[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 30 KB, 238x350, NakedLunch1stedition.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1706184 No.1706184 [Reply] [Original]

sooo, what does /lit/ think of Burroughs? I haven't lurked much at all...

>> No.1706190

i loled

>> No.1706220
File: 27 KB, 283x323, 1302991834190.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1706220

>>1706184
junky hack of an author on my /lit/?

i think not.

>> No.1706248

He's alright, but I've read better.

>> No.1706250

Greatest American writer of the twentieth century. Most of /lit/ won't agree, because they want writers they can imitate to get rich, but he was.

>> No.1706254

>>1706250
an author that wants to write to get rich? can they even continued to be called authors?

>> No.1706267

>>1706254

I wouldn't call them authors. There's a strong contingent of creative writing students here, who'd like to be writers. To their shopper-friendly mentality, Burroughs is anathema.

>> No.1706269

>>1706250

Yeah, totally, I like the book about the time he did drugs.

Oh, wait. That's everything he ever wrote, ever.

>> No.1706273

He was a genius, and you have to look at his books with tenderness..a real shocker to the bourgeois minded, but to some of us, he is a somber poet..because he sings true on our lives and does so with an eye for the stars..also, he had alien intelligence.

>> No.1706278

Burroughs was a product of the 20th century. He was Rudyard Kipling with the same dark habits, witnessing the last gasps of Imperialism, and the rumblings of a strange new world.

>> No.1706283

>>1706220
Weren't all American authors like that during the 50s that?
Tennessee Williams was perhaps worse than Burroughs for this, but he's considered one of the best playwrigths of the 20th century.

>> No.1706363

>>1706269
if you think the sole purpose of anything Burroughs has done is "herp derp i did drugs", you're a moron.

>> No.1706365

>>1706283
>Weren't all American authors like that during the 50s that?

Norman Mailer? I don't think he was a junky. Not Hemingway. I wouldn't call Ginsberg a junky, but he participated in all sorts of drug use.

>> No.1706374

>>1706278

Could you enlarge upon this connection between Burroughs and Kipling?

>> No.1706406
File: 41 KB, 267x415, Queer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1706406

I thought this was a brave statement. He admits that he is sex crazed pedophile but his imaginative tales of sexual slaves in distant places makes me laugh hysterically.

>> No.1706411

I tried reading Naked Lunch.
I like the writing style, but the problem is he doesn't write anything in particular with it.
He just describes weird shit which is supposedly "satirical" but is mostly just a load of needlessly graphic crap.

Although I give him credit for coming up with as many ways to describe erect cocks as he did.

>> No.1706602
File: 187 KB, 540x693, 74376428746582.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1706602

what about thoughts on Ginsberg?

>> No.1706797

>>1706411

Imbecile detected. If you don't understand why he wrote what he did, how on earth do you determine that it's 'needlessly' anything? How do you know what it needs to be?

>> No.1707387

I think Burroughs is a great poet who hid from his talent in some ways. Best twentieth century Amercian writer I've read though (if Nabokov counts as Russian).

>> No.1707403

burroughs was a spoiled rich baby whose only recourse was to try and shock people. so he developed a drug problem and treated everyone around him like shit. and his family supported him all the while.

ginsberg and the other the high-minded beat guys liked him for his flimsy "i don't give a fuck" attitude, but really he was just kind of a rich-boy poser.

>> No.1707412

>>1706273
>he sings true on our lives and does so with an eye for the stars..also, he had alien intelligence.

it's true that he was very bright, but you must remember that he came from a super rich midwestern family and was educated at the most elite private schools and later harvard.

however i disagree with your notion that he speaks to dreamers or whatever. i don't think he actually could relate or feel empathy for anyone else. i think people are just fascinated by his work because its antisocial. i mean, i'm fascinated with it too, but i don't think he was special for writing it.

>> No.1707417

>>1707412
Hm..well I don't particularly fault him for being rich, even though usually i am all about some class war on the rich..i usually make an exception for artists *which is wrong i know*..I don't think he was totally antisocial..i think he was just extremely lonesome.

>> No.1707418

>>1707403
>burroughs was a spoiled rich baby

Funny, because i'm listening to an interview with him where he just commented that he doesn't think he knows a good writer who is rich. So obviously didn't consider himself to be rich.

>> No.1707478

>>1707417
>i usually make an exception for artists

yeah i'm usually INCREDIBLY suspicious of artists who come from wealth, mostly because they have had access to things and education that most have not.

