RealityStudio.org

Here are a few quotations from Burroughs that could be helpful:

Paris, 1978:
"If your objective is to have people read your books, then there has to be at least a line of narrative they can follow. Take the case of Joyce who spent 20 or 30 years writing Finnegans' Wake], a book no one can really read. I can't let that happen."

New York, 1986:
"Joyce made people aware of their stream of consciousness, at least on a verbal level. He was first accused of being unintelligible. So the artist then expands awareness."[/i]

First of all I want to thank realitystudio.org for providing us with this new forum. As to the discussion about Burroughs being an "instigator of raw poetic brutality" and Joyce's being far ahead from Burroughs as an experimental novel writer I just have a few words to add. It seems to me that Burroughs might well have been an instigator of raw poetic brutality, which is far more than only a revealing issue about his litery persona but one of his, let's say, main abilities. He was indeed an instigator of reality which necessarily implies a hostility to different conventions (political, religious, economical, etc) An artist who decides to instigate reality must develop a poetics of brutality since the weight of everyday life, of perceptible reality can only be be blown up with a certain amount of violence. I am not trying to make an apology of violence; however, if we understand Burroughs's experiments, like the cut up or the fold ins, as deconstructionist attempts to undermine language as a means of representation of reality, we can see that what is an important feature in Burroughs work might easily become a pretext to consider him a fake. The radicality of the cut up method, for example, disturbs the reader to the extent that 1)he might become fascinated with theechoes, images and energy of such a narrative or 2) close the book showing an open dejection foo what is then termed repetitive, lacking in imagination or extremely violent.
On the other hand, I think that none can deny the way in which Joyce somehow foresaw many of the possibilities that a nonlinear writing could bring to literature, without mentioning the philosophical that his conception of narrative entailed. However, if we take for example Ulysses, we can see that the great difference, besides the leaps in time and space that interfere in the construction of characters that someone pointed above, the other great difference is that whereas Joyce decided to use The Odissey as an analogical background, inscribing thus his work in the western literary tradition, Burroughs made intertextual associacions that were not only related to cannonical works of literature but also to popular culture productions from different arts such as cinema, music, pulp fiction, etc.
Finally, I think that Burroughs himself gave us the key to solve the mystery of his work: "cut it up and fold it in"that is, if Burroughs used cut up was because he was conscious that there are no origins fopr any linguistic sign; that the author is just an incidental element of literature. We cannot deny that if one knows Burroughs life one could understand better his work. But it seems to me that if Burroughs cut and pasted someone's words to re arrange them into a new thing it was because Burroughs was not very much interested in tracing back the origin of an idea,in this sense he was more of a DJ that he could have ever imagined . Upon this account I think that to understand Burroughs fairly one should not only trust him but also approach him as an artist in a specific cultural context. I don't see the point in finding who influenced him most or who he has influenced since we can never be really sure who was the source of an idea, which by the way and as I mentioned it above, his was one of those amazing Burroughs¿s ideas that he must have heard somewhere but that we normally associate to him because of the formal and thematic nature of his whole literary corpus.

Ok, first let me say, I've spent few sober moments this weekend. But I'm sure I'll get across at least a little bit. And to the Guests who are posting, go ahead and bite the bullet, register with a username and all, I'm sure most of us Burroughs fans are accepting.

As for what the main ideas of this topic have been, and for what I've said before, let me say now that my point has neem to try to put Burroughs in some sort of perspective. I don't want this to become a Burroughs vs. Joyce thread. Art shouldn't be a competition. And it shouldn't be a way to idealise people to an unattainable degree. Imagine that Burroughs, or Joyce, were you. It shouldn't be that there are some brilliant writers, who are so beyond you that they surpass anything you can understand, and their writings need to be psychoanalyzyed to death. I remember something that a punk rocker who was categorized as a grunge rocker said, that its puzzle, its your crossword puzzle, and the songs mean whatever they mean to you. I personally think that this is what's great about both Burrough's and Joyce's works. Take from them what you will, but don't try to find some all-working (can't think of a better word at the moment) meaning. So don't try to invest too much meaning in it all. That's all I meant by what I said earlier. People, who are well known, say things, that, while not lies, are part of an image they portray. That they want to portray. An idealistic image of themselves. It is better to look, honestly, at all the faults and dissappointments that the writers invest in their works. Burroughs... he had some really great and interesting ideas. Some worked and some didn't. Some he took from Joyce, some he took from Kerouac (read Kerouac's ideas on spontaneous prose, it can be found in the Portable Beat Reader among other places). And of course some he came up with on his own. I guess my point is to take everything with a grain of salt. Don't be ready to accept what any of us say as gospel, and always try to look at things from a different aspect. Not much help I know, but it's all I got.

