That would have put him above such contemporaries as Mailer, Philip Roth, Joan Didion, and any number of others who had produced works of significantly greater breadth and depth than anything in Burroughs's canon.
I can't comment on Didion, but how anyone can argue that Norman Mailer (a literary poseur who really had nothing new to offer in style or substance) and Philip Roth (a neurotic, walking Jewish stereotype) showed great depth is beyond me. Roth never had anything to say apart from whimpering and whining about his persecution complex.
Essentially, Burroughs can only be seen as lacking depth in comparison to Mailer and Roth if you judge literary merit solely by the standards of plot and character development. These were largely lacking in Burroughs, but this was intentional. Criticizing him on these grounds is like criticizing Stravinsky for not sticking to tonal music.
Among Burroughs' contemporaries or near-contemporaries (writers who did most of their work post WWII), the only others who I would put in the running for being remembered in 100 years time are Thomas Pynchon and Kurt Vonnegut.
P.S. Is there any particular reason why this was posted in "Burroughsian" rather than "Burroughs Discussion"?