| Revision as of 02:22, 28 January 2007 edit23skidoo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users38,419 edits deleted duplicated WikiBiography banner← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:29, 8 February 2007 edit undoBoson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,771 edits →Paedophilla: Amended link to wrong (living) person (per WP:LIVING)Next edit → | ||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
| ::I have always read Burroughs writing as a kind of ]- in the epic and tragic sense of the term- many persons afflicted with such a host of anti-social traits might try hard to camoflauge or disown their true vices in public. A "respectable" writer like ] lies about his procurement of prostitutes and ends up in jail because of it, but how many others do the same and we never know? What about that preacher in Colorado recently too? In my opinion there is a rare and perhaps twisted type of courage that Burroughs exhibits while writing about events many, for good reasons, would regard as personally humiliating. Also, often the most vile sex criminals (i.e. rapists, paedophiles and even fathers that carry on incestous relationships with their own daughters, serially raping them in effect for years) have been known to blame the victim or justify their actions as just a 'lifestyle' choice or claim to be 'normal'. Years ago on of my former girlfriends was a social worker and she had to deal with such a circumstance- the father thought his incest was just against the law, but did not really "hurt" his daughter. I think there is some group of child molesters called ] that presents their selfish blindness as a political cause. No one, especially someone who has read a lot about him, would reasonably claim Burroughs is trying to justify or popularize his attachments to a variety 'vices'- from heroin to guns to erotic longing for teenage boys. Much of his writing is repulsive for a reason, a reason that a lot of readers just cannot appreciate, and yes much would qualify as paedophilla or worse, and yes he has stated in interviews he was attracted to teenage boys, and yes he lived in a male bordello in Tangiers and he doesn't really present a convincing portrait in his writing about how the prostitute might feel as a result of his actions except to relate they constantly stole from him (wonder why?), but somehow because he ''shares'' all this with the reader- any reader who wants to read it- it absolves him of any indictment. I never ever get the feeling he is trying to encourage others to follow his numbers or outline (although others may try to justify their own actions by citing him), except to say he might encourage that 'lonely courage' whoever you are- straight or gay, rich or poor, Republican or Democrate, sharp or dull etc. Thus I think people who want to include some Paedophilla stamp on this article are too preoccupied themselves with sex. That's more than I thought I would say about, but in short, yes, I agree with 23skidoo and his points and wouldn't necesarily think a NPOV couple of sentences could succinctly represent the whole long paragrah I have written above. The reader has to be free to judge themselves on this count IMHO.--] 06:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | ::I have always read Burroughs writing as a kind of ]- in the epic and tragic sense of the term- many persons afflicted with such a host of anti-social traits might try hard to camoflauge or disown their true vices in public. A "respectable" writer like ] lies about his procurement of prostitutes and ends up in jail because of it, but how many others do the same and we never know? What about that preacher in Colorado recently too? In my opinion there is a rare and perhaps twisted type of courage that Burroughs exhibits while writing about events many, for good reasons, would regard as personally humiliating. Also, often the most vile sex criminals (i.e. rapists, paedophiles and even fathers that carry on incestous relationships with their own daughters, serially raping them in effect for years) have been known to blame the victim or justify their actions as just a 'lifestyle' choice or claim to be 'normal'. Years ago on of my former girlfriends was a social worker and she had to deal with such a circumstance- the father thought his incest was just against the law, but did not really "hurt" his daughter. I think there is some group of child molesters called ] that presents their selfish blindness as a political cause. No one, especially someone who has read a lot about him, would reasonably claim Burroughs is trying to justify or popularize his attachments to a variety 'vices'- from heroin to guns to erotic longing for teenage boys. Much of his writing is repulsive for a reason, a reason that a lot of readers just cannot appreciate, and yes much would qualify as paedophilla or worse, and yes he has stated in interviews he was attracted to teenage boys, and yes he lived in a male bordello in Tangiers and he doesn't really present a convincing portrait in his writing about how the prostitute might feel as a result of his actions except to relate they constantly stole from him (wonder why?), but somehow because he ''shares'' all this with the reader- any reader who wants to read it- it absolves him of any indictment. I never ever get the feeling he is trying to encourage others to follow his numbers or outline (although others may try to justify their own actions by citing him), except to say he might encourage that 'lonely courage' whoever you are- straight or gay, rich or poor, Republican or Democrate, sharp or dull etc. Thus I think people who want to include some Paedophilla stamp on this article are too preoccupied themselves with sex. That's more than I thought I would say about, but in short, yes, I agree with 23skidoo and his points and wouldn't necesarily think a NPOV couple of sentences could succinctly represent the whole long paragrah I have written above. The reader has to be free to judge themselves on this count IMHO.