Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Books, Criticism & Writing >

Is Robert Anton Wilson for high school geeks? (ages, authors, patterns, and problems)

Page: (1)2

12:33 / 29.03.03

I was recently told that RAW was for high school geeks, and that being an avid reader of him at 19 was "extremely weird."

Did you guys find this shit before you hit 18? Just curious.

I was (also) recently told that the majority of my interests were held by zit faced 15 year old computer geeks with hermit glasses.

To think that I used to fancy myself "apocalyptically hip." (AH) Paradigm shifting is *out* these days, did you hear?

Though the word "meme" is still *in*, as is the word "fractal." This puzzles me.

Added randomness: "So you think you're a superhero" would be a pamphlet written for your little brother, right?

12:42 / 29.03.03

Better question: why should you care what anybody thinks of your interests?

12:50 / 29.03.03

I was brainwashed by the alternative media. Lies, I tell you.

12:57 / 29.03.03

I like Playstation games. I enjoyed the Illuminatus trilogy at age twenty, and a teacher at my university took the piss out of me for reading it (he'd never read it himself and didn't even know what it was about). I just bought the tATu album. I mean, really. I have the stereotypical interests of a fairly nerdy teenage boy. But I don't much care, because there's lots more I could be worrying about. As is evidenced by the front page of the message board, RAW is seen by some as a 'subversive god'. Take from it what you can, try not to give a flying fuck what anyone else thinks. Works for me.

12:59 / 29.03.03

Incidentally, the reason I didn't discover RAW til I was twenty is that I was too busy reading other classics, old and modern.

Dear Christ, I'm shaggingwell twenty-two. I'm ancient. See, much better thing to worry about...

13:03 / 29.03.03

People here "don't give a fuck about what people think" like ping pong players "keep their eye on the ball."

It's common knowledge. What I was trying to do was start a thread on different authors and their typical age group readership. What makes a particular age group sway toward a specific author, etc. etc. etc.

13:22 / 29.03.03

Sorry, Rage—I had assumed that this thread was purely about you, you, you.

My bad. I don't where I could've got that idea

13:24 / 29.03.03

I read books that are age appropriate for 11 year olds all the time *gasp* I also read classics, modern classics, contemporary fiction etc, I don't think that age appropriateness matters that much, more whether a book is engaging to you.

13:36 / 29.03.03

The questioning/deconstructing of sociological/developmental basics related to different reading material, I'm going for here. No need to prove that you're not a product of "age appropriateness."

"I don't believe the lies the mainstream media tells me," the punk kid says.

"Keep your eye on the ball."

But my question isn't on sports, let alone ping pong. It's on ages, authors, patterns, and problems. Jack is excused from his "cat is spelled c-a-t" divergence for the reason of: "entity J being jaded with sophist opera of entity R."

As for the rest of you, stop +1'ing my knowledge, please. Every day is a day to start all over: to get rid of the ego: to look back on ones internet past and go "assclit! assclit!"

13:52 / 29.03.03

[i]. What I was trying to do was start a thread on different authors and their typical age group readership. What makes a particular age group sway toward a specific author, etc. etc. etc. [/i]

Well I suppose it has a lot to do with the general theme/feel/vibe of a book. ~Alot of books remain popular with/attract a specific age group because their theme encompasses something that they can relate to/ aspire to? A book may have a kind of age group zeitgeist, if you know what I mean?

The Return Of Rothkoid

15:02 / 29.03.03

Well, age studies aside, I'm standing up and being counted for all those that thing that RAW is turgid, overwritten shite that's half as clever as it believe it is. There's only so much of BUT DO YOU SEE?! that one person can stands. And, quite frankly, I can't stands no more. So fuck that shit in the ear. He's probably much better received at age 15 or whatever, but by the time I came to read him, I was inured ot what he had to say. There was nothing new; only a decrepit wankstain stealing my beer and wake-time.

15:47 / 29.03.03

I agree with that, now. But dear Christ, his magicky books annoy me more than his conspiracy fiction.

There are certain books that kids are 'supposed' to read, but the numbers of people on Barbelith, for instance, who enjoy, say, the Malory Towers books, or various other series that were originally designed for kids, would indicate that that people don't always read what others expect them to read. Plenty of thirteen year-olds are reading Burroughs and Dostoyevsky and Genet and such...and the success of the Harry Potter and Philip Pullman books, fr'instance, indicate amply the cross-over appeal of some fiction. I reckon comics would be a good case in point, too. But what I am saying is that although there are some vague rules either in theory or practice, about age, etc., there are always plenty of people happily breaking them.

--

19:53 / 29.03.03

Well, I'm 22 and reading "The Illuminatus Trilogy" for the first time and I'm loving it.

I thought it was pretty cool how some of my favorite writers, like Lovecraft and Burroughs, make cameos in it.

