Naked Lunch: the Restored Text

this is actually the version i got
i think they mention about him offing his wife in one of the forewords or afterwords or whatnot

but if i was you i'd save the money and go by a book thats actually good

[QUOTE=nathaniel parker]this is actually the version i got
i think they mention about him offing his wife in one of the forewords or afterwords or whatnot

but if i was you i'd save the money and go by a book thats actually good

[/QUOTE]

What didn't you like about it? I've heard good things about Burroughs but I haven't checked him out yet.

Supposed to be kinda Bukowski-ish right? Or have I got confused somewhere?

[QUOTE=nathaniel parker]this is actually the version i got
i think they mention about him offing his wife in one of the forewords or afterwords or whatnot

but if i was you i'd save the money and go by a book thats actually good

1 thats 4 words
and C how is that supposed to introduce us to you ?[/QUOTE]
Well, it introduces me in that it shows you how little I read over my posts.
And shouldn't that be a 2 instead of a C?

Is Junky supposed to be any good?

[QUOTE=britrocker]What didn't you like about it? I've heard good things about Burroughs but I haven't checked him out yet.

Supposed to be kinda Bukowski-ish right? Or have I got confused somewhere?[/QUOTE]
its just rambling and rambling on nothingness
i can see what the big deal over it was when it came out [b]50[/b] years ago
but its not anything interesting or enlightening or provocative in this day an age
kinda like the bible

[QUOTE=benjamin_anderson]Well, it introduces me in that it shows you how little I read over my posts.
And shouldn't that be a 2 instead of a C?

Is Junky supposed to be any good?[/QUOTE]
actually it was supposed to be a B. my bad

and i haven't read Junky so I wont comment on it

Nate's right: all Burroughs' is "selective reading". Still, Nate didn't get it, and "50" years old or not, Burroughs' messages are still relevant. I'd recommend reading [B]Junky[/B] ("[I]Junkie[/I]"...) first, then [B]Queer[/B], before [B]The Naked Lunch[/B], but whatever. You'll form an opinion--or not--one way or another. And if you DO find you like & understand Burroughs, you'll see why there's a larger percentage of people that have read him (some...) that don't like his work as opposed to those that do.

whats any aspect of his writing that would be relevent today ?

I found what I've read from it to be interesting, but I don't know if I could read it as an actual novel, since it seems very disjointed and random.

Burrough's "Junky" was worth a read. It isn't as good as Jack Kerouac, but enjoyable. Naked Lunch however, difficult. Read Junky first.

[QUOTE=britrocker]What didn't you like about it? I've heard good things about Burroughs but I haven't checked him out yet.

Supposed to be kinda Bukowski-ish right? Or have I got confused somewhere?[/QUOTE]

I don't think he's a lot like Bukowski myself. It's more rambley than that and all that wicked 1930s/40s slang Burroughs uses makes it really styled and stuff.

I think Bukowski is better but I do like some of Burroughs stuff.

[QUOTE=nathaniel parker]whats any aspect of his writing that would be relevent today ?[/QUOTE]

Well, whether anything Burroughs ever wrote is relevant to [I]you[/I], I don't know, but I'll assume a "No". Understandable.

What (non-Burroughs' writing) IS relevant to you? Has Burroughs, in the least, influenced [I]that[/I]...? Had Burroughs never wrote nor published, would writing itself be where it is today...? What is it about Burroughs that makes his work [I]totally irrelevant[/I] to you?

Or better yet, name a writer working [I]today[/I] that is relevant, and why.

Or not. We [I]can[/I] go back to talking "cocaine overindulgence"... Eh. Nevermind. I think that thread--however fun--has been long-dead.

(I can't answer that question up there, man, you knew that when you asked it. "Relevance"--social, political, whatever--is pretty subjective when it comes down to it, and any answer I may have could easily be mocked. The point is, [I]you[/I] don't like Burroughs, so why tell you why Burroughs is relevant to [I]me[/I]? To argue aesthetics? We've both better things to do. I hope.)

Burroughs was a very visual writer, but christ i couldnt take naked lunch; i seen it as the rantings of a dissasociated strung out pedophile randomly slapped together untill it resembles a story. At one time or another he might have been a tallented writer, but naked lunch shows no signs of his tallent what so ever.

