Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
see, i don't know, i can't be bothered with interpretations when i read a novel; i'd rather pick up a nonfiction book in social psychology, you know what i mean? maybe only with ulysses i've found it worthy to sit with the text and a reference book, but not to figure out "what joyce meant". otherwise-- meh!
notice however i haven't said burroughs is a bad writer; he was certainly good, it's just that he's not sooooo fucking woooonderful!!!! he did some curious things with text with his cutups, but i think his biography & public persona are more interesting than his prose. (same with kerouac.)
the highest archangel of the beat generation is by far allen ginsberg. but that's an unfair comparison, i know.
|
I'm not hating I just like talking about this stuff, Burroughs for me even with out the analytical nonsense is intresting his prose just kind of floats like some ugly nightmare in and out. And that whole cut-up idea I think is responsible for loads of stuff, like that whole movies out of chronological order thing that seems tired and obvious now, burroughs was doing this in 1959! If anything he's underrated, and over looked because he was so crass at times...
Oh and Gibson, Vonnegut, and Dick are all amazing too.