#alexander trocchi

[basicallyanotherwitchesthing]

Frances Lengel (aka Alexander Trocchi) - Desire and Helen - publisher uncertain - circa 1967

[blodmann]

Young Adam | David Mackenzie | UK | 2003

[hautaaja]

from £ S D (love, sex death pounds, shillings, pence lysergic acid) by Alexander Trocchi

[grandhotelabyss]

Advice/hard truths for writers?

The best piece of practical advice I know is a classic from Hemingway (qtd. here):

The most important thing I’ve learned about writing is never write too much at a time… Never pump yourself dry. Leave a little for the next day. The main thing is to know when to stop. Don’t wait till you’ve written yourself out. When you’re still going good and you come to an interesting place and you know what’s going to happen next, that’s the time to stop. Then leave it alone and don’t think about it; let your subconscious mind do the work.

Also, especially if you're young, you should read more than you write. If you're serious about writing, you'll want to write more than you read when you get old; you need, then, to lay the important books as your foundation early. I like this passage from Samuel R. Delany's "Some Advice for the Intermediate and Advanced Creative Writing Student" (collected in both Shorter Views and About Writing):

You need to read Balzac, Stendhal, Flaubert, and Zola; you need to read Austen, Thackeray, the Brontes, Dickens, George Eliot, and Hardy; you need to read Hawthorne, Melville, James, Woolf, Joyce, and Faulkner; you need to read Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Turgenev, Goncherov, Gogol, Bely, Khlebnikov, and Flaubert; you need to read Stephen Crane, Mark Twain, Edward Dahlberg, John Steinbeck, Jean Rhys, Glenway Wescott, John O'Hara, James Gould Cozzens, Angus Wilson, Patrick White, Alexander Trocchi, Iris Murdoch, Graham Greene, Evelyn Waugh, Anthony Powell, Vladimir Nabokov; you need to read Nella Larsen, Knut Hamsun, Edwin Demby, Saul Bellow, Lawrence Durrell, John Updike, John Barth, Philip Roth, Coleman Dowell, William Gaddis, William Gass, Marguerite Young, Thomas Pynchon, Paul West, Bertha Harris, Melvin Dixon, Daryll Pinckney, Darryl Ponicsan, and John Keene, Jr.; you need to read Thomas M. Disch, Joanna Russ, Richard Powers, Carroll Maso, Edmund White, Jayne Ann Phillips, Robert Gluck, and Julian Barnes—you need to read them and a whole lot more; you need to read them not so that you will know what they have written about, but so that you can begin to absorb some of the more ambitious models for what the novel can be.

Note: I haven't read every single writer on that list; there are even three I've literally never heard of; I can think of others I'd recommend in place of some he's cited; but still, his general point—that you need to read the major and minor classics—is correct.

The best piece of general advice I know, and not only about writing, comes from Dr. Johnson, The Rambler #63:

The traveller that resolutely follows a rough and winding path, will sooner reach the end of his journey, than he that is always changing his direction, and wastes the hours of day-light in looking for smoother ground and shorter passages.

I've known too many young writers over the years who sabotaged themselves by overthinking and therefore never finishing or sharing their projects; this stems, I assume, from a lack of self-trust or, more grandly, trust in the universe (the Muses, God, etc.). But what professors always tell Ph.D. students about dissertations is also true of novels, stories, poems, plays, comic books, screenplays, etc: There are only two kinds of dissertations—finished and unfinished. Relatedly, this is the age of online—an age when 20th-century institutions are collapsing, and 21st-century ones have not yet been invented. Unless you have serious connections in New York or Iowa, publish your work yourself and don't bother with the gatekeepers.

Other than the above, I find most writing advice useless because over-generalized or else stemming from arbitrary culture-specific or field-specific biases, e.g., Orwell's extremely English and extremely journalistic strictures, not necessarily germane to the non-English or non-journalistic writer. "Don't use adverbs," they always say. Why the hell shouldn't I? It's absurd. "Show, don't tell," they insist. Fine for the aforementioned Orwell and Hemingway, but irrelevant to Edith Wharton and Thomas Mann. Freytag's Pyramid? Spare me. Every new book is a leap in the dark. Your project may be singular; you may need to make your own map as your traverse the unexplored territory.

Hard truths? There's one. I know it's a hard truth because I hesitate even to type it. It will insult our faith in egalitarianism and the rewards of earnest labor. And yet, I suspect the hard truth is this: ineffables like inspiration and genius count for a lot. If they didn't, if application were all it took, then everybody would write works of genius all day long. But even the greatest geniuses usually only got the gift of one or two all-time great work. This doesn't have to be a counsel of despair, though: you can always try to place yourself wherever you think lightning is likeliest to strike. That's what I do, anyway. Good luck!

[meta-squash]

Squash’s Book Roundup of 2022

This year I read 68 books. My original goal was to match what I read in 2019, which was 60, but I surpassed it with quite a bit of time to spare.

Books Read In 2022:

-The Man Who Would Be King and other stories by Rudyard Kipling -Futz by Rochelle Owens -The Threepenny Opera by Bertolt Brecht -Funeral Rites by Jean Genet -The Grip of It by Jac Jemc -Jules et Jim by Henri-Pierre Roche -Hashish, Wine, Opium by Charles Baudelaire and Theophile Gautier -The Blacks: a clown show by Jean Genet -One, No One, One Hundred Thousand by Luigi Pirandello -Cain’s Book by Alexander Trocchi -The Man with the Golden Arm by Nelson Algren -Three-Line Novels (Illustrated) by Felix Feneon, Illustrated by Joanna Neborsky -Black Box Thrillers: Four Novels (They Shoot Horses Don’t They, Kiss Tomorrow Goodbye, No Pockets in a Shroud, I Should Have Stayed Home) by Horace McCoy -The Dictionary of Accepted Ideas by Gustave Flaubert -The Chairs by Eugene Ionesco -Illusions by Richard Bach -Mole People by Jennifer Toth -The Rainbow Stories by William T Vollmann -Tell Me Everything by Erika Krouse -Equus by Peter Shaffer (reread) -Ghosty Men by Franz Lidz -A Happy Death by Albert Camus -Six Miles to Roadside Business by Michael Doane -Envy by Yury Olesha -The Day of the Locust by Nathaniel West -Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche -The Riddle of the Labyrinth: The Quest to Crack an Ancient Code by Margalit Fox -The Cat Inside by William S Burroughs -Under The Volcano by Malcolm Lowry -Camino Real by Tennessee Williams (reread) -The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner by James Hogg -The Quick & The Dead by Joy Williams -Comemadre by Roque Larraquy -The Zoo Story by Edward Albee -The Bridge by Hart Crane -A Likely Lad by Peter Doherty -The Stranger in the Woods: The Extraordinary Story of the Last True Hermit by Michael Finkel -The Law In Shambles by Thomas Geoghegan -The Anti-Christ by Friedrich Nietzche -The Maids and Deathwatch by Jean Genet -Intimate Journals by Charles Baudelaire -The Screens by Jean Genet -Inferno by Dante Alighieri (reread) -The Quarry by Friedrich Durrenmatt -A Season In Hell by Arthur Rimbaud (reread) -Destruction Was My Beatrice: Dada and the Unmaking of the Twentieth Century by Jed Rasula -Pere Ubu by Alfred Jarry -Bitter Fame: A Life of Sylvia Plath by Anne Stevenson -Loot by Joe Orton -Julia And The Bazooka and other stories by Anna Kavan -The Haunting of Lin-Manuel Miranda by Ishmael Reed -If You Were There: Missing People and the Marks They Leave Behind by Francisco Garcia -Detransition, Baby by Torrey Peters -Indelicacy by Amina Cain -Withdrawn Traces by Sara Hawys Roberts (an unfortunate but necessary reread) -Sarah by JT LeRoy (reread) -How Lucky by Will Leitch -Gyo by Junji Ito (reread) -Joe Gould’s Teeth by Jill Lepore -Saint Glinglin by Raymond Queneau -Bakkai by Anne Carson -Reflections in a Golden Eye by Carson McCullers -McGlue by Ottessa Moshfegh -Moby Dick by Herman Melville -The Hour of the Star by Clarice Lispector -In the Forests of the Night by Amelia Atwater-Rhodes (reread from childhood) -Chicago: City on the Make by Nelson Algren -The Medium is the Massage by Malcolm McLuhan

~Superlatives And Thoughts~

Fiction books read: 48 Non-fiction books read: 20

Favorite book: This is so hard! I almost want to three-way tie it between Under The Volcano, The Quick & The Dead, and The Man With The Golden Arm, but I’m not going to. I think my favorite is Under The Volcano by Malcolm Lowry. It’s an absolutely beautiful book with such intense descriptions. The way that it illustrates the vastly different emotional and mental states of its three main characters reminded me of another favorite, Sometimes A Great Notion by Ken Kesey. Lowry is amazing at leaving narrative breadcrumbs, letting the reader find their way through the emotional tangle he’s recording. The way he writes the erratic, confused, crumbling inner monologue of the main character as he grows more and more ill was my favorite part.

