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 >

Burroughs - opinions please?

Page: 1(2)3

17:05 / 31.07.01

quote:Originally posted by Jackie Nothing Special:
[QB] (not to mention Flyboy's point about the gendering of artistic craziness - name one famous mentally ill woman artist, anyone?* - which comes back to why nobody gives a shit that he shot someone).

* - depression doesn't count. It's got to be sexy-crazy, like Van Gogh or Artaud etc.

Emily Dickinson. Certifiable.
Mary Shelley was also a bit *weird*.

Isn't part of the Burroughs thing also that it was a/ an accident and b/ that he was gay?
A weird mishap in a weirder game in an even weirder relationship? Difficult to discuss - and I can't recall any "shoot women now" bits in his later work.

z3r0

17:07 / 31.07.01

quote: Why are you making this into a gender related issue?
Who, me? Well, I'm not. The other are bringing the SCUM incident up, not me.
quote: What would you call a film about Burroughs shooting his wife? I shot my wife by accident 10 years before I got my work published?
I think that's a good title. We could try also "I'm the kind of person who is stupid enough to mix guns and alcohol"

quote:Oh, and were do you get the idea that Burroughs was mentally deranged?

Sorry, I went too far on this one. Let me correct that. (And I'm serious here). His ideas were not well accepted in the establishment, and he was marginalised, and that's it.
However, I don't even want to get into the issue of him spending days staring at his feet, laying in a bed somewhere in Tanger, waiting for the next fix of opium or whatever. Just to remember you that years of drug abuse must have had some effect in his mind.

quote: And don't forget that it takes two to do a "William Tell Routine".
Yes, two stupid, stupid people.

Regrettable Juvenilia

17:42 / 31.07.01

Indeed. Burroughs shouldn't have to shoulder the blame alone, not when someone else was clumsily getting in the way of the bullets... In fact it was probably more his wife's fault than his, wasn't it? We could even go so far as to claim she was asking for it, couldn't we kids? It was her own stupid fault she got shot.

Just like Carlo Giuliani.

<puts head in oven>

18:27 / 31.07.01

name one famous mentally ill woman artist, anyone?

Virginia Woolf. She was way, way beyond depressed.

Jamieon

18:50 / 31.07.01

quote: Indeed. Burroughs shouldn't have to shoulder the blame alone, not when someone else was clumsily getting in the way of the bullets... In fact it was probably more his wife's fault than his, wasn't it? We could even go so far as to claim she was asking for it, couldn't we kids? It was her own stupid fault she got shot.

The question wasn't "who was to blame?", but "who was a stupid bastard?". In this instance both Burroughs and wife were clearly stupid bastards.

And, Zero, judging by your comments on this and other threads, I'm beginning to think you're a mite obsessed with some hypothetical "correct" way of thinking. Sure, Burroughs shot his wife and he was a drug addict, but in what way does does this stuff make his thoughts/viewpoints any less valid than those of other, "saner", people?

I would contend that Burroughs enjoyed an inner life far more exciting and wondrous than that of many other people who've never shot anyone, and who would certainly never take drugs.

[ 01-08-2001: Message edited by: runt ]

ynh

02:24 / 01.08.01

Mary Shelly was aort of weird? Cause she wore mens' hats and advocated equality for women? Emily and Virginia fall pretty clearly in depressed, particularly withng the context Jackie addressed. But whatever.

Burroughs shot his wife. He lied to the cops about it, skipped toen, then the country, and later changed his story; when he was free to rewrite history.

Funny thing that a lot of his fiction and metafiction centres directly on historical revision: Ah Pook Was Here, The Red Nights trilogy, the littered references to Mayan priests, Hassan i Sabbah.

Not to mention the (play nice) manslaughter of his common law wife reified his homosexuality and, according to personal testimonial, his writing life.

Samll wonder if we find rampant misogyny in his work: segregation of women and men, the use of women purely as breeding objects, a near absence of female characters, and descriptions of women that recall chickens and machines.

Yah, the two are completely unrelated.

06:23 / 01.08.01

quote: Indeed. Burroughs shouldn't have to shoulder the blame alone, not when someone else was clumsily getting in the way of the bullets... In fact it was probably more his wife's fault than his, wasn't it? We could even go so far as to claim she was asking for it, couldn't we kids? It was her own stupid fault she got shot.

Yes, agreed. But it still takes an element of consent to perform a 'William Tell Routine' with one's partner in front of a crowd. I'm not saying Burrough's isn't guilty as hell, but if you're going to balance an apple on your head and allow your very drunk husband to fire bullets at it, for a laugh, and to entertain your mates, then you have to accept at least an element of complicity in your demise.

07:19 / 01.08.01

For those of you that didn't get Gentleman Junkie for $3 on the remainder table:

"I an 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 manoeuvered me into a lifelong struggle, in which I have had no choice except to write my way out" -Burroughs

Also: Joan knew that Burroughs was gay but she didn't care, so not much of a motive there.

People are usually known for their most memorable action in the public eye. When Burroughs killed Joan Vollmer they were both complete unknowns, hence the shooting isn't what he is known for. The person that shot Andy Worhol is exactly that: "The Person Who Shot Andy Warhol". Whatever artistic or literary treasures he may have to offer, Mark David Chapman will be remembered for killing Lennon and nothing else.

[An Edit:]

I don't think I would have stuck around for a Mexican trial in 1952, either. Especially if my lawyer fled to Brazil after being implicated in the murder of a seventeen year old boy. And anyway, it wasn't an apple, it was a 6oz. drinking glass.

[ 01-08-2001: Message edited by: Biologic K-9 ]

07:44 / 01.08.01

It's like there are two conversations going on here. One says: Burroughs is a famous writer, and Solanas isn't. So of course shooting Warhol comes up more about her than shooting Joan does about Burroughs. It's common sense.

Then there is a conversation saying, so why is Burroughs' work so much more famous than Solanas' that his killing someone barely registers? Burroughs had a trust fund and published a bunch of novels. Solanas was unemployed, doing semiregular sex work and begging to surive, and wrote a play and a manifesto which survive to this day. Do any of you really think this has nothing to do with gender and class?

Jamieon

10:29 / 01.08.01

The point is this (although we've been round and round this one already): Solanas is famous for shooting Warhol. It's what made her famous. And that's why people normally bring it up in relation to her. Burroughs achieved his fame by helping to found the beat generation. And so we talk about his writing as opposed to his shooting.

As for the rest of it? One can only speculate as to why Solanas's work wasn't more popular: Class/gender? Maybe. Maybe people just thought her stuff was crap. Maybe it was a combination of all three.
She wrote a hate tract, it's not that hard to understand why people have difficulty getting into it. Alright, I accept that Burroughs' work contained a high degree of misogyny, but it cannot be reduced solely to a rant against women. The SCUM manifesto is largely a rant against men, and would readily be perceived as such by most people who read it.

quote: Burroughs shot his wife. He lied to the cops about it, skipped toen, then the country, and later changed his story; when he was free to rewrite history.

Christ...

Whereof one cannot speak, one should remain silent, and all that.

I think I should add, just as a footnote, that I really don't consider Burrough's a literary saint come to save us all; I just don't agree with some of the comments being made on this thread. And I've had nothing better to do for the past couple of days, than to sit here and type crap at you guys.

11:12 / 01.08.01

Have you read the SCUM Manifesto? I don't think you can really call it simply a rant against men. It's extraordinarily rich, funny, loving and complex. I'm giving up the whole rest of this argument, because I really don't know how else to communicate what I've been trying to say, and people obviously aren't getting it.

z3r0

11:27 / 01.08.01

By runt:
quote:Sure, Burroughs shot his wife and he was a drug addict, but in what way does does this stuff make his thoughts/viewpoints any less valid than those of other, "saner", people?

