/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3619492]

What the hell is this? I can't seem to take it seriously.

[Anonymous No.3619503]

>>3619492
You aren't supposed to

[Anonymous No.3619507]

"It was a literature experiment. He wrote multiple takes on a scene from the same characters view, but with varying ways of perceiving the situation. After writing multiple pages, he cut the pages up and carefully pieced them back together to merge the different views, then sat back at the typewriter and meticulously typed out his new scene out as prose in a way that combined both different takes.

You have to read it slowly (sometimes going back over it) to understand it. It's supposed to read like a schizophrenic account of the situation and reflects the 'bug powder' usage. At first glance it seems like the ravings of a madman, but once you can learn to recognise the varying depictions, you can read it as a whole to make sense of it.

He wrote a book with Kerouac, where they alternated chapters, and wanted to take this as far as he could by himself within one narrative."

[Anonymous No.3619514]

One of the greatest pieces of literature.

[Anonymous No.3619541]

>children's /lit/

maybe you're too old to be experiencing it for the first time. probably need to be 12 or some shit.

[Anonymous No.3619577]

>>3619492
I like this book. I have an first issue of it as well as a worn copy that I beat to all hell as a (young)teenager.
I was REALLY into Burroughs when I was about 13-15, but somewhere along the way I got tiresome of the Avant-garde art that doesn't really hold anything of importance.
It's fucking cool and experimental as hell, but it is a one-trick pony.
His less-experimental fiction (Junkie, Queer, etc...) is much more firmly-grounded as literature because it is much less apathetic.

Don't let that push you away from the book. It is a good read. You can't read it as if it were just a work of fiction, though. You need to read it as art and you need to not analyze it, because you won't come out with much.