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

02:34 / 30.03.03

i read illuminatus 3 times between 11 or 12 and 16
my mom gave it to me, she is kind of a hippy.

03:14 / 30.03.03

Wilson changed the entire trajectory of my thinking when I first read him at age 16, and I continue to count him as a seminal influence on my overall philosophical development. Now, more than fifteen years later, his novels don't read as well as they once did; his fiction writing does have a certain juvenile quality to it, and his philosophical writings are positively sophomoric when compared to, say, Ken Wilber or Yasuhiko Kimura, who cover much of the same territory with considerably more depth and clarity of insight. Still, I'd recommend Cosmic Trigger to just about anyone at any age as a fantastically entertaining spiritual autobiography as well as a great cultural-historical artifact. As for the novels, I'd probably reserve recommending those to teens, young adults, and fellow sci-fi (or other genre fiction) fans who have the capacity to overlook a certain degree of hackishness in otherwise really fun books.

09:22 / 30.03.03

I was recently told that RAW was for high school geeks, and that being an avid reader of him at 19 was "extremely weird."

Did you guys find this shit before you hit 18? Just curious.

Funny you should say that.

I did indeed read the majority of RAW's output as a 13-16 year old uber-geek.

Fucked by head up good and proper. "..changed the entire trajectory of my thinking"? That sounds about right. I only bought the first volume of Illuminatus because I was into conspiracies and stuff, and was bored in a 2nd hand bookshop one day..

I remember I assumed the author must be some mad old forgotten science fiction hack, and that I'd quite like to get in touch with him and let him know how much I enjoyed his crazy-ass book - I was completely unaware of his dozens of works and massive cult following..

These days, I can completely understand why a lot of people find his writing infuriating or wrong-headed or childish - in a lot of ways it is. But behind all the fooling around, I still reckon his central ideas and attitude stand up pretty well and are damn well worth investigating.

12:09 / 30.03.03

i first read wilson last summer actually, i was 21 and i couldn't put his books down and now have most of what are considered his major works. Considering i knew little about 'reality tunnels', the leary 8 circuit model and other theories about how our minds help define our reality his writing was dynamite. He's a great intro to these sorts of ideas as others have said and he's presents what are quite sophisticated ideas in a fairly straight forward fashion which i believe is his strength. i never found his prose style(i don't own his novels) too simple or unsophisticated for my 'age', indeed i found it right on the money for a layman. the age thing? well for me the internet opened all this weirdness starting with disinfo.com which led me in all different directions including here so i guess it depends on how lucky you were to get access to his books which are still regarded as fringe lit. i guess. I think i would have really liked to have encountered wilson when i was a teenager though.

Professor Silly

14:41 / 30.03.03

I also was introduced to RAW at an older age of 20 or 21. It was suggested to me by a man named Merlin (really!) in the basement of a hot actress I was trying to bag. I've found the more I study A. Crowley the more I "get" each time I read his works. To this day I try to visit RAW's website on a regular basis just to make sure he's still with us.

Anyway, after I read Illuminatus! I suggested it to a couple of intellectual guitarists, and both of them loved it. I've continued to suggest it to those who haven't been exposed to such subversive literature over the last ten years, and I have not personally had any of those people complain about the experience...most thank me for it and decide to become discordians (which is a good start).

15:36 / 30.03.03

I read 'Illuminatus' when I was 21.

People seem to be like this about Vonnegut, too, which pisses me right off. Fucking snobs, with their silly canons.

Regrettable Juvenilia

16:40 / 30.03.03

You don't have to believe in canons to dislike Robert Anton Wilson, or to believe that as a writer of fiction, he is inferior to certain writers who have been deemed canonical by people who *do* believe in canons.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

19:00 / 30.03.03

I read it at around the age of 22/23, which would have been how old I was when it was referenced in 'The Invisibles' and someone mentioned it in the annotations at Jay's place. Took me a while to understand the rhythm a la 'Clockwork Orange' but I liked it and still do, probably because of my fairly sheltered upbringing it did seem sparkly and new. If I'd come across it at 16 I probably would have tossed it aside after the first five pages as rubbish.

23:31 / 31.03.03

You're right of course, Flyboy.

Though I still think the canon has enormous effect on the reading public's taste. And creates snobs; it certainly affects me, being a Literature graduate, though I try to shy away from this.

Do you feel the same way about Vonnegut, who is - I suppose - now part of American Lit's pantheon?

Regrettable Juvenilia

06:36 / 01.04.03

Well, I haven't read any Vonnegut, so it's not for me to say. My opinion of RAW is based entirely on reading the Illuminatus! Trilogy, or at least reading as much of it as I could (I found I skimmed large bits, to make the blood flow from my eyes less copiously). The only other thing that affects my opinion of his work is perhaps a sense of bafflement and mild annoyance that so many people seem to hold him in such high regard. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there's more than one canon - that as well as a 'proper literature' one familiar to English grads etc, there's an alternative/'cult' canon in which RAW is usually awarded a place. When I've encountered highly regarded authors whose work I couldn't appreciate in either canon, I've felt the same sense of confusion ("am I missing something?", especially when writers I *do* like claim to be influenced by the writer in question), often turning to anger ("why the hell do people keep going on about x?", etc).

