"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative."
I think the author of the piece comes across as a bit of a prudish dick, and seems to unfairly dismiss the novel out of hand. Nonetheless, I wanted to bring attention to the 50th anniversary of the novel, and thought this might generate some good discussion.
Quote:
| Why is "Where were you when ...," a question for assassinations and catastrophes, so often asked with respect to this book? Maybe because reading "Naked Lunch" is an act of violence to one's psyche. Jack Kerouac, who suggested the book's title (based on a misreading of the phrase "naked lust") and typed up the manuscript, claimed it gave him nightmares. Good for him, or at least for his unconscious mind. There is something gratingly adolescent about those who insist on the essential humor of a work replete with violent interspecies pornography ("The Mugwump pushes a slender blond youth to a couch and strips him expertly"); fetishistic descriptions of putrefaction and disease ("[h]e's got a prolapsed asshole and when he wants to get screwed he'll pass you his ass on three feet of in-tes-tine"); and general nastiness ("Did I ever tell you about the man who taught his asshole to talk?"). |