[QUOTE=Unhygenix]Burroughs was a very visual writer, but christ i couldnt take naked lunch; i seen it as the rantings of a dissasociated strung out pedophile randomly slapped together untill it resembles a story. At one time or another he might have been a tallented writer, but naked lunch shows no signs of his tallent what so ever.[/QUOTE]

Oh, "the rantings of a dissasociated strung out pedophile randomly slapped together untill it resembles a story"... yep, that's pretty much Burroughs. To most. And I can't say I disagree with an assessment such as that for [B]The Naked Lunch[/B]. Burroughs was always very "disassociated", often "strung-out", a "pedophile" (lacking a record for that, though... but he did acquire several major felonies and one very contentious murder charge in his long life), and [B]The Naked Lunch[/B] [I]was only[/I] a book because someone (you know who, I'm sure) piled all the jumbled pages, never meant to be a running "story", together and typed them up into the first version (draft, whatever) of what later became the book. But he didn't try to make it resemble a story. That's what--I believe--this "new edition" is trying though. And that's impossible. Burroughs is hard to read, and by that I'm not saying he's only for "intelligent" or "well-read" people: he is quite boring, but it comes in peaks and lows, like certain drugs, almost. I wouldn't recommend anything beyond [B]Junky[/B] or [B]Queer[/B] without warning of the oncoming deluge.

[QUOTE=ralphthompsonxxx]Well, whether anything Burroughs ever wrote is relevant to [I]you[/I], I don't know, but I'll assume a "No". Understandable.

What (non-Burroughs' writing) IS relevant to you? Has Burroughs, in the least, influenced [I]that[/I]...? Had Burroughs never wrote nor published, would writing itself be where it is today...? What is it about Burroughs that makes his work [I]totally irrelevant[/I] to you?

Or better yet, name a writer working [I]today[/I] that is relevant, and why.

Or not. We [I]can[/I] go back to talking "cocaine overindulgence"... Eh. Nevermind. I think that thread--however fun--has been long-dead.

(I can't answer that question up there, man, you knew that when you asked it. "Relevance"--social, political, whatever--is pretty subjective when it comes down to it, and any answer I may have could easily be mocked. The point is, [I]you[/I] don't like Burroughs, so why tell you why Burroughs is relevant to [I]me[/I]? To argue aesthetics? We've both better things to do. I hope.)[/QUOTE]
fair enough

[QUOTE=nathaniel parker]its just rambling and rambling on nothingness
i can see what the big deal over it was when it came out [b]50[/b] years ago
but its not anything interesting or enlightening or provocative in this day an age
kinda like the bible[/QUOTE]

Burroughs is a master of dialogue, his style may not be of your taste but this doesn't take away from the mastery of his craft.

[QUOTE=tyler branson]Burroughs is a master of dialogue[/QUOTE]Somewere between the aimless rants and miandering passages about people sucking off phalic pipes,playing with boys asses & marveling at the size of the penis of a bird like creature you are right.

[QUOTE=Unhygenix]Somewere between the aimless rants and miandering passages about people sucking off phalic pipes,playing with boys asses & marveling at the size of the penis of a bird like creature you are right.[/QUOTE]

And somewhere among all the disjointed interpretations, misspellings, and horrific grammer, so are you.

Almost.

[QUOTE=ralphthompsonxxx]And somewhere among all the disjointed interpretations, misspellings, and horrific grammer, so are you.

Almost.[/QUOTE]
So true, other than the part about being a good writer. I am going to end my burroughs bashing here, its just me being overly opinionated as usual.

[QUOTE=Unhygenix]Somewere between the aimless rants and miandering passages about people sucking off phalic pipes,playing with boys asses & marveling at the size of the penis of a bird like creature you are right.[/QUOTE]

I was going to comment on how incredibly abominable this post is but is seems as if I am too late.

The book was originally, well, not a book but dozens of short stories about his time living in Tangier; a South African seaport. During this time period Burroughs was hanging out with other Beat generation writers, Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg. This was a time of drug experimentation and mind altering experiences in which he wrote down, in no particular order or sequence but just to get his thoughts on paper.

