Rating: 
Summary: Naked Lunch is the essential con on the reader.
Review: After reading several of the reviews by customers regarding their frustrations and "exuberance", I can find it plausible that so many would discard this book as complete babble and non-linear. At the same time I find the "over-analysis" by others to be completely "over-analizing" in attempts to "get it", much apologies for the expression of an opinion. Burroughs' Naked Lunch is one of the most misunderstood books ever written, second, I believe, only to the bible in misinterpretation. While Burroughs was a habitual drug user, he wasn't the crazed, strung-out heroin user with no mental functioning, if so how did he write it in the first place. Of course his pals Ginsberg and Keroac "constructed" the book for him or did they? This was a book intended to con people about what a book is, should be and what the writer is and should be. Naked Lunch can be looked at as a collection of scenerios describing both the non-afflicted mind and the afflicted mind of a drug user. To think that Burroughs would have been slumming the streets in ratty clothes is laughable at best. This is a writer who up until being published lived off an allowance from his parents. Naked Lunch is a part of Burroughs and the two are intertwined in that the presentation of image is based on the lanquage being used to present that image. Think of Burroughs' anti-establishment presentation of himself and the his Nike commercials...too hip. Then think of the image Naked Lunch presents to the reader. Naked Lunch is a book by not being a book, the non-linear construction was intentional not thrown together or was it? Naked Lunch can be understood by everyone, the need for a English degree is non-essential nor is the idea of analytical comparisons to other authors. Naked Lunch is and isn't. The con is what Naked Lunch is. Naked Lunch can be read in any fashion and the message is the same, you've been conned. Time stands still, moves, intertwines. Reality exists and doesn't exist, Bill Lee is William is Dr. Benway is the talk asshole. Naked Lunch allows the reader to experience their own conciousness in the fashion in which "it" operates. Naked Lunch is one of the finest examples of 20th century literature for what it accomplishes. Naked Lunch is everything and nothing to everyone who reads it. No one interpretation is right, but all interpretations are right. Everything you read in Naked Lunch is based on "Solid Fact". Read the beginning of Naked Lunch and you are given the story of "I wrote this while completely on drugs and I had no idea what I was writing", then read the end with the "scientific" disertation on drugs and what treatments are and what Burroughs is telling the readers, then...Think of the image being presented to you and then question everything being said on the page. What is the image? What is the story? What is the meaning? What is the message? Am I being conned? If you answer these questions and find answers question the answers, then again you could just read the book and enjoy the paragraphic "scenerios" and not think about the "message" or the "big picture."
Rating:
Summary: Stunning
Review: This book's value as a literary work has often been questioned, but even those who cannot see its value as a work of social commentary should be able to see it as stunningly horrifying for another reason- how many chances to do you get to experience a direct glimpse into a junkie's mind? after forcing myself through the first few pages in a state of deep confusion, I found myself unable to put it down- I have never read anything quite like it nor do I expect to. it's not for the weak of heart, though; it's easy to see why so many peopl e are revolted by this book, but Burroughs is a genius in his ability to manipulate words into incomprehensible patterns of incoherent ideas, and to make you question the very meaning of the words you are reading. And for those who say, "what's the difficulty about NOT having any semblance of plot or character development or any other accepted element of writing", I say- try it. It's not as easy as it seems. A must-read book.
Rating:
Summary: The most vulgar book i have ever read. that is a good thing.
Review: Although this is not the type of book that appeals to the masses of the society that Burroughs spitefully depicts in this novel, he still has created something very meaningful to people who have the courage to think about what he is trying to get across. He deals with such issues as hero worship, the abuses of power and prejudice. The relevance these themes have only become inflamed in the time since his book has been published. As I have come to believe, the vulgarity of the book is used as a tool to try and evoke sympathy for the hellish torment that the protagonist must endure in his quest for an escape. If this is as autobiograpical as it seems to me, it is a wonder that the man could live with himself long enough to write this book, much less live to the age of 87. This is probably one of the best three books I have ever read.
