/lit/ - Literature

If I wanted to read pretentious nonsensical bullshit I'd read Ulysses

Yeah...I dunno either.

Yes. Every time someone tells you to read something, or speaks well of something, it is because you are supposed to thing it is the greatest thing ever.

Your opinion doesn't matter any more than it did when you started an identical thread about Gravity's Rainbow earlier.

When people recommend books like this to you, they're not trying to do the book a favour. Naked Lunch is the single greatest American novel of the second half of the twentieth century. Take it or leave it.

Read Mary McCarthy's review of it if you want to get a perspective on why you're supposed to like it. She was a VERY harsh critic, and she thought it was doing something interesting, although she doesn't whitewash what's bad about it. Here's her article:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1963/feb/01/dejeuner-sur-lherbe/

It's like most other books forced on AP Lit students in high school: a way for the teacher to justify spent time.

>>1022400

Except I like Gravity's Rainbow.

-OP

>>1022401

Nah, fuck that stupid dead whore.

>>1022400

> Naked Lunch is the single greatest American novel of the second half of the twentieth century

>>1022406

Oh, so it wasn't you, just someone who thinks exactly the same way. Even sadder.

>>1022411
Are you mad?

>>1022411

How do you know how I think? I've made two posts so far (three counting this one). I hardly think I've revealed much about myself. But feel free to keep flaming, bro.

>>1022408

Tell me a greater one. Updike - no, earns pain. Mailer - murderous fart. Bellow - ghoulish auto-cannibalistic bleatings. Roth - me me, fucking me. Nabokov - not an American writer.

>>1022414

No, I just enjoy putting scum in their place. OP wants to know what he's meant to think - he's meant to THINK BETTER OF SPEAKING.

>>1022407

The ghost of Mary McCarthy like an Irish banshee will haunt your days and chill your dreaming nights until you wish yourself dead in her place. It is done.

>>1022417

>No, I just enjoy putting scum in their place.

If you truly believe you can achieve this through posting on the internet, you must be on some really great drugs.

>>1022417
You should just stop posting, bro.

>>1022416
Bukowski

>>1022416

William Gaddis

William H. Gass

And Burroughs is disqualified if you object to writers who only write about "me me, fucking me"

Oh, you got schooled

>>1022388
Cities of the Red Night > Naked Lunch

Am I supposed to think that this is the greatest thing I've ever read?

Because... well...

>>1022418
>>1022420
>>1022421

None of these were worth your while, shitpegs. Bukowski??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUKOWSKI'S NOVELS - ANY OF THEM - BETTER THAN NAKED LUNCH? No.

>>1022423

Gaddis is all perseverance and self-indulgence and no fire, no concepts, just a regretful snob looking down from his skyscraper office. Apart from his last book. That was okay. Gass is just shouting. Burroughs doesn't just write about himself, but uses himself as the recording instrument, the starting point. With Roth you just have book after book of aging giggidy-giggidy. Like it or not, Burroughs has it.

>>1022432
Hmmmmm, seems like your lit 101 paid off, pedantic butthurt detected.

you have now given us a series of your opinions, care to back them up with anything? I would like to know, by what *definable* quality ANY author can be deemed the best/most important of an era

>>1022432

Sorry, no, Burroughs is self-indulgent tripe. His self-importance would even baffle someone like Paul Auster.

Your attack on Bellow is unconvincing. Humboldt, Augie and Hertzog are all better than anything Burroughs could ever dream of writing.

Pynchon could get the nod for everything up to Mason & Dixon.

Ralph Ellison only wrote one book, but it was amazing.

I could go on.

>>1022416

Suttree, Blood Meridian, Gravity's Rainbow, The Adventures of Augie March, Herzog, Everyman, American Pastoral, The Dying Animal, Sabbath's Theatre

Burrows is a minor talent famed more for his questionable morals and beating the dadaist dead horse

Delillo

Why hasn't some troll mentioned DFW or Salinger yet, and really started the flamewar?

>>1022436

HOW am I being pedantic? Don't just use words because you like the sound of them.

I was talking about single works, and dismissing those writers as having written any single work - as having the CAPACITY to write any single work - on the level of Naked Lunch. I'm not calling anyone 'the best writer', but Burroughs is the writer of the greatest novel.

>>1022437

Incorrect, Burroughs is perhaps the most important English-language novelist after Joyce.

Your conviction is of no significance because your soul is sick if you think Bellow is comparable in stature to Burroughs.

Pynchon's books are great, but no single one of them alone is up there with Naked Lunch for sheer importance.