I'm gonna type this really slow now:

I just said he lacked common sense and was irresponsible. Just that.
No connection to his works/thoughts.
I'm tired of typing the same stuff over and over again. From now on you guys can just re-read my previous posts, get angry at them and reply to them, cos it's no sense for me to be repeting myself over and over.
-------------
Sorry for rotting your thread, gentleman loser.
-------------
It just struck me that I completely forgot to mention that I solidarize with all the pain Burroughs must have felt. I mean, it must have eaten him from the inside.
-------------
runt: this thing about a "correct" way of thinking sounds like an interesting topic that I would love to discuss seriously. Whenever you want...

Regrettable Juvenilia

11:36 / 01.08.01

quote:Originally posted by runt:
She wrote a hate tract, it's not that hard to understand why people have difficulty getting into it.

"hate tract"? You sound like the fucking Daily Mail, runt. So the misogynist allegory in Cities of the Red Night can't be reduced down into a "hate tract" either? And no-one's ever had problems getting into Burroughs' work?

What really depresses me about this thread is that no-one who's taking the "Solanas is famous for shooting Warhol but Burroughs is famous for being a writer" angle has thought to wonder whether that's a Good Thing or not... That's even more worrying and puzzling than the fact that Burroughs' fruit-loop tendancies are dismissed as the slightly-excessive quirks of a genius mind, whereas Solanas is automatically written off as a dangerous loon.

Personally, I was familiar with the SCUM Manifesto long before I'd read any of Burroughs work. And found it far more accessible.

Christ, and to think I started off defending Burroughs... actually, I don't regret that, because I still hold that in both cases, the "crazy" or otherwise nature of the writers' actionsin life are no reason to dismiss their written work. It's just becoming increasingly clear that there's a double standard at work...

Jamieon

12:23 / 01.08.01

Zero:

quote:I'm gonna type this really slow now:
I just said he lacked common sense and was irresponsible. Just that.
No connection to his works/thoughts.

Call me nuts, but I was responding to what I perceived to be the meaning behind your comments. Surely you meant something by them, didn't you? Otherwise what was the point in making them in the first place? Why bring up the idea that Burroughs was stupid, irresponsible and gullible (especially within the context of most of the conversations in this thread) unless you intended us to form some kind of opinion re Burroughs overall character?

Flyboy: Actually, I'm willing to accept that my language might have been a little extreme. I was simply trying to formulate an argument as to why people might feel put off by Solanas's work. Most people, rightly or wrongly, perceive her manifesto as a "hate tract". Many people, because of the bad press it'd probably be impossible to avoid after entitling her work "The Society For Cutting Up Men", would be just as likely to pick up Solanas's manifesto as they would "Mein Kampf". You're right, as I've already stated in my previous post, I'm well aware of the misogyny that pervades Burroughs' work, but it's not included in the title - right from the outset it doesn't come across as the "point of the piece". So maybe it's all just "bad press" that's stopped Solanas achieving the respect she deserves....

Who knows?

But maybe she's not as popular for the same reason that millions of writers around the world aren't as popular. Because, and I'm sorry if this sounds glib, some "make it", and some.... don't.

Regrettable Juvenilia

12:44 / 01.08.01

runt: on the one hand, I take your point about titles, although don't you think that titles like Junkie and Queer are just as likely to be off-putting as The Society For Cutting Up Men to many people.

On the other hand, when you say this:

quote:Originally posted by runt:
some "make it", and some.... don't.

And Lionheart asks this:

quote:Why are you making this into a gender related issue?

I really have to point you in the direction of Virginia Woolf's A Room Of One's Own, just for starters.

z3r0

12:51 / 01.08.01

By runt:
quote: Call me nuts, but I was responding to what I perceived to be the meaning behind your comments. Surely you meant something by them, didn't you? Otherwise what was the point in making them in the first place? Why bring up the idea that Burroughs was stupid, irresponsible and gullible (especially within the context of most of the conversations in this thread) unless you intended us to form some kind of opinion re Burroughs overall character?
I leave these questions to your late night speculations... have fun.