--] 06:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::As I said from the outset, I'm not trying to demonise him and I agree with pretty much all you've said- it's not about sex and isn't fundemental to his writing (he could have been solely attracted to middle aged men and left about 90% of his work unchanged)- but this article isn't about his writing, it is about him as a man and then by extension his writing. Even if we don't want to make any hard assertions due to a lack of solid evidence (and indeed, there is the possibility that he never had relations with anyone under the age of consent; though my personal opinion is that he did. But this isn't about personal opinions) I still think it definately should be mentioned in the same way that ]'s (alleged, but seeminly confirmed by his letters to Burroughs) Pederest tendencies. However I think there is probably much justification to move back from 'Paedophillia' back to 'Pederest' (which is seen more as morally questionable, as opposed to non-consentual and I seriously doubt that he ever he ever participated in non-consentual sex) as his desires seem to be fairly similar to Allen Ginsberg, however from his fiction and letters it seems as if he acted on these desires when it seems like Allen Ginsberg did not] 22:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | :::As I said from the outset, I'm not trying to demonise him and I agree with pretty much all you've said- it's not about sex and isn't fundemental to his writing (he could have been solely attracted to middle aged men and left about 90% of his work unchanged)- but this article isn't about his writing, it is about him as a man and then by extension his writing. Even if we don't want to make any hard assertions due to a lack of solid evidence (and indeed, there is the possibility that he never had relations with anyone under the age of consent; though my personal opinion is that he did. But this isn't about personal opinions) I still think it definately should be mentioned in the same way that ]'s (alleged, but seeminly confirmed by his letters to Burroughs) Pederest tendencies. However I think there is probably much justification to move back from 'Paedophillia' back to 'Pederest' (which is seen more as morally questionable, as opposed to non-consentual and I seriously doubt that he ever he ever participated in non-consentual sex) as his desires seem to be fairly similar to Allen Ginsberg, however from his fiction and letters it seems as if he acted on these desires when it seems like Allen Ginsberg did not] 22:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I cannot readily think of how to succinctly include this info, even a pederest comment seems like it would have to be included with a larger couple of sentences stating that he was married, at least common-law, had a child, and was involved in relationships of short-term duration with adult males like ] and others, to properly balance the picture. Allen Ginsberg and Burroughs are not one-in-the-same, and I know very little of Ginsberg compared to Burroughs work and biography, perhaps except for where they most intersect. Each had different life paths and very different politics too. Maybe somebody else can skillfully meet the requested inclusion, or yourself, after all- anybody can edit an article they just need to be able to defend it reasonably for it to remain over the long haul. --] 19:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | ::::I cannot readily think of how to succinctly include this info, even a pederest comment seems like it would have to be included with a larger couple of sentences stating that he was married, at least common-law, had a child, and was involved in relationships of short-term duration with adult males like ] and others, to properly balance the picture. Allen Ginsberg and Burroughs are not one-in-the-same, and I know very little of Ginsberg compared to Burroughs work and biography, perhaps except for where they most intersect. Each had different life paths and very different politics too. Maybe somebody else can skillfully meet the requested inclusion, or yourself, after all- anybody can edit an article they just need to be able to defend it reasonably for it to remain over the long haul. --] 19:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Exact Location of Grave == | == Exact Location of Grave == | ||
Revision as of 07:29, 8 February 2007
 | Missouri Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Biography B‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | LGBTQ+ studies B‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Archive 1
Talk:William S. Burroughs/Archive 1 Created 15 June 2006
The Headings
The Headings are too short, or too many, IMHO, and don't seem to follow a logical theme, so I tried to refit them. I also started an archive because as one person stated, the previous page was long and not easy to read/make sense of, although it is available in the archive, maybe a fresh page will help things. --Mikerussell 04:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Great idea, Mike. That other page was damned near indecipherable. I like the other edits you've made to the article, as well. But, I do have a problem with the whole "Burroughs-family-money" topic, and the edits you made in that section. Part of the problem, it seems to me, is that there is contradictory information available on the subject, and it is difficult to figure out what the truth is. That Burroughs received money from his parents is beyond dispute; that the money did not come from the so-called Burroughs fortune is, I think, also firmly established; how much money WSB received, and how often, is another matter entirely. ---Charles 04:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