13:23 / 01.04.03

As I get older I read books that are younger. I'm 28 and about to re-read some comics, RAW, the Pullman series and Vonnegut (who is a god whether he's accepted by the american lit community or not)'Timequake' and the like are exemplary sci-fi.
When I was that geeky teen, I read books that were pitched at Phd graduates and physicists, philosophy classics and professional psychologists. Now I am most of those things I'm reading loads of stuff I should've read then. It's great! I've found loads of top notch fiction I would never have read when I was being elitist, and it's way entertaining! I fully recommend picking up a random kids/teens fiction and reading it, especially sci-fi/fantasy from the 60s and 70s, it rocks- untainted by postmodernism.

16:51 / 01.04.03

17 years old, crippled with shyness, bulimia, conspiracy paranoia and RPGs, if anyone's counting...Read Illuminatus! after seeing it referenced in the Invisibles. Read most of the rest of the RAW corpus while at uni and deliberately reprogramming myself. Found them kinda useful, but then I was blasting my head with as much shit as possible back then anyway. T'be honest I think GM is a lot more of an influence than RAW, if only because he seems, well, nastier and therefore more in tune with reality than Eternal Hippy Optimist Wilson.

The thing about RAW is, he comments effectively on the way inteleectuals eventually get shunted aside because they don't change their ideas, and I think he's suffering from the same effect these days. There was nothing in that disinfo interview that he hasn't been talking about for the last twenty years, for example. Mind you, at least Wilson hasn't gone the way of Tim 'Nintendo's gonna save us all!' Leary, casting about wildly for a new pop-future trend...

Frankly, though, the man is rich, lives in California, and has probably had exponentially more ass than me, so who cares? Yes, he was an influence; yes, I once agreed with him on everything; no, I don't now. Fair enough.

As to the more general question, Flyboy's right with his 'multiple canons' view: there is an 'alternative' canon, just like there's a fantasy canon, a sci-fi canon, etc. One of RAW's better lines is that 'canons' are basically conspiracies, as I recall...

Yes, it's misspelled, but I'm claiming 'inteleectuals'. I like it.

08:49 / 02.04.03

I'm 33 now (God, that looks weird when I write it down) and read Illuminatus! for the first time at about 19, and once later in my mid-20s.

I think it hangs together more as a collection of funky ideas, scenarios and vignettes than as a work of fiction or trilogy of novels, which it pretty much isn't at all.

Perhaps RAW should just have published it as an open-source omnibus of his ker-azeee ideas for people to use in other media, and called it: "1001 conversation pieces for about four in the morning when the acid's levelling out a bit and you think you're so fucking clever".

15:06 / 02.04.03

I always think I'm so fucking clever.

I did actually have something about manifold canons in my previous post, but I kept getting the punctuation wrong, so I decided to leave it.

All other canons are secondary to the main one, though. You know the one I mean. And sci-fi, as a whole, is generally derided and utterly absent from it, except in the form of something like Paradise Lost. Possibly Burroughs at a pinch.

What was so bad about Illuminatus though? Both you and Rothkers are always hating on it. The only thing I can find to it's detraction, particuarly if you do like The Invisibles is the actual prose style. I'm not entirely sure I'd be overwhelmed by GM's prose either (I'm certainly not with Gaiman's, after having undergone American Gods) having read only the excerpt of 'The IF' at the website, as it's fucking impossible to get Lovely Biscuits. We'll see - if the aforementioned novel is ever published.

15:34 / 02.04.03

I first read Cosmic Trigger 1 when I was 19. It blew my mind and I've been reading RAW ever since.

I'm now 32 and I have a greater respect for him than ever.

Velvet wrote:
Frankly, though, the man is rich,...

No, he absolutely is not. I live in the same town as he, I've been to his home a few times, and am in touch with folks who work with him regularly. He's old, crippled from Polio, his wife passed just a handful of years ago, and he's trying keep his bills paid.

He's never sold out and he continues to be a thorn in the side of the Establishment. As stated, he has my utmost respect (as does Leary, FWIW).

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:31 / 02.04.03

Lovely Biscuits is all right in a rather average way - hilariously derivative and overblown, basically - comes across half as homage, and half as lumpen pastiche. Morrison's short story in Disco 2000 is a bit better.

So, yes. I agree entirely that the only complaint I have about what little I have read of Robert A Wilson is that his writing is unreadably bad, but since it was unreadably bad I probably didn't read far enough to get to all the good bits.