Ralph Ellison's one book is no better than Camus, and the praise he got is just white folks being patronising as usual.

>>1022439

Wow, you can't spell his name right even when it's typed about three times prior to your post.

His morals were impeccable. Your last phrase is the phrase of a piece of shit who wants to be clever, so I'll just ignore it and be kind to you.

>>1022443

I guess we will have to agree to disagree

Because you're wrong

>>1022445

>His morals were impeccable.

Hahahaha

Not even he would agree with you

>>1022446

You don't have to agree, your agreement isn't required. Naked Lunch is there for all to read, as are the productions of all those other fellows.

>>1022443

You are clearly the kind of person who prefers reading "influential" books to reading "good" books. Good luck with that, I hope you have fun making small talk with second-rate academics at cocktail parties

>>1022443
since when is arguing about the minutia of opinions not pedantic?

So, once again, in what *definable* way, is Naked Lunch the "best book of the second half of the 20th century" [by an American author]

>>1022448

You say that because you don't really know what you're talking about.

>>1022453

I say that because he recognizes it in his own books

>>1022451

No, I prefer to read good books. Nothing is at the same level in the second half of the twentieth century, WHICH IS WHY I SAID THAT.

>>1022452

Arguing about factual minutia is pedantic, talking about art is absorbing.

>>1022454

AN IMMORAL MAN WOULD NEVER BE CONCERNED BY HIS OWN CONDUCT.

>>1022460

Yes, but just because he is not "immoral" does not mean that his morals are "impeccable" as you suggested. His morals - to the extent we recognize the category - were not impeccable. For a start, he shot his wife in the face when he was wasted. Hardly impeccable conduct.

The main point, however, is that people who like Burroughs usually do so because he is "ZOMG SO TRANSRESSIVE LOL," rather than because his writing is particularly compelling.

>>1022460

an immoral man can recognize his own immorality and be unconcerned with it, nor does his unconcern have any relevance to his morality not being questionable

I'm surprised that this is a big revelation for you

>>1022460

an immoral man can recognize his own immorality and be unconcerned with it, and his unconcern doesn't have any relevance to his morality not being questionable

I'm surprised that this is a big revelation for you

>>1022452

It is the greatest novel from an American writer of the second half of the twentieth century because of the depth of its insight, and because Burroughs doesn't waste anyone's time with that fell whore, plot. He concentrates on the nested narratives of incident - he doesn't, unlike so many of those esteemed higher in the middlebrow press, PRESUME THAT HE HAS A RIGHT TO BE READ. He holds the reader with prose and with ideas, and creates his own form in which to do it.

>>1022459
so to avoid "arguing about factual minutia" you're not going to give me a single fact that supports your theory?

>>1022468

You could replace Burroughs with pretty much any other famous writer since 1900 and all of that would be true

>>1022468

The middle hundred pages of Naked Lunch are basically unnecessary to the "insights" to which you refer. It is sloppy, inefficient writing. I don't need a plot, but I can also dispense with hundreds of pages about sodomy that may have been shocking in the 1960s, but now just seem cumbersome.

>>1022467

You're a child.


>>1022465

What a human waste you are! No, most people who read Burroughs don't read him for the transgression, and secondly, if you're piece of shit enough to confuse moral STANDARDS for the issue of CONDUCT, you're probably the kind of piece of shit who DOES read for shock value. Your morality is nothing, is extinct and without value. How many Holocausts, how many occupations, how many bombing raids will you need to witness to get that simple fact through your thick skull?

>>1022477

lol you think morality wasn't and isn't a social reality and wasn't an enormous part of what Burroughs wrote about (and against)

>>1022475

You're admitting you haven't the discipline to read seriously, then you CLAIM the right to express a literary judgment? Eat shit!


>>1022472

I've done nothing but deal in facts. Naked Lunch is just BETTER than your middlebrow 'lifestyle accesory' fiction. End of discussion.

>>1022477

I can see now why you like Burroughs so much.

>>1022468
thank you, I actually laughed when I read this. I think rather than enraging you further by pointing out those are all opinions again... oh, wait...

those are still opinions. yours, or whoever you are plagiarizing atm

>>1022479

>praising burroughs

>disqualifying others from having literary judgments because he disagrees with them

cool story, bro

>>1022478

He wrote AGAINST false morality, YES, OBVIOUSLY, OF COURSE, NO ARGUMENT FROM ME THERE.

That doesn't mean he's not a moral writer. It is because of his intransigent moral standards that he is so opposed to the morality you seem to consider to be the only imaginable one.

