I listened to the audiobook after watching the 2024 film. I think the audio version definetly added to the experience, especially with Lees bizzare routines and monologues, as one of my favorite parts of the movie was  Daniel Craig’s read of certain lines and his inflection. The book is a different kind of sad, but the same strange, compelling, deeply vulnerable, deeply human story.  What else  is there to say? Raw and ugly, fleetingly tender. Above all…Queer, in content and form.

An early work from Burroughs about queer longing that still feels contemporary.

I've been going through Burroughs' novels starting with "Junky" which I did not particularly like. "Queer", on the other hand, I found to be a poignant story of frustrated desire. Originally meant to be published with "Junky" as a juxtaposition of need and desire, "Queer" stands on it's own. Where I found "Junky" flat, disjointed, and it's shock value significantly diminished from time and more progressive attitudes,  "Queer" was better written & edited, the story vulnerable and emotionally brutal. And despite the introduction's claims, "Queer" has a straightforward narrative with a more developed plot and characters than "Junky." The background of Mexico City and expat life in all it's excesses and abuses was also excellent. 

I have yet to see the movie, but if you've never read Burroughs before, be forewarned that his protagonists are not likeable or of upstanding moral character; in fact, they're often pathetic and repugnant. However, that is not a prerequisite for good writing or even relatability to aspects of "Lee." (And skip the introduction if you don't want spoilers.)

Burroughs should have published this one and not waited decades. 

Junky to Queer can be contextualised in the well trodden NA to SLA pipeline. 

I want to like the beats so bad. But what a shitty annoying group of privileged assholes. 

i would recommend researching the history of the author and trigger warnings for this one to judge if you feel like reading this, but in my opinion it was still worth reading 

A friend gave me this book for my birthday. I think she maybe grabbed it at a thrift store and didn't really research much into it. I had never heard of William Burroughs nor the Beat Generation. I hated the author from the introduction where he uses a racial slur and would have DNF'd this book really early if it hadn't been a gift. And even though the book was written earlier (maybe the 50's?), the introduction is dated in 1985 when the book was published. The book is described as semi-autobiographical which makes me dislike Burroughs even more because to call every character in the book unlikable would be an understatement. Lee is horribly racist, misogynistic, and pedo-y. The reader is asked to take into account that he is going with withdrawal so his libido is coming back which doesn't sit well with me. I then researched more of Burroughs's life and found out that I not only dislike him more but he is a pretty famous and liked author which is baffling to me.

Hmm. This is my first foray into Burroughs’s work and, admittedly, I only read it because of the film adaptation coming out soon. I found it to be a pretty divisive novel in relation to its own characters, with little to no resolution. Which I am quite conflicted about.

This is a novel about the complexity of enduring longing and, at the same time, the simplicity of raw lust.

However, some notes—

Queer is a vast commentary on the queer scene of 1950s Mexico City, with strong emphasis on the different “classes” of queerness. Vague expatriate Lee’s attention to subtlety when discussing it aloud to someone he’s interested in (Allerton) vs his physical desires perhaps is quite obvious. The younger, more handsome Allerton is very aloof, whether by design or creation, which frustrates Lee as much as it fuels his need to be around Allerton, to capture Allerton’s gaze. Lee is a lonely extrovert seeking refuge in various rendezvous when what he desperately needs—what he finds hard to comprehend in what he wants from Allerton—in all actuality, is someone who is consistent in his affections and everyday company and will do what he asks. Allerton, meanwhile, could take him or leave him, though Lee does provide him with a sort of strange companionship he never completely disregards. 

The admittance of anything is avoided outright, emotions squandered under the masculine idealisms of the times. Lee represses parts of himself that Allerton would possibly see as weak, whereas Allerton suppresses parts of himself which Lee desires. They are constantly at odds with the other even when they are under some agreement, a rather daunting dynamic that’s never really fully formed. 

Lee is judgy and needy but wants to appear as a very nonchalant traveler. Except he is a drug user intent on finding some sort-of unknown stability within the unstable of another country. I found his character to be very closed-minded and biased in spite of his apparent need for universal validation, and ultimately his sexuality. 

Allerton, on the other hand, is hard to define. He goes along with ideas and plans until he doesn’t, his emotional intelligence waning more often than not; however, he does have some clear lines of limitations. Though they are not always consistent. 

Lee definitely takes advantage of Allerton, but then again Allerton also takes advantage of Lee; just in different ways. If Lee really is a direct reflection of Burroughs, it says a lot about his assertive nature that often seems to blur the lines when it comes to defining consensual. 

The writing drew me in easily and kept me reading at a quick pace, but the story left me with many questions and concerns, especially for the real life counterparts. I don’t know what to think about Burroughs and his alternate persona, but I am excited for Luca Gaudagnino’s take on it and for the movie to expand more on nearly every point. 

TL; DR situationships are probably never the answer to any of life’s questions!!