Kerouac found the writings and fell in love with how original and taboo they were. He has been quoted to say that he had never read anything that alternative before. Kerouac tells Burroughs to combine the essays into a book and Kerouac even named the book "Naked Lunch." This is the reason it seems to meander aimlessly and for the content of the book. I do hope you know that Burroughs was gay, which explains a lot of content in his books (not just the sexual indentity themes). Most of the book isn't necessarily dealing with direct addiction but the philosophical meaning of addiction, and how it comes in all forms, shapes and sizes.

The book is written in a non-linear style, he used the "cut-up" technique to arrange unique passages. The cut-up style is performed by taking a finished and fully linear text (printed on paper) and cutting it in pieces with a few or single words on each piece. The resulting pieces are then rearranged into a new text. The rearranging work often result in surprisingly innovative new phrases. This is the method used in writing Radioheads [I]Kid A[/I] album.

You may not like his style or even his thoughts but his mastery should be recognized. He is an innovator of a writing style and of subject matter. If you believe in chain of events, one might assume that this very site may not exist if it weren't for some of the greats of literary past.

Cliff's Notes Version: STFU.

hi there, this is for all those that have read burroughs

i am interested in possibly reading his and other beat poets works, but would like to find out a little more about burroughs firstly having read his bio recently.

i posted a question about the "beats" in another thread but never got any answers, so....

the "cut up technique" is that as ambiguous as it sounds? were resultant combinations of words just a random meaningless composition or is there some thought in the process.

are beat poets literature generally an endorsement of drug culture as a means of stimulating the cranium? was this the primary catalyst in their creativity?

i like tacos

cheers.

[QUOTE=fattyowls]hi there, this is for all those that have read burroughs

i am interested in possibly reading his and other beat poets works, but would like to find out a little more about burroughs firstly having read his bio recently.[/QUOTE]

In a way, it's "best" to know a bit about the interrelations of the Beat writers and the time-periods in which they worked to get a better grasp on what they are individually trying to say as opposed to and in comparison with what other Beat writers are trying to communicate. For example, the bulk of [B]On the Road[/B] is so much more (and in the converse--lacking this background--so much less) "relatable" according to whether the reader knows who the "real people" are, as Kerouac (and [I]most[/I] of the others) wrote about one another in thin-veiled characterizations, so when Sal goes to Louisiana to visit Bull Lee, the reader already knows that this is Kerouac's view of Burroughs-as-a-character at the time he wrote the sections. To read several accounts from several writers on often simultaneously-experienced events where each has independantly-written versions that contain (or sometimes conspiciously omit) certain other characters is a lot towards understanding the core personalities, views, and "themes" of each writer.

Blahblahblah.

Which Burroughs-bio did you read...?

[QUOTE]i posted a question about the "beats" in another thread but never got any answers, so....

the "cut up technique" is that as ambiguous as it sounds? were resultant combinations of words just a random meaningless composition or is there some thought in the process.[/QUOTE]

The "cut-up technique" is only as ambiguous as a person's knowledge of its history limits them. There are MANY sites that can more deeply detail the history of the "cut-up technique" than I feel like doing presently, but the basic is this: artist & (very close) friend & collaborator of Burroughs, Brion Gysin, was cutting out pieces of newspaper for a piece of collage-scrapbook-art he was working on, and unintentionally realized that certain pages could be laid aside other randomly cut pages, and when read as if originally connected, Gysin saw that certain phrases and lines often formed from out of the unintentional connections. He took the idea to Burroughs and he applied it to his own writings, always cutting and pasting by hand; he later experimented with intersplicing pieces from other writers and sources--Shakespeare, Rimbaud, advertisements, articles, et cetera--into pages of his own writing, cutting and reassembling them all into one, which most often created a totally different "meaning" in what was being conveyed.