"Burroughs fortune" again
- Reading from Allen Ginsbergs Bio "Dharma Lion" Burroughs only got a one time payment of 10,000 from the burroughs fortune. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.10.20 (talk • contribs)
- I haven't read that source, but if you read the published letters between Burroughs and Ginsberg that Oliver Harris edited and published (forgot title but has to in bibliograohy) Burroughs is constantly waiting for parental cheques to get to him in Tangiers especially. There definitely is a repeated amount of money being sent to him, and his drug habit makes the money more and more crucial to his survival. I know when his mother finally died, he got about $10,000 inheritence, but that is partially because he was receiving so much cash regularly throughout his lifetime. Now, if you want to talk about dispelling the myth that he was rich, and was a wealthy "junkie gentleman" writer, I agree with you. He was barely getting by most of his life, and I think his parents supported his son too, sending him to private school. Even late in his life he was having constant fincial stress. He had to leave New York City for Kansas partly because "the Bunker" in the Lower East Side lost rent control status and the rent doubled. He never owned his own home until very late in his life, if you exclude the farm in Texas which didn't have proper plumbing or electricity. --Mikerussell 05:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Vollmer shooting bribery
I agree the statement about the bribery needs to be cited. I'm sure any number of Burroughs biographies might be able to confirm or deny this, such as Ted Morgan's "Literary Outlaw". I personally had never heard of any sort of bribery happening, though if I remember correctly there was some family influence thrown around to get WSB out of Mexico. 23skidoo 03:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I completely agree. I missed that when it was first inserted into the article, and such a fantastic claim certainly has to have a reference. In all the reading on the subject I've done over the years, I've never seen any mention of it. ---Charles 03:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Unless someone can verify this claim or at least provide a source, I support deleting it entirely. 23skidoo 05:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am in complete agreement with that. Who added that salascious bit of information in the first place? Can we perhaps get an answer from him as to what his source was? If no answer is forthcoming, out it goes. ---Charles 04:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not willing to wait. I've removed it on the grounds that it is unsourced and unverified. If someone can provide a reputable source then we can put it back (with proper citation). 23skidoo 04:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am in complete agreement with that. Who added that salascious bit of information in the first place? Can we perhaps get an answer from him as to what his source was? If no answer is forthcoming, out it goes. ---Charles 04:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Unless someone can verify this claim or at least provide a source, I support deleting it entirely. 23skidoo 05:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Vollmer shooting bribery II &Grauerholz essay
I did not add the info (the stuff discussed right above on this page), nor do I really object to it being withdrawn, but I thought I would say that there is some support (see this link http://old.lawrence.com/burroughs/deathofjoan-full.pdf) for the ideas therein; namely, bribery and changing stories the day after the shooting. The source is a 70 page essay by James Grauerholz himself. After reading it I changed some things in the Vollmer article. Considering Grauerholz was such a devoted friend to Burroughs I was quite surprised at some of the stuff he wrote/uncovered, if I get more free time I might include some additions here. But whoever added the material may not be as off base as we are usually to think. I wonder if any more research from Grauerholz will be coming out?--Mikerussell 07:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that was me who added the material, and anyone who typed "burroughs bribery" into google would have found that Grauerholz article at the top of the list. I'm about to add the statement about bribery again, and I'll see if I can squeeze in a ref to the Grauerholz essay somehow. (What is so astoundingly absurd about the thought that someone might bribe their way out of a charge in Mexico?) -- Doom 07:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing absurd at all, but Misplaced Pages asks that information be referenced with a citation whenever possible, so therefore if there is a reputable source to support the claim, then no problem. 23skidoo 11:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Opiate subculture?
In regard to the following paragraph:
- A collaboration with other writers of the opiate sub-culture, including Nick Cave and Tom Waits resulted in a collection of short prose, "Crack my Smack" later released as a spoken word album in 1987.
