Litkicks Message Board Archive

man within naked lunch

Hey
My reding of 'man within' is linked to burroughs's ambiguous usage of term 'junk' and the realted 'sickness'. He seems to use the writing of the book as some sort of cure but aloso sees junk and the use of drugs in gernal as both a creative and a political weapon....elswhere in the book in one of the many disjointed yet interesting images we have an illustration of a parasite--dwelling I think within an apple...eating out the core. If we link this to junk/drugs--that which you consume has a powerful--distorting--possibly negative effect but its is also disruptive of structure and thus control...burroughs' buzz word for conspiracy etc...the man within is thus both a parasite and an agent....a powerful internal device. Whilst this all seems a little confusing (it is to me, anyway) i think it makes more senhse if you see it in realtion to what Naked Lunch is trying to do...the book takes you inside the objective visions of Junkie---render the drugs expereince directly---disruopt the idea of textual control. Burroughs seems to write in a way which moves against his own structure. Some critics have said his texts work as a 'body without organs' a structure which is linked to no higher sesne of unity...the man within encapsualtes this udea. We have the text of Naked Lunch, but burroughs reliquishes his own authorial control so as not to become an opressive force himself it is as if there is something else controlling the text from inside...a parasite? the reader? the conflicting, swirling language perhaps?....the darn book drives you mad...

hope this has made sense---i'm trying my best to work it out for myself..doin a bit of work on it at the moment...try derrida's writing on the pharmakon (the poison which cures).....

james
england