Burroughs' cut-up technique challenged me to think about the nature of narration quite a bit: An aspect that I've seen and found very intriguing in the trilogy is narration and communication as control devices. There was a passage - I can't remember if it was in the Soft Machine or in the other novels - in which the protagonist read a popular paper and started to cut up the whole medium and recognized the machinations of the press machines. There was also Burroughs' distrust in mass-media itself mentioned either in an afterword or interview (my memories are hazy and I probably mixed up elements so sorry if I was wrong). Stories and narratives - they might based on a past event or a lie - gives a group of people a shared structure and purpose, so stability and control. To willingly understand a story one must subjugate their own instincts to be able to listen to the other. And there comes the Soft Machine: On an individual level the Soft Machine might also represent the brain, which looks like a machine with myriads of electrical circuits. Society as a whole is an assemblage of individual Soft Machines that are controlled by myths, legends, comedies, tragedies, ethic codes, (so called) common sense - the grand narrative - etc. through thorough and constant communication (which is also for the paranoiac a form of surveillance). I remember Burroughs saying that even the alphabet was a kind of virus that infected the brains of humanity. What I saw in Burroughs' work was also various methods to escape the absolute control of the words - in the cut up or in extreme vulgarities that metaphorically punches in the guts of the reader. A question I have - have you read Samuel Beckett's triology, and if yes, would you do a lecture in the future?
These are really insightful thoughts! I think you’re right that Burroughs’ technique serves as a meta-critique of the authenticity of narrative and communication itself. The way you put it helps me think of it more clearly as a form of protest through parody. Also, the brain as the soft machine is a smart and certainly viable interpretation! I have yet to read any Beckett, but I have him on my shelf and will certainly do a lecture on some of his work, probably this summer!
One thing that I forgot to mention is that Burroughs leads a guerilla war against reading customs and habits, at least that was the impression that I had when I read the Soft Machine for the first time. My mind that was infused by reading and thinking mostly like a root with branches through year long of school and society got constantly attacked by the unexpected break ups of sentences, repeated and remixed passages. It honestly freaked out my habits and they tried to reject that experience by simply putting it as nonsensical - like every uptight citizen of the state would. I like to think that Burroughs intuitively wanted to lead his readers for a rhizomatic perspective which is liberating and chaotic to control.
I love your passage that begins "Society as a whole is an assemblage . . . controlled by myths, legends, . . . through thorough and constant communication (which is . . . for the paranoiac a form of surveillance.") We might define living more or less comfortably within these overlapping narratives, normalcy or "eknoia" (Laing). Paranoia is to be beside oneself, the first step in a becoming out of eknoia. A realization dawns something like people are not telling stories but are being told by stories as well as being controlled by that unconscious process and therefore policed. Surveillance is implied both by the coercion to participate and the monitoring of which stories you are communicating and there is an injunction TO COMMUNICATE, particularly today. Don't wander too far off! Deleuze & G: "all words are order words." Or Guattari: "words are put into the mouths of children in the same way picks and shovels are put into the hands of workers." So if you go this far, and cut-ups and unspeakable vulgarities can take you there, like a solid dose can jar you out of your routine narrative into "the sudden realization that EVERYTHING IS ALIVE," your soft machine is not a passive receiver of "reality" but an ACTIVE CREATOR of reality and you have come loose from the norm, beside yourself, in the perilous territory of the paranoiac. They have drugs and "treatments" for this . . . Careful not to deterritorialize too quickly. Take a dose of caution. Then you are perhaps at a threshold, if you don't go mad, of escaping the bewitchment of your intelligence by language which is a virus---just try to stop it, it operates on its own, it operates you . . . can you become metanoid, beyond your self . . . . . beyond Control . . . SILENT? . . . . Silence . . . is . . . Space. . .
@ Very astute observation connecting this strain of thought to that of D&G. They’re always struck me as relevant to understanding Burroughs’ work, and I intend to do more analysis concerning the intersection between the two in the future.
Saving this for when I finish the novel. Your Naked Lunch video was very nourishing. I’d also recommend Burroughs: The Movie, a very interesting, and often hilarious exploration of him and the beats. It has an artistic flair that you don’t find in a lot of docs. Perhaps you’ve seen it though.
Burroughs' cut-up technique challenged me to think about the nature of narration quite a bit:
An aspect that I've seen and found very intriguing in the trilogy is narration and communication as control devices.