What, exactly, is the "opiate subculture"? This seems to imply that Waits is or was a user of heroin or opium, which I do not believe to be the case. Before I change the wording, can someone provide some information that supports such a description? Thanks. ---Charles 18:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Evil River
Anyone have any additional information on Evil River? I only learned of its existence via Amazon today, but it was written about as a "coming soon" book back in 2004, and was apparently referenced in Word Virus. 23skidoo 02:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have created a stub for Evil River, but it needs to be fleshed out considerably. Anyone with additional information about this new book is invited to drop by. So far I've been able to track down an ISBN number and a listing at Amazon, but otherwise no other online sources despite the fact the book is due out within a month. 23skidoo 00:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Image needs to be replaced ... or can it?
Thanks to a newbie screw-up, we've lost the image of Burroughs that was previously used in this article. Although I was able to find the image again thanks to an Answers.com Wiki-mirror I find I now cannot upload it as the image use tag that has previously been used ("promophoto") has now been discontinued as promotional photographs are apparently no longer allowed unless they're clearly released as non-copyright or press release photos. The Burroughs image had been essentially "grandfathered" (that or the copyright police hadn't gotten to it yet). So any ideas what we can do? I suppose we could always toss up an image of a Naked Lunch cover, but apparently we can't do THAT either. So does this mean no images for this article from here on in? 23skidoo 20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Son's liver problem
This article says Burroughs son died of liver cancer, but the son's article (William_S._Burroughs_Jr.) mentions cirrhosis (though only as a header) and liver failure. Can someone who knows clarify his son's cause of death, and balance this point in the two articles? That'd be great. Doctormatt 02:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
New articles
I've started several new articles on a few of Burroughs' short works; if anyone can add detail to these articles, please do. I've created Blade Runner, a movie, Ghost of Chance and The Cat Inside. It would be nice if we could get Book of Breeething out of redlink territory as well but I know virtually nothing about that book. 23skidoo 23:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Commonplace experimental prose?
Regarding the following statement:
- "The trilogy Cities of the Red Night, The Place of Dead Roads and The Western Lands - these are written as commonplace experimental prose."
Perhaps I'm simply up too late but I can't understand what "commonplace experimental prose" is supposed to mean, mainly because it seems contradictory. Can a literary work be both commonplace and experimental? If so, does this accurately describe the three books? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Also, where do his other books fit into those categories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.141.203 (talk • contribs)
- I wondered about that sentence myself. It is both contradictory and inaccurate, and should be changed. ---Charles 18:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Influences
It seems to me that the influences section should be revised. Denton Welch needs to be listed (from the Welch wikipedia page: "William S Burroughs cited Denton Welch as the writer who most influenced his own work, and dedicated his novel The Place of Dead Roads to Welch."). Probably Celine should be referenced too. I would delete Spengler, because I wouldn't call him a top influence on Burroughs' writing (just one among many). -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.141.203 (talk • contribs)
- You are correct about Denton Welch. Burroughs stated in his interview with Larry McCaffrey (in the book "Across the Wounded Galaxies") that Welch was a huge influence. Spengler, however, should stay. Burroughs quoted Spengler frequently, and had absorbed Spengler's view that Western civilization and culture were coming to their conclusion. He encouraged Ginsberg and Kerouac to read Spengler when they first started visiting him at Columbia. (There are references for this in Ted Morgan's "Literary Outlaw".) ---Charles 18:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- .
- Welch was a huge influence. I'm also puzzled that the article mentions a friendship with Anthony Burgess, a man who never figures in Burroughs' diaries or correspondence and whose work he despised ("... awful 'tour de force' novels... ") in Early Routines (1982). I tried to add this but it was omitted a day later. Fair enough, but drop the Burgess mention too. And by the way, it's impossible to read ten pages of Burroughs without his mention of a literary influence. Spengler it ain't. This isn't rocket science. -- Egomet Bonmot (P.S.: "I never met a Dane that wasn't bone dull" -- WSB)
- .