Jamieon

13:17 / 01.08.01

Oooh, the cheek.

Fly: It's not that I don't accept that gender might have something to do with it, just that I imagine it's one factor among many. The titles thing? You're definitely onto something there, but I can't help feeling that only those of a right wing/conservative persuasion would be put off by titles like "Queer" and "Junkie". "The Society For Cutting Up Men"? Well that'd not only have the reactionary idiots running for cover, but many "liberals" too. It's just so... exclusionary.

13:53 / 01.08.01

quote:Burroughs had a trust fund and published a bunch of novels. Solanas was unemployed, doing semiregular sex work and begging to surive, and wrote a play and a manifesto which survive to this day. Do any of you really think this has nothing to do with gender and class?

Yes.

There's a LOT of other factors to consider that have made Burrough's a 'famous writer' aside from his gender and class. A great amount of which probably comes down to simply being in the right place at the right time. Or more accurately, appealing to the right marketing people at the right time.

To reduce Burrough's literary success to his gender and class is simplistic at best.

Unfortunatly, Solanis's work just didn't enjoy the same sort of success as Burroughs's, and I dare say there's more complicated reasons for this than the fact that he was a man with a trust fund.

15:45 / 01.08.01

First of all, when I said "Why are you making this into a gender-related issue?" I wasn't referring to Zero but to whoever made it into a gender related issue.

Why is Burroughs more succesfull than Solanas?

Well, let's see... What did Solanas write?

What did Burroughs write?

In terms of quantity Solanas wrote.... ONE THING.

In temrs of quantity, Burroughs wrote.... A LOT OF THINGS.

There. That's why Burroughs was more of a successfull writer. Because he wrote more.

Oh, and he lied to the cops about the shooting incident because the farm where the whole incident happpened was a pot farm and was filled with drugs.

ynh

16:54 / 01.08.01

I don't think the "more famous" line is gonna generate anything useful, especially considering the effectiveness of the simple response: "it is more complex than that."

The centre of the argument appeared to be that WSB had the opportunity to kick back in Tangier and finger out Naked Lunch while fucking skinny young boys. Said opportunity was provided by the trust fund from Grandpa Adding Machine and the gift of being a white male with other white male publishing contacts. No reduction is necessary. Those two simple facts make it easier to be a writer and to get published.

Jackie is better versed on Solanas than I, but I reckon the lack of cash and contacts makes it difficult both to get anything on paper and get said published. Hence, she published ony two(?) works to WSB's few dozen; and that probably is related to gender and class.

We could expect that dozens of works might eclipse the fame of two under almost any conditions, and confer that fame to the author. However, Val's criminal activity is foregrounded in many discussions while WSB's is marginalized despite being legally more serious. And one side of the discussion here is tending toward the "boys will be boys" argument versus "What's wrong with that woman?" and that has everything to do with gender.

The fact that Burroughs evaded even trial displays a lot of thought, knowlege that he'd be incarcerated, and leaving the US for a country with a non-extradition treaty... well, that has everything to do with class.

Even so, I'm willing to bet Solanas is on more syllabi than Burroughs.

00:40 / 02.08.01

quote:Originally posted by Teela - O - MLY [NH]:
...the trust fund from Grandpa Adding Machine and the gift of being a white male with other white male publishing contacts. No reduction is necessary. Those two simple facts make it easier to be a writer and to get published.

point taken... however... remember that especially in his early career, Burroughs was being wilfully prurient, obscure, controversial on a number of levels. His inability to get his work published for half his life, points away from a desire for material success, even artistic success. WSB's was a singular, uncompromising vision.

Does this frankly reductionist argument being carried out here strike anyone else as being slightly... bizarre? If you could present to me two writers with more strikingly strange and individual life histories than Solanas and Burroughs, I'd pat you on the back.

