From: Richard Ridge (richard_ridge@tao-group.com)
Date: Wed Feb 27 2002 - 06:04:39 MST
> [Hermit] Agreed. Altogether a very Victorian author combining
> mysticism and
> jingoism into a soup that was far from rational and makes some of
> the more
> fervid American "patriot" groups seem almost reasonable by comparison.
I don't think the comparison is accidental. His sexuality was the main thing
that set Burroughs apart from some of the more stereotypical members of
certain survivalist groups, though the opprobrium he suffered due to his
sexual mores does not appear to have preventing him from liberally applying
much of the same opprobrium to others. It's worth remembering that Burroughs
came from an extremely conservative background; the only two things that set
him apart from this were his sexuality and his later drug abuse. Neither of
those ameliorated his views - rather they heightened it. He saw drugs of the
one hand as a means of governmental social control, and sexuality on the
other as an escape from what he saw as a matriarchal society that stifled
men. In other words, his sexism was so extreme that it led to only one
conclusion; eliminating women altogether (one is reminded of various jokes
about the Taliban requiring all women to undergo compulsory gender
realignment surgery).
Burroughs can certainly be congratulated for his dry humour (he was a
skilled satirist on the occasions when he could cogent for long enough), the
subversive realism of the early works vs the surrealism of the later works,
and the cut-up techniques which served as a logical elaboration of Joycean
experiments with language. That said, his advocates would do well to
consider that far from being the radical they consider him to be, he was one
of the most reactionary authors of the last century. Best try JG Ballard or
Will Self instead.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT