However, I must take issue with your claim, “Long before that tragic night in Mexico, Burroughs was possessed by the Ugly Spirit, i.e., the compulsion to write and express himself.” In my understanding, Burroughs’ experience of the “Ugly Spirit” is not so much a compulsion to write and express self, but, as B. mentions in the Brookner biopic, the US is rather that worst part of every person, most likely a form of posession from without by a spirit that is inimical to the interests of the one posessed. Evil takes the form of the US as an occupying outside force that capitalizes on moments of weakness in the possessed to invade and occupy. It is very much like Burroughs’ conception of viral entities: The Ugly Spirit, in controlling the possessed, may very well insure the destruction of the “host.”

In short, Burroughs writing frequently confronts manifestations of the US. I think by doing so he has a better chance of avoiding its influence, making the enemy visible, as it were.

Ford wrote Young and Evil with Parket Tyler in the early 1930’s and the book has many similarities with Hippos.

Chapter 17 has a nod to Ford and thus The Young and the Evil. Ryko and Tourian view Tchelitchew’s Hide and Seek at the museum. In Boatload of Madmen I read that Ford was the companion of Tchelitchew and promoted his artwork throughout the late 1930’s and 1940’s to Breton for example. So in referencing Hide and Seek Kerouac tips his hat to The Young and the Evil as well as another famous homosexual relationship in the arts.

the jack kerouac literary group has events in nyc
contact laurencelarry1@aol.com

the jack kerouac literary group has events in nyc
contact laurencelarry1@aol.com

I still wonder, why is it that professor Oliver Harris, who has been in charge of, among many other valuable things, “putting to rest the myth that Burroughs felt compelled to become a writer as a result of the death of Joan Vollmer”, still insisted in the conference Quièn es? that it was in Mexico where Burroughs found a place where he was finally able to start writing, “free of the US drag.”

I once wrote an essay that I sent to Harris in which I mentioned that he had made a mistake in his lecture in Mexico because Burroughs had started writing since he was in the States. The argument I gave him was quite similar to some of your interesting reflections here: Hippos was written in the US and was originally intended to be published, that is to say, Burroughs aspirated to be a published writer long time before the shooting of Vollmer. Not that I am claiming any originality as to my argument, anyone acquainted with the chronology of Burroughs publications can notice this detail, which of course was not my case because if my memory serves well when I wrote the essay I thought Hippos had been written in 1948.

On the other hand, I’m pretty sure one can interpret Burroughs account of the relevance-or lack of thereof- of Vollmer’s death in his career as if the former had “compelled” him to become a writer, even if the only thing that compelled him, and not precisely to become a writer but to the conclusion of how was it that he found his métier, was the memory of the event. Or simply as if, seen in retrospect, as Burroughs did it in the introduction to “Queer” or James Grahuerholz in his essay “What really happened?”, the shooting seemed crucial to Burroughs finally fulfilling his desire to be a writer. Or in Grahuerholz’s words:

“How differently might Burroughs’ life have unfolded then! If he had been deported to the U.S., or imprisoned, he would not have remained through all of 1952 residing at 210 Orizaba in Mexico City, where he was writing the final drafts of Junkie and the unfinished Queer manuscript; and his second South American trip, with the apparently life-transforming experience of taking the hallucinogenic yagé in 1953, would never have occurred.

Your comments on the way in which silence was of extreme importance to the whole history and development of the Beat generation are, at least to my taste, excellent. Personally I think we should feel happy because times have changed and nowadays one cannot, must not, be silent. Any government or institutional instance that represses sexual preference of any type must be denounced, whether it is republican or democrat, whether it is headed by a white or a black man.

Thank you for the excellent insights.