To start making wild inferences about gender, class, sexuality's influence on artistic success by just using these two is... weird?

Besides the fact they differ massively as artists anyway - Solanas' concerns were more singular. Burroughs to be fair, did exhibit misogynist leanings in his writings - (and remember the line between fiction and real political tracts here, kids), but his writing moved over so many more subject areas than that!??

Labels labels aristotlean bollocks logic hate it grrrrrrrrrrrrrr

http://www.rawilson.com/quantum.shtml http://www.general-semantics.org/

06:56 / 02.08.01

Just to set the record straight about the whole fleeing from prosectuion thing:

Burroughs left New Orleans after the police illegaly searched his home and found heroin, pot, and a stash of firearms. His lawyer proved that the search violated the law but told Burroughs that it would be a good idea to leave the country for a while. Burroughs and Vollmer (I don't think they were ever actually married, although they did have a son together) moved to Mexico. It was in Mexico that the shooting took place, not the U.S. of fucking A. His new lawyer got him out on bail but was involved in the murder of a seventeen year old boy and fled to Brazil. Burroughs thought he saw the writing was on the wall and so he split to South America.

And someone said something about the Burroughs incident being more serious in the eyes of the law. In the U.S. an accidental shooting death is actually less serious than an attempted homicide.

Oh, and two more things:
1) Nothing is lamer than saying >I refuse to continue this conversation< and then adding more comments and refusing to answer when someone asks you about them. Its just childish, C3pO.
2) some of the rest of you need to go and get laid.

Regrettable Juvenilia

07:36 / 02.08.01

quote:Originally posted by Dee Vapr:
Does this frankly reductionist argument being carried out here strike anyone else as being slightly... bizarre?

I just... huh, I dunno, I just don't see it as a reductionist argument. It strikes me that Jackie and [YNH] have put forward the case fairly eloquently for just perhaps these factors might warrant considering, and this has frightened the horses somewhat, hence the somewhat hysterical shrieks of "you're making this into a gender thing!" As if opting out of considering the roles of gender and class in literature/writing/art somehow places you in a safe, objective, politically neutral vacuum. It doesn't, you know...

z3r0

07:36 / 02.08.01

By K-9: quote: Oh, and two more things:
1) Nothing is lamer than saying >I refuse to continue this conversation< and then adding more comments and refusing to answer when someone asks you about them. Its just childish, C3pO.

What can I say? I lost the interest in the discussion, jut that. Looks like it really pissed you off... if I knew that it would happen, I'd have done it sooner...

ynh

15:24 / 02.08.01

Dee Vapr: Correct me if I err, but I believe WSB claimed he put down the pen for half his life? That may account for the lack of publication during that period?

Again, though, this horse stubbornly clings to life. Burroughs's apparent lack of compromise and sterling vision arise from the ability to live comfortably sans work. Most of history's great artists enjoyed similar or greater funding.

Labeling this argument "frankly reductionist," you ignore waht seems to be the most relevant course of action regarding Burroughs. Even a fair deconstruction leads one to misogyny and elitism.

The argument centres on these two folks 'cause, well, I think Jackie explained it in hir first post. Every time one of the two pops up, despite both being murderous folk, WSB is forgiven while Solanas is panned.

quote:(and remember the line between fiction and real political tracts here, kids)

Fair enough. It seems reasonable, then, to attribute the massive evidence of misogyny cum hate in his letters and interviews to WSB's political mind. And, as others suggested, please read Solanas before condemning her to singular subject matter.

[Written in E-Prime, with additional subtractions of all forms of "be," just for kicks. We should talk about this sometime: E-Prime subsumes the "is" of identity in order to attribute identity only to the speaker. Reductionist indeed.]

Biologic K-9: (and Lionheart, sorta) Clarifications are much appreciated. If you want to start sourcing the data we can have a real discussion. Books over internet sites please. At this point, I'm willing to take your words for it.