Least favorite book: I’d say Withdrawn Traces, but it’s a reread, so I think I’ll have to go with Detransition, Baby by Torrey Peters. I dedicated a whole long post to it already, so I’ll just say that the concept of the book is great. I loved the whole idea of it. But the execution was awful. It’s like the exact opposite of Under The Volcano. The characters didn’t feel like real people, which would have been fine if the book was one written in that kind of surreal or artistic style where characters aren’t expected to speak like everyday people. But the narrative style as well as much of the dialogue was attempting realism, so the lack of realistic humanity of the characters was a big problem. The book didn’t ever give the reader the benefit of the doubt regarding their ability to infer or empathize or figure things out for themselves. Every character’s emotion and reaction was fully explained as it happened, rather than leaving the reader some breathing space to watch characters act or talk and slowly understand what’s going on between them. Points for unique idea and queer literature about actual adults, but massive deduction for the poor execution.

Unexpected/surprising book: The Riddle of the Labyrinth: The Quest to Crack an Ancient Code by Margalit Fox. This is the first book about archaeology I’ve ever read. I picked it up as I was shelving at work, read the inner flap to make sure it was going to the right spot, and then ended up reading the whole thing. It was a fascinating look at the decades-long attempt to crack the ancient Linear B script, the challenges faced by people who tried and the various theories about its origin and what kind of a language/script it was. The book was really engaging, the author was clearly very passionate and emotional about her subjects and it made the whole thing both fascinating and fun to read. And I learned a bunch of new things about history and linguistics and archaeology!

Most fun book: How Lucky by Will Leitch. It was literally just a Fun Book. The main character is a quadriplegic man who witnesses what he thinks is a kidnapping. Because he a wheelchair user and also can’t talk except through typing with one hand, his attempts to figure out and relay to police what he’s seen are hindered, even with the help of his aid and his best friend. But he’s determined to find out what happened and save the victim of the kidnapping. It’s just a fun book, an adventure, the narrative voice is energetic and good-natured and it doesn’t go deeply into symbolism or philosophy or anything.

Book that taught me the most: Destruction Was My Beatrice by Jed Rasula. This book probably isn’t for everyone, but I love Dadaism, so this book was absolutely for me. I had a basic knowledge of the Dadaist art movement before, but I learned so much, and gained a few new favorite artists as well as a lot of general knowledge about the Dada movement and its offshoots and members and context and all sorts of cool stuff.

Most interesting/thought provoking book: Moby Dick by Herman Melville. I annotated my copy like crazy. I never had to read it in school, but I had a blast finally reading it now. There’s just so much going on in it, symbolically and narratively. I think I almost consider it the first Modernist novel, because it felt more Modernist than Romantic to me. I had to do so much googling while reading it because there are so many obscure biblical references that are clear symbolism, and my bible knowledge is severely lacking. This book gave me a lot of thoughts about narrative and the construction of the story, the mechanic of a narrator that’s not supposed to be omniscient but still kind of is, and so many other things. I really love Moby Dick, and I kind of already want to reread it.

Other thoughts/Books I want to mention but don’t have superlatives for: Funeral Rites was the best book by Jean Genet, which I was not expecting compared to how much I loved his other works. It would be hard for me to describe exactly why I liked this one so much to people who don’t know his style and his weird literary tics, because it really is a compounding of all those weird passions and ideals and personal symbols he had, but I really loved it. Reading The Grip Of It by Jac Jemc taught me that House Of Leaves has ruined me for any other horror novel that is specifically environmental. It wasn’t a bad book, just nothing can surpass House Of Leaves for horror novels about buildings. The Man With The Golden Arm by Nelson Algren was absolutely beautiful. I went in expecting a Maltese Falcon-type noir and instead I got a novel that was basically poetry about characters who were flawed and fucked up and sad but totally lovable. Plus it takes place only a few blocks from my workplace! The Rainbow Stories by William T Vollmann was amazing and I totally love his style. I think out of all the stories in that book my favorite was probably The Blue Yonder, the piece about the murderer with a sort of split personality. Scintillant Orange with all its biblical references and weird modernization of bible stories was a blast too. The Quick & The Dead by Joy Williams was amazing and one of my favorites this year. It’s sort of surreal, a deliberately weird novel about three weird girls without mothers. I loved the way Williams plays with her characters like a cat with a mouse, introducing them just to mess with them and then tossing them away -- but always with some sort of odd symbolic intent. All the adult characters talk and act more like teens and all the teenage characters talk and act like adults. It’s a really interesting exploration of the ways to process grief and change and growing up, all with the weirdest characters. Joe Gould’s Teeth was an amazing book, totally fascinating. One of our regulars at work suggested it to me, and he was totally right in saying it was a really cool book. It’s a biography of Joe Gould, a New York author who was acquaintances with EE Cummings and Ezra Pound, among others, who said he was writing an “oral history of our time.” Lepore investigates his life, the (non)existence of said oral history, and Gould’s obsession with a Harlem artist that affected his views of race, culture, and what he said he wanted to write. McGlue by Ottessa Moshfegh was so good, although I only read it because 3 out of my other 5 coworkers had read it and they convinced me to. I had read a bunch of negative reviews of Moshfegh’s other book, so I went in a bit skeptical, but I ended up really enjoying McGlue. The whole time I read it, it did feel a bit like I was reading Les Miserables fanfiction, partly from the literary style and partly just from the traits of the main character. But I did really enjoy it, and the ending was really lovely. In terms of literature that’s extremely unique in style, The Hour Of The Star by Clarice Lispector is probably top of the list this year. Her writing is amazing and so bizarre. It’s almost childlike but also so observant and philosophical, and the intellectual and metaphorical leaps she makes are so fascinating. I read her short piece The Egg And The Chicken a few months ago at the urging of my coworker, and thought it was so cool, and this little novel continues in that same vein of bizarre, charming, half-philosophical and half-mundane (but also totally not mundane at all) musings.

I'm still in the middle of reading The Commitments by Roddy Doyle (my lunch break book) and The Hero With A Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell, but I'm not going to finish either by the end of the year, so I'm leaving them off the official list.

