Naked Lunch

Alice Junge

you loathe, shapes, : sky, ^4 mountain, slove it? Alas grshtejny5k7ws5jt William S Burroughs genius or peddler boy?

ZorbaTehZ

Ok

Alice Junge

Naked Lunch is Ok?

johnnyskeleton

I assume the OP is trying to imitate Burrough's incomprehensible style of nonsense that has confused so many into thinking he is a literary genious.

AJG

While I do think the term 'literary genius' is bandied about a bit too much I do find his books to be very enjoyable.

The cut-up style he uses in a good few of his books does make it quite hard to follow the plot but something just keeps bringing me back to his work.

I would start with 'Junky' or 'Queer' first though.

johnnyskeleton

AJG wrote: »

While I do think the term 'literary genius' is bandied about a bit too much I do find his books to be very enjoyable.

The cut-up style he uses in a good few of his books does make it quite hard to follow the plot but something just keeps bringing me back to his work.

I would start with 'Junky' or 'Queer' first though.

I am a firm believer that the greatest art is the concealment of artifice. Therefore, if I read a book and it's obvious that the author is trying to be clever or arty then I just turn away.

Burroughs is all style no substance, in my view. Literary masturbation is a good description.

AJG

I'm not defending him by any means. For one most of his books are pretty much sci-fi. But this never seems to be mentioned or he's never labeled as such.

Books like 'The Soft Machine', 'The Wild Boys' etc. I love to read because I get caught up in the use (or mis-use) of language. For the most part they would only take a day or two to get through but for some reason I was compelled to want to read more.

I've just started his later trilogy. I finished 'City Of The Red Night' which again is a sci-fi book based on a sexual virus that spreads throughout various points in history. Although not a 'cut-up' book the narrative tends to twist and turn becoming more disjointed as the book progresses.

I've started 'The Place Of Dead Roads' and this again seems to be written in a straight forward style with a wild west theme for the subject matter.

So maybe for any initiates to Burroughs I'd recommend avoiding 'Naked Lunch' and starting with any of the ones I've already mentioned or you could just avoid him altogether.

Alice Junge

Ah perhaps Harry Potter would tickle your fancy more, might be easier for you to follow, and you don't have to strain your intellect too much!!

AJG

Alice Junge wrote: »

Ah perhaps Harry Potter would tickle your fancy more, might be easier for you to follow, and you don't have to strain your intellect too much!!

Thats a little harsh don't you think.

owlwink

AJG wrote: »

Thats a little harsh don't you think.

Ginsberg would turn in his furry grave

owlwink

I'm sure Yage had blurred his judgement. A little peyote should clear that right up. Round 2 ding ding.:D

Alice Junge

Take that furry assed governor out of your buttocks boy and smell my rosemary skin!!!

BossArky

Alice Junge wrote: »

Take that furry assed governor out of your buttocks boy and smell my rosemary skin!!!

Alice Junge wrote: »

Ah perhaps Harry Potter would tickle your fancy more, might be easier for you to follow, and you don't have to strain your intellect too much!!

Not sure if you are trying to be funny here or abusive. Tone it down (or explain what you are on about) or you'll be infracted. Thanks.

johnnyskeleton

Alice Junge wrote: »

Ah perhaps Harry Potter would tickle your fancy more, might be easier for you to follow, and you don't have to strain your intellect too much!!

Shakespeare is difficult to read, but worth it. Burroughs is difficult to read but not worth it.

The difference is that Shakespeare is full of insight into life, while Burroughs uses style to obfuscate any real meaning. This is because if he were to tell it directly the book would be much shorter and completely unremarkable. He wrote Naked Lunch as a sort of intellectual puzzle and liking the book is not based on any real merit it has but instead based on a tautology - being "intellecutal" enough to read it means you're an intellectual, or that you understand the words that he is saying. I understand the words that he is saying, but he is not saying anything or coming to any sort of point.