>>1707418
he just commented that he doesn't think he knows a good writer who is rich

utter baloney. the guy was the living definition of "slumming it" and fronting like he wasn't receiving monthly stipends from his family. look it up

it's weird, i go to an ivy and the one thing i've learned from the highly-educated and young affluent is the guilt that it carries and how many will evade the title if they can (funny that they never evade its benefits, though). by claim that "well, i'm poor now" and "i'm earning my keep now" while psychically blocking the great wealth of support and access they've had and still have.

sorry to rant. i'm just saying that burroughs was an over-educated solipsist with the time and money to indulge his whims (and the well-funded academic training to write about it eloquently). there was nothing special or unique there other than his timing--which was something beyond his control.

>> No.1707992

>>1707412
>i don't think he actually could relate or feel empathy for anyone else.

yeah, i think that's probably true to some extent. I was watching this interview where he was talking about Ginsberg in 1983 and he was praising the guy for how he owed almost all of his publications to him, but his praise seemed highly artificial... like he knew that he owed Ginsberg and that he should feel grateful, but he had trouble actually feeling grateful... I don't know though, maybe that's just the years of heroin use or perhaps just his mannerisms.

>>1707412
>>1707417
>>1707403
>>1707478

I don't think the factor of Burrough's wealth is nearly as pejorative as many make it out to be. He certainly received a monthly stipend from his parents for a long time, but that doesn't mean he lived like a person from the "rich" classes. However, in a sense the stipend did allow him to live "rich" because he didn't have to work all the time, but he didn't associate himself with the social elite.. AT ALL. He lived like shit for a lot of the time and associated himself with individuals that most people from the upper classes would never had associated themselves with.

Calling Burroughs wealthy is in many ways incorrect (and in a small, yet significant, way correct as noted above). He came from a wealthy family and benefited from their spoils, but as an individual he was not a wealthy man. The social snobbery and high-mindedness so characteristic of the upper classes was never adopted by Burroughs. It is because of this that I disregard his family's wealth. He was a human being trying to survive and experience humanity's frail existence... he didn't occupy himself at the country clubs of the social elite of his time- although, he certainly and easily could have. He deviated from the easy path of aristocracy laid forth by family's wealth and instead chose to live among junkies, bohemians, and the under appreciated grime of the poor. For this I give him credit.

>> No.1708028
File: 35 KB, 583x265, 3274678236487323.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1708028

>>1707992
>interview where he was talking about Ginsberg in 1983

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOb4j5v-s48

>> No.1708072

What's wrong with an artist being well educated? What makes Burroughs so endearing to me is that at his heart he was a scientist and he basically made his entire life an experiment for himself. No else can, or has since, approached drugs and political and sexual deviancy in the manner that he has He writes without emotion or personality. His drug use or homosexuality isn't painted with romanticism or pity. It is harsh because it was a harsh life. He was an anthropologist of the counter culture. He devoted his entire life to being a perverted scumbag just to measure the results of such a life.

>> No.1708225

I didn't like Naked Lunch, I'm not a native English speaker so maybe I just didn't get it, but I thought it was just too gimmicky, cutting stories apart and making them LUL RANDUM.

Junkie on the other hand was one of the best books I ever read. Great insight into a dark world.

>> No.1708231

>>1708225
>great insight into a dark world
I don't think so..he wrote it as a pulp novel. I am a junky and things just aren't that hip in my life.

>> No.1708264

Naked Lunch seemed like it was a lot of effort put iinto nothing in particular. Not saying this is a bad thing, as it does a very good job at this.

>> No.1708354
File: 22 KB, 450x332, 888327482343.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1708354

>>1708231
but, this isn't the 50's either. :(

>> No.1708430

>>1708231

yeah, the reality of being a junky is much more pathetic and boring

>> No.1708441

>>1707992

this point has already been addressed. it's a false front, plain and simple. no amount of mental gymnastics excuses willed poverty with upper-class protection. it's fraudulent and should not be respected.

>> No.1708513

>>1708441
>no amount of mental gymnastics excuses willed poverty with upper-class protection.

because he was protected with upper class spoils doesn't mean he was part of that class. There are more sociological traits that define a member of the upper class than "hurr durr s/he doesn't have to work".