[riversarms]

Not to be like this but how do I dig up Alexander Trocchi from his grave and tell him that I love him

[brookstonalmanac]

Birthdays 7.30

Beer Birthdays

Hamar Alfred Bass (1842)

Leopold Nathan (1864)

Tom Peters (1953)

Peter Cogan (1962)

Dr. Bill Sysak (1962)

Dean Biersch

Jim Jacobs (1963)

Five Favorite Birthdays

Kate Bush; English pop singer (1958)

Buddy Guy; blues guitarist, singer (1936)

Richard Linklater; film director (1960)

Jean Reno; Moroccan-French actor (1948)

Thorstein Veblen; economist (1857)

Famous Birthdays

Paul Anka; pop singer, songwriter (1941)

Duck Baker; guitarist (1949)

Simon Baker; Australian actor, director (1969)

Henry W. Bloch; H&R Block founder (1922)

Ron Block; singer-songwriter and banjo player (1964)

Peter Bogdanovich; film director (1939)

Marc Bolan; rock singer (1947)

Emily Bronte: English writer (1818)

Alton Brown; chef, television host (1962)

Delta Burke; actor (1956)

Smedley Butler; U.S. Marines major general (1881)

Princess Clémentine of Belgium (1872)

Frances de la Tour; English actress (1944)

Dean Edwards; comedian (1970)

Laurence Fishburne; actor (1961)

Henry Ford; car manufacturer (1863)

Kerry Fox; New Zealand actress (1966)

Vivica A. Fox; actor (1964)

Craig Gannon; English guitarist and songwriter (1966)

Tom Green; Canadian comedian and actor (1971)

Jeffrey Hammond; English bass player (1946)

Anita Hill; law professor, victim (1956)

Sid Krofft; Canadian-American puppeteer (1929)

Lisa Kudrow; actor (1963)

Soraida Martinez; painter (1956)

Christine McGuire; pop singer (1929)

Patrick Modiano; French novelist (1945)

Henry Moore; artist, sculptor (1898)

Sean Moore; Welsh drummer and songwriter (1968)

Chris Mullin; basketball player (1963)

Christopher Nolan; English-American film director (1970)

Salvador Novo; Mexican poet and playwright (1904)

Ken Olin; actor (1954)

Pollyanna Pickering; English environmentalist and painter (1942)

Jaime Pressly; actor (1977)

Samuel Rogers; English writer (1763)

David Sanborn; saxophonist (1945)

Rat Scabies, English drummer (1955)

Arnold Schwarzenegger; Austrian-born body builder, actor (1947)

Hope Solo; soccer player (1981)

Frank Stallone; singer-songwriter and actor 91950)

Stan Stennett; Welsh actor and trumpet player (1925)

Casey Stengel; baseball manager (1891)

Hilary Swank; actor (1974)

Otis Taylor; singer-songwriter and guitarist (1948)

Alexander Trocchi; Scottish author and poet (1925)

Giorgio Vasari; Italian painter (1511)

Dick "Mr. Whipple" Wilson; actor (1916)

Victor Wong; actor (1927)

[davidastbury]

The Manchester Anarchists (1964)

The Manchester Anarchists used to hold meetings in a second-hand bookshop near the cathedral. Guest speakers - including the Glaswegian poet Alexander Trocchi - would come and inspire us with visions of a world with no more governments, no more military, no more class oppression.

I'd sit at the back, pushed up against rickety shelves sagging with the weight of mouldering volumes holding the pinnacles of human thought.

Looking at my watch I'd sneak out at 8.30 to meet a girlfriend - crossing the road to the Mitre pub - my ears ringing with high ideals and my nose full of book dust.

[xtruss]

The Writer Who Burned Her Own Books

Rosemary Tonks achieved success among the bohemian literati of Swinging London—then spent the rest of her life destroying the evidence of her career.

— By Audrey Wollen | January 3, 2023

We open every book with the assumption that the writer wishes it to be read. Readers occupy a default position of generosity, bestowing the gift of our attention on the page before us. At most, we might concede that a novel or a poem was written for inward pleasures only, without the need or anticipation of an audience. It is very rare to open a book and to feel—to know—that the writer did not want us to read it at all, and, in fact, tried to prevent our reading it, and that, in reading the book, we are resurrecting a self that the writer wished, without hesitation or mercy, to kill.

This is the case with Rosemary Tonks’s “The Bloater,” published originally in 1968 and reissued in 2022 by New Directions, eight years after the author’s death in 2014. Without this intervention, Tonks might have succeeded in wiping “The Bloater” out, along with five other novels and two books of strange and special poetry, scorching her own literary earth. Before New Directions’ reissue and Bloodaxe Books’ posthumous collection of her poetry, getting hold of any of her work was prohibitively expensive; one novel could cost thousands of dollars.

Tonks was born in 1928. By the age of forty, she had accomplished what many strive for: opportunities to publish her work and critical respect for it. Her Baudelaire-inflected poems were admired by Cyril Connolly and A. Alvarez, and her boisterous semi-autobiographical novels had some commercial success. Philip Larkin included her in his 1973 anthology “The Oxford Book of Twentieth Century English Verse.” She collaborated with Delia Derbyshire, the iconic early electronic musician who helped create the “Doctor Who” theme, and Alexander Trocchi, the novelist and famed junkie, on cutting-edge “sound poems.” At the parties that she hosted at her home in Hampstead, the bohemian literati of Swinging London were spellbound by her easy, unforgiving wit. Tonks was principled and ambitious about her writing, pushing a continental decadence into the oddly shaped crannies of bleak British humor. Until an unexpected conversion to fundamentalist Christianity compelled her to disavow every word.

After a series of harrowing crises in the nineteen-seventies, culminating in temporary blindness, she disappeared from public life, in 1980, leaving London for the small seaside town of Bournemouth, where she was known as Mrs. Lightband; she made anonymous appearances in the city to pass out Bibles at Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park. She felt a calling to protect the public from the sinfulness of her own writing by burning her manuscripts, actively preventing republication in her lifetime, and destroying evidence of her career. There are tales of her systematically checking out her own books from libraries across England in order to burn them in her back garden. This is a level of self-annihilation that can be categorized as transcendent or suicidal, or a perfect cocktail of both, depending on who you ask.

Rosemary Tonks, in a 1969 photo.Photograph from ANL/Shutterstock

Of course, most writers hate their own writing, either in flickers or a sustained glare, but they are also entranced by it, wary yet astonished. Many writers stop writing entirely, but part of the Faustian deal of publishing is that what you created lasts—beyond your feelings toward it, beyond your commitment to creating more of it, beyond your being alive to read it. Rimbaud, whom Tonks adored, famously quit poetry by twenty-one, after wringing out his wunderkind brutality, but silence is not necessarily the same as self-censorship. Tonks renounced literature as others do intoxicants, a clean break with an evangelical bent. She became allergic to all books, not only her own, refusing to read anything but the Bible. The connection between substances and language is one that she made while she was still using, so to speak; “Start drinking!” her poem “The Desert Wind Élite” commands. “Choked-up joy splashes over / From this poem and you’re crammed, stuffed to the brim, at dusk / With hell’s casual and jam-green happiness!!”

In retrospect, it’s easy to claim the dingy desolation that she describes at the heart of bohemia as some seedling of religious shame, but that would be irresponsible. Undeniably, the speakers of her poems (and, in a cheerier way, her novels) are drenched by “the champagne sleet / Of living,” of walking home from a stranger’s bedroom in the chill of dawn. “I have been young too long,” she writes, in her poem “Bedouin of the London Evening,” “and in a dressing-gown / My private modern life has gone to waste.” Her writing documents a life that prioritizes “grandeur, depth, and crust,” and those qualities are not stumbled upon, fished from the gutters, but hard-won: “I insist on vegetating here / In motheaten grandeur. Haven’t I plotted / Like a madman to get here? Well then.” Poetry, Tonks proposes, is found in the soapy bodies of resented lovers, the ashen walls of hotel hallways, the sharp rustle of February rain outside unwashed windows. Sadness is a given, but shame? Shame we reflect back upon these scenes through the mirror of her later faith, for the ease of narrative. While I can’t begrudge someone their higher power of choice, it’s heartbreaking to encounter something so wonderful that became such a terrible burden to its maker. Maybe that is what I find the most compelling about the story of Tonks: being able to articulate her troubles with such slanted beauty, a beauty that many writers would triple their troubles for, did nothing to stave off a need for self-punishment and the possibility of apotheotic forgiveness.

