I'm about half way through Tropic of Cancer now. It's not bad; but not exactly what I was expecting. This seems to be a reoccurring theme for me. I guess when I'm reading through a list of books I haven't read before, I should expect to be surprised.
Originally published in 1934, in France, it was banned in the United States (another reoccurring theme) for being obscene. Now, I wouldn’t use the word obscene, as I don’t really find anything to be obscene, but I can definitely see why prudish Americans would be up in arms in the 1930’s over this novel. The language used throughout is of the ‘R’ rated variety, and one of the predominant themes, prostitution, would have been something that wasn’t discussed in inter-war America.
The word ‘cunt’ is used so frequently in this book; you’d almost think you were reading a story from Penthouse Forum. (However, Miller has yet to mention that he attends a large mid-western university and never believed the stories, until last weekend, nor has his name and address been withheld.) While the sexual situations aren’t terribly detailed, there is discussion of douching, masturbating, condoms (the long fish skin variety?), and menstrual issues, including possibly the first ever use of the idiom ‘the wound that never heals.’ While none of this is very shocking today, in the United States in the early 30’s, you can imagine these topics all being very taboo. I mean, this book was published five years before the US was sent into a frenzy because Clark Gable removed his shirt in Gone With the Wind and used the most evil of words; ‘damn.’ I can’t imagine what a passage describing a whore using a bidet before being fucked would do to that same nation.
I’ve also been thinking about the language in this book compared to Naked Lunch, which was also quite liberal in its’ choice of words. While I found Naked Lunch to be using offensive words and situations almost for the sake of being offensive, Tropic of Cancer is using them to accurately reflect real dialogue. I mean, most people use ‘shit’ and ‘fuck’ constantly throughout the day, yet it’s never heard on TV, and usually not seen in books.
Having said all this, the book is much better than I might have let on. It’s isn’t on this list for its vulgarity, but rather its descriptive brilliance. I’ll go back to reading now so I can finish it this month and perhaps summarize it a little more in depth.
Showing posts with label obscene. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obscene. Show all posts
Monday, April 26, 2010
Thursday, December 31, 2009
#3 – "Naked Lunch" by William S. Burroughs
Okay, I finished Naked Lunch today. I reached my goal of finishing it before New Year’s.
Where to start? I can confidently say Naked Lunch is unlike anything I have ever read, and probably ever will read. Written by 1950’s beat writer William S. Burroughs, Naked Lunch explores the world of drugs and addiction, relying on the author’s own experiences as a heroin addict, so much so that at the time of its’ release , it was described as “mostly confessional, not literary.” by Time magazine. It is this that makes the book so unique; there is an absence of story or plot really, and the book is really just a series of vignettes about drug use; it isn’t a novel in the classic sense.
There is a vague storyline about an addict venturing from New York to Mexico to South American and finally to North Africa, just as Burroughs himself did in his life. However, much like the life of a junkie, the point is often lost in a sea of vulgarity and immorality, and the book ends up being difficult to follow and often hard to understand.
Burroughs uses obscene language to effectively communicate many things that a non-junkie just simply wouldn’t understand. He talks of things such as the ‘Algebra of Need’, to describe how junkies often find themselves in such bizarre and sinful situations. “A dope fiend is a man in total need of dope… (and this) need knows absolutely no limit or control.” This explains what is often unexplainable in this book, and why certain characters would find themselves doing some of the things they do. While it may seem inconceivable to the average person, the junkies in the book have no problem doing anything to get that next fix. “Wouldn’t you?” is a question posed by the author, describing what a junkie would do for his next hit. That question can be followed with anything because the answer will always be yes.
The language is one of the most striking aspects of the book, and not because of its vulgarity, but because of its vulgarity in 1959. Today, having been raised in a world of ‘R’ rated movies, cable TV and Internet pornography, Naked Lunch may seem rude, but it isn’t much worse than many other things seen on the Internet or in the movies. If I put my mind to it, I’m sure I could find worse on-line in about ten seconds. However, when this book was first released, the United States and Canada were in a world of ‘Leave it to Beaver’ and The Hardy Boys. Movies didn’t have nudity or graphic violence, and they certainly didn’t use the words that Burroughs uses so freely in Naked Lunch. While literature had more of an edge to it than movies or television, Naked Lunch uses “obscene” language continually from start to finish, describing scenes of sexual exploitation, drug use, illness and death. When first released, the United States postal service at first would not deliver the book to subscribers, arguing they were not obligated to deliver obscene material. In 1966, the state of Massachusetts banned the book, a matter that ended up in the State Supreme Court. There, it was ruled that the State had no right to decide what was moral and what was not. This would be the last obscenity trial against a literary work in the United States.