>> No.1708562

>>1708513

access and security are the two major advantages of the upper class--both of which he was gleefully enjoying while he was "poor and destitute"

we should be more critical of those who think they can claim authenticity just through the word of it. and if you wish to have a grow-up discussion it would be wise not to flippantly reduce your opposition to a flimsy "hurrdurr."

>> No.1708598

One of the few people who didn't seem like a cunt in On the road.

That's my opinion of him.

>> No.1708625

>>1708225
You are a fucking idiot. The "lol randum" approach of writing is cliche today because it has been mimicked many, many times. If you had read this book in 1959, his cut-up technique would have blown your fucking mind.

>> No.1708905

I love burroughs. It is perverse, it is difficult. If you don't get hard reading it, your doing it wrong. Burroughs is a genius when it comes to perspective and point of view. The way he shifts characters into each other, rewrites an early section or provides conflicting accounts makes an extremely alien scenario.

>> No.1708928

>DAT VOICE

>> No.1708996

Maybe not blown your mind. It would have been more original. In any case Burroughs is not one of the great American authors as far as I am concerned.

>> No.1709010
File: 19 KB, 446x298, burroughs-kerouac.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1709010

I love Burroughs. Naked Lunch is a masterpiece, and the cut-ups are something I'll pick up and flip thru whenever I feel like a good laugh.

>> No.1709093

>>1708562
>access and security are the two major advantages of the upper class--both of which he was gleefully enjoying while he was "poor and destitute"

Yes, yes, I don't deny that he benefited from these things and would also refrain from calling him "poor and destitute" (though he lived among the poor and destitute). But, my argument is that one cannot say that he was entirely part of the upper class. I also don't think his upper class background really affects the authenticity of his work. Simply because he didn't have to struggle to the same degree as those he lived around doesn't mean he couldn't document their suffering or feel empathy for their plight.

If any motif could be negatively affected by Burroughs' upper class background, it would be those dealing with labor struggles or the condition of the lower classes (because, as you contend, he didn't experience the gritty struggle of the truly poor). Surely a lot of his work discussed these issues, but I don't think they were the main or sole focus of his work. I'm not sure anyone could make a valid argument that Burroughs' authenticity as a provocative and candid representative of the drug subculture was compromised by his convenient umbilical cord to Old Money.

>> No.1709188

>>1708562
Most good writing seems to come from disadvantaged people. Disadvantage combined with talent/ambition seems to sometimes motivate people to say something new. It's not all money and class though. Burroughs was a faggot in a day when it was tricky to be a faggot. Add that to the individual tragedy of shooting his wife and that was enough to make him as a poet. His wealth was advantage, but his sexuality and circumstance didn't let him feel complacently at home in the world. More great disadvantaged C20th writers:

Kafka - Jew
Woolf - woman
Joyce - Irish
Nabokov - declasse emigre/murdered father

>> No.1709337

>>1709188
>Kafka - Progressive German Jew is Prague pestered by the Orthodox family of his gf.

>> No.1709358

>>1709188

>Most good writing seems to come from disadvantaged people.

People who live financially secure and well-adjusted lives are usually pretty boring people to begin with.

>> No.1709977

>>1706184
is the only book he's done?

>> No.1710490

>>1709977
>>1709977
can you use google? or wikipedia? you can't seriously be asking this in the era of mass technology.

>> No.1710493

>>1709188
Yes, and burroughs was a heroin addict which is still a big disadvantage in the USA and around the world. albeit one that you choose (supposedly)..i think it's kind of an ascetic existence.

>> No.1710696

I'm reading Nova Express right now, and its fucking floored me, I haven't been this into a book for quite some time.

I think that with Burroughs, your mileage may vary, but those people who reduce him to a junky hack are either missing the point, or simply trolling, or perhaps both. He might be erudite, but there is a lot more to him than just drugs/shock value.

>> No.1710713

its actually funny - how most novelists/poets create this romanticised, almost bohemian image surrounding their backgrounds of being poor and underpriviliged etc....when in reality they are quite the opposite. BUT if it wasn't for the fact they were actually from rich backgrounds...they wouldn't have had the free-time, or perhaps the inclination to pursue their art...

>> No.1710742

>>1710713
I don't think that that image of Burroughs is necessarily one that he cultivated. At least, not in regard to poverty. I think a lot of it is projected onto him, because he was a junky, and poverty is an easy inductive leap to make.

On the other hand, I don't know that Burroughs ever did any writing that portrayed him as an upperclass brat turned misfit/burn-out, which might be a more accurate portrayal of him.

