The question was posed on Wednesday if you can truly live in
desire at its purest state. After having discussions in class and reading Bill
Burroughs’ work, I am inclined to think that Burroughs did believe this but
with certain drawbacks. In Jack Kerouac’s On
the Road, there is an idea that is represented through
the character of Neal Cassidy which is the act of being a god without qualms. The
characters in Burroughs’ work seem to reflect this notion for me. The paralyzed
man in “Twilight’s Last Gleaming” can pick and choose who he wants to live,
even though he does not choose anyone. And the Negro Band picks and chooses
what they sing and what they say. Even if they are partially written to stand
in for the idea of the marginalized minority, their last words are all their
own. In the “Junky’s Christmas,” a junky who experiences the immaculate fix
also helps to represent Burroughs’ vision of a god without qualms. Just as Neal
Cassidy took everything in at his own pace, so does the junky who walks the
streets looking for his fix. But instead of women falling hard for the man with
the smooth words, the junky in Burroughs’ work is a man who is afflicted with a
separation from society. Now instead of everything being something Neal can
make love to, everyone is something the junky can get something from whether
that is buying or selling. This separation from society can most purely be seen
when the junky sees his friend Joey on the street and “they looked at each
other with the hatred of disappointment” (p.27). Every member of the Beats were
looking for some form of God, whether it be in the gutters, pure desire, or the
openness of the road. To live in a world where someone was truly free for
Kerouac was to be ever fluid and absorbent. For Burroughs’ it was to live doing
whatever it was that truly made someone happy. In their effort to find support
for the idea of living in this higher state, the writers of the Beat generation
have provided much support for the impossibility of living in such an awakened
state. Also, I was slightly confused in class when Professor Lennon asked what
our true desires were. When he then
presented the idea of not being able to realize what our purest desires were since
we are hindered by the constructs of morality and social order, I wondered how
Burroughs’ knew what his characters really wanted, besides the fact that he
wrote them. If an individual is unconsciously held back by the rules and
regulations of society, then how do they know when they break away?
I never really thought to unite "a god without qualms" and desire, and I think this is a very interesting concept to bring up. I agree with your curiosity about what Burroughs's characters desires were, but all I can imagine is that their desires (at least in some sense) parallel his own; otherwise, I'm not sure how he would be able to write about them.
ReplyDeleteI do think there is a similarity between Neal and the junky, though. Although they sought different things, Kerouac referred to Neal as a "holy conman," which I think relates to the junky manipulating/using others to get what he wants.
That's a very interesting question to leave off on. I'm not sure that Professor Lennon meant that we are fully unaware of our desires. He did admit that Burroughs lived the lifestyle that he preached to a certain extent. The way I look at it in Freudian terms, we may be influenced by our super-ego, but our id still plays a role in our decision making as well. Wen we do bad things, we are aware that they are bad. It is society, though, that gives us the impression that they are bad. So, if we let go of that guilt that society has placed on us, then perhaps we can find our true desires. Also, we may not be aware of our true desires indefinitely, but we are usually aware of what we do not want to do, like cleaning the kitchen, for example. Although I do not agree with Burroughs' philosophy, I believe it is possible to attempt (if you don't end up in jail for it).
ReplyDeleteI think one of the things I was getting at is the fact that for Burroughs, desire is what lies below the surface of our consciousness. In our lives, we cannot admit to ourselves what our desires our. We may want an extra piece of cake but our desires are more primitive, more the stuff of our dreams. That is why Burroughs believed in psychotherapy. He wanted to strip away all the layers that a person has and figure out what remains (and to a certain extent that is what Ginsberg and Cassady were trying to do as well). And for Burroughs, that desire is apart from the morals that we place on top of those feelings to block it. What would happen if we all gave into our desires....there's a book called Naked Lunch that you might want to read if you're interested.......
ReplyDeleteWhen I was reading Burroughs's stories, I felt like he lacked the need to make everything religious and spiritual (unlike Kerouac and Ginsberg). However, I loved when you said, "For Burroughs’ it was to live doing whatever it was that truly made someone happy." I think this definitely accounts for why Burroughs's subject matter is so diverse. He doesn't seem to be as confined to his own point of view, and I think he had a distinct creative approach to his writing. It seems like Burroughs was more willing to admit that he was unsure of himself and his desires, but he didn't view this uncertainty as a bad thing. Rather, he just wrote in a way that was more accurate to life and acknowledged his lack of absolute knowledge.
ReplyDelete