The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I am currently about halfway through "The Naked Lunch" by William Burroughs, having had little to do while on holiday in Dorset. To say that I am confused is an understatement. Normally the first half of a book would have yielded some semblance of a plot, but I can't seem to find one anywhere.
Don't get me wrong, it's very good, and some of it is darkly funny. Other bits mirror some of the points I've heard Bill Hicks make (I've not heard that much of Bill Hicks). But it just seems to be a series of random sketches with no interlinking thread. Should I persevere with it?
Also I recommend "Last Exit To Brooklyn" by Hubert 'Requiem for a Dream' Selby. I've read the first few chapters and it's breathtakingly good. Plus it was banned in Britain, which is rare, partly because one particular scene 'depraved' a man of the cloth. It's difficult to read because hubert Selby doesn't use apostrophes or speech marks, preferring instead to just insert speech into the sentence. Once you get used to it though, it's fine - you can tell who's speaking most of the time, and when you can't it's not important. It's also so lovingly written; the introduction pointed out that Selby uses different sounding words for each character depending on their personality. For instance the passages about some of the more docile women are full of soft, simmering words, whereas the one's about violent men are coarse and brittle. All of this makes the book take on a sort of melody. One chapter ends with an absolutely huge sentence that goes on and on and then just ends abruptly. It really is worth a read simply because it is beautifully written.
Don't get me wrong, it's very good, and some of it is darkly funny. Other bits mirror some of the points I've heard Bill Hicks make (I've not heard that much of Bill Hicks). But it just seems to be a series of random sketches with no interlinking thread. Should I persevere with it?
Also I recommend "Last Exit To Brooklyn" by Hubert 'Requiem for a Dream' Selby. I've read the first few chapters and it's breathtakingly good. Plus it was banned in Britain, which is rare, partly because one particular scene 'depraved' a man of the cloth. It's difficult to read because hubert Selby doesn't use apostrophes or speech marks, preferring instead to just insert speech into the sentence. Once you get used to it though, it's fine - you can tell who's speaking most of the time, and when you can't it's not important. It's also so lovingly written; the introduction pointed out that Selby uses different sounding words for each character depending on their personality. For instance the passages about some of the more docile women are full of soft, simmering words, whereas the one's about violent men are coarse and brittle. All of this makes the book take on a sort of melody. One chapter ends with an absolutely huge sentence that goes on and on and then just ends abruptly. It really is worth a read simply because it is beautifully written.
misterhappy wrote:
> Yes, Cronenberg's film is based on the book, but very loosely. He fleshes out
> the plot with stuff about Burroughs' own life and the circumstances in which he
> wrote the book.
But the book is completely unfilmable so Cronenberg's effort
> is not really faithful to the book at all but it's much closer in spirit to the
> message then any other attempt would have been.
If someone tried to release a
> straight adaptation of the book it would be:
a. banned
b. unwatchable
c. not
> as good as Cronenberg's film
The book is brilliant and it works because it's
> book. Also Burroughs is a brilliant writer and when you film an adaptation of a
> book you lose all the nuances of the language and almost every word Burroughs
> uses has been selected for a particular purpose/connotation.
Yeah, that's what I said!!! :-D
> Yes, Cronenberg's film is based on the book, but very loosely. He fleshes out
> the plot with stuff about Burroughs' own life and the circumstances in which he
> wrote the book.
But the book is completely unfilmable so Cronenberg's effort
> is not really faithful to the book at all but it's much closer in spirit to the
> message then any other attempt would have been.
If someone tried to release a
> straight adaptation of the book it would be:
a. banned
b. unwatchable
c. not
> as good as Cronenberg's film
The book is brilliant and it works because it's
> book. Also Burroughs is a brilliant writer and when you film an adaptation of a
> book you lose all the nuances of the language and almost every word Burroughs
> uses has been selected for a particular purpose/connotation.
Yeah, that's what I said!!! :-D
When you don't understand a book for the first time, it's great. It means you get to read it again and again, staying up late to finish the chapter, trying to puzzle out what it means.
Books rule. Drag yourself off the sofa and read a book, you pansys.
Books rule. Drag yourself off the sofa and read a book, you pansys.
Yes, Cronenberg's film is based on the book, but very loosely. He fleshes out the plot with stuff about Burroughs' own life and the circumstances in which he wrote the book.
But the book is completely unfilmable so Cronenberg's effort is not really faithful to the book at all but it's much closer in spirit to the message then any other attempt would have been.