Burroughs was greatly interested in this process, devoting several of his most dense and literally near-impossible to read "novels" to being nothing but reproductions of "random" cut-up. BUT: how random is random?--and this was the question that Burroughs eventually had to face, and he did. His conclusion is that "nothing is accidental", and though it is as random as random can get, he still acknowledged that the person making the cut-up influenced--to SOME degree--the outcome, if only on a purely unconscious, pyschological level. He later learned that cut-ups were only worthwhile when used selectively, so in later works he was much more conscious of what he was doing, using cut-ups to reflect drug-induced states, dream sequences, strange passages that would divide sections of text while still somewhat connecting them. But with Burroughs, he went all the way, and then farther on to the point of tedium (which has a LOT to do with his often perceived "lack of talent" or worth in his lifetime of writing) before he backed away from the experiements. Finally, he saw cut-up as one of the best techniques a writer can use to present a subconscious, sublingual, and (as much as possible) unbiased reflection of what can be done with words and the expected and unexpected ways a writer can manipulate them to affect their audience. If Burroughs' cut-ups bore a person to irritation, they aren't getting anything from the words, and so fuck it; but if they DO delve a meaning, then this is not only a reflection of the writer's mental processes but also of the reader.

And Burroughs didn't care about the ones that didn't get anything from his work. As a homosexual junkie, drug user and abuser, descendent of a "wealthy early-20th century American family" that had traveled the world and could never pin down what he wanted his life to BE, Burroughs eventually was shown what he was meant to be, and this was when he was already nearing forty: he realized he was to be a writer. He was used to being on the fringes of society--be it from his "upstanding" background to his choices in life that planted him securely amongst the underground--Burroughs could function in any environment, at least after he experimented with it enough. The cut-up phase was one of literary experimentation, and of its "merit" to others he could not have cared less. Take it or leave it.

[QUOTE]are beat poets literature generally an endorsement of drug culture as a means of stimulating the cranium? was this the primary catalyst in their creativity?[/QUOTE]

No, the "primary catalyst in their creativity" were their own individual desires and unflinching dedication to look at the world around them and to record their perceptions, in the midst of their personal relations with one another and against the "art world" of the era, and to not care about the literary consequences. They were lucky in that they became "famous"... otherwise, they weren't much more than a group of friends that wrote a lot (and when I typed that and thought of this site, hehehehehe...). But the point is that their work is individual, while it can also be viewed through a collective.

Drug use [I]was[/I] important though. For one, the era they worked in was dangerously oppressive about drug use, so the use itself made them feel a kinship with one another and a deference to the rest of society. Still their representations of this was always very individual: Kerouac didn't so much "endorse" drugs as he did speak of how they were a part of hs life, and alcohol became his personal downfall ([B]Big Sur[/B] is a terribly sad book, as Kerouac realizes his life is not much more than writing and drinking and that both alienate him while he knows he can neither quit one or the other, that this was who he had become); Ginsberg saw drugs as mind-expansion tools; Burroughs saw drugs as a way of trying to control his environment while at the same time acknowledging that the price he was paying was a loss of control to forces bigger than himself OR the drugs, and so drugs became a metaphor--as did sex of all forms, the act of writing, and many other behaviors--for how man tries to control his environment yet is being controlled all the while, until this became the main "theme" of all of his work.

[QUOTE]i like tacos[/QUOTE]

Heh... so did Kerouac, and near the end of [B]On the Road[/B], when he & Neal Cassady are in Mexico and Kerouac gets dysentary and Neal leaves him to rush off to more adventure, Kerouac had to accept that Neal was as human and flawed as he was amazing and mythical... but Cassady, of course, saw things very differently than Kerouac.

thanks for the reply

that was extensive and helpful

i read the wikpedia bio on burroughs

im familiar with alen ginsbergs "mind enhancing" stance on drugs.
this is what made me sceptical about the entire "beat" generation as i thought that they all held similar opinions.it seems from what youve written that it isnt entirely the case.

burroughs though, seems the most honest and inciteful of the lot admitting that drugs are only a tool to moderate ones environment. but then again its very difficult to discern what "environment" is for a regular drug user.i can believe that some regular drugs users are illeviating the ills of the general society to sustain a modicum of normailty, but conversely i know plenty of drug addicts who are simply of weak character. so its very difficult to gauge which category the "beat" generation fit into. ginsberg definately still gives me the shits, but from what youve written id give keroauc and burroughs a read.

another point id like to make is that the actual reference of drug use by these novelists seems to me to be an act to garner sympathy. most of the people in my life have worked hard to fix themself, often oscillating from good times down into the ditch, but have had the conviction to acknowledge this, avoid prolonging this particular moment in their life the best they can and pull themselves out again with some dignity. prolonged drug use by an individual who advertises the fact isnt something that dignifys the person.