In “The Bloater,” the protagonist, Min, is grappling with a plight immemorial, a quandary so intimate that it might be one of the most universal questions that humanity shares: whom should she have sex with, given the baroque logistics of seduction and, more important, the shockingly limited options? As she exclaims, “Why do the only men I know carry wet umbrellas and say ‘Umm?’ I am being starved alive.” Her husband, George, the walking personification of incidental, is not on the table. Marriage, in Min’s subcultural nineteen-sixties, is merely an architectural situation, which one lives with neutrally, familiarly, as one might a doorknob. Its practical purpose is self-evident. It neither imprisons nor romances; it has zero relationship to morality, fantasy, obligation, or idealization. Sex, on the other hand, inflicts all of the above. For Min, if marriage is a doorknob, an affair is a door that opens onto the world.

The primary candidate for her affair is, at first, the eponymous Bloater, a looming, accomplished opera singer who can make every room feel like a bedroom, and whom Min associates with “red fur coats, soup, catarrh, and grating dustbins.” A bloater is a kind of cold-smoked fully intact herring, once popular in England, named for the swelling of its body during preparation. Puffed up from within, they are open-mouthed, iridescent; van Gogh painted multiple still-lifes of them in a demoralizing, reflective pile. The Bloater pursues Min with an almost delusional confidence, interpreting all of her insults as adorable idiosyncrasies. Min responds to the Bloater’s sustained flirtation with showy disgust—performed for him, her friends, and her own inner monologue—but she keeps inviting him back. Terrified of being left out of her historical moment, Min confronts the erotic complexity of being a woman suddenly freed by the sexual revolution, freed right into a new arrangement of social pressures. Yet the novel isn’t really about Min and the Bloater but, rather, the slapstick confusion between wanting someone, wanting to be wanted by them, and wanting to want in general, to know yourself capable of the focus that longing demands. It is about flirtation as a method of self-organization, and a crush as a method of self-torture. All of “The Bloater,” however—every single sentence—is funny.

Min’s cruelties and inconsistencies stem from Tonks’s surprisingly forward-thinking analysis of the sexual politics of the era: yes, straight women have full, active sexualities, and they want to have sex freely, just as much as men (if not more), but they are also constantly aware of what a power disadvantage they have, how every seduction comes with traps, social, emotional, and physical. In “The Bloater,” that push and pull, of desire and the reality of its consequences, creates an environment where women are always on the sexual back foot, so to speak—understandably defensive, cynical, anxious, and, at worst, rivalrous. Early in the novel, Min and her co-worker Jenny, who bears a striking resemblance to the aforementioned Delia Derbyshire at the BBC Radiophonic Workshop, are eating cheese sandwiches on break and discussing the terrible dangers of a guitarist Jenny likes, who returned after the end of a party to help Jenny clean (uh-huh) and, instead, lay down on the floor, across her foot, “a sure sign of a late developer.” But just as she started to move away, “he leant over slowly and kissed with the most horrible, exquisite, stunning skill—” Jenny extolls. “Born of nights and nights and nights of helping people clear up after parties,” Min responds.

As Jenny continues to describe this slightly open-mouthed kiss with increasing fervor—“He knows everything,” everything being the existence of the clitoris, one assumes (one hopes)—Min spirals. “Stop! I’m agitated. She’s gone too far, and is forcing me to live her life. Where are my coat, my ideas, my name? . . . She makes me feel like I’ve got to justify myself; catch the first plane to New York, or something equally stupid. . . . Oh! I know exactly what she means; and yet, what on earth does she mean?” Min, in a personal chaos of arousal by proxy and urgent insecurity, does what so many have done, before and since: she embarrasses her friend by implying that Jenny is being too candid about her own lust. Accusations of sluttiness, the perennial hazard of women’s honesty, peek their heads around a cheese sandwich. “Basically I’ve double-crossed her emotionally, but she’ll forgive me because my motive is pure jealousy. Here we go, purring together.” Tonks pins down the fascination and bewilderment of hearing another woman describing the kind of sex that you’ve never had; the awful impulse to get your bearings by claiming your inexperience as a power position, reducing yourself to a genre of virtue that you don’t even believe in; and the way, after all that, you can walk away even closer friends, absolved by an unspoken camaraderie. For Jenny and Min, the wrangling of inherited antagonisms is transparent, absurd, and shared. Women talk over the rumblings of their own internalized misogyny, laughing louder and louder.

All the characters in “The Bloater” are trying to ward off a singular agonizing fate: falling in love. For Tonks, love is its own thing, separate from both sex and its inverse, marriage, a dreaded vulnerability that could strike at any moment if one enjoys life a little too much. Min observes, “The hard core of the trouble with the Bloater is that most of the time he’s not real to me. To someone else he may personify reality. . . . The men who are absolutely like oneself are the dangerous ones.” It’s obvious from early on in the novel that the Bloater is simply the rhapsodic foil to the man who is Min’s own personification of reality: her friend Billy, who accepts her emotional blockades with a quiet optimism. When it seems as if Billy might kiss her, Min almost falls down, thinking,

And I shall begin to think, and to long, and to be jealous. My peace of mind and my gaiety will be gone for ever. I shall have to be balanced and to keep my heart strong, to fight and to be catty, and to reinvent my arrogance all over again by an effort of will. . . . My much prized, friendly, reliable Billy will turn into a male whose flesh will keep me awake at night, and I shall have no one to phone up and complain to when he makes me unhappy.

Tonks describes the small miracle of mutual attraction through Min’s vigorous reluctance, getting closer to the true stakes of what is happening than to the usual tropes of romance. For Min, Billy is a complete rearrangement of the universe—uprooting the ego, creating flesh where there once was none. May cattiness protect us.

Min is at odds with her historical moment, slightly dislodged from time, but perhaps this is a state inherent to femininity—what era would have served her better? Min is used to being told she’s difficult:

Lots of George’s friends at the Museum, men of about fifty-eight with black thickets in their nostrils, literally save this up as the only thing which will give them any pleasure over a winter weekend: “Now I’ll just go round there for a cup of tea so that I can explain to Min what a difficult sort of woman she is.”

A woman’s personality would always make more sense in a situation that hasn’t happened yet. What Min admires in Billy is that he “moves straight into the future without any effort. In fact he’s one of the few people who are simultaneously alert to their own past, present, and future”—whereas she has a tendency to boil her life down into “pure beef essence” before she can contemplate what might happen next. That’s alienation, baby. When Billy does finally kiss her, Min swoons and observes, “I’m not the spectator I’m accustomed to being; I’m not in front of him, nor am I getting left behind.” The present arrives, without expectation. Love is being allowed, for the length of a kiss, to step outside of history.

There is a straightforward interpretation of Tonks/Lightband’s total rejection of her past writing: it promotes women speaking of their sexual needs and pleasures with clarity, intoxicants enjoyed and encouraged, poetry seeking “the Eros of grey rain, Veganin, and telephones.” (Veganin is an over-the-counter drug consisting of acetaminophen, caffeine, and codeine.) But accounts of her life suggest that her conflict was not with the content, necessarily, but the very concept of writing for others at all. In 1999, she noted in a private journal, “What are books? They are minds, Satan’s minds. . . . Devils gain access through the mind: printed books carry, each one, an evil mind: which enters your mind.”

She was afraid of finding someone else’s thoughts left behind in her personality, like a strange scarf unearthed from the sofa cushions after a party. Books were the most acute threat to the sanctity of the bordered self. Of course, Tonks is right: that is what reading does—it places another’s mind in your own mind. It is the swiftest metaphysical delirium we have, impossible to replicate. The immensity of what reading feels like should not be discounted by its omnipresence in our daily lives. How do we distinguish between the sentences that sprout and green from our own selves, the arcane loam of the individual, and the sentences that fall and land there, alien and already bloomed? Is there even a difference to discover?

