Not murican, so excuse me if the answer is simple to everyone

Beat literature and poetry was good because they were revolting against the conformist society of the 1950s. So what they said was defined by that society and culture and their rejection of it.
Whereas hippies weren't really revolting against society- they had created a new subculture. It was also a much more populist movement. So they were really exploring new ideas, like Eastern religion, psychedelics, new music, etc. I would say they didn't really have any passion or need for literature.

>>9223933
Many of the beatniks also attended prestigious universities, like Ginsberg and Burroughs. The hippies were too busy living their culture, not mediating their feelings through art.

You might think the Beatniks had a superior culture from the perspective of creative output, but the hippie movement had a much greater impact on society and politics as a whole. The beatniks inspired many hippies, but they didn't do much else. Whereas you can consider the hippie movement responsible for a new era of sexual politics and the end of the vietnam war.

What years are you referencing as bad? Gravity's Rainbow was published in 1973.

>>9223933
Writing requires a functional brain. Hippies were exclusively worthless uneducated mystics that had never read a book in their life much less write one.

Asking why there is no hippy literature is kind of like wondering why no rap has not engendered a literary surge.

>>9224082
And I say this as an enormous fan of William Burroughs.

But there's no denying something like Buffalo Springfield's "For What Its Worth" had more impact than "Junkie" or "Naked Lunch", regardless of the fact that one is a pop song trading in cliches and the others are groundbreaking works of literature.

>>9224082
I'm not arguing what they inspired, just what they left behind in writing. All I see is huge disparity there. I mean, for beats, you go read On The Road, what do you do for hippies?