Regrettable Juvenilia

11:15 / 03.04.03

How exactly does RAW continue to be a thorn in the side of the Establishment? I'm genuinely curious.

Duncan asked: What was so bad about Illuminatus though? Both you and Rothkers are always hating on it. The only thing I can find to it's detraction, particuarly if you do like The Invisibles is the actual prose style.

To paraphrase Michael Moore, any time both Pope Flyboy and the Rothkie Chicks are against something, you know it must be bad. Rothkoid outlines his main complaints about the Illuminatus! Trilogy in this thread. I was sure there's an existing thread somewhere where I've done the same, but I can't seem to find it... Essentially, my main problem with with that book is that it boils down to: "and then I did some drugs and met a historical figure and then I found out about a conspiracy and then I had sex with a HOT CHICK and then I woke up as someone else and met a historical figure and then I did some drugs and then I found out about a conspiracy and then I had sex with a HOT CHICK and then I woke up as someone else..."

The question then becomes, well, couldn't an equally reductive summary be offered of works I do like, that either influenced or were influence by RAW - eg, Burroughs' Cities Of The Red Night or Morrison's The Invisibles respectively. To which the answer would have to be then that it's the quality of the writing that differs - not just the prose style (and I agree that as a prose fiction writer, Grant Morrison makes a very good comics writer), but also things like structure - works like the two I've just cited might have unconventional or complex structures, full of strange loops and holes, but I get the sense from both that there's some kind of organising intelligence there, whereas I don't get that from RAW, I'm afraid. I always think that the difference between genuinely interesting, experimental writing and the kind of sloppy, too-much-drugs writing which often gets a certain kind of "woaaah, headfuck!" acclaim, is that the people who produce the former learn to write straight prose, for want of a better term, first...

Oh, and as someone else says in the thread I linked to above, the sex scenes in RAW are abysmal.

13:00 / 03.04.03

Oh yeah, the one that springs to mind is where the main character whose name I forget is about to be forcibly buggered in a prison cell when he gets busted out by the revolutionary HOT CHICK who then for no apparent reason either goes down on him or demands he perform oral sex on her, I can't remember which.

Up the revolution.

13:38 / 03.04.03

Dude, but that happened ALL THE TIME in the 70s. I'm sure if it weren't for POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD I'd be receiving offers from HOT CHICKS to perform/enjoy oral sex every fucking day.

13:44 / 03.04.03

In all seriousness, though, the cool thing about Robert Anton Wilson was his Cosmic Trigger books - which kind of functioned as the letters column in the Invisibles did. RAW pointed me towards some excellent crackpot ("Holy Blood, Holy Grail," for instance (it's really just as good as Foucault's Pendulum)) and non-crackpot reading ("Godel Escher Bach," for instance) alike, and then the books I read because of RAW pointed me toward even more worthwhile stuff, etc.

13:48 / 03.04.03

So it's obviously geared for hormonal teenagers, then, right?

I read Schrodinger's Cat first (last book in jr. high, just for the sex scenes, the others in high school as I could find them).

It's structured better than Illuminatus, in some ways -- you're hopping between alternate realities, where characters shift (genders, vocations) but stay the same. It was easier for me than the Jerry Cornelius books I hit at about the same time and couldn't penetrate.

Illuminatus also made James Joyce's Ulysses more fun for me once I got there in college.

15:04 / 03.04.03

Hi, folks. I'm new. Please allow me to contribute my two cents.

I'm 34 now, and first read RAW's works around 19 or so, when I was a hippie-commie-acidhead student at college. They blew my mind.

Yes, his prose can be a bit purple, and his analysis can be a bit sloppy. And I've always preferred the nonfiction books (like Prometheus Rising) to the fiction. But here's what I liked about RAW:

(1) He tried to gather and systematize the occult, mystical, psychological, countercultural, and drug weirdness I'd been experimenting with for years into a theoretically consistent whole.

(2) He emphasized the need for practical occult/mystical/ psychological/drug/etc. experimentation, rather than mere armchair theorizing. This led to plenty of interesting experiences.

(3) He explained in simple terms writers and thinkers that I'd been grappling with for years. Crowley is the prime example -- once I read Prometheus Rising and a few of RAW's other books, I was able to read, understand, and apply Crowley's works, with some interesing effects.

Some of RAW's books haven't aged well, and after a number of years some of his theories seem a bit oversimplified and facile. But I'm glad his books were there for me at a time when I was young, and my own thought processes weren't too sophisticated, either.

If not for him, I probably wouldn't have spent several years studying and practicing yoga or ritual magic, gone out to California to work with the psychedelic/cyberculture magazine Mondo 2000, connected with Doug Rushkoff, or had half as interesting a life as I've had to date.

I'll raise a glass to Robert Anton Wilson anytime.

Page: (1)2