Meanwhile, Back in Interzone...

I’m about halfway through Naked Lunch, by William Burroughs. I had read a collaboration of his with Jack Kerouac which was also pretty good- this is much more Burroughs, however. Interestingly enough, both Kerouac and Burroughs use a kind of stream of consciousness technique that so far, no writer I’ve encountered has been able to pull off. However, with Kerouac there is a linear narrative- things go from point A to B. With Burroughs, much less so. A to B may have been the original plan, but the narrator gets sidetracked, often to jail, other times setting out for B, finds himself at Q. The stream of consciousness is that of a heavy drug user, so we are treated to his perspective with no outside reference points, and what exactly is real and what is not, at least in that sense, is really not discernible, or arguably even relevant. Is there really an Interzone (a kind of alternate world populated with various and sundry mind-altering substances)?
There are, for example, Mugwumps, creatures that produce a chemical that greatly increases longevity, and is also highly addictive. There's also the meat of the giant black aquatic centipede, which is a powerful narcotic when eaten, although difficult to keep down. There are many more non-human creatures populating Interzone, and their relationship to humans can at best be called predatory. The humans don't seem to mind, due to the fact that there are so many mind-altering substances that most humans in Interzone are baked out of their skulls all the time anyway. I'll leave it up to you to determine what the significance of this is-there are multiple and complex levels of symbolism and meaning throughout this, despite its somewhat random and trippy style.
The book is also breathtakingly obscene. However, I am not entirely certain obscene is the correct word, as obscene generally denotes something without artistic value. In this case, there is artistic value to it. Yet no one would debate, I think, that this is not homoerotic imagery, (Burroughs was an admitted drug user and homosexual, and both colored his work very heavily. Out of all the Beat generation writers, Burroughs stands out as one of the heaviest drug users). This was at a time when homosexuality was widely considered a much bigger deal and much less socially acceptable than it is today. In an interesting parallel, Allen Ginsberg also used some homoerotic imagery in his own work (the two were literary contemporaries as well as peers), but Burroughs’ imagery is deliberately grotesque and shocking in the extreme. And yet, it is not, by that definition, obscene. I suppose this raises the question of obscenity vs. art. No doubt greater (and for that matter far more prudish) minds than mine have struggled with this question and not come to any conclusive position. However, I would say something like the situation at Guantanamo Bay is obscene- it degrades the human form and spirit without any artistic or meaningful value. Using obscenity in art or literature, as Burroughs does, contrasts this with the way people really are, and so in this way, retains some artistic merit. At least, that's the best explanation I can think of. I guess it's kind of a tricky question no matter which way you look at it. At any rate, it's a really good book, though definitely not for the faint of heart. The questions it raises about the nature of humanity (or the absence thereof) are tough ones, perhaps not to be taken lightly.