Burroughs: Not Everything Is Holy

            As the title of Burroughs's short story "International Zone" suggests, his writing is more broad in its subject matter than that of Kerouac and Ginsberg. Although Burroughs did express his social criticisms of America in "Twilight's Last Gleaming," he opens up his writing to a larger discussion, not simple choosing to speak of the experiences and denunciations of his homeland. In this manner, his view of the world is more comprehensive, as he acknowledges the duality of good and bad in most areas of life. Burroughs can be straightforward and utter short, declarative statements that reveal a truth, but he doesn't feel the need to turn every idea into a sensational revelation.

            When I read Burroughs's writing, I imagined him as an impartial observer rather than someone constantly referencing and defining his place within this "Beat" generation. Although his writing seems to hold the opinions of someone who is well-informed and self-assured, I never got the impression that Burroughs tries to elevate himself onto a divine level. Unlike Kerouac and Ginsberg, there's never really a discussion of spirituality and the quest to become a holy figure. Burroughs presents the facts of a society as he sees them: in a straightforward fashion that lacks  embellishment. Speaking of Tangiers, Burroughs says, "You see filth, poverty, disease, all endured with a curiously apathetic indifference" (56). This statement forms the last sentence of a paragraph in "International Zone," and it's simply on to another topic right afterwards. Burroughs doesn't take time to reminisce on these social ills as Ginsberg would, but instead chooses to realistically communicate how someone may give such little thought to these matter in their daily life. There is no celebration of the "angelheaded hipster" or a glorification of the impoverished classes as Kerouac would provide. In this manner, it seems that Burroughs is somewhat lacking in the egotism present in the texts we studied previously, as Burroughs doesn't give himself the sense of elevated authority used to freely pass judgment. Whereas Ginsberg speaks of Moloch metaphorically devouring America, Burroughs writes on a more realistic and human-based level. Tangiers is a city filled with people who simply can't be bothered, who are proponents of an unconscious policy of "exemption" and "noninterference" (59).  I'm not saying that ignoring these problems is necessarily a good thing, but I just think that Burroughs wasn't trying to make himself into the figure of a savior or champion. I don't believe that Burroughs necessarily thought he could represent lifestyles other than his own, unlike Kerouac's ignorant adventure of becoming a provider, father, and Mexican for the day.

            Personally, I found Burroughs to be a relief from the need to constantly aggrandize ideas and experiences, for what seems like the sake of making everything holy. I think I was one of the few people who really disliked for On the Road, but I got tired of every drink, every party, every drive, every conversation constantly being made into something phenomenal. Even though the people Burroughs discusses may not be the "holy" Neal Cassady or an adventurous group of people, I found them to be more interesting and infinitely less frustrating. Overall, Burroughs's writing has the ability to show that sometimes people really are just normal and "in hopeless, dead-end situations," and I think this lack of ornamentation  emphasizes the diversity of philosophy within this "generation" (49).