>>1022486

lol you think his morality is unquestionable and then tell me I'm the one with a narrow and exclusive value system

>>1022481

Plagiarizing? You see, the bankruptcy of your understanding of literature is so deep-rooted that you cannot believe that there's anyone with sensibility left to speak out. Well, I'm here and I do.

>>1022487

Nothing is unquestionable. You can question it all you like. Knock yourself out. But finally you're just a reactionary, so who cares?

>>1022489

>Nothing is unquestionable

Hint: Look up impeccable

>>1022486

You are essentially denying the significance of the word "immoral," which would be fine, except that you introduced it into the discussion in the first place. So, hypocrisy.

If you claim that "morality" is not objectively socially determined (which is not the same as saying that is should necessarily be obeyed), the "immorality" (acting contrary to some moral imperative) is simply another form of morality, and "immorality" itself dissolves into multiple moralities, plural.

We mean to say that Burroughs wrote against prevailing conceptions of social morality. Which he did. Whether this qualifies as "immorality" or not is irrelevant. He had his own ideals, certainly (which he rarely followed in his real life).

Your reductive reading of the posts of others indicates a fascistic personality. You should get that checked with Benway.

This thread is hilarious. I've never seen someone argue that Naked Lunch is the single greatest American novel of the second half of the 20th century.

The fact that everyone didn't just dismiss this as trolling is the greatest part.

>>1022493

Haha, you weakling.

>>1022504

I appreciate your contribution to the thread

>>1022488
well thank goodness you're here to rage, RAGE against the dying of the light

>>1022400

Come back in ten years.

>>1022496

More failure which isn't even worth parsing, shitpeg.

Burroughs' morality was impeccable.


>>1022503

It's just a statement of fact. There's no single novel at the same level, and those that approach that level are still greatly under his influence.

>>1022507

No, I'm just laughing at your failure!


>>1022509

Haha, fuck off you boring little shit!

>>1022477

So I can have impeccable morals, but it makes no difference whether my conduct conforms in any identifiable way to those morals? Surely an important element of a morality is its relations to praxis.

If not, we'll never know anything about Burroughs' morals, because they have no tangible relationship to his empirical behavior, which is the only thing from which we can make judgments.

>>1022503
no, the thought of his epiglottis spewing bile all over his keyboard is the most amusing part.

Oh wow. The butthurt here is off the charts.

Most important novel of the second half of the twentieth century...

This thread is awesome. I haven't even read the book, but I've made both sides RAGE hard.

>>1022515

What are you wittering on about, you creep?

>>1022518

>epiglottis

I haven't read that word since 4th grade science. Really takes me back.

Second most important.

>>1022526

Haha, you must be joking. Richard fucking Brautigan.

>>1022529

Shit that you don't have the analytical power to parse, apparently. Go back to fifth grade, cuntslug.

Most important novel of the century. Period.

I must clarify, it doesn't anger me when twerps try to make claims for bad writing over good. It wasn't lightly that I said Naked Lunch is the greatest American novel of the second half of the twentieth century, and I'm aware that making such a statement will attract a fair number of pants-wetters and wealth-fetishists out to extol their worthless idols.

>>1022540

Paul Gable's morals are impeccable

>>1022535

It is a statement of fact, either accept it or not...

>>1022542

Stay edgy and angry, my friend.

>>1022537

You have no analytical capabilities whatsoever. Burroughs acted in accordance with his own standards. There's no point in responding point-by-point to half-educated shit's lies.

>>1022542
That's funny, it looks like you're doing exactly what you accuse them of.
I loved Naked Lunch too. But you're an ass.

>>1022548

You see, that's how totally bereft of insight you are - you call me an ass when I'm just telling the truth repeatedly to the assgoblins of lies.

>>1022547

You're an inarticulate and/or insecure asshole. This is a statement of fact, either accept it or not...

>>1022556

No, I'm secure telling you repeatedly to eat shit! What's more, I'm perfectly articulate.

if you don't dig burroughs, i'm sure you can convince yourself that you're smart and edgy by reading Palahniuk. Burroughs is dead, so it doesn't matter if people like his work or not. it's not like he's getting rich off an inflated reputation.

I prefer the Nova books.

>>1022558

1. If you are articulate, then you are an idiot, because you have provided no support for anything you have said, other than invective.

2. You're very, very insecure. Trust me on this.

>>1022560

Same here, but I maintain no single part of the Nova trilogy is on the same level in terms of invention. I couldn't pick one of those books, on its own, as a work. All three have to be considered.

>>1022559

OP here: I hate Palahniuk.