And don't fall for the elitist trap of thinking that Burroughs can only be understood by those with degrees in literature or those making epic declarations with pretentious terms that no one not working on a dissertation on a BS in American Lit would understand. His work, it works on a primal level, not the level that concerns itself with "Post-Deconstructionism" or whatever. I've read many essays on Burroughs that qwnt to that level, and mostly they were just used as a camoflouge for the writer's misunderstanding or desire to appear smart or trendy.

nope thats a gooooood point...
i didnt mean to create some kind of burroughs joyce analogy.....:/(my inet wrting is regretably unstructured and random(and i apologise!!!) but tis the porblem with cyberspace reeeeely. BUT i was just using joyce to just um,,,aanlogise simply for my own understanding of the power of burroughs work, in that i had lost 'faith' (bad word sorry) in the layers of burroughs intellect?!.. thankfully i have positively embraced my intrigue into burroughs through this intersting thread from some beautifully fluent people, thanksss inddeeeeed.

Well, that's good, you should embrace your intrigue in Burroughs. I suppose, mor my self, my main point was not to put too much stock into pop culture's worship of Burroughs, or the pretentious art cliques love of Joyce either, for that matter. Literature is a personal experience, and you take from it what you can. And some of the more radical writers, they can be hard to follow, hard to understand, but you shouldn't necesarily try to take it from a dogmatists point of view. Because, for many writers, that wasn't their intent. I'll stop before I get all Zen on you...

yeah no thanyou,,, this typa thing is soo helpful, being able to speak to people with ACTUAL solid points of view about an authorespeciallysomeonelike burroughs is both rare and valuable,so thanks,
i shall have to find the article but i was reading about burroughs 'lack of talent' but i guess like everything its subjective and what this thread made me realise is yeah one shouldnt project assumed ideas about an authors intentionsetcas concrete, and this ironically is the point burroughsprimarilyshould be about ye?..i understand this a lot more now THANKYOU xxi shallalso try and structure my questions a bit morefluently in future i often make notmuch sense....

wha the fuck, ive just read this,,, i hope this aint pointed at me...:/
elitist? pretenticious?gawd, how patronising do u wish to be?i dont even know you.i came on this board to seek advice about an author im interested in, youre insinuation about university class wars is unnecesary not everyone who does a degreeexists within the conveyeurbelt of affluence, i can assure you it aint the case in uk,, we're not all oxford/cambridge scholars with a lack of social grounding.... but in the context of formal writing(i am after all taking advantage of a year of studying an author i like..(in the mode of my dissertation and in such a context I do need to be aware of references to certain lingustic theories which relate to his work and i politelyasked on this board for a little guidance..:'(
a compltely unnecesary comment mate. thanks

No no, I didn't mean this as an attack on you man. Honestly, I had forgotten that you mentioned you were doing research for college. It's more a reflection of my experiences in college, at a liberal arts school near Seattle. Everyone was trying to show off some degree of artistic talent or intelligence. The kind of people who would rather talk that listen. And most of them would try to get all high-brow using sophisticated terms that they misunderstood, or just learned in class earlier that day. I never met more hippocrates in my life than I did there. There were a few really smart people, ones you could engage in dialogue with, but they were really outnumbered. But I guess it served me right for going to a hippie school. But like I said man, I didn't mean that as a jab at you. I was talking about the art chic types, who talk more than they listen. And, as evidenced by this thread, you're not one them, since you seem to pretty open minded and inquistive about things, which is good. So no offence, ok?

oh ok sorry !!! ijust read it and thought, oh no:'( i hopeyouwerent digging at me being all dumb and askingstupid questions!!cos yeah ive reallyappreciated the input from yall, sorry, thankyou - becky :D:D:):):)
oooo...
though saying all this, i mean youve highlighted THE point thati was unsure about writing about burroughs yaknow, whether or not me breaking his work down is neccesarily a good thing, like stripping it to try and find some all out literary convention meaning etc,,,but then thats an issue i have about degrees anyway... again sorry for my confusion

What do you mean by "hippocrates"?

