The Naked Lunch (William Burroughs)

Anyone read it?

I’m about half way through and am in two minds as to whether to continue. I’m not really enjoying it.

Should I stop being a pansy and buckle up and finish it so I can appreciate it for the monumental work of literary art everyone says it is?

Or should I conclude it’s the work of sick, twisted mind, the literary equivalent of the Emporer’s New Clothes, and save myself some time that could be better spent reading something else.

Had a few goes at it, he was one **** up dude. I personally don’t think it’s worth the effort.

Give it up as a bad job, and then tuck into Infinite Jest, which is a much easier read.

Took me something like 25 years to get through Sartre’s The Age of Reason. Gave up several times then took it on a job where I knew I’d spend all my time on standby with a lot of time to kill and really enjoyed it. Still haven’t read the rest of the trilogy mind. If now isn’t the right time maybe another time will be. Plenty of other things to read while waiting

Nah, wouldn’t bother, read it and can only remember it as being it as being a worthless struggle. Apparently he was experimenting in parts at trying to emulate what artists do with collage so he would cut up pages of word from newspapers and throw them down and type what appeared (or similar) hence the total non nonsensical pages interspersed in the book.

‘Junkie’ is a much better read.

I enjoyed it love a good bit of mogwump jism thanks.

The extremes of Burroughs’ writing aren’t necessarily the most interesting bits, as Ballard notes in the intro he wrote for the book: “At first sight Naked Lunch is dominated by drugs and homosexuality… [Burroughs] sees addiction as part of the global conspiracy by the presiding powers of our world – the media conglomerates, the vast political and commercial bureaucracies, and a profit-driven medical science – which are determined to reduce us to the total dependency of addicts, while teasing us with the mirage of transgressive sex.”
There are few people who are able to produce works of art that are so alienating, inciteful and insightful. That said, I doubt I’d recommend any of his books as beach reading, there is no grand cathartic conclusion to any of them.

I’m not really enjoying it.

Answered your own question. I can’t stand artsy books, all plotting with no action, just people sitting around talking bollox.

Also, it’s not The… just Naked Lunch.

Was enthralled by it but I read it a long time ago – think it’s something to read early on, when the style is totally new to you. If you’re older and read a lot of books it might not seem as impressive.
Cities of the Red Night was my favourite of his – loved that one.

Basically you should just finish it, though, as it’s not difficult IIRC. It’s not like some dense prose monster where you’ve got to graft to get anything out of it.

Cities of the Red Night was my favourite of his – loved that one

+1

Glad I’m not the only. I’ll maybe put it on the shelf next to American Psycho for when I’ve got a job like avdave2’s.

[Burroughs] sees addiction as part of the global conspiracy by the presiding powers of our world – the media conglomerates, the vast political and commercial bureaucracies, and a profit-driven medical science – which are determined to reduce us to the total dependency of addicts, while teasing us with the mirage of transgressive sex.

Why doesn’t he say that then instead of making up weird creatures and stories about them jizzing on each other? :D

(I’m joking. Mostly.)

Also, it’s not The… just Naked Lunch.

True, although if we’re being pedantic, it was originally published as The Naked Lunch

I have a sort of rule, if I’m not enjoying a book, I stop reading it and read something else. There are quite a few books out there and you’ll never read them all. So read stuff you like reading.
I’m pretty sure I read Naked Lunch yonks ago, I think I liked it.

I hadn’t realised The was occasionally part of the title. Apologies. My understanding was that it wasn’t supposed to be a specific event, more a general demonstration of the miasma of horrors behind the illusion of normality. I used to take this crap seriously and the habit burps up every once in a while.

It’s interesting reading “shocking” books written pre-internet. Does it actually matter that writers such as Burroughs and Ballard predicted modern horrors such as the use of fake authority / news to create chaos in The Job and the use of civilian aircraft as weapons?

It’s interesting reading “shocking” books written pre-internet. Does it actually matter that writers such as Burroughs and Ballard predicted modern horrors such as the use of fake authority / news to create chaos in The Job and the use of civilian aircraft as weapons?

I often think we’re waiting for a great book on the information age, problem is that all the Masters are too old to write it – they didn’t grow up with it and don’t have it in their bones. Then I remember that they’ve already been written in the 60s and 70s like you indicate.

There is a big difference, though, between writing a dystopian book around a concept like fake news, corporations-as-governments etc, and actually creating something that feels real. Dave Eggers wrote a book called The Circle a few years back (don’t know if you’ve read it) about the logical trajectory of google / facebook and it’s just brilliantly observant because it has that verisimilitude that you can’t get from a SF novel in the 60s. It’s also a bit frustrating to read as Eggers isn’t much of a writer from a literary standpoint, so it feels like a missed opportunity for someone good to have written it – don’t know if that book is out there yet.

Gave the name for a great band though.

Like I said I’ve largely given up caring about this stuff, but there’s a line of thinking that disregards dystopianism as… if not nonsense then unhelpful – utopia having always been an idea of the impossibility of a perfect state (Thomas More), that attempting to create a perfect state causes damage and suffering, which makes the word dystopia somewhat redundant unless you mean a state that has deliberately been run to ruin.
I wasn’t keen on Eggers’ The Circle, iirc all of the points he was making had been raised by fairly mainstream jounalism (tech-boss as cult leader, illusion of choice within a closed system, inability to opt out of the data panopticon), Sartre wrote well on the practise of keeping employees in comfort that they’d be afraid to lose were they to go against policy and unionise, and obviously there’s Zamyatin/Orwell on socialised thought control.
I’m sure there’s some stunning writing out there which isn’t deemed commercial enough to warrant publishing or promoting. Which leads back to my original point above, Burroughs is known for the shocking aspects of his writing, that’s largely why he’s still in print, yet it’s the more subtle elements of his writing that are IMO more subversive and brilliant, the word-virus rather than the plot.

No need to apologise – if I’m honest, titling the thread The… was accidental.

Fripperies aside…

One of the things I do find interesting about books like this is the ability to shock/digust. Everyone can relate to a film/video being too disgusting/scary to watch, but surely the extent of the emotional reaction a book provokes is limited by having to imagine everything? Anyone who thinks that should at least try reading a bit of Naked Lunch.

Or for an earlier (1930s) go at dystopia and alienation try LF Celine.