>>1022563

No, I'm not insecure or inarticulate, shitpeg - why would I be insecure dealing with people like you, victims of their own Battered Wife Syndrome?

Do go and eat some shit.

The proof is in the book, between the covers. Read Naked Lunch. Read all of Bellow, all of Roth, all of those other midgets who were mentioned. None approaches his seriousness, not even their best work is the equal of Naked Lunch.

It's sadly typical that I'm being asked for proof when I'm arguing against Sunday-school shits who think Burroughs shooting his wife lets them off the hook for the far worse crime of FAILING TO PAY AFUCKINGTTENTION TO HIS WORK.

>>1022576

Calm down, friend, I'm sorry your father never loved you. You just need to build some confidence, and one day you'll be fine. We're all here for you. No matter what you do or say to hurt us, we're going to stay by your side and help you through this. You're safe.

>>1022579

I wouldn't give a shit if Burroughs was a murderer or a saint.

His writing still sucks, and will go down as mindless tripe in the annals of history.

i kind of like burroughs. his skill is debatable certainly - but somehow whenever i pick him up i find myself inspired to write in the same way that borges rekindles my interest in creation.

>>1022579

Typical Burroughs-fan response. Against claims that the writing is simply no good, you accuse us of a parochial Christian morality ("Sunday-school"). We're not saying that the book is bad because it endorses Bad Things, we're saying it's bad because it is undisciplined and self-indulgent. Your Judeo-Christian upbringing might lead you to fixate upon the Bad Things, but the rest of us are just reading the text as it is, without any of your immature hangups.

>>1022583

Look who doesn't want to talk about literature any more! You waster, aren't you ashamed of yourself?

>>1022597

Does someone need a hug? I think someone needs a hug.

>>1022587
fine. you have completely deconstructed burroughs and we don't need his work any more, so let's burn/delete it all and never speak of him again.

>>1022604

Sounds like a deal to me, I'll bring the matches.

>>1022596

The piece of shit who brought up morality wasn't making that point, no.

Yeah, you wish it had a nice story for you, don't you you plebian! By discipline you mean adman's concision. Unfortunately, Burroughs was a writer, like Joyce. Take him whole or stay in your pit.

'Self-indulgence' is a meaningless accusation, as is 'lack of discipline' - you can judge the work of a tradesman who you hire to do what you want, but Burroughs is an artist in the business of giving you what you need. There is an extreme, bracing discipline in his work, but it's you, the reader, who's being disciplined.

>>1022602

Ha, does someone need to be raped? I think he does! Shut up you bedwetter!

>>1022608

This is one of the greatest paragraphs of bullshit I have ever read. You should get paid for this type of stuff.

>>1022611

1: Which of the three, you blind cunt?

2: Bullshit is rating Bellow because you wish you were as rich as he is.

this shit should be stickied

>>1022614

Bullshit is rating Burroughs because you have the mind of a sixteen-year-old, and want to rebel against the system, but don't actually have the guts to do anything about it other than read pretentious books and nod approvingly.

Enjoy your vicarious existence

It's word candy. It's a testament to his skill with prose that he made something completely plotless somewhat readable.

That being said, read The Cities of the Red Night series.

>>1022616

You see, the same old Sunday-school sneering. You're just INCAPABLE of evaluating literature honestly. You don't have the sensibility for it. It always comes down to demographic-sniffing with you middlebrow wretches.

>>1022619

Plot is an encumberance, a wretched, dulling thing.

>>1022650

Naked Lunch has a plot

>>1022654

It has a narrative constructed from a collage of events, but there is no plot. Plot and narrative are two distinct things.

>>1022656

Plot and narrative are two distinct things. Naked Lunch has both.

I know because I've actually read the book carefully, rather than taking the easy way out and interpreting it as a "collage" that doesn't tax my brain too much.

I'm going now as this shit is boring.

OP, read Burroughs again until you understand. If you don't after ten readings, give up, buy Humboldt's Gift and masturbate into a cocktail-shaker over the wealth.

Thank you and goodnight!

>>1022658

Wrong! That shit isn't going to work, it's not a plotted novel, you mongoloid. Narrative, but no plot. How many thousand times must you be schooled?

Eat shit and goodnight.

>>1022654

Naked Lunch this for me please

>>1022662

I don't want to give it away, but the plot is about reconstituting a narrative weapon among the duelling powers of Interzone, and thus escape.

Sadly, I cannot school you, because you appear incapable of learning. But you seem happy, so it's ok. Run along, now.

>>1022665

America-Benway-Interzone-Politics-Withdrawal.

Done and done.