Despite all the excuses, he fled prosecution for manslaughter, which is still notoriously difficult to walk away from under the best circumstances.

Hopefully, some of the above shows that whether or not we accept "The Death of the Author," Burroughs has some inexcusable moments. He's a tough nut to crack, though.

Hemmingway similarly decentered the writing world, but fewer people feel the need to defend him. What's up with that? And why can't we just leave Burroughs in the dirt and turn to Kathy Acker? She learned everything he had to teach and then bolted off for further parts unknown.

17:52 / 02.08.01

Info comes from Gentleman Junkie: The Life and Legacy of William S. Burroughs by Graham Caveney. The same book I mentioned on page two of this thread.

c3p0, I'm a big boy now- all grown up and out of diapers so, no, I'm not pissed. You however have qualified for >The Lame List or What's Weak This Week. LAME LAME LAME!< Congrats, I didn't think you had it in you.

[

edited so I could respond to r2d2's gay lover

]

[ 02-08-2001: Message edited by: Biologic K-9 ]

z3r0

18:07 / 02.08.01

quote: The Lame List or What's Weak This Week. LAME LAME LAME!
[ edited so I could respond to r2d2's gay lover ]
hee hee someone's really pissed... I can almost hear you stomping your little foot on the ground at each "LAME", you know?

19:05 / 02.08.01

It's not a stomping of the foot, it's a hesher style headbang (long hair not included). The lame list was a staple of one of our local comedy shows...anyway...the r2d2 bit was funny. And this thread is now officially rotten.

gentleman loser

22:21 / 02.08.01

Posted by z3r0

Sorry for rotting your thread, gentleman loser.

Don't feel bad, that's what I love about this place; you never know where a thread is going to take you.

I'm learning much more about Burroughs and Solanas that I ever would have learned otherwise.

I'm no expert on Burroughs or Solanas, but I can tell you one thing: Infamy sells and all legendary figures get distorted as history continues it's unrelenting foward march.

22:27 / 02.08.01

quote:Originally posted by Biologic K-9:
Burroughs and Vollmer (I don't think they were ever actually married, although they did have a son together) moved to Mexico.

They were never actually married.
The son also wrote a reasonable book called, I think, Speed, and died very young.

07:07 / 03.08.01

quote: The argument centres on these two folks 'cause, well, I think Jackie explained it in hir first post. Every time one of the two pops up, despite both being murderous folk, WSB is forgiven while Solanas is panned.

To contribute further to the Choronzonic mutual banging of head against wall progression of this thread:

I wouldnt say that Burrough's is forgiven for the shooting, so much as it's not the first thing that is mentioned in a discussion of his work because it happened long before he became famous, and has been consigned to a murky footnote. Whereas Solanis is much more famous for shooting Andy Warhol than she is for writing anything.

I really do think that if Burrough's had shot Warhol, he would be commonly known as "the pervy gay writer who shot Andy Warhol" rather than the guy who wrote Naked Lunch in much that same way that Solanis is popularly considered.

I don't think this part of your argument stands up at all.

However, if what you're actually saying is that wealthy men who dont have to work and have useful connections, are more likely to be successful at whatever they turn there hands to than poverty stricken female sex workers, then obviously you're correct.

Burroughs fits into this category simply because he was in a position where he had the leisure time to write and not have to worry about supporting himself. I agree with you on this point, but I dont really see where you're going with it or what you're trying to achieve. Am I supposed to stop liking Burroughs's work because he didnt have to work to support his writing career? Are you claiming that it's somehow unethical to like writers from privileged backgrounds?

Being of a certain gender and class make it a lot easier to have success in a great many things (of which writing is only one). This has been the case for countless centuries. I hate it.

But I dont think you can attribute some sort of 'blame' to Burroughs because he is a product of that same culture. I can think of a lot more likely and deserving targets, if this is what your getting at.