Great literature in my view is when someone has something to say, and says it with style. Naked Lunch is a great example of the all too pervasive trend in modern literature (like modern art) - if you don't have something to say, saying nothing with extra-style.

To put it in stark contrast, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas has a similar theme and style, but Hunter S. Thompson invites you into his world, explains it and demonstrates his gonzo world view, whereas Naked Lunch tries to isolate readers so that if they don't understand it, he can at least say that they are not intellectual enough to understand it.

Therefore, while all I know about Harry Potter is that it is a children's book, it scores over Naked Lunch in one valuable way - it doesn't pretend to be something that its not.

Talliesin

I enjoy Burroughs. I enjoy the artifice. I don't agree that you have to hide artifice to be a master - you should be able to, but there is nothing wrong in just enjoying your own artifice either if you produce something that lets readers enjoy it too.

I do think the Harry Potter series at their best are intellectually superior to Burroughs at his most self-absorbed. The Harry Potter books suffer from the opposite failings amongst their own fans than Burroughs does from his.

The Harry Potter books deal with complicated and difficult issues simply, well, and without patronising. This is very hard. This is what literature is meant to do. This is what Shakespeare did (remove the difficulties of historical difference and Shakespeare is only difficult when he has to be, most of his stuff is very clear and aimed at the masses in the cheap seats [only the cheap seats were standing room only in those days, but you know what I mean]). Fans of the books are unfortunately on the defensive because of the stigma of "children's books" and defend their choosing to read such books rather than the books themselves. Really any move that has such books beating the likes of Jeffry Archer and Dan Brown in the best-seller lists should give those who value literature something to smile about. (That said, the "His Dark Materials" trilogy hits all the same sweet-spots much better).

In a way then I have to disagree that the Harry Potter books don't pretend to be something they're not - they pretend to be of less value than they actually are.

Burroughs fans do the opposite. They defend the effort needed to read his books as their own virtue. Where Harry Potter fans defend themselves against false accusations of intellectual inferiority that are best ignored, Burroughs fans revel in false claims of intellectual superiority that are also best ignored. In themselves these claims have turned people off what is good in his work. Joyce is another case in point (and a clearer one, being easier at his easiest, harder at his hardest, and superior as literature almost entirely throughout).

This also tends to obscure how much of what he did was genuinely hard to produce also. Look at how badly the attempt to imitate him in the OP fails. It isn't just nonsense, and it really is quite difficult to do well.

Burroughs is mainly trivial fun. Even Burroughs himself will simplify his tone for emphasis when he wants to be listened to.

Brush

Burroughs broke some rules, that's all. It's the shock of the literature and it's stayed with me ever since I first dipped my toes into Junkie and dived head first into Naked Lunch. It's full of challenges, twists and comedy.

And it comes alive on an album he made called Dead City Radio. I think it was produced by Hal Wilner. It's terrific. And it ends with his version of Falling In Love Again.

Check out the biog Literary Outlaw. Title says it all.

Hermy

Brush wrote: »

And it comes alive on an album he made called Dead City Radio. I think it was produced by Hal Wilner. It's terrific. And it ends with his version of Falling In Love Again.

Couldn't agree more.
Another interesting Willner production is his tribute to Edgar Allen Poe which features brilliant readings of 'The Tell-Tale Heart' by Iggy Pop and 'The Raven' by Christopher Walken.
But my favourite spoken word disc is The Jack Kerouac Collection which features Kerouac reading his own words as they were meant to be heard. I always keep that voice in mind when reading his work as it just makes it all so much clearer.

'Now it's jazz, the place is roaring...'

Brush

Didn't know about the Edgar Allen Poe album, thanks, it sounds a treat.

Read all the Kerouac books and only recently took the time out to hear his voice on YouTube. It's not often a voice comes through the printed word, but you know, he sounded just like I imagined him to be. Dark and roasted, with a twist of french. That last par from On The Road has to go down as one of the best passages of literature. He could get all self indulgent like any writer can, but there are times when he's as good as the music he so often celebrates.