If someone tried to release a straight adaptation of the book it would be:
a. banned
b. unwatchable
c. not as good as Cronenberg's film
The book is brilliant and it works because it's book. Also Burroughs is a brilliant writer and when you film an adaptation of a book you lose all the nuances of the language and almost every word Burroughs uses has been selected for a particular purpose/connotation.
But the book is completely unfilmable so Cronenberg's effort is not really faithful to the book at all but it's much closer in spirit to the message then any other attempt would have been.
If someone tried to release a straight adaptation of the book it would be:
a. banned
b. unwatchable
c. not as good as Cronenberg's film
The book is brilliant and it works because it's book. Also Burroughs is a brilliant writer and when you film an adaptation of a book you lose all the nuances of the language and almost every word Burroughs uses has been selected for a particular purpose/connotation.
That Naked Lunch book by any chance, wouldn't have anything to do with the film 'Naked Lunch' would it?
It's just you say the book is wierd and since I think Cronenberg directed the film, it was bound to be wierd too. And from the pictures I saw from the film, it looked REALLY wierd!!!
It's just you say the book is wierd and since I think Cronenberg directed the film, it was bound to be wierd too. And from the pictures I saw from the film, it looked REALLY wierd!!!
It's not banned anymore, it was allowed in on appeal, after it emerged that some of the jury had neglected to read the book, and they had missed entirely the crux of the case.
Requiem's a good place to start though, as if you watch the film you can get a better grasp of what's actually going on in the book because Selby's style can be dauntingly confusing. I would say that so far I prefer Last Exit though... and Naked Lunch is getting weirder and weirder.
Requiem's a good place to start though, as if you watch the film you can get a better grasp of what's actually going on in the book because Selby's style can be dauntingly confusing. I would say that so far I prefer Last Exit though... and Naked Lunch is getting weirder and weirder.
Can't give you any help, but rest assured that i'll go and order Last Exit To Brooklyn from my libery.
Unless it is banned...oh. Well, i'll order Requiem then.
Unless it is banned...oh. Well, i'll order Requiem then.
I am currently about halfway through "The Naked Lunch" by William Burroughs, having had little to do while on holiday in Dorset. To say that I am confused is an understatement. Normally the first half of a book would have yielded some semblance of a plot, but I can't seem to find one anywhere.
Don't get me wrong, it's very good, and some of it is darkly funny. Other bits mirror some of the points I've heard Bill Hicks make (I've not heard that much of Bill Hicks). But it just seems to be a series of random sketches with no interlinking thread. Should I persevere with it?
Also I recommend "Last Exit To Brooklyn" by Hubert 'Requiem for a Dream' Selby. I've read the first few chapters and it's breathtakingly good. Plus it was banned in Britain, which is rare, partly because one particular scene 'depraved' a man of the cloth. It's difficult to read because hubert Selby doesn't use apostrophes or speech marks, preferring instead to just insert speech into the sentence. Once you get used to it though, it's fine - you can tell who's speaking most of the time, and when you can't it's not important. It's also so lovingly written; the introduction pointed out that Selby uses different sounding words for each character depending on their personality. For instance the passages about some of the more docile women are full of soft, simmering words, whereas the one's about violent men are coarse and brittle. All of this makes the book take on a sort of melody. One chapter ends with an absolutely huge sentence that goes on and on and then just ends abruptly. It really is worth a read simply because it is beautifully written.
Don't get me wrong, it's very good, and some of it is darkly funny. Other bits mirror some of the points I've heard Bill Hicks make (I've not heard that much of Bill Hicks). But it just seems to be a series of random sketches with no interlinking thread. Should I persevere with it?
Also I recommend "Last Exit To Brooklyn" by Hubert 'Requiem for a Dream' Selby. I've read the first few chapters and it's breathtakingly good. Plus it was banned in Britain, which is rare, partly because one particular scene 'depraved' a man of the cloth. It's difficult to read because hubert Selby doesn't use apostrophes or speech marks, preferring instead to just insert speech into the sentence. Once you get used to it though, it's fine - you can tell who's speaking most of the time, and when you can't it's not important. It's also so lovingly written; the introduction pointed out that Selby uses different sounding words for each character depending on their personality. For instance the passages about some of the more docile women are full of soft, simmering words, whereas the one's about violent men are coarse and brittle. All of this makes the book take on a sort of melody. One chapter ends with an absolutely huge sentence that goes on and on and then just ends abruptly. It really is worth a read simply because it is beautifully written.