very different meanings. Sloppy writing. Insulting to a very old political mind-set that is such a threat to state they've intentionally (& largely successfully) set out to misconstrue it w/ chaos. The fact that author fails to grasp this when he is writing about oppression from "the man," & that which they attack based their perception of it a threat to their "establishment," has got to be one of the greater ironies I have lately come across. This book is kind of full of ironies, if you are perceptive enough to notice them. Sadly, that doesn't add any to the reading experience.
I wanted to say that I would recommend this to those who really know nothing about the eras involved, but given the problems I came across I have to say that, honestly, loads of better books exist that cover the same information. The people mentioned also have no shortage of biographies & self-created content to be consumed, & that's even better. This book really doesn't offer anything not already very well-covered in other material, so no, I'm not going to recommend it.
Post-script: I did jump around in the material offered later on in the book. More of the same, regardless of decade. Nothing new that doesn't already have better source material available.