In her poetry, Tonks repeatedly alludes to the feeling of finding the other or the outside buried deep inside herself. In one of my favorites, “The Sofas, Fogs, and Cinemas,” she describes trying to escape a man’s overpowering opinions by going to the movies. She writes, “The cinemas / Where the criminal shadow-literature flickers over our faces, / The screen is spread out like a thundercloud.” The speaker is sunk in her own experience, but the man “is somewhere else, in his dead bedroom clothes, / He wants to make me think his thoughts / And they will be enormous, dull—(just the sort / To keep away from).” The poem closes with her “café-nerves” broken, and the speaker unable to sort her thoughts from the man’s. In another, “The Little Cardboard Suitcase,” she describes herself “as a thinker, as a professional water-cabbage” (cabbage is deployed at the height of its comedic potential across her work) who cannot trust her own body, trying hopelessly “to educate myself / Against the sort of future they flung into my blood— / The events, the people, the ideas—the ideas!”

Tonks’s conversion marked a change in her direction and use of idiom, but her reverence for the power of language never faltered. Mrs. Lightband lived comfortably, avoiding evil forces and writing in her journals, until her death at the age of eighty-five. In her solitude, she found alternate forms of communication. Neil Astley describes, in his introduction to the collected poems, how she listened to the birds, how “she would interpret soft calls or harsh caws or cries from crows and seagulls in particular as comforting messages or warnings from the Lord, and would base decisions on what to do, whom to trust, whether to go out, how to deal with a problem, on how these bird sounds made her feel.” In other words, she never stopped reading poetry. ♦

— The New Yorker

[kum-mer]

Young Adam | David Mackenzie | 2003

[basicallyanotherwitchesthing]

Alexander Trocchi - Helen & Desire - Brandon House - 1967

[blodmann]

Young Adam | David Mackenzie | UK | 2003

[bluewatsons]

Richard English, Theories of Opiate Addiction in the Early Works of Burroughs and Trocchi, 18 CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture (2016)

Abstract

In his article "Theories of Opiate Addiction in the Early Works of Burroughs and Trocchi" Richard English discusses William S. Burroughs's and Alexander Trocchi's representations of opiate addiction with special reference to their early writings. English examines the concept of homo heroin that can be attributed to Burroughs and lists and expounds its qualities. Among these are: immorality, criminality, mono-objectuality, self- and other-indifference, and, most importantly, the radical physical transformation into a new species, which Burroughs extends in Naked Lunch. English shows how homo heroin relates to Trocchi's conception of a heroin addict, which serves to illustrate that homo heroin is not simply a neologism for 'junkie'. English also argues that Burroughs's radical depiction stretches beyond that of Trocchi and other writers of opiate fiction in virtue of Burroughs's metaphysical claim about species change.

In the "Deposition: Testimony Concerning a Sickness" which opens his novel Naked Lunch, William S. Burroughs describes his rock bottom on heroin and offers a challenge to the non-addict: "I lived in one room in the Native Quarter of Tangier. I had not taken a bath in a year nor changed my clothes or removed them except to stick a needle every hour in the fibrous grey wooden flesh of terminal addiction. I never cleaned or dusted the room. Empty ampule boxes and garbage piled to the ceiling. I did absolutely nothing. I could look at the end of my shoe for eight hours. I was only roused to action when the hourglass of junk ran out. If a friend came to visit ... [and] had died on the spot I would have sat there looking at my shoe waiting to go through his pockets. Wouldn't you?" (202-03). This passage outlines the core qualities that Burroughs and Trocchi ascribe to their junkie characters in their early works. An addict lives in squalor, his personal hygiene is nil, and the shot of heroin is vital. When stoned, the addict is inert, staring into a void, and waiting for his high to wear off. The death of another person means nothing, since other people are solely a means to an end and not ends in themselves. Their only use is as an object of exploitation. The opiate addict in fiction, like Burroughs in this passage, is a person apart. The test of his separation is the loss of morality suggested by the challenge, "Wouldn't you?" For an ordinary, decent person, the first concern for a friend who has col- lapsed is to establish whether he is actually dead or not, and the second impulse is to call an ambulance without rifling through his pockets. The addict in flagranti lives an existence outside the rest of society, operating within a junkie community with its own rules, conventions and time.

In this article I set out two hypotheses about opiate addiction which underpin Burroughs's representation of addicts in Junky (1953) and Naked Lunch (1959): a Cellular Hypothesis and a Species- Change Hypothesis. I make reference to various passages of Burroughs's early nonfiction and adduce evidence of similar ideas in Trocchi's Cain's Book (1960) and other opiate novels. By an opiate novel, I mean any novel that contains a major character who is an opiate addict; or that provides substantial descriptions of morphine, heroin, or opium use; or both. In addition, I give historical and psychoanalytical support for Burroughs's two hypotheses. For historical support, I advert to the works of two late nineteenth-century medical authors and, for psychoanalytical support, I turn to Lacan's concepts of lack, desire, and the Other. Then I elucidate the science-fiction extension to Burroughs's postulation of homo heroin that Trocchi partially shares, and, finally, I level criticism at the above ideas, arguing against them in terms of science but in partial favor of their explicatory value as metaphor.

Part of my argument involves the mixture of textual and biographical approaches to the issue of opiate addiction. My justification is the special relationship between the author and the protagonist in certain opiate novels where there subsists a strong, and sometimes total, identification between the two. This identification is such that these novels are really autobiographies which have been designated fiction. For example, in Junky, William Lee, the protagonist, is fundamentally William Burroughs, the author. The two names suggest as much. The first names are the same and "Lee" is the middle name of Burroughs's mother. The biological facts of William Lee stated in the Prologue are the same as those of the author's, for example, the year of birth is given as 1914; his upbringing takes place in "a large Midwest city" (St. Louis); he attends one of the Big Three universities (Harvard); and he is gay. Furthermore, for the original publication of Junky as Junkie by Ace Books, William Burroughs used his pseudonym William Lee. This suggests that Junkie is the autobiography of William Lee which is the autobiography of William Burroughs. The special relationship also subsists with regard to Cain's Book. Much less information is recorded about the life of Alexander Trocchi, and so a comparison of minutiae between the story facts and his biographical facts is impossible. However, in outline, the life of Necchi, the protagonist, mirrors that of Trocchi, the author. As with Junky, there is a strong similarity between the names of the protagonist and the author, in that both are two syllable terms ending in "cchi." This reinforces the claim of identification between the "I" narrator and the author.

Burroughs and Trocchi met frequently and liked each other, but were never particularly close. They first encountered one another on a plane flying to the Edinburgh Writers' Conference in August 1962. The significance of their early work is that both authors explored the existential challenge posed by heroin addiction and how society malevolently dealt with it at the time. Their reception at the Edin- burgh Conference mirrors how addicts were received in general. Burroughs notes, "Hugh McDiarmid [the Scottish organizer] was stalking around in his kilt with his knobbly blue knees saying that Burroughs and Trocchi belong in jail, not on a lecture platform" (Campbell and Niel 159).

In Junky, Burroughs can be expounded as proposing two hypotheses about opiate addiction: a Cellular Hypothesis and a Species-Change Hypothesis. In Naked Lunch, he develops and extends the latter hypothesis. The first hypothesis claims that the cellular structure of a person changes as a result of constant opiate use: "I think the use of junk causes permanent cellular alteration. Once a junkie, always a junkie. You can stop using junk, but you are never off after the first habit" (97). Junk becomes "a biological necessity" (103). As Lee, the protagonist, admits to a psychiatrist, "I need junk to get out of bed in the morning, to shave and eat breakfast. I need it to stay alive" (19). The ease with which a habit returns to the veteran drug user is another feature of the physiological change explained by the Cellular Hypothesis: "I had been off junk for three months. It took me just three days to get back on" (97). Lee goes on to generalize that "an addict may be ten years off junk, but he can get a new habit in less than a week" (97). Several years after the publication of his first novel, Burroughs revels in affirmation of his hypothesis. In a letter dated October 8, 1957, he writes, "in Year Book of Medicine: Doc Isbell of Lexington [the Kentucky Narcotics Hospital] has suggested that morphine acts on the cell receptors and that an excitant forms inside the cells" (The Letters 370).