Oops, I meant hypocrites. I have no idea why I typed it like that. I never meant to imply anything about doctors, or Greek people... or Greek doctors for that matter...

This thread was a long and interesting read. The first thing I have to ask: Was Keeki doing cut ups with her posts? Just kidding.

I can't say that I agree with this idea that "everybody is the same" - technically this is true but even then we’re all somewhat different from each other. And icons like Burroughs are certainly one in a million if not many million. But you can still respect their work and be inspired, rather than lose yourself hero worship.

Raw Poetic Brutality or New Poetic Imagery? I'd say both.

Cut ups. Let's not forget the Dadaist Tristan Tzara who tore up his poems and then pulled them randomly from a hat and read the new arrangement. I found this on the web.

Proclamation without Pretension - Tristan Tzara

Art is going to sleep for a new world to be born
"ART"-parrot word-replaced by DADA,
PLESIOSAURUS, or handkerchief
The talent THAT CAN BE LEARNED makes the
poet a druggist TODAY the criticism
of balances no longer challenges with resemblances
Hypertrophic painters hyperaes-
theticized and hypnotized by the hyacinths
of the hypocritical-looking muezzins
CONSOLIDATE THE HARVEST OF EX-
ACT CALCULATIONS
Hypodrome of immortal guarantees: there is
no such thing as importance there is no transparence
or appearance
MUSICIANS SMASH YOUR INSTRUMENTS
BLIND MEN take the stage
THE SYRINGE is only for my understanding. I write because it is
natural exactly the way I piss the way I'm sick
ART NEEDS AN OPERATION
Art is a PRETENSION warmed by the
TIMIDITY of the urinary basin, the hysteria born
in THE STUDIO
We are in search of
the force that is direct pure sober
UNIQUE we are in search of NOTHING
we affirm the VITALITY of every IN-
STANT
the anti-philosophy of spontaneous acrobatics
At this moment I hate the man who whispers
before the intermission-eau de cologne-
sour theatre. THE JOYOUS WIND
If each man says the opposite it is because he is
right
Get ready for the action of the geyser of our blood
-submarine formation of transchromatic aero-
planes, cellular metals numbered in
the flight of images
above the rules of the
and its control
BEAUTIFUL
It is not for the sawed-off imps
who still worship their navel

Earlier on this thread politics was mentioned. I believe Burroughs was with the left on many issues but also with the right on others. He said somewhere that the only party that really made sense was the libertarian. Here is the best thing I've read about the Katrina disaster, and yep, it's from a libertarian.

THE US GOVERNMENT DID NOT FAIL ITS MISSION IN THE WAKE OF HURRICANE
KATRINA

Analysis by G. Edward Griffin

September 16, 2005

There has been widespread criticism of the response of US officials to
Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005. The tone of these complaints
is that the authorities failed to do their job quickly enough. Some
commentators have said this is a racial issue, claiming that the
government would have acted more promptly if the majority of victims had been
white instead of black. Others have said it was an issue of the rich against
the poor, the oil companies against the consumers, the land developers and
contractors seeking to force people out of the city so they can rebuild without interference at taxpayers' expense. Democrats have said the problem is that Republicans were in control, and Republicans are indifferent to the plight of the common man.

In news coverage of this tragedy, the most significant events often were buried beneath a blanket of heart-wrenching stories of personal survival, scenes of awesome destruction, reports of looting, and interviews with experts. However, the key to understanding can be found in the following list of news headlines, most of which did not make it into mainstream coverage. These reports make it clear that the government did not fail to respond in a timely fashion. The problem was that it did respond - but in such a way as to actually hinder rescue operations. There were too many instances for this to be merely a mistake or a bureaucratic snafu. There is a clear pattern here that cannot be denied. Why this should be so will be discussed in a moment, but first, here is the amazing record.