- This article on our most quintessentially American author was clearly written by an Englishman, and even worse he phoned it in. It needs a floor-to-ceiling rewrite and please God let it be a yankee. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.232.198.157 (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
- What exactly requires revision? And I think you need to examine Misplaced Pages policy. For one thing, "this article" was not written by one person. It has been written by a number of people from all parts of the world -- including the United States. Requiring an American to write an article on an American goes against the spirit of Misplaced Pages. If there's something here you think can be improved, then improve it. 23skidoo 23:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Burroughs and cats
A rather bizarre passage was deleted regarding Burroughs experimenting with cats. I support the deletion; while The Cat Inside is an actual book I don't know if it really covers the experiments mentioned in the edit. If we're going to have this sort of material, it needs to be cited from a non-fictional source (as Cat Inside, while autobiographical to an extent, is to my understanding considered a work of fiction). 23skidoo 01:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
"Word is a Virus" Citation
I'm looking for the first occurrence in Burroughs's writing of the phrase "word is a virus." It is quoted in many places, and I have found several paraphrases of it, but for whatever reason I have not yet been able to find the actual source and date of the exact phrase. The phrase would be good to add to this article and it should be sourced properly for wikiquote. Thanks Amber388 22:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Have you checked the novella "WORD" contained within the Interzone collection? I haven't read it in years so I can't remember if the phrase appears there. The thing with Burroughs is phrases and themes reoccur in his writings, therefore "word is a virus" -- or "language is a virus" as quoted by Laurie Anderson -- could actually appear in any number of novels, short stories or essays. 23skidoo 14:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's in his essay "The Electronic Revolution", and it's quoted on The Nova Trilogy page. The exact quote is "My basis theory is that the written word was literally a virus that made the spoken word possible". Nixdorf 20:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- And the good news is not only does The Electronic Revolution have an article, but the entire text is also available online (however as of Oct 15 the link isn't working, though the site says it's only offline temporarily). 23skidoo 20:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. So am I correct in thinking that "word was literally a virus" is the closest he comes, but that he never actually says "Word is a virus"? Amber388 22:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, in this source, anyway. I still contend he used the phrase elsewhere, plus Laurie Anderson quotes him as saying "Language is a Virus from Outer Space" which must originate from somewhere. I also recommend checking the introduction to the collection Word Virus which might give additional insight into the phrase. 23skidoo 00:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have a spoken quote on wav where he says "word begets image and image is virus" and there is an interview where he states "language is obviously a virus since it depends on replication" but no quote like that. Nixdorf 19:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. So am I correct in thinking that "word was literally a virus" is the closest he comes, but that he never actually says "Word is a virus"? Amber388 22:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- And the good news is not only does The Electronic Revolution have an article, but the entire text is also available online (however as of Oct 15 the link isn't working, though the site says it's only offline temporarily). 23skidoo 20:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Paedophilla
This is a bit of an odd question, but it is somthing that I have wondered for a while-
It seems evident from his writing that he did engage in sexual relationships with people underage (for instance his 'boyfriend', of sorts, in Morocco who was 14, if my memory serves me right), as well as the occation when he mentions paying a couple of underage boys to have sex with him watching and him watching underage boys swimming naked in Latin America (as mentioned in Queer). He also refers to various people he is attracted to (particularly in Mexico, Morocco and Latin America) as 'boys', however this could just be that it refered to males of any age as boys.
At the same time, much of this comes from Queer and Junky which are largely autobiographical, but still qualify as fiction. Other parts come from his letters to Ginsberg. I'm not suggesting that we have "William S. Burroughs was an avant garde author, social critic, unrepentent drug addict and DIRTY PAEDOPHILLE" at the start of the article, but I think that this needs to be explored further and mentioned. I'm definately not a Burroughs expert, so others may already have answers to this question... - Gegen