The second substantive claim in Junky is the Species-Change Hypothesis. This idea resonates in the work of Alexander Trocchi and echoes faintly in opiate fiction by Robert Deane Pharr and James Mills. Panic in Needle Park, first published in 1965, by James Mills is narrated by a reporter who insinuates himself into the community of addicts who frequent Sherman Square in Manhattan, one of the sites for connecting used by Burroughs and his peer group in the late '40's and early '50's. S.R.O., first published in 1971, by Robert Deane Pharr, contains a multi-story nexus conveying the tribulations of a group of addicts and alcoholics resident in a Harlem welfare hostel. Through their depiction of addict difference, these two books suggest that the second hypothesis has a wide appeal. The Species Change Hypothesis, first implicit in Junky, is that veteran addicts form a sub-species of homo sapiens as a result of the cellular change brought about by junk. For the sake of reference, I shall call this sub-species, homo heroin. The metamorphosis into homo heroin is reflected in the descriptions that Burroughs gives of junkies after they exhibit inhuman features. Subway Slim is a Pinnochio-like figure made of wood and Mary is an underwater blob: "There was something boneless about [Mary], like a deep sea creature. Her eyes were cold fish eyes that looked at you through a viscous medium ... I could see those eyes in a shapeless, protoplasmic mass undulating over the dark sea floor" (Junky 12). Lee describes addicts in New York as of one kind: "The 103rd Street boys ... all looked like junk" (25).

In Cain's Book, Trocchi depicts Fay, a long-term addict, as inhuman like Mary in Junky: "Fay's face was ... Swinish? More like a pug than a pig. Her untidy hair tumbled into her big fur collar. A yellow female pigdog" (22). Trocchi picks out Jody, another veteran addict, in avian similes: "she stood up for hours like a bird in the middle of the room with her head tucked in at her breast and her arms like drooping wings." Other textual support for this view of long-term addiction is given in Robert Deane Pharr's S.R.O. (1971). Sinman, an addict-character, believes that heroin users constitute their own kind. They form and live within their own communities because of their difference: "Junkies ... are a breed apart ... First and foremost ... your junky is a cabalistic wretch. That is why no psychiatrist can communicate with him. There is a general misconception that junkies have evolved a jargon to befuddle the forces of law and order. That is not true. The born junky insists upon isolation from the entire community. He desires to associate only with his like" (145). This quotation reinforces the anthropological element to the homo heroin hypothesis by conceptualizing the addict as gravitating toward his own kind, with the twist that his argot is not a linguistic device to confuse the authorities but an ex- crescence of fraternity. In literal and figurative terms, the addict does not speak the same language as the non-addict.

According to Burroughs, the long-term addict's craving escalates: "The addict needs more and more junk to maintain human form" (Naked Lunch 200; my italics). Ultimately, taking drugs becomes all-consuming: "A dope fiend is ... in total need of dope. Beyond a certain frequency need knows absolutely no limit or control" (201). Like Burroughs, Trocchi represents the veteran user in domestically reduced circumstances employing zoological concepts: "Under heroin one adapts naturally to a new habitat. It is possible to live in a doorway, on someone's couch, or bed, or floor, always moving, and turning up from time to time at known places" (Cain's Book 36). Trocchi describes the dehumanization of the addict, referred to by Buurroughs above, in Darwinian terms of adaptation to environment, where this environment consists of the dilapidated lodgings or alleyways that addicts frequent. Unlike homo sapiens, homo heroin does not run on linear-progressive time. He runs on junk time. Nor does he suffer boredom nor possess an end-driven sexuality. Burroughs writes: "junk suspends the whole cycle of tension, discharge and rest. The orgasm has no function in the junky. Boredom, which always indicates an undischarged tension, never troubles the addict. He can look at his shoe for eight hours. He is only roused to action when the hourglass of junk runs out" (Naked Lunch 31). Externally, the life of junk is barren. Existence is foetal, spent on the nod or staring at a shoe. Reflecting on a year of using, Lee recalls only the first few injections and the periods of sickness. What he experiences is "flat, almost two-dimensional" (Junky 102).

The long-term addict loses his personality as well as his looks. Junk renders otiose any capacity for real or emotionally honest connection. Trocchi draws Fay as physically hideous and mentally false. She is a non-self within a pseudo-self. Junk has obliterated her identity: "Past forty, and with her blue look, Fay finds it difficult to interest a John ... Dracula's idea of a good lay ... Talking to Fay you have the impression you are speaking to the secretary of her personal secretary ... It's not that she doesn't reply. It's simply you are in touch with an answering service, that Fay herself is not speaking to you" (Cain's Book 35-36). On occasion, Trocchi describes Fay in spectral terms, a trope used by Burroughs: "Fay ... is the gray ghost of the district ... She invokes horror, disgust, indignation, a nameless fear. She is the soul's scavenger, the unexpected guest, a kind of underworld Florence Nightingale always abroad with her spike and her little bag of heroin. She is beyond truth and falsity. When I think of her I think of her soft yellow pugface and her violet hands" (36-37). With his reference to Fay as a "gray ghost," Trocchi suggests that addicts are ethereal and therefore occupy a junkie spirit world. Bur- roughs intimates as much by his frequent use of the term "spectral" in relation to addicts. Further- more, according to Burroughs, heroin leaves a trace, and homo heroin possesses a sixth sense that locates it. Over the course of his addiction, the veteran user develops this ability to detect the proximity of drugs and its whereabouts. Lee says, "I don't spot junk neighbourhoods by the way they look, but by the feel, somewhat the same process by which a dowser locates hidden water. I am walking along and suddenly the junk in my cells moves and twitches like the dowser's wand: 'Junk here!'" (Junky 58). In Naked Lunch, when Lee is desperate for heroin, he walks along New York City's 4th Street until he sees Nick. "You can always find the pusher. Your need conjures him up like a ghost" (178). Moreover, homo heroin can detect where formerly drugs have been present. When the connection departs 103rd and Broadway, an aura remains that Lee tunes into: "the feel of junk is still there. It hits you at the corner, follows you along the block, then falls away like a discouraged panhandler as you walk on" (Junky 25). James Mills, the narrator of Panic in Needle Park, shares Lee's ascription to the addict of a sixth sense. Mills ruminates, "a longtime addict can with surprising reliability spot a user in a group of twenty people, state with authority what kind of drug he is on, approximately how long it has been since his last fix, and whether or not at the moment he is ... carrying drugs" (13). The concept of an addict's sixth sense implied by Mills provides further evidence for the idea of the junkie spirit world that Burroughs and Trocchi suggest. In sum, the Species Change Hypothesis entails that homo heroin has a deviant physiology and psychology in comparison to homo sapiens. For homo heroin, the straight life drops away. Morality dissipates. The life of junk reduces to a simple and repetitious routine: obtain money, score, use; and so on. Home conditions, personal hygiene, work, social status, marriage, personal relations, family are irrelevant. As Burroughs says, "Junk takes everything and gives nothing but insurance against junk sickness" (103). When he loses that insurance, the addict, according to Trocchi, is "bestial, scarcely human," a "quivering, blubbering, vomiting mass" (Cain's Book 18).

Burroughs's dual theory of opiate addiction reflects strands of thinking prevalent in the U.S. during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Such thinking established two relevant models of addiction: the biological and the possession-by-drugs. In the former, the subject develops a deviant physiology, hence the inability to defy drug cravings, and in the second, the drug possesses subjects so that they lose normal agency. The Cellular Hypothesis coheres with the biological model, while the Species Change Hypothesis coheres with the possession-by-drugs model. In 1881, Dr. Leslie Keeley, illustrating the biological model, wrote in The Morphine Eater: "When [opium] has been constantly used for a long time it produces an isomeric change in the nerve fibre ... [which] is a distinct chemical change in the structure and action of the nerves ... and necessitates the continued use of the drug in order to enable its functions to continue" (52). Aimed at medical practitioners, Keeley's book describes and prescribes for the "opium habit." He analyses the problem according to his observations and treatment of addiction during the American Civil War and the decade or so thereafter. He attributes the rapacity of addiction to the "isomeric change" engendered by the continuous use of opiates. His fieldwork, findings and evaluation precipitated a major school of thought where the source of the problem is considered to reside in the bio-chemistry of the sufferer.