I will admit that I really struggled through the first half of this book, unsure if I was missing something or not paying close enough attention. It seemed to be page after page of rambling, obscene imagery, talking about things I didn’t know anything about. There aren’t any characters you get to know, and there is not a build up toward a dramatic conclusion; or any conclusion for that matter. After the “story” is finished, the 2nd half of the book consists of letters from Burroughs to various doctors, editors, and friends, offering his opinion on changes to the book and his thoughts on drug use and curing addiction. It is in this section of the book that Burroughs explains many of his motives for writing the book, and more clearly explains many of his experiences that led to its writing. It is here that the reader becomes more understanding of the events of the book.
In one letter to his editor, Burroughs describes exactly what makes Naked Lunch such a difficult read. “THIS IS NOT A NOVEL,” he writes emphatically, stating the book could really be started anywhere as it was never meant to have the chapters in a specific order. The same editor noted in a later interview, “the novel was not created according to a predetermined outline or plan, it is simply a collection of Bill’s experiences retold in the frankest of manners.”
While discussing his experience with every drug under the sun, Burroughs writes to one of the doctors that helped him end his heroin addiction (temporarily), going through a cornucopia of drugs and notes their effects and their habit forming ability. It was fascinating to read a 1950’s perspective on drugs and drug use, in an era when most people would rather have swept the issue under the rug in the hopes it would never be mentioned again. Yet Naked Lunch offers a first-hand perspective of a subject everybody was fascinated by, but nobody would discuss.
Despite some of its more interesting revelations and the shock value of the writing itself, it is not a book I’ll ever pick up again, but still one I’ll never forget. Or understand for that matter. I did not enjoy reading this book and can't really figure out how so many have enjoyed reading it.
Here is Time Magazine’s original review from November 30th, 1962:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,829594,00.html?internalid=atb100
I’m not sure what book I’ll be reading next, but I’m going to go to the library in the next couple of days to find one. Right now I’m thinking Animal Farm. Maybe I need to go lighter after this book. Maybe The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. I need something simple, and something fast after spending almost the entire month of December reading this book.
Where to start? I can confidently say Naked Lunch is unlike anything I have ever read, and probably ever will read. Written by 1950’s beat writer William S. Burroughs, Naked Lunch explores the world of drugs and addiction, relying on the author’s own experiences as a heroin addict, so much so that at the time of its’ release , it was described as “mostly confessional, not literary.” by Time magazine. It is this that makes the book so unique; there is an absence of story or plot really, and the book is really just a series of vignettes about drug use; it isn’t a novel in the classic sense.
There is a vague storyline about an addict venturing from New York to Mexico to South American and finally to North Africa, just as Burroughs himself did in his life. However, much like the life of a junkie, the point is often lost in a sea of vulgarity and immorality, and the book ends up being difficult to follow and often hard to understand.
Burroughs uses obscene language to effectively communicate many things that a non-junkie just simply wouldn’t understand. He talks of things such as the ‘Algebra of Need’, to describe how junkies often find themselves in such bizarre and sinful situations. “A dope fiend is a man in total need of dope… (and this) need knows absolutely no limit or control.” This explains what is often unexplainable in this book, and why certain characters would find themselves doing some of the things they do. While it may seem inconceivable to the average person, the junkies in the book have no problem doing anything to get that next fix. “Wouldn’t you?” is a question posed by the author, describing what a junkie would do for his next hit. That question can be followed with anything because the answer will always be yes.
The language is one of the most striking aspects of the book, and not because of its vulgarity, but because of its vulgarity in 1959. Today, having been raised in a world of ‘R’ rated movies, cable TV and Internet pornography, Naked Lunch may seem rude, but it isn’t much worse than many other things seen on the Internet or in the movies. If I put my mind to it, I’m sure I could find worse on-line in about ten seconds. However, when this book was first released, the United States and Canada were in a world of ‘Leave it to Beaver’ and The Hardy Boys. Movies didn’t have nudity or graphic violence, and they certainly didn’t use the words that Burroughs uses so freely in Naked Lunch. While literature had more of an edge to it than movies or television, Naked Lunch uses “obscene” language continually from start to finish, describing scenes of sexual exploitation, drug use, illness and death. When first released, the United States postal service at first would not deliver the book to subscribers, arguing they were not obligated to deliver obscene material. In 1966, the state of Massachusetts banned the book, a matter that ended up in the State Supreme Court. There, it was ruled that the State had no right to decide what was moral and what was not. This would be the last obscenity trial against a literary work in the United States.