- I don't know how much detail this article needs to go into with regards to this (or for that matter Burroughs' sexual relations in general). Certainly the fact that he carried on with a boy in his teens I believe is supported by some of the biographies, but in some respects there's little difference between this and adult males marrying girls as young as 14-- legally-- in some countries and even parts of Canada and the United States. There may be moves afoot to curb this today, and the whole "sex tourism" thing is a concern as well, but we're talking the 1950s with Burroughs, and that was a different time. If someone can provide a well-sourced, NPOV discussion, it might work, but I don't know if it's overly necessary, save for the fact that the boy inspired a number of characters in Burroughs' work. 23skidoo 23:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have always read Burroughs writing as a kind of apology- in the epic and tragic sense of the term- many persons afflicted with such a host of anti-social traits might try hard to camoflauge or disown their true vices in public. A "respectable" writer like Jeffrey Archer lies about his procurement of prostitutes and ends up in jail because of it, but how many others do the same and we never know? What about that preacher in Colorado recently too? In my opinion there is a rare and perhaps twisted type of courage that Burroughs exhibits while writing about events many, for good reasons, would regard as personally humiliating. Also, often the most vile sex criminals (i.e. rapists, paedophiles and even fathers that carry on incestous relationships with their own daughters, serially raping them in effect for years) have been known to blame the victim or justify their actions as just a 'lifestyle' choice or claim to be 'normal'. Years ago on of my former girlfriends was a social worker and she had to deal with such a circumstance- the father thought his incest was just against the law, but did not really "hurt" his daughter. I think there is some group of child molesters called NAMBLA that presents their selfish blindness as a political cause. No one, especially someone who has read a lot about him, would reasonably claim Burroughs is trying to justify or popularize his attachments to a variety 'vices'- from heroin to guns to erotic longing for teenage boys. Much of his writing is repulsive for a reason, a reason that a lot of readers just cannot appreciate, and yes much would qualify as paedophilla or worse, and yes he has stated in interviews he was attracted to teenage boys, and yes he lived in a male bordello in Tangiers and he doesn't really present a convincing portrait in his writing about how the prostitute might feel as a result of his actions except to relate they constantly stole from him (wonder why?), but somehow because he shares all this with the reader- any reader who wants to read it- it absolves him of any indictment. I never ever get the feeling he is trying to encourage others to follow his numbers or outline (although others may try to justify their own actions by citing him), except to say he might encourage that 'lonely courage' whoever you are- straight or gay, rich or poor, Republican or Democrate, sharp or dull etc. Thus I think people who want to include some Paedophilla stamp on this article are too preoccupied themselves with sex. That's more than I thought I would say about, but in short, yes, I agree with 23skidoo and his points and wouldn't necesarily think a NPOV couple of sentences could succinctly represent the whole long paragrah I have written above. The reader has to be free to judge themselves on this count IMHO.--Mikerussell 06:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- As I said from the outset, I'm not trying to demonise him and I agree with pretty much all you've said- it's not about sex and isn't fundemental to his writing (he could have been solely attracted to middle aged men and left about 90% of his work unchanged)- but this article isn't about his writing, it is about him as a man and then by extension his writing. Even if we don't want to make any hard assertions due to a lack of solid evidence (and indeed, there is the possibility that he never had relations with anyone under the age of consent; though my personal opinion is that he did. But this isn't about personal opinions) I still think it definately should be mentioned in the same way that Allen Ginsberg's (alleged, but seeminly confirmed by his letters to Burroughs) Pederest tendencies. However I think there is probably much justification to move back from 'Paedophillia' back to 'Pederest' (which is seen more as morally questionable, as opposed to non-consentual and I seriously doubt that he ever he ever participated in non-consentual sex) as his desires seem to be fairly similar to Allen Ginsberg, however from his fiction and letters it seems as if he acted on these desires when it seems like Allen Ginsberg did notGegen 22:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I cannot readily think of how to succinctly include this info, even a pederest comment seems like it would have to be included with a larger couple of sentences stating that he was married, at least common-law, had a child, and was involved in relationships of short-term duration with adult males like Ian Sommerville and others, to properly balance the picture. Allen Ginsberg and Burroughs are not one-in-the-same, and I know very little of Ginsberg compared to Burroughs work and biography, perhaps except for where they most intersect. Each had different life paths and very different politics too. Maybe somebody else can skillfully meet the requested inclusion, or yourself, after all- anybody can edit an article they just need to be able to defend it reasonably for it to remain over the long haul. --Mikerussell 19:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- As I said from the outset, I'm not trying to demonise him and I agree with pretty much all you've said- it's not about sex and isn't fundemental to his writing (he could have been solely attracted to middle aged men and left about 90% of his work unchanged)- but this article isn't about his writing, it is about him as a man and then by extension his writing. Even if we don't want to make any hard assertions due to a lack of solid evidence (and indeed, there is the possibility that he never had relations with anyone under the age of consent; though my personal opinion is that he did. But this isn't about personal opinions) I still think it definately should be mentioned in the same way that Allen Ginsberg's (alleged, but seeminly confirmed by his letters to Burroughs) Pederest tendencies. However I think there is probably much justification to move back from 'Paedophillia' back to 'Pederest' (which is