There was a passage - I can't remember if it was in the Soft Machine or in the other novels - in which the protagonist read a popular paper and started to cut up the whole medium and recognized the machinations of the press machines. There was also Burroughs' distrust in mass-media itself mentioned either in an afterword or interview (my memories are hazy and I probably mixed up elements so sorry if I was wrong).
Stories and narratives - they might based on a past event or a lie - gives a group of people a shared structure and purpose, so stability and control. To willingly understand a story one must subjugate their own instincts to be able to listen to the other. And there comes the Soft Machine:
On an individual level the Soft Machine might also represent the brain, which looks like a machine with myriads of electrical circuits. Society as a whole is an assemblage of individual Soft Machines that are controlled by myths, legends, comedies, tragedies, ethic codes, (so called) common sense - the grand narrative - etc. through thorough and constant communication (which is also for the paranoiac a form of surveillance). I remember Burroughs saying that even the alphabet was a kind of virus that infected the brains of humanity.
What I saw in Burroughs' work was also various methods to escape the absolute control of the words - in the cut up or in extreme vulgarities that metaphorically punches in the guts of the reader.
A question I have - have you read Samuel Beckett's triology, and if yes, would you do a lecture in the future?
These are really insightful thoughts! I think you’re right that Burroughs’ technique serves as a meta-critique of the authenticity of narrative and communication itself. The way you put it helps me think of it more clearly as a form of protest through parody. Also, the brain as the soft machine is a smart and certainly viable interpretation!
I have yet to read any Beckett, but I have him on my shelf and will certainly do a lecture on some of his work, probably this summer!
One thing that I forgot to mention is that Burroughs leads a guerilla war against reading customs and habits, at least that was the impression that I had when I read the Soft Machine for the first time.
My mind that was infused by reading and thinking mostly like a root with branches through year long of school and society got constantly attacked by the unexpected break ups of sentences, repeated and remixed passages. It honestly freaked out my habits and they tried to reject that experience by simply putting it as nonsensical - like every uptight citizen of the state would. I like to think that Burroughs intuitively wanted to lead his readers for a rhizomatic perspective which is liberating and chaotic to control.
I love your passage that begins "Society as a whole is an assemblage . . . controlled by myths, legends, . . . through thorough and constant communication (which is . . . for the paranoiac a form of surveillance.") We might define living more or less comfortably within these overlapping narratives, normalcy or "eknoia" (Laing). Paranoia is to be beside oneself, the first step in a becoming out of eknoia. A realization dawns something like people are not telling stories but are being told by stories as well as being controlled by that unconscious process and therefore policed. Surveillance is implied both by the coercion to participate and the monitoring of which stories you are communicating and there is an injunction TO COMMUNICATE, particularly today. Don't wander too far off! Deleuze & G: "all words are order words." Or Guattari: "words are put into the mouths of children in the same way picks and shovels are put into the hands of workers." So if you go this far, and cut-ups and unspeakable vulgarities can take you there, like a solid dose can jar you out of your routine narrative into "the sudden realization that EVERYTHING IS ALIVE," your soft machine is not a passive receiver of "reality" but an ACTIVE CREATOR of reality and you have come loose from the norm, beside yourself, in the perilous territory of the paranoiac. They have drugs and "treatments" for this . . . Careful not to deterritorialize too quickly. Take a dose of caution. Then you are perhaps at a threshold, if you don't go mad, of escaping the bewitchment of your intelligence by language which is a virus---just try to stop it, it operates on its own, it operates you . . . can you become metanoid, beyond your self . . . . . beyond Control . . . SILENT? . . . . Silence . . . is . . . Space. . .
@ Very astute observation connecting this strain of thought to that of D&G. They’re always struck me as relevant to understanding Burroughs’ work, and I intend to do more analysis concerning the intersection between the two in the future.
I loved Naked Lunch. Thanks for the overview, I'll check out this work too
Saving this for when I finish the novel. Your Naked Lunch video was very nourishing. I’d also recommend Burroughs: The Movie, a very interesting, and often hilarious exploration of him and the beats. It has an artistic flair that you don’t find in a lot of docs. Perhaps you’ve seen it though.
@@casablanca99 I’ve never seen it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, and I hope you enjoy the novel!
@@gavinyoung-philosophyI can also highly recommend BURROUGHS (THE MOVIE). Also the book THE THIRD MIND by Burroughs and Gyson.
Please stop thinking you are a philosopher...
@@mheiseus Never said I was. Just a person reading and presenting ideas.
@gavinyoung-philosophy if you are talking anti semetic then you are a racist...