Rating:
Summary: One of the converted
Review: I suppose it's useless to even comment on such a book as Naked Lunch.It's very nature iniates an absurd dialectic between people who either believe it is complete trash or a work of genius.I have never really been fond of the official beat triumvirate(Ginsberg,Kerouac,Burroughs),having more appreciation for Lawrence Ferlengetti and Charle Bukowski. As of this writing,my opinion of Ginsberg and Kerouac has changed little(Truman Capote's assessment of On The Road as "not writing but typing" seems to me a fair assessment).I will give Ginsberg credit for influencing other poets of greater talent who have benefited from the freedom he iniated in poetry,but little else(I still consider Howl to be worthless and self absorbed) The same is not the case with Burroughs.Though he never approached the level of invention present in Naked Lunch(save for perhaps Cities of the Red Night),his style and Humor(which eluded me during my iniatial reading,but upon subsequent rereadings became more and more evident)and his dark satirical intelligence,place him in the company of Joyce,Henry Miller,Thomas Pynchon and others who possessed the boldness to present reality in all it's beauty and disgust.The Lunch is indeed naked.
Rating:
Summary: Truly vile collage of epic proportions--a good read.
Review: As the veteran reader will know, Burroughs spent much of his life in drug-induced states of existence, not easily described. While it would be tempting to assume Naked Lunch is a factual documentary of this state, such a conceit is futile and flippant. What is apparent is that Naked Lunch is a very ugly book indeed - seemingly composed of the same madness which may have gripped its author in his darker moments of insanity. What becomes quite clear upon reading through the book is that its writer is a most extraordinary man, possessed either of a truly warped imagination, or at the very least subjected to extreme situations and still alive to write about them afterwards. Throughout the novel various characters are introduced, from the unforgettable Dr. Benway ('I deplore brutality. It is inefficient') to the 'nameless asshole' whose suffering seems to comprise much of the book. These characters, involved as they are with psychedelic dealings in nightmare landscapes, are etched in the memory as bloodthirsty, perverse, wicked...and also very, very amusing. Assuming the book survives a preliminary perusal (a task in itself), subsequent readings are less trying and Burrough's rough and ruthless sense of humor becomes identifiable. Having swallowed the initial nausea of the sheer unpleasantness of the book, the hopeless floundering of the addict takes on a gripping and desperate edge; the evil machinations of world leaders are breathtaking, and the depths of depravity to which they sink are laughable. Repellant, yes, but also entertaining, and it is in this manner that the novel is a success: It is impossible to throw up while you are laughing. While it may not be everybody's cup of tea, pot of hash, or plate of stir-fried entrails, Naked Lunch makes a lasting impression on the reader. The more conventional reader will not enjoy its violence, prurient sex, and unselfconscious drug-addictions; those with a stronger stomach and more liberal imagination will appreciate its frank confessions, di! sjointed descriptions, and of course, its very dark sense of wit.
Rating: 
Summary: Confusing and very hard to get into
Review: Being a writer and lover of literature I really wanted to give Naked Lunch a chance. I forced myself to read it far past where I wanted to put it down. The style of writing was confusing and prohibited access to the larger meaning of the novel. I understand that many think this is a revolutionary piece of work. I gave it a two because I thought it took a chance, but I'm afraid if the reader can't stay involved than ultimately the author has failed.
Rating:
Summary: Juxtaposed of Blake. Burroughs saw devils in the trees.
Review: "Unprolific, self-repelling, the dark power hid." The apotheosis of a Burroughinian world. Ratings are inane, please pull the monkey's smile and let silver blades gleam. Readum thisum bbookkuumm.
Rating:
Summary: Live it.
Review: "Naked Lunch" is not for everyone. There are certain people I know who would only be harmed by the contents of this particular tome. Therefore, if you are negatively affected by harsh, gut-churning, vomitous presentations of humankind, then, brother, this is not the book for you. To understand the story of "Naked Lunch" one must understand the P.O.V. of a person on severe drugs. Keep that frame of mind, and the story won't run away with you. There is no meaning, no moral, no plot. It is simply experince. For some people that is not enough. Revel in his words. Experience the Priest.
Rating: 
Summary: Scary
Review: I find it very scary that William S. Burroughs lived his life in the grip of these heroine-induced hallucinations, and that people walk around everday seeing the things that are documented in this book. Some of the parts of the book were very funny, some were stomach-turning, and most were unintelligable.
Rating:
Summary: one word summary: bad
Review: It's good to see some non-"10" reviews present. I gave this book a "2," rather than the "1" that I gave Ginsberg's "Howl," because at least Burroughs can write grammatically. Ah, it would be nice to be alive seventy years from now, when, with luck, critical standards in the arts will be on the upswing again...
|