seen more as morally questionable, as opposed to non-consentual and I seriously doubt that he ever he ever participated in non-consentual sex) as his desires seem to be fairly similar to Allen Ginsberg, however from his fiction and letters it seems as if he acted on these desires when it seems like Allen Ginsberg did notGegen 22:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have always read Burroughs writing as a kind of apology- in the epic and tragic sense of the term- many persons afflicted with such a host of anti-social traits might try hard to camoflauge or disown their true vices in public. A "respectable" writer like Jeffrey Archer lies about his procurement of prostitutes and ends up in jail because of it, but how many others do the same and we never know? What about that preacher in Colorado recently too? In my opinion there is a rare and perhaps twisted type of courage that Burroughs exhibits while writing about events many, for good reasons, would regard as personally humiliating. Also, often the most vile sex criminals (i.e. rapists, paedophiles and even fathers that carry on incestous relationships with their own daughters, serially raping them in effect for years) have been known to blame the victim or justify their actions as just a 'lifestyle' choice or claim to be 'normal'. Years ago on of my former girlfriends was a social worker and she had to deal with such a circumstance- the father thought his incest was just against the law, but did not really "hurt" his daughter. I think there is some group of child molesters called NAMBLA that presents their selfish blindness as a political cause. No one, especially someone who has read a lot about him, would reasonably claim Burroughs is trying to justify or popularize his attachments to a variety 'vices'- from heroin to guns to erotic longing for teenage boys. Much of his writing is repulsive for a reason, a reason that a lot of readers just cannot appreciate, and yes much would qualify as paedophilla or worse, and yes he has stated in interviews he was attracted to teenage boys, and yes he lived in a male bordello in Tangiers and he doesn't really present a convincing portrait in his writing about how the prostitute might feel as a result of his actions except to relate they constantly stole from him (wonder why?), but somehow because he shares all this with the reader- any reader who wants to read it- it absolves him of any indictment. I never ever get the feeling he is trying to encourage others to follow his numbers or outline (although others may try to justify their own actions by citing him), except to say he might encourage that 'lonely courage' whoever you are- straight or gay, rich or poor, Republican or Democrate, sharp or dull etc. Thus I think people who want to include some Paedophilla stamp on this article are too preoccupied themselves with sex. That's more than I thought I would say about, but in short, yes, I agree with 23skidoo and his points and wouldn't necesarily think a NPOV couple of sentences could succinctly represent the whole long paragrah I have written above. The reader has to be free to judge themselves on this count IMHO.--Mikerussell 06:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Exact Location of Grave
May God Bless You Always!
I was reading this article and came across the portion where it discusses the burying of his body at BellBellefontaine Cemetery. In the section it lists what are supposely the exact cooridates for William Burroughs' grave. This leads me to two questions.
1.) Can we confirm the location? What is the source of this exact date? Are we sure that William S. Burroughs' grave is located on this exact spot?
2.) Importance? Is this exact location important enough and encyclopedic to include in this article?
Yours in Christ, (Steve 16:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC))
- I can't answer the first question. As to the second question, I don't think it's necessary to give the location of his grave. Other articles don't. If Burroughs' grave had become a shrine like Jim Morrison's or Elvis', that would be a different story, but to my knowledge it hasn't. 23skidoo 23:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks to everybody for this high quality article Moe Aboulkheir 02:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Recent edits and corrections including Junkie book cover
At some point in the last month, the bibliography was terribly screwed up. Why was Port of Saints and My Education removed from the novel list, for example? I'm puzzled; I put them back. I oppose the removal of the Junkie cover. It is historically significant, plus, to be honest, without it the only image in this entire article is the cover of Dead City Radio. We should be adding more images, not taking them away. I have put it back.23skidoo 03:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I added a digital picture taken by moi of the cover of my copy of Literary outlaw, which I believe satisfies the copyright conventions and policies held out herein. I still think this article is too 'loose' with the facts and opinion, and I tried to add some stuff to straighten out some gaps, but I can't say I have the time to devote to it much. People should try to work away from the editorial comments or at least source it better. example- Whereas Junkie and Queer were conventional in style, Naked Lunch — although not Burroughs's first foray into the cut-up technique What does this refer to exactly? What were his previous attempts at cut-up?