I think the only thing that links Burroughs and Solanis into this argument about priviledge is the shooting thing, and as I've stated earlier, I dont think this holds up. Solanis shot a very famous person. That's why people always bring it up.

Regrettable Juvenilia

08:06 / 03.08.01

quote:Originally posted by Ghost Doctor:
Burroughs fits into this category simply because he was in a position where he had the leisure time to write and not have to worry about supporting himself. I agree with you on this point, but I dont really see where you're going with it or what you're trying to achieve. Am I supposed to stop liking Burroughs's work because he didnt have to work to support his writing career? Are you claiming that it's somehow unethical to like writers from privileged backgrounds?

I don't think anyone's suggesting that - rather, what's happening is that some people (who as far as I can tell actually rate, respect and like Burroughs' work) have suggested that maybe we ought to consider these factors, examine how they intersect with the written work, consider how the nature of the kind of unofficial 'alternative' canon that exists quite visibly in a place like this discussion board and how someone like Burroughs gained entry into it.

This seems to be too much for some people to take on board - hence slightly defensive accusations that people are "making this into a gender issue" (isn't everything, if you look at it from a certain angle?), and a sort of wounded confusion as to why anyone would want to say a bad word about dear old Uncle Bill - like, wasn't he one of the good guys? Why are you picking on him? And so on.

But thanks for the head against wall analogy. That just about sums it up.

ynh

15:25 / 03.08.01

Ghost Doctor, I think Flyboy approaches what I'm trying to get across:

quote: maybe we ought to consider these factors, examine how they intersect with the written work

I don't see where you're reading 'blame' into any of my posts. He's not at fault for being white, or male, or gay, or a writer. On the other hand, his work deserves to be honestly evaluated. Accepting WSB and his work uncritically accpets misogyny as part of the revolutionary package. In truth, shooting his common law wife (marriage in every sense of American law, for you "not really" folks) may have had little or nothing to do with his feelings toward women. I'd like to make it clear that it's not necessary as a part of the "Burroughs wanted to write women out of existence" idea. But, and this is a lot of what I got from z3r0's post, if Bill really was your uncle you'd likely question his judgement.

Devaluing Solanis's work simply because she shot Andy, well, that's rather silly. I'd encourage y'all to check her out.

As for "Am I supposed to stop liking Burroughs..."

Not because he came from a privileged background. You'd be fairly hard pressed to find anything to read... If you want a reason to stop liking him, I'd go with the hating women thing. You know? All us men are here to go into space. That's why I mentioned Kathy Acker. Faster, More Dense.

Do I sound like I stopped liking Burroughs, though?

14:00 / 08.08.01

<possibly tangential historical note>
in the biographical source material that i remember -- and i'm not looking at them right now -- including literarry outlaw, the letters, and the Beats, Burroughs didn't have it so easy with the money. The adding machine fortune was fairly well removed from his family, and before going to tangiers he was contanty trying to find new scams for money. the maryjane farm mentioned above was not just so he could get high all the time -- it was a financial gambit; he used $10s of thousands of his friend's money in order to finance a drug operation that wound up losing him tons more money, and he was continuously writing letters about how difficult it was for him to find money, what career he might go into next, etc etc.

it was a time when it was much easier for anyone to be a fulltime writer with little income, btw. kerouac managed only the tiniest income for the 10 years before he sold a book. and moreso in Tangiers, where an american could live like a king on close to nothing.

and i'm not sure he worked a year as a new york exterminator just for the hell of it.
</possibly tangential historical note>

14:19 / 08.08.01

Mysoginistic? From his writings it seems to me that WSB doesn't like men AND women. What works of his have you read? Also WSB is more famous because, as far as I know, he's lived an interesting life. Burroughs is famous because he is Burroughs and not because he wrote books. Plus WSB had connections. He knew Kerouac, Ginsberg, etc. He wasn't rich. His trust fund guaranteed him $200 per month. He was also a junkie. Junkie was the name of his first book. It didn't sell well at all.

Page: 1(2)3