In contrast to Keeley's medical objectivity, Henry Cole offers an addict's perspective of the "awful existence which came to him, blasting all hopes of pleasure and enjoyment in this beautiful world" (3). In 1895, illustrating the possession-by-drugs model, the author describes a fellow addict in Confessions of an American Opium Eater as follows: "a lean, wan face, belonging to a creature who is just arousing himself from his long drugged sleep, stares out upon us with ... eyes that dilate with some strange interior light, ferocious yet unaggressive ... devoid of the unconscious response for which we look in human eyes ... an "opium devil"—one who is supremely possessed by the power of the deadly narcotic on which he has leaned so long. Without opium he cannot live; though human blood runs in his veins, it is little better than poppy juice; he is no longer really a man, but a malignant essence in forming a cadaverous human shape" (235-36). According to Cole's analysis, the addict is "a creature," "an opium devil," "a malignant essence" no better than a zombie, a pre-cursor to Burroughs's dope fiend.

In psychoanalytic terms, the Lacanian concepts of lack, desire, and the Other corroborate Bur- roughs's two hypotheses. The Cellular Hypothesis (Hypothesis 1) implies total need, by which Bur- roughs means that the addict must have his fix at all costs. This supreme need resonates with Lacanian desire, the object of which is "continually deferred" and "emerges originally in the Other, that is, in the unconscious" (Evans 39). According to Lacan, the first Other is the addict's mother, who is replaced by the father and his law, and, as the child develops, is replaced by patriarchal culture and its repressive and punitive mechanisms. Desire is caused by lack, where lack can be a lack of being or a lack of an object, for example, the symbolic phallus (Lacan S4, 269). Taking the second meaning first, the hypodermic syringe may be viewed as an instance of the symbolic phallus. Thus, the addict seeks to compensate for the lack of power that he feels due to his self-loathing and poor standing in the community by using the symbolic phallus (hypodermic) to inject opiates into himself to induce a temporary erasure. Returning to the first meaning of lack, the addict lacks self-esteem, love and social acceptance that constitute core elements of being, and so the addict's lack is the "lack of being properly speaking" (S2, 223). On this interpretation, the addict can be thought to represent a deviant form of Lacanian development. His desire for drugs caused by lack (amounting to total need; Hypothesis 1) is the desire for the Other (leading to species change; Hypothesis 2). The science-fiction images which Burroughs produces might well reify the "lack of being properly speaking."

Further Lacanian support for Burroughs's theory of addiction is found in "'Junk' and the Other" by Jeffrey T. Nealon, who expounds the intersection between Burroughs's concept of total need (Hypothesis 1) and Levinas's concept of metaphysical desire, both of which he sees as contributing to a confrontation with an other (175) (Hypothesis 2), even if their kinds of other do not correspond (176). In terms of the other with a small 'o,' several passages in Junky, which concern the prosecution and persecution of addicts, provide insight into the mechanism of othering to which society subjects the ad- dict and how that process is intensified not only by an alarmist public relations policy but also by legislation and a hostile medical system. Burroughs's theory of opiate addiction feeds into his General Theory of Addiction. In a letter dated 20 September 1957, he asserts that the General Theory "expands into a world picture with concepts of good and evil" (The Letters 367). Beginning with morphine addiction and the sufferer's loss of, but quest for, control, Burroughs extrapolates from what has become known as the "junk paradigm" to his universal claim that society is ruled, and ruined, by "control ad- dicts." The latter have powerful representation among the CIA, the police, the military, politicians, money men and so on. As a result, there is no proper liberal democracy, only the illusion of same.

Despite textual, historical, and psychoanalytic support, the Cellular Hypothesis suffers from vagueness. Nowhere does Burroughs state what kind of cells undergo alteration when a person becomes an addict. He could mean brain cells, blood cells, cells in the liver or lymph glands, or all or none of these. As Junky stands, it is silent on the point. Because his hypothesis is non-specific, it can neither be confirmed nor disconfirmed. According to Karl Popper's criterion (18), the Cellular Hypothesis is unfalsifiable and therefore pseudo-science. A counter-objection is that the Cellular Hypothesis explains the longevity and prehensility of addiction by adverting to metaphor. Notwithstanding, if this is the case, what is the Cellular Hypothesis a metaphor of? In Saussure's terms, it is a signifier that has detached from its signified, that is, a trope that refers to nothing. Lee's hypothesis, although superficially attractive, is empty at the level of content and by extension is empty at the level of explanation. It amounts to the truism that if you take narcotics over a period of time, something in your body changes so that you will have to keep taking them or face withdrawal.

Burroughs's second claim relates to the first and proposes that an addict is an aberrant form of human being, that is, homo heroin. By consuming opiates over the long-term, addicts experience an irreversible transformation whereby their physiological, psychological and social needs reduce to a daily fix. All else is jettisoned. Evidence for this claim lies in the physical appearance of long-term ad- dicts, their observed lifestyles and their habitats. Lee is anthropological in his approach to this matter. The Species Change Hypothesis makes no more sense than the first as it suffers from vagueness in the same way. It is a scientific matter to establish identity conditions for a new sub-species of humanity and would presumably require the isolation of a special gene, that is, some kind of junkie gene. Lee offers no view on this head, although he does claim that there is a junk virus. Nevertheless, as a metaphor, Lee's second claim holds value. The life of junk contrasts radically with the straight life, and for Lee to suggest that addiction engenders a species change hyperbolizes this contrast in a lyrical- poetical way. If you become a homo heroin, you become a different (kind of) person and Lee elucidates this transformation by applying figurative exaggeration to the concept of this kind.

In Naked Lunch, Burroughs develops homo heroin into a sci-fi monster. This stretches the concept in terms of its properties way beyond any of the instantiations of long-term narcotics addiction that have been depicted so far. The first appearance of the new variant is in the segment, "And Start West". Lee, the narrator, describes Willy the Disk as follows: "Willy has a round, disk mouth lined with sensitive, erectile black hairs. He is blind from shooting in the eyeball, his nose and palate eaten away sniffing H, his body a mass of scar tissue. He can only eat the shit now with that mouth, sometimes sway out on a long tube of ectoplasm, feeling for the silent frequency of junk" (7-8). The Vigilante, prosecuted in Federal Court for possession of narcotics, offers a further degenerated homo heroin on the page following the portrait of Willy: "The physical changes were slow at first, then jumped forward in black klunks, falling through his slack tissue, washing away the human lines ... mouth and eyes are one organ that leaps forward to snap with transparent teeth ... sex organs sprout anywhere ... rectums open, defecate and close ... the entire organism changes color and consistency in split-second adjustments" (9). The sprouting of bodily organs reflects the unstable and ghastly nature of the textual body in which this creature is portrayed.

Trocchi echoes the science-fiction extension through the use of entomological terms, a trope that is beloved by Burroughs. After Joe and Tom Tear have shot up, Joe describes Tom, a black addict friend, in the following way: "his soft black eyelashes stirred like a clot of moving insects at his eyes. His face had the look of smoke and ashes, like a bombed city" (Cain's Book 24). Geo, a scowsman like Joe Necchi, is an addict who has spent time in the Tombs for dealing where he undergoes prison cold turkey. Once he has become re-addicted, Trocchi writes, "At thirty three, he is deteriorating; he is preoccupied with disappearing muscle. He watches, horrified, fascinated, the insectal movement of his private decay" (109). Trocchi's depiction of Geo's "decay" and transmutation is reminiscent of Willy the Disk's and the Vigilante's bizarre corporeal states outlined above, while Trocchi's use of "insects" resonates with Burroughs's frequent reference to centipedes.