Anyway, an authors persona can be the vehicle which sells his books, and Burroughs certainly does have a very romanticized one. How much of that is intentional on his part? Its hard to say, I think that from the very beginning he was cultivating an image of himself... but Naked Lunch was definitely the turning point for him, and it kicked off the image of Burroughs that we are familiar with today.

I cant help but think of something from Nova Express a little bit, his descriptions of the concept of the image and word as weaponized virus. That and he has a very strong author avatar in that book, but its something somewhat alien from the popular image of burroughs, IMO its done in a kind of messianic sci-fi context.

>> No.1710746

Burroughs never really cultivated an image for himself..especially not the bohemian one as another anon pointed out..i don't think he even has an image outside of bizarro junky which by god he earned by being a junky and by being bizarre (he shot his own wife in the face trying to play william tell, not to mention he was into scientology before scientology even existed)..I think casting burroughs as a faker just shows how little people have read from him..his books explicitly state how he received money from his family..although any junky knows that the money runs out FAST

>> No.1710750

>>1710746
he did cultivate an image for himself, in the sense that every book he wrote is either about him directly, or involves him as an author avatar in one sense or another... but I do agree with you, that the image he cultivated for himself is different than the image of him in popular imagination.

I don't think he was being disingenuous, quite the opposite.

>> No.1710761

>>1710750
Well do you think he kind of disavowed the fact that he killed his wife (as the film Naked Lunch seems to suggest)? I hadn't thought of it until I finally watched that movie.

>> No.1710765

... because I feel it's related, and because I like it, I'll quote an excerpt from Nova Express.

>Technical Deposition of the Virus Power
"Gentlemen, it was first suggested that we take our image and examine how it could be made more portable. We found that simple binary coding systems were enough to contain the image however they required a large amount of storage space until it was found that the binary information could be written at the molecular level, and our entire image could be contained in a grain of sand. However it was found that these information molecules were not dead matter but exhibited a capacity for life which is found elsewhere in the form of virus. Our virus infects the human and creates our image in him.
"We first took our image and put it into code. A technical code first developed by the information theorists. This code was written at the molecular level to save space, when it was found that the image material was not dead matter, but exhibited the same life cycle as the virus. This virus released upon the world would infect the entire population and turn them into our replicas, it was not safe to release the virus until we could be sure that the last groups to go replica would not notice. To this end we invented variety in many forms, variety that is of information content in a molecule, which, enfin, is always a permutation of the existing material. Information speeded up, slowed down, permutated, changed at random by radiating the virus with high energy rays from cyclotrons, in short we have created an infinity of variety at the information level, sufficient to keep so-called scientists busy for ever exploring the 'richness of nature'.
"It was important all this time that the possibility of a human ever conceiving of being without a body should arise. Remember that the variety we invented was permutation of the electromagnetic structure of matter energy interactions which are not the raw material of nonbody experience."

>> No.1710769

>>1710765
I love how that quote is basically taking the concept of 'the word' (of God) and exposing it for what it truly implies. Also, how amazing is it that Burroughs nonchalantly raises the issue of violence and domination encoded in language, and in language gestures in this way, while others spend long, dry, boring books getting the same idea out?

>> No.1710771

>>1710761
Personally, I'm a little uncertain about this point. I haven't read Junky or Queer yet, and I get the impression that those books will deal with that particular subject more-so than his works following Naked Lunch (which are primarily what I've read by him.)

I know he collaborated with Cronenburg to some extent on the film, so chances are whatever impressions on the subject, and the image of Burroughs in general , that can be gleaned from the film at least met with his tacit approval.

I'm of the opinion that even he wasn't entirely certain on that topic himself, but I can tell you that doing something against your will, or even a kind of subconscious possessive force, sometimes alien possession, are common themes in his work.

>> No.1710773

lol'd when i first seen all the drama about his money and status compared to the other beats, namely ginsberg.

fucking hipsters and their want for lack of money and placing so much concern on that minor detail.

>> No.1710781

>>1710771
This concept of the alien possession which he elaborated set against the backdrop of his real-life past, is so fascinating and disturbing..like everything the man did (which is why I think Cronenburg really latched onto it) . He was a fantastic artist, I even enjoy his films and paintings and audio recordings. In my opinion he was the finest of the surrealists, but of course he rarely gets credit for that (because he isn't european, and admittedly not from that particular time frame of social clique)

>> No.1710870

>>1710769
To be fair, there is a lot more to it in Nova Express than just that quote, and due to the cut-up technique used in that book he repeats himself a bit as well.

Mind you, it works pretty well within the context of the work. When you first get into it, you don't completely understand everything that's going on, but throughout the book more and more of the tapestry is revealed to you so that you find yourself re-reading sections over and over again, catching more and more of the subtextual layer as you go. That particular one is really well done.

I mean, to a certain extent, you can say that the entirety of Naked Lunch is written around this them as well. Control and the variety of methods of control, especially language, seem to be the primary focus of his work from Naked Lunch onwards.

My favorite image of Burroughs is that of the con-man, the shuckster, he's like a modern Canada Bill Jones. Throughout his work, he's turning us onto the con game, but at the same time he's still trying to sell us something. I think he was damn good at it.

>> No.1710925

>>1710773
>fucking hipsters and their want for lack of money and placing so much concern on that minor detail.

I think it's actually quite significant.

>> No.1710970

>>1710925
Not that guy, but its only significant up to a certain point. When it gets to be "He's not from the streets, therefore he's a shit writer", I call hipster bullshit. When its a matter of someone from the upper crust pretending at something they're not, that's a different story. In the case of Burroughs, well, it probably warrants some discussion. Personally, I don't feel that he was pretending at anything which he wasn't, and I like his writing. Others that don't care for him like to emphasize his rich family in a negative light. In the case of Burroughs, I think his wealthy background is incidental to his work. That he did a lot of drugs, and killed his common-law wife, is more relevant.

>> No.1711066

>Burroughs later said that shooting Vollmer was a pivotal event in his life, and one which provoked his writing:
>" I am forced to the appalling conclusion that I would never have become a writer but for Joan's death, and to a realization of the extent to which this event has motivated and formulated my writing. I live with the constant threat of possession, and a constant need to escape from possession, from control. So the death of Joan brought me in contact with the invader, the Ugly Spirit, and maneuvered me into a life long struggle, in which I have had no choice except to write my way out.[17]"

just a bit interesting

>> No.1711067

>>1710761
>>1711066

>> No.1711122

>>1710493
>albeit one that you choose (supposedly)..i think it's kind of an ascetic existence.

how could it not be his choice? did he not know what the fuck he was getting into?

I don't think Ginsberg did heroin, did he? He choice not to

>> No.1711160

>>1711122
Ginsberg did a lot of heroin.

>> No.1711200

With most of his books that I've read, I had to take on a whole new style of reading books. Usually it's just "read and analyze." But with Burroughs, it's pure stream-of-conscious. The truth his hidden somewhere in his intelligent ramblings, among the mockings. It's like Magical Realism meets Satire.

Plus, he was a bad ass and got me curious about opiates. Now I have a slight addiction to Vicodin.

>> No.1711203

I love dirty realists. Bukowski and the Fante's turned me into an amateur self-journalist (who isn't), but Burroughs knew something that he had to clear up about the drug world.

>> No.1711475

>>1711200
>got me curious about opiates.
Pretty much had the opposite effect on me, man.

>> No.1711541

>>1710970
>"He's not from the streets, therefore he's a shit writer", I call hipster bullshit.

Yeah, I would agree that's hipster bullshit.

>> No.1711557

>>1711160
sources

>> No.1711564

>>1711557
yeah, disregard that, I suck cocks.

>> No.1711960

>>1711066
>I live with the constant threat of possession

what the hell does he mean by this?

>> No.1711961

also,

>>1711066
see below
>>1711557

>> No.1711968

>>1711960
Being arrested for possession of diacetylmorphine

>> No.1712475

>>1708028
who's in the middle?

>> No.1712713

>>1711968
>Being arrested for possession of diacetylmorphine

Don't think you've read much Burroughs.

>> No.1713137

>>1712713
not the same as heroin, then?

>> No.1713896

>>1710713
>BUT if it wasn't for the fact they were actually from rich backgrounds...they wouldn't have had the free-time, or perhaps the inclination to pursue their art...

I don't think this is necessarily true. I suppose in many of the mainstream cases like Orwell and Burroughs, it's probably true, but then you have writers like Bukowski who truly come from underprivileged backgrounds and have a wondrous output of creative work.

So, maybe we could create some small correlation between a writer's background/upbringing and the ability to pursue their art. Actually, I would bet that it's just a result of their education that they have the desire to pursue such an art. Coming from a privileged background gives them the necessary education to create such a desire, so it's the educational residue not the fact that they can live idly that matters.

>> No.1713902

>>1713896
>so it's the educational residue not the fact that they can live idly that matters.
>so it's the educational residue that matters, not the fact that they can live idly.

fix'd

>> No.1713921
File: 54 KB, 600x351, photo_kerouac_cassady.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1713921

people need to stop talking context and start talking content. fucking really lit? was he a good author or not. it doesn't matter what his background is. this shit makes me so fucking mad. god damn it, i've lost so much faith in you

>> No.1713962

>>1713921
content is very important, but that doesn't mean context isn't important. I suppose we could move the direction of discourse more towards content, but no one has really done so yet. That doesn't mean that those who discuss context don't care about content- that would be absurd.

>> No.1714150

I think it's incredibly bitter and ignorant of you all to believe that just because he was upper class that the man hypothetically never struggled, or wasn't 'allowed' to struggle, it shows a clear entitlement you all feel to be respected or pitied for your backgrounds, which is incredibly childish.

Not a huge fan of Burroughs anyhow.

>> No.1714240

>>1713962
no, but it seems that the direction of this thread is evidence that people tend to get hung up on context. in my opinion, content should be considered on its own first, then considered in light of its context.

>> No.1714817

>>1714150
>it shows a clear entitlement you all feel to be respected or pitied for your backgrounds, which is incredibly childish.

I doubt anyone feels this entitlement. The discussion was simply about how his privileged upbringing affected his writing and his struggle. Surely that upbringing is relevant to his work and to ignore it would be foolish. Anyone feeling the entitlement you describe doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but anyone who claims that Burroughs' monthly stipend from his parents didn't help him have the idle time to write is equally a fool.

>> No.1714960

>>1712713
pretty sure he downed those too, man

>> No.1714970

ITT: incompetents who think that an author's arbitrary biographical trivia is any measure of his literary value.

>> No.1715629

>>1714970
see
>>1713962
>>1714817

>> No.1716428

>>1709188
>Disadvantage combined with talent/ambition seems to sometimes motivate people to say something new

Why do suppose this would make them more motivated though? I mean as opposed to someone from a more advantaged background.

>> No.1716460
File: 8 KB, 364x406, lolgoodlordyes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1716460

>>1706406
>Buscemi doing Queer
>mfw

http://www.firstshowing.net/2010/steve-buscemi-helming-oren-movermans-adaptation-of-queer/

>> No.1716472

>>1706406
>imaginative tales of sexual slaves in distant places

WHAT.

where/what are these. deets.

If I bring home a book called "Queer" my parents will beat me. I can't read it on my own :((

>> No.1716701

Naked Lunch, yeah it was fun.

>> No.1716804

>>1716472
Defy your parents, don't be a bland conformist.

If you're lucky, it'll give you something to write about.

>> No.1716805
File: 43 KB, 600x413, tumblr_ks2hk7VyBM1qa1iiq.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1716805

>>1716472
well,, when i was in 7th grade and could jack off to anything, some of the gay sex he writes about did it for me, but most of it is pretty gross. its not really intended to be erotic.

but pretty much everything he ever wrote has at least a third of the book be graphic descriptions of gay orgy.


do your parents really keep that close of tabs on what you read? he wrote a book called :the job; and allso one called the adding machine, they are both just collections of short work, that might be good places to start, and they both have a little sex in them.. naked lunch i think is the place to start. maybe cities of the red night, i think has some of hte most sex of any of his books? its maybe the one that might be the easyist to jack off to?

>> No.1716807

>>1716805


lol, gais help, what Burroughs book is the easy to jack off to?

>> No.1717437

>>1716805
Hmm, cool. They probably wouldn't care about The Job or The Adding Machine. Pretty inconspicuous titles. The Naked Lunch they would probably at least want to read the synopsis which they then would proceed to bar me from reading it. :(

Cities of the Red Night sounds great. don't know much about jacking off yet, but i'll see what happens

>> No.1717444

plenty of discussion of actual content in this thread, discussion of context as well, but still.

also, yeah there's some gay sex in his books, but so far I don't think I'd say its even close to 1/3'rd of the content. I haven't read Queer yet, maybe that book skews the average.

Oh, and for censored by his parents kid, either move out... or wait until you can move out. Life goes on. Either that, or sneak out to the library, and read whatever the fuck you want. I feel some pity for you.