I will admit that I really struggled through the first half of this book, unsure if I was missing something or not paying close enough attention. It seemed to be page after page of rambling, obscene imagery, talking about things I didn’t know anything about. There aren’t any characters you get to know, and there is not a build up toward a dramatic conclusion; or any conclusion for that matter. After the “story” is finished, the 2nd half of the book consists of letters from Burroughs to various doctors, editors, and friends, offering his opinion on changes to the book and his thoughts on drug use and curing addiction. It is in this section of the book that Burroughs explains many of his motives for writing the book, and more clearly explains many of his experiences that led to its writing. It is here that the reader becomes more understanding of the events of the book.
In one letter to his editor, Burroughs describes exactly what makes Naked Lunch such a difficult read. “THIS IS NOT A NOVEL,” he writes emphatically, stating the book could really be started anywhere as it was never meant to have the chapters in a specific order. The same editor noted in a later interview, “the novel was not created according to a predetermined outline or plan, it is simply a collection of Bill’s experiences retold in the frankest of manners.”
While discussing his experience with every drug under the sun, Burroughs writes to one of the doctors that helped him end his heroin addiction (temporarily), going through a cornucopia of drugs and notes their effects and their habit forming ability. It was fascinating to read a 1950’s perspective on drugs and drug use, in an era when most people would rather have swept the issue under the rug in the hopes it would never be mentioned again. Yet Naked Lunch offers a first-hand perspective of a subject everybody was fascinated by, but nobody would discuss.
Despite some of its more interesting revelations and the shock value of the writing itself, it is not a book I’ll ever pick up again, but still one I’ll never forget. Or understand for that matter. I did not enjoy reading this book and can't really figure out how so many have enjoyed reading it.
Here is Time Magazine’s original review from November 30th, 1962:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,829594,00.html?internalid=atb100
I’m not sure what book I’ll be reading next, but I’m going to go to the library in the next couple of days to find one. Right now I’m thinking Animal Farm. Maybe I need to go lighter after this book. Maybe The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. I need something simple, and something fast after spending almost the entire month of December reading this book.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Even to madness. 'tis here, but yet confused
Where am I, you ask? I’ve managed to finish about half of Naked Lunch. I know that isn’t very good progress. Let’s face it, I’ve been “reading” this book for over three weeks already, and I’m not even half finished. Here’s the deal. I don’t get it. I’m not stupid, or at least I don’t think I am, but I’m having trouble reading this one. There aren’t really any characters, or at least there aren’t any that stick around for more than one or two chapters. It’s almost like the book is just a series of random thoughts put to paper. It’s like Burroughs just wrote down whatever he happened to be thinking at the time, forgetting what he had previously written. Or not caring what he had previously written. This could be my most difficult task on the list. I really don’t care what happens in this book, if anything actually does happen that is.
One thing about Naked Lunch is the vulgarity. Now myself, I’m not really offended by anything. Bad language, graphic situations, whatever, it doesn’t really bother me at all. But, it does surprise me. This book was written in 1959, and the use of language, be it ‘shit’ ‘fuck’ or the crown jewel of cuss words, ‘cunt,’ they’re all used constantly throughout the book. Even the subject matter itself is quite offside, especially for 1959. It seems to me that most of the book is about bad drug experiences, mostly with heroin, and what the characters will do to get their next score, and what they experience as a result of that score. At least that’s what I’m reading. I could be wrong, because quite frankly I don’t know what is going on most of the time. But these aren’t topics I expect to see in a novel from 1959. I think more about ‘Leave it to Beaver’, and those types of shows. Nobody swears, nobody is a Communist, nobody does drugs, nobody does anything in fact. The Clevers slept in twin beds, and nobody used a toilet for crying out loud. Of course that wasn’t reality, and this book probably is. Or at least it’s close to reality than the adventures of Wally and the Beav.
One thing about Naked Lunch is the vulgarity. Now myself, I’m not really offended by anything. Bad language, graphic situations, whatever, it doesn’t really bother me at all. But, it does surprise me. This book was written in 1959, and the use of language, be it ‘shit’ ‘fuck’ or the crown jewel of cuss words, ‘cunt,’ they’re all used constantly throughout the book. Even the subject matter itself is quite offside, especially for 1959. It seems to me that most of the book is about bad drug experiences, mostly with heroin, and what the characters will do to get their next score, and what they experience as a result of that score. At least that’s what I’m reading. I could be wrong, because quite frankly I don’t know what is going on most of the time. But these aren’t topics I expect to see in a novel from 1959. I think more about ‘Leave it to Beaver’, and those types of shows. Nobody swears, nobody is a Communist, nobody does drugs, nobody does anything in fact. The Clevers slept in twin beds, and nobody used a toilet for crying out loud. Of course that wasn’t reality, and this book probably is. Or at least it’s close to reality than the adventures of Wally and the Beav.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)