--Mikerussell 05:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, under Misplaced Pages's Fair Use image policy, the Literary Outlaw cover might not be allowed. Only free use images such as copyright-released publicity photos and the like seem to be acceptable these days. If no one makes an issue of it, it should stay for awhile, although when I have a chance I might replace it with a scan (unless someone beats me to it). Putting on my administrator hat for a moment, I'd like to request you cool it a bit with your comments like "this poor article" etc. which you have done a few times now. No Misplaced Pages article is perfect and all are expected to be improved over time. Please read Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith if you haven't already done so. 23skidoo 20:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the assuming of good faith applies equally to me, or the above cited contributor on 7 Jan 2006, who went so far as to request a total 're-write from top to bottom'. I am quite shocked at the quality of the article, and expressed it, without identifying any individual contributor, or contribution. If you are personally offended, then please deal with the errors in content, or opinion, and not to accuse me, a contributor trying to better the article, to 'cool it', whatever that means. This article is a collective work, in good or bad- what's with the possesivness? If I am in err point it out, otherwise, let's work collectively to make it at least an accurate portrait of his life and work, and not a hobby spot for a select few. Just to point out why I consider it flawed, it has huge gaps, the biggest shock was that it went from Tangiers to New York City w/o mention of Paris or London, which certainly used to be in the article. I hope my tone will spur others to action, since I am only one contributor. That's what you should be worried about, not my opinion and efforts to improve the article, imho.--Mikerussell 21:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, under Misplaced Pages's Fair Use image policy, the Literary Outlaw cover might not be allowed. Only free use images such as copyright-released publicity photos and the like seem to be acceptable these days. If no one makes an issue of it, it should stay for awhile, although when I have a chance I might replace it with a scan (unless someone beats me to it). Putting on my administrator hat for a moment, I'd like to request you cool it a bit with your comments like "this poor article" etc. which you have done a few times now. No Misplaced Pages article is perfect and all are expected to be improved over time. Please read Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith if you haven't already done so. 23skidoo 20:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Junky cover re-inclusion
If the book cover does not even depict Burroughs, and it has a spot in the book article itself, why is it appropriate to include? This is my honest opinion, and I assume good faith in the addition, but honestly, for a new reader looking at this article, the cover looks very out of place. A girl getting strangled by a man? I think others may want to re-think the addition. Pictures should fit the topic- I say this having contributed a couple pictures recently and think the article might be improved if the focus was shifted from the pictures to just the text, pulling even mine. I will leave it at that. --Mikerussell 21:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- II don't see it as out of place at all because the article indicates its historical import. We could replace it with the first edition cover of Naked Lunch, which is undeniably his most notable work, but as you can see, that one doesn't depict him either (although there was a 1969 edition that showed a photo of him on the cover). Not all images must depict the subject if the subject is a creator of works; Of the numerous images in Leonardo da Vinci, only one is of the subject himself (just a random example). The article also (at least at one point; I haven't kept track of the revisions) addressed the fact that his first work was released under a pseudonym by a pulp fiction company; it's an important part of his history. 23skidoo 04:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Criticism of article
This article is poorly presented with errors of fact. The writing style, in spots, is similiar to People magazine's worst Paris Hilton-type celebrity prose. It needs immediate attention to salvage its value to the subject and wikipedia in general. Contributors need to discipline themselves by using the REF system, and applying sources from the bibliography to back-up assertions. About a year ago, I think, this article was better. What happened? --Mikerussell 20:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I tried to improve the article since I was critical of it. I actually now think that part of my criticism was based on my own faulty memory about reading another bio of Burroughs that I erronously thought was this wikipedia article, so it probably hasn't deterioated as much as I thought in the past year. It still doesn't mention a lot of things about him like his misogynist tendancies (i.e "Women: A Biological Mistake?" and his interview comments published in The Job), his libertarianism ideas, his friendships with a lot writers of note, and the idea that he was haunted by his past and he had a lot of regrets at the end of his life. It seems like the article just lists a lot of the people he worked with near the end of his life and that he was some "countercultural giant" etc. But I am not an expert on him, so others will hopefully add more or correct errors I made myself.--Mikerussell 04:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Evil River
I'm starting to wonder if Evil River, despite being listed with a 2007 release date by Amazon and assigned an ISBN number, isn't either becoming vaporware or is being delayed. The release date keeps creeping back and I still haven't been able to find any official announcement of its release. I recall that the "Restored Text" edition of Naked Lunch was also delayed for something like a year after its initial release announcement, and apparently Evil River has been considered "coming soon" since 2005. If no one can offer verification that the book is in fact coming out this year, I'd be willing to support deleting the article (which I created) until such time the book is actually released. Thoughts? 23skidoo 04:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Categories: