William S.Burroughs

there's plenty of coherence, just without plot or characters (with depth).

>It lacks other redeeming attributes because, as various anons have mentioned, there is no plot
That is a redeeming attribute. Burroughs is not confined by conventional story telling conventions. Reading Naked Lunch is a raw moist experience of cummy heart vomiting. It's like non-consensual anal sex in written form. art.

>Uses obscene language and grotesque imagery to mask lack of vision or originality
>uses meme tactics (folding, cut-ups) to remain relevant to an increasingly jaded audience.
>espouses radical, fascistic political positions in interviews to cultivate an air of controversy, never rights anything overtly political.

Muh' literary merit.

William Burroughs is a degenerate junkie pedophile faggot who murdered his wife and got away with it

Holy shit user, do you hear yourself?
I think your post illustrates why Burroughs shouldn't (or rather can't) be taken seriously.
He was a ridiculous man with a toxic influence on children.

You sound like a stuffy prude without the ability to understand or appreciate the value of the Human experience.

Burroughs is not meant to be taken "seriously". That's not the point of his work. Naked Lunch is subconscious literary cum. Just enjoy his words.

I loved it. Pure poetry. Like drinking strong liquor. The only book I had to put down every few pages and go for a walk to digest.

You capitalized the H in human.
I want you to be aware of that. It's important.

It's funny, like fall down the toilet funny

Found it quite boring tbqh. just reads like an extended edgy /b/ post. if i'd read this before i hit the 'chan, maybe it would be shocking but I didn't so it isn't

My friend used to read me bits and pieces, I liked what I heard

It's funny you should make the /b/ comparison. That was my first thought after the first dozen or so pages. Of course by the time I discovered Burroughs I had already outgrown /b/, so by the time I finished 'Naked Lunch' I had already outgrown Burroughs.

Yes, I read it. No, I don't have any thoughts on it.

>tfw ywn read a good book to someone with you both enjoying it

>the observation that culture behaves like a virus predates Burroughs by decades.

[citation required]

are you unable to appreciate a work in the context of the time it was written, or do you judge them all by today's standards?

>No, it's bad because it's only notable quality is to shock.

did you ever read any of the "Ugh!" exchange?

dangerousminds.net/comments/my_nose_nailed_to_other_peoples_lavatories_edith_sitwell_on_naked_lunch

the people who defended burroughs didn't do it on the basis that he was merely shocking. you might want to stop caring about how edgy you look to other people.

>He was a ridiculous man with a toxic influence on children.

i did not know Burroughs wrote any children's books.

It's entertaining and interesting. People complaining it isn't shocking enough are reacting against its reputation, not the book itself, and the people faulting it for incoherence are literally retarded. If you are lazy and you skim read, no, you won't understand what's going on - you have to think as you read. Sorry, brainlets.

Loved it. His prose is great, the self-inserts aren't too bad, the setting is fun and the plot is wild as fuck.

>originality
only 5 people in history have ever been truly original. you're wasting your time if you use this as a metric for quality
>espouses radical, fascistic political positions in interviews to cultivate an air of controversy, never rights anything overtly political.
why does this even bother you?

Movie was better, not even joking.

>muh childreeeen
fuck off moralfag

It worked for me
A lot of Burroughs' ideas were new, he had a huge influence on counterculture and late 20th century pop culture aswell

Do you retards not read the fucking introductions to books?? Did none of you fags saying "muh edge" not read Burroughs introduction to his own book?

READ IT. Then your pea brains might be able to grasp what he was doing with his novel.