FEMA tells first responders not to respond until told to do so.
FEMA News 2005 Aug 29

FEMA won't accept Amtrak's help in evacuations.
FEMA News 2005 Aug 29

Offer of helicopters for rescue work is rejected.
Narcosphere 2005 Sept 1

FEMA blocks 500 Florida airboat pilots from rescue work.
Sun Sentinel 2005 Sept 2

FEMA to Chicago: Send just one truck.
Chicago Tribune 2005 Sept 2

FEMA bars morticians from entering New Orleans.
Tri Valley Central 2005 Sept 2
FEMA blocks 500-boat citizen flotilla from delivering aid.
Daily Kos 2005 Sept 3

Homeland Security won't let Red Cross deliver food.
Post Gazette 2005 Sept 3

FEMA fails to utilize Navy ship with 600-bed hospital onboard.
Chicago Tribune 2005 Sept 4

FEMA cuts local emergency communications phone lines.
Meet the Press 2005 Sept 4

FEMA turns away experienced firefighters.
Daily Kos 2005 Sept 5

FEMA turns back Wal-Mart supply trucks.
NY Times 2005 Sept 5

FEMA prevents Coast Guard from delivering diesel fuel.
NY Times 2005 Sept 5

Navy pilots who rescued victims are reprimanded.
NY Times 2005 Sept 7

US government turns back German plane with 15 tons of aid.
Star Tribune 2005 Sept 10

FEMA declines volunteer firemen for rescue operations. Uses them to
distribute public relations pamphlets.
Salt Lake Tribune 2005 Sept 12

Click below to read the articles (Use Internet Explorer)
<http://tinyurl.com/97nvg> http://tinyurl.com/97nvg

So what is going on here? Were agents of the federal government trying
to kill American citizens? Were they trying to obtain the maximum death
toll and the highest level of human suffering? It would seem that way at
first, but I would like to suggest that this incredible behavior stems from
something else - something equally unsettling.

The primary job of the military, FEMA, and Homeland Security is not to
protect the American people in times of emergency but to protect the government in times of emergency and keep it functioning. Their primary
assignment is, not to rescue people, but to control them. Their directive is
to relocate families and businesses, confiscate property, commandeer
goods, direct labor and services, and establish martial law. The reason FEMA
and Homeland security failed to carry out an effective rescue operation is
that this was not their primary mission, and the reason they blocked others
from doing so is that any operations not controlled by the central
authority are contrary to their directives. Their objective was to bring the entire area under the control of the federal government - and this they succeeded in doing very well. They did not fail in New Orleans. They were a huge success. Once this simple fact is understood, everything that happened in the wake of Katrina becomes understandable and logical.

If there are new terrorist attacks against the United States or Great
Britain (or any other country), what we witnessed in New Orleans may
have been a glimpse into the future of what was once a civilized world.

Are you saying that I was putting an "everybody's the same" line? Because if that's the impression I gave, I didn't intend to go that far in the other direction. My point was not to put people on such a high pedestal, but obviously there are people more talented at certain things than others. But for every few who you hear about and who become iconic, what's not to say that there aren't 10 other equally talented artists who die in obscurity? Hell, I don't know what my point was. I guess it was mainly anti-hero worship.

I agree that the only party that really makes sense is the Libertarian, at least from idealogical grounds. I used to subscribe to a newletter of theirs. I kind of got turned off by much obvious propoganda they sent out, twisting everything to show they were right. "What else would you expect?" I'm sure you'd say. I don't know. I liked the political ideas they had though. About that article on Katrina, it brings up interesting points, but the last part seems to full of hardcore propoganda for me, catered to perhaps a paranoid, consipiracy theorist mentality. Sure FEMA's main goal is to protect the government in the case of an emergency, but it also is to save the workforce and voters that said governments needs. Saying they were ONLY really looking out for Federal control is too reactionary and doesn't provide a complete picture. That said, I'll still probably vote Libertarian.

Sounds like we agree on the first point.

I hear what you're saying about the libertarians too. I've never joined the party but I have some friends in it. They do make the most sense, but sure - they're a political party just the same. I do tend to find a ring of truth in the article. I think we're also programmed to not take "conspiracy theories" seriously. Isn't that exactly what they'd want?