Junkie - William S. Burroughs
First, we want to welcome two new members: Monica, and Andie. Monica is attending the meetings in person; Andie, however, lives in Albany and is a member in spirit - hopefully a spirit that contributes her own comments on these books as we read them.
I don't think anyone disliked the book, though I think that each person got something different out of it. The most distinct overall impression was a surprise at the matter-of-fact-ness that Burroughs had about the whole thing. There was no judging, no condemnation, just "this is the way it is." This is a refreshing difference from modern "drug-culture" literature which either seeks to glorify or vilify the users and the drugs.
Like I said, we each took something a little different out of it. For some of us, it was a bit eye-opening to see the drug culture at work like this. Having just read Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, this book presents an interesting picture about the drug sub-culture in middle part of the 1900s. Where, when this book was written in 1950 NO ONE talked about these things, by the time Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test was written in the mid-60s it was fairly common and well-known. To this end, the glossary at the end of the book was an interesting artifact of a less hip generation that needed everything spelled out. But, in the end, it was a bit interesting to see how easily Burroughs slips in and out of the drug culture. He gets into drugs almost by happenstance, and then just quits when it gets too dull and repetitive (though, to be fair, he did "quit" to go to South America in search of better drugs).
Personally, what I found most interesting was the institutional and governmental reaction to and handling of the drug users and addicts. Surprisingly, it was both more tolerant and more strict. It was more tolerant in that institutions existed where these people could turn themselves and clean up; even it was just a cover to get free synthetic drugs, these could have been treated as legitimate rehab institutions. Now, these programs are very difficult to enter as drugs are being further and further vilified and the users are choosing "home remedies" rather than risk humiliation or worse if they turn themselves in. On the other hand, the regimens were far more strict than today. They didn't work with you, you either committed to their schedule or you left. Today these programs are tailored to each individual; which, while it may be "more effective" is also FAR more costly. Also, interestingly, these programs WERE run by the government - now, most of these programs are run either by underground non-profits getting money by claiming more "legitimate" purposes or by private organizations; in any event state or federal entities are not, for the most part, running these organizations.
Finally, Erin had some interesting observations on the "interrelationship" of all of the primary characters. While she can probably recall it better than I can, I believe that Burroughs' "male love interest" in the book (and in real life) ended up being Ginsberg's "male love interest" in real life, and was ultimately the publisher of the book. Though, in all of that, he was hesitant to emphasize, and even edited out, much of the homosexual content of the book. Frankly, it's probably for the better, because that content became part of another book "Queer" and it left this book's focus relatively narrow.
We did not read Ginsberg's "Howl" aloud; consideration for the fellow patrons of the coffee shop militated against such activity. However, most were surprised at how "non-controversial" and, indeed, trivial much of the subject matter of that poem has become. I find it interesting less as a cultural artifact, but more as the lamentations of the poet. Clearly he's pissed off. And I'm all for a bit yelling and screaming - especially when it's directed at the nefarious "man."
Hopefully others can add their comments.
I don't think anyone disliked the book, though I think that each person got something different out of it. The most distinct overall impression was a surprise at the matter-of-fact-ness that Burroughs had about the whole thing. There was no judging, no condemnation, just "this is the way it is." This is a refreshing difference from modern "drug-culture" literature which either seeks to glorify or vilify the users and the drugs.
Like I said, we each took something a little different out of it. For some of us, it was a bit eye-opening to see the drug culture at work like this. Having just read Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, this book presents an interesting picture about the drug sub-culture in middle part of the 1900s. Where, when this book was written in 1950 NO ONE talked about these things, by the time Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test was written in the mid-60s it was fairly common and well-known. To this end, the glossary at the end of the book was an interesting artifact of a less hip generation that needed everything spelled out. But, in the end, it was a bit interesting to see how easily Burroughs slips in and out of the drug culture. He gets into drugs almost by happenstance, and then just quits when it gets too dull and repetitive (though, to be fair, he did "quit" to go to South America in search of better drugs).
Personally, what I found most interesting was the institutional and governmental reaction to and handling of the drug users and addicts. Surprisingly, it was both more tolerant and more strict. It was more tolerant in that institutions existed where these people could turn themselves and clean up; even it was just a cover to get free synthetic drugs, these could have been treated as legitimate rehab institutions. Now, these programs are very difficult to enter as drugs are being further and further vilified and the users are choosing "home remedies" rather than risk humiliation or worse if they turn themselves in. On the other hand, the regimens were far more strict than today. They didn't work with you, you either committed to their schedule or you left. Today these programs are tailored to each individual; which, while it may be "more effective" is also FAR more costly. Also, interestingly, these programs WERE run by the government - now, most of these programs are run either by underground non-profits getting money by claiming more "legitimate" purposes or by private organizations; in any event state or federal entities are not, for the most part, running these organizations.
Finally, Erin had some interesting observations on the "interrelationship" of all of the primary characters. While she can probably recall it better than I can, I believe that Burroughs' "male love interest" in the book (and in real life) ended up being Ginsberg's "male love interest" in real life, and was ultimately the publisher of the book. Though, in all of that, he was hesitant to emphasize, and even edited out, much of the homosexual content of the book. Frankly, it's probably for the better, because that content became part of another book "Queer" and it left this book's focus relatively narrow.
We did not read Ginsberg's "Howl" aloud; consideration for the fellow patrons of the coffee shop militated against such activity. However, most were surprised at how "non-controversial" and, indeed, trivial much of the subject matter of that poem has become. I find it interesting less as a cultural artifact, but more as the lamentations of the poet. Clearly he's pissed off. And I'm all for a bit yelling and screaming - especially when it's directed at the nefarious "man."
Hopefully others can add their comments.
posted by Jeff | 10/18/2007 02:51:00 PM
|
5 comments