By the way, that Sea shanties cd of Wilner's was a real let-down. Not being patriotic but the only good thing on it was Gavin Friday.

Shutuplaura

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Shakespeare is difficult to read, but worth it. Burroughs is difficult to read but not worth it.

The difference is that Shakespeare is full of insight into life, while Burroughs uses style to obfuscate any real meaning. This is because if he were to tell it directly the book would be much shorter and completely unremarkable. He wrote Naked Lunch as a sort of intellectual puzzle and liking the book is not based on any real merit it has but instead based on a tautology - being "intellecutal" enough to read it means you're an intellectual, or that you understand the words that he is saying. I understand the words that he is saying, but he is not saying anything or coming to any sort of point.

Great literature in my view is when someone has something to say, and says it with style. Naked Lunch is a great example of the all too pervasive trend in modern literature (like modern art) - if you don't have something to say, saying nothing with extra-style.

To put it in stark contrast, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas has a similar theme and style, but Hunter S. Thompson invites you into his world, explains it and demonstrates his gonzo world view, whereas Naked Lunch tries to isolate readers so that if they don't understand it, he can at least say that they are not intellectual enough to understand it.

Therefore, while all I know about Harry Potter is that it is a children's book, it scores over Naked Lunch in one valuable way - it doesn't pretend to be something that its not.

Excellent post!!

I've only read Junky. I liked it but its fairly conventional. I'm not sure if I'd like his more experimental stuff.

SuperGrover

naked lunch is the only book i'ver ever quit due to being disgusted

Brush

Shakespeare wins. No question. Wonderful story teller, great lines, the odd skull and everyone dies in the end. Every few years either he or one his works gets a re-invention and they're usually good. He's defied time, that ultimate critic. If he was still with us, he'd clean up at the awards.

Burroughs isn't close. He's in a different league, a different wing of the mental hospital. His only reward was that he was published. And that's a whole sordid story in itself. Yes, I agree, his works were a challenge. Oh boy, were they a challenge! Some of them drove me insane. His was a trip. Like a bad a taxi ride. You get in the car and you know you're going to go to a weird place, but at least the driver was worth getting to know. And somehow, when you get home the world seems a little bit different. At least it did for me.

It's like music. Sometimes it can take you to the edge of reason and you wonder why you're doing this to yourself (or your neighbours!). But when you get back it's possible that you're going to hear music in a different way, or at least have the time for artists who want to take music for a ride outside the playground.

Burroughs said "We are here to go", not to stay put. I admire that. But as for story telling, the other William wins heads down. I'd rather see a movie of a Shakespeare play than a Burroughs novel any day.

AJG

Toast its great. Especially in the mornings. Slathered with butter nothing beats it. It should become a staple like fruit and vegetables. Burnt to a crisp or lightly toasted the world of toast is your oyster.

Burroughs on the other hand he's a little harder to get into. He's not so great in the mornings. His books are maybe more suited to being read at night or not at all. What a guy!



Sorry about that. Its just I can't make any connection between what the above posters are comparing Burroughs with. Is there really any comparison between Burroughs and Shakespeare? or Burroughs and Harry Potter? Perhaps someone would like to compare him with the sky?

Brush

Hmmmm...toast.

John

I started reading Naked Lunch there a couple of weeks ago. I like it so far but I don't see the fuss about him in terms of being avant garde. The cut up technique is cool but it's only a novelty really. The novel comes across as an infinitely more readable Finnegans Wake but with more sodomy. Lots more. It has its merits and I agree with AJG in that there's no point comparing Burroughs to things that are just far too different to be meaningful. I see shades of Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World, that same nightmare future with elements of reality coming through. I see no Shakespeare.

Valmont

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I assume the OP is trying to imitate Burrough's incomprehensible style of nonsense that has confused so many into thinking he is a literary genious.

hmmmm... reminds me of a book called Finnegan's wake I tried (and failed) to read once. By some fellow called James Joyce:p

John

Writer he may be but musician he ain't. I give you Burroughs the drummer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaNCCpUV7tY