like chuck mentioned in one of his essays..........
readers dont like to read about self absorbed characters who just sit around feeling sorry for themselves.

for me, drug users who advertise their habits fit this bill.

another example of this is reading that omar from the band "the mars volta" commented in an english magazine that his music was more creative than english bands because he smokes better drugs.

as for the cut and paste

its seems that the thrill from this method is purely serendipitous rather than knowledge based (although as you wrote the articles are thoughtfully selected).
aside from collating the original material, the cutting up process is obviiously only a mechanical application rather then a mental application.

depending on how intensive the cutting process is, i liken the cut and paste to a lottery or a small bulgarian girl forming the wounds of christ and achieving a recognised miracle. it seems dubious.

if the cut and paste method achieves an audience it only happens because everybody has different trains of thought and if you take a large enough and randomly selected cross section of the comunity and feed it random information, some members (a minority) will make a connection with the literature.

comparing the number of people that understood the novel to those that didnt would prove how little this method projects a message from the author.

you do have a point about the connection to the cutting up process. i would imagine that there is a minor advantage as the choice of material cut up would to some extent please the author aesthetically. but that is only part of the process and as the jumbling process is random i still give little creedance to the method.

you say that their use of drugs made them feel a kinship between each other and a deference to the rest of society. i can understand the kinship part having known enough folk, but why did they feel a deference to the rest of the society? did they think that only drug users endure hardships and it was every body elses fault? if burroughs was only using drugs to moderate his environment and keroauc was fully aware that his addiction had a hold of him how could they both hold contempt again the rest of the society when they knew they were damaged individuals?

similarly if i set up a random "cut and paste" generating computer program and created 10000 different novels from material personally cut up by me, then written into the program and you chose one person to read all 10000 novels, id be surprised if even one of those novels had a meaning derived by the reader.so a lot of people are going to left frustrated at being confused while the very few that think or really did achieve a connection to the novel will statistically never achieve this again because the author would have to create a back catalogue of novels of ridiculous proportions.

"cut and paste" and "black bisexual trannie amnesiac male with two missing fornt teeth, a tattoo of pappa smurf and a gunshot wound to the left index finger whose skin systematically turns violet every leap year whilst wearing a beenie, tracksuit pants and a shirt emblazened with the face of creflo a dollar."

dubious and extremely improbable.

even after all that im still really interested. burroughs really does sound interesting so ill give it a go. what novel do you recommend, im sure actually reading his work would be the best idea to fully understand the method ?

ill either convince myself even more or decide its brilliant. thats the thing with these types of methods they seem to polarise folk.

i like candy

cheers again

Andy,

You don't have to spell check per se, but your posts may be the hardest pieces of writing to read...ever.

[QUOTE=tyler branson]Andy,

You don't have to spell check per se, but your posts may be the hardest pieces of writing to read...ever.[/QUOTE]
actually that would be Naked Lunch The Restored Text

[QUOTE=chianski]keroauc was the only writer out of the lot of em, in terms of craft he was the only one to re-invent and use the craft of ' writing ' to trun it into something new. burroughs on the other hand had he's own trip going on that had more to do with he's own personal demons, more than to do with the craft of writing, but then he created a whole new style of writing. to try to compare the two in stlye or craft is like trying to compare the sex pistols with the clash, they both had a different beat, but were all singing to the same tune. keroauc was a writer who troubled himself with style and craft and then set himself free after ' the town and the city. ' burroughs was a writer who was troubled without the boundries of craft as he sat staring at he's big toe in a room in tangiers on herion for weeks and weeks. on which was born ' naked lunch, ' which was in the pages of ' on the road. ' as for ginsberg, he was a poet the last great american to be left alive out of the sixties with a voice as loud as dylan's. they were all poets, they were all writers and they were all beat.[/QUOTE]
just out of curiosity, where would you rank Bukowski in among them?

[QUOTE=chianski]well out of curiosity thats a different story, bukowski hated the beats, but i think he is something else.[/QUOTE]
yeah but i think he definitely deserves to be listed among those other great American poets

[QUOTE=andy_riverbed]gingnberg keroauc comined

keroauc is the worst, not that hes bad, but in temrs of ability of writing, the craft hes the lacker.

but hes good, and his spoken words are good too[/QUOTE]
speaking of writing ability....