I make no secret of the fact my writing is heavily influenced by writers of the Beat Generation, and while I can't claim to be any kind of authority (not even nearly) I have read a good few of them. Despite this I find it hard to put my finger on exactly what it is they're doing in their novels. I try to reflect their style in my own writing but find I'm automatically drawn to a more conventional story-telling style with an unfolding plot. It's almost as though I don't have the courage (let alone the skill) to describe the mundane in the way they do, because we're constantly being told this isn't done. If it doesn't drive the plot, leave it out. Don't be self-indulgent. Don't tell us about the weather unless its relevant. Or as someone once said, Fiction is like real life with the dull parts cut out. But writers like Fante, Keroac and Bukowski didn't subscribe to these notions, thankfully. And yet, when you finish reading these novels you're left in no doubt you've just been told a story, and that there was a purpose to their ramblings and descriptions of the mundane. And what's more, if you're a fan of the style, you've been stimulated and entertained in a way no conventional novel will ever do. Yes I can write about the mundane, but whereas their prose reads like poetry, mine would read exactly like the subject matter; mundane and pointless. So is it simply my lack of skill and word-power that stops me from pulling it off, or is there some other secret to Beat Generation writing?