It might be argued that Burroughs breeches all credibility with his science-fiction extension and that it is simply an example of the rhetorical device of hyperbole. In other words, Burroughs's science- fiction extension is preposterous according to rational norms. In defense, rational norms are not al- ways relevant for adjudicating certain aspects of Naked Lunch. Burroughs wrote many sections while he experienced bizarre modes of perception. He was resident in the Beat Hotel in Paris and experimented in scrying with Brion Gysin, where scrying is the practice of gazing into a crystal ball until a vision appears. Under the guidance of Gysin, Burroughs performed lengthy periods of scrying, during which, for example, he witnessed himself with inhuman hands: "thick black-pink, fibrous, long white tendrils grew from curiously abbreviated finger tips" (The Letters 405). Jerry Wallace, also present, confirmed this impression of Burroughs's hands. Furthermore, Burroughs refers to the presence of "ectoplasmic" flesh in an addict in the same letter to Allen Ginsberg during this period. On Burroughs's behalf, it can be claimed that through scrying, he may have transcended the realm of phenomena and observed the real or noumenal nature of things, that is, things-in-themselves. What gives this extreme claim substance is that Burroughs pinned faith on such activities as magic, telepathy, witch- craft, and shamanism. He was also much influenced by the thought that he was possessed by an Ugly Spirit (Miles 3). In these and other respects, he was an anti-rationalist. Given also that he was under the influence of drugs much of the time, he was far more open to psychic phenomena than, say, if he had been stone cold sober. For Burroughs to believe that Willy the Disk actually exists in the form that he describes in Naked Lunch, but not be visible to the uninitiated, is possible. An advertisement for The Ticket That Exploded contains the quote by Burroughs that, "The psychotic is someone who really knows what's going on" ("The Ticket" <https://www.harpercollins.co.uk/9780007341924/the-ticket-th at-exploded>).

An additional defense of the science-fiction extension is an argument by analogy on two counts. One, no righteous literary critic or academic has ever condemned Franz Kafka for transforming Gregor Samsa, an insurance salesman who lives at home with his family, into a massive insect in the first line of his novella, Metamorphosis. It is accepted as the premise of a well-told story. Two, without exception, members of the literary establishment have assimilated Metamorphosis into the canon of high- brow literary fiction. Given the foregoing tolerance, it would be inconsistent to dismiss Burroughs's and Trocchi's imaginaria as trivial or unworthy. Against my contention, it might be said that Kafka entertains no pretensions to scientific possibility, whereas Burroughs does. Even so, given Burroughs's persistent theme of radical and universal doubt and, above all, of his testing reality to find its porous points, this objection is neutralized.

Off the page, Burroughs and Trocchi travelled in different directions. Burroughs never transformed into one of his science-fiction junkies, while Trocchi lost his powers of productivity and lived the life of a refractory addict. John Calder, the publisher of Cain's Book wrote, "he is ... a lost writer ... lost be- cause of heroin. I've known many drug addicts, [and] I've known nobody who was able to cope with it as well as Trocchi, but it killed his talent. He's the biggest example I know for not getting in any way involved with drugs" (qtd. in Campbell 213). Calder also became Burroughs's publisher and was instrumental in the two authors meeting for the Edinburgh Conference. Alex Trocchi lived with limited creative capacity during the final third of his life, and died in 1984, aged 59. He wrote in Cain's Book, "I often wondered how far out a man could go without being obliterated" (13). He found out, and it was not as far as he might have hoped. On the other hand, William Burroughs holds no regrets about his own narcotic odyssey (Junky xi), claiming to have been cured of his heroin addiction by Doctor Dent's apo-morphine treatment in his forties. He died at the age of 83.

In their representations of opiate addiction, Burroughs and Trocchi can be read as proposing sever- al hypotheses about its nature. In their early writings, they observe, study, and record a marginalized pocket of humanity, homo heroin, hitherto unrecognized, which, in Lacanian terms, develops a deviant desire for the Other. Addicts in fiction exhibit a range of extreme and inhuman qualities that lead society to demonize and reject them as a collective. Burroughs goes so far as to posit a science-fiction extension to the concept of homo heroin. Although implausible at the level of rational norms, this latter postulation has merit if a Burroughsian method of seeing things-in-themselves is accepted. As a pair, the two Burroughsian hypotheses of addiction not only find a place in the history of ideas because they reflect the theoretical bifurcation established by members of the nineteenth-century medical fraternity, but also because they provide a timeless exploration of the nature of addiction and the changes brought about in the individual who embarks on the life of junk. Furthermore, the grounding of these hypotheses in the story circumstances, albeit of a fantastic nature in Naked Lunch, give foundational support to an enduring model of human/other that the (addict/normal person) and (life of junk/straight life) opposites entail.

Works Cited

Burroughs, William S. Junky: The Definitive Text of "Junk". 1953. Ed. Oliver Harris. London: Penguin, 2008.

Burroughs, William S. "Letter from a Master Addict to Dangerous Drugs". Naked Lunch: The Restored Text. By William S. Burroughs. 1959. Ed. James Grauerholz and Barry Miles. London: Harper Perennial, 2005. 223-29.

Burroughs, William S. Naked Lunch: The Restored Text. 1959. Ed. James Grauerholz and Barry Miles. London: Harper Perennial, 2005.

Burroughs, William S. The Letters of William S. Burroughs 1945-59. Ed. Oliver Harris. London: Penguin, 2009.

Burroughs, William S. The Soft Machine: The Restored Text. 1961. Ed. Oliver Harris. London: Penguin, 2014. Campbell, Allan, and Tim Niel, eds. A Life in Pieces: Reflections on Alexander Trocchi. Edinburgh: Canongate, 1997.

Cole, Henry. Confessions of an American Opium Eater. Boston: Earle, 1895.

De Quincy, Thomas. Confessions of an English Opium-Eater. 1821. Oxford: Oxford World Classics, 2008.

Evans, Dylan. An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. London: Routledge, 2006.

Gertz, Stephen J. Dope Menace: The Sensational World of Drug Paperbacks. Washington: Feral House, 2008.

Harris, Oliver. William Burroughs and the Secret of Fascination. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2003.

Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book II. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. Ed. J-A Miller. Cambridge UP, 1988.

Keeley, Leslie E., M.D. The Morphine Eater. Illinois: Palmer, 1881.

Miles, Barry. Call Me Burroughs. New York: Twelve, Hachette, 2013.

Mills, James. Panic in Needle Park. 1965. London: Sphere, 1973.

Nealon, Jeffrey T. "'Junk' and the Other: Burroughs and Levinas on Drugs". Alterity Politics: Ethics and Performative Subjectivity. By Jeffrey T. Nealon. Durham: Duke UP, 1998. 53-72.

Pharr, Robert Deane. S.R.O. 1971. New York: Old School Books, 1998.

Porter Abbott, H. The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2008.

Popper, Karl. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. 1935. London: Routledge, 2002.

"The Ticket That Exploded." harpercollins.co.uk (2010): <https://www.harpercollins.co.uk/9780007341924/the-ticket-that-exploded>.

Trocchi, Alexander. Cain's Book. 1960. London: John Calder, 1998.

[garadinervi]

Samuel Beckett, Watt, Collection Merlin, The Olympia Press, Paris, 1953

[lizardgoats]

And I was lying alone, and everything, even the emptiness of the night had receded into the familiar sound of my own breathing. I was left only with my awareness of it. And the gradually I came into another world, a close and confederate consciousness of my own softness and the sound of my breathing and nothing more and there was nothing to which I was related. And now I came to know that it was my body which was soft, the thighs, my little belly, set and smooth as a watchglass on a fine watch, and it was I and not my body which was aware. And now I was conscious of existing and being alone and I couldn’t be conscious of myself as existing without at the same time being conscious of myself as existing alone and in relation to instants in time and points in space which held themselves off from me and escaped me, for I hadn’t the power to draw them back to myself out of my memory.

I, Sappho of Lesbos: The Autobiography of a Strange Woman, “edited” by Michel Darius (Alexander Trocchi)