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!!

Really struggled on the star rating because I do see value in singularity, and the prose itself has a jagged bluntness I can admire. I'll copy-paste my immediate thoughts down below:

I guess I can say my heart aches for the folks of my generation who go into the movie adaptation (soon to release in about 2 months at the time of this writing) expecting something soft, demure, a love in the desert unreciprocated, perhaps in the style of the Hollywood romcom where there must always be a resolution even in the pits of human loneliness. Is Burroughs, the real man perhaps lusting after Ecuadorian boys, "absolved" in the all-seeing panopticon of the modern day gay experience, men seeking love scarred the only way they know how? I got the sense that Lee is a pit for flies, not too dissimilar to Moor and his rampant fixation on matters he deems unhealthy. The specter of judgment attracts and lingers, within and without the text. If Lee is a vector for Burroughs himself, can the movie or book survive the separation from the rest of his work? The modern context itself might have a great deal to say of the title, the new and recent softening—perhaps a tad reductive—toward reclamation balking at the currents beneath. Too bare and bitter, but I believe it is time nonetheless.

Now with hindsight I am more intrigued than ever to see what is cut, pared down, or otherwise removed and lambasted. I am not confident in the welcoming reception but I think that's part of my curiosity. "Middle-class morality" is a phrase I'm all too familiar with, and seeing its ghost—and Lee's subsequent disdain—carried through time from a 50s biopic invites a strange warmth. Yes, indeed, for a man of some lived authority sees something to despise there, too! Still I believe it a crime to parse an ultimate morality especially from this text. Lee is not "right", not in any relevant sense, but he's lonely, desperately so. In this I find a kind of lightness, a soul kindred despite the separation of our desires and the frame of my own experience exploring masculinity.
 
At the very least I anticipate dissociation when the movie releases, if it at the very least does its damnedest to convey accuracy: my reaction to the weight of a lived reality stilted and desperate, cracked up against the dam. Inspired by such starkness I would ache to be closer to that sense in myself too, even through the hurting. 

"In deep sadness there is no place for sentimentality." In that case, I welcome the haunting.

I just don't think Beats style writing is for me. I did not particularly enjoy my reading experience, largely due to the flow of the narrative moreso than the very dislikable main character (the characters can be loathable and it can still be an enjoyable read if well-written). I don't necessarily think the style is bad, just not for me. 

I hope K. Dot goes back in time to WOP WOP WOP WOP WOP this cunt into the grave. Oh my god.

I had low expectations going in because my buddy warned me but Jesus Christ on a Bike, somehow it was worse. When William wasn't coercing young men

or even TEENAGERS AS YOUNG AS 12

to have sex with him, he was antisemitic, orientalist, and extremely racist against Mexicans. The other 90% was dedicated to him yapping about fuck all just to get people to pay attention to him. Which I can understand. But I also don't

diddle teenagers and say that all Mexicans do is commit crime

. It's dogshit. Genuinely, utter dogshit.

One of my best friends who encouraged me to read it said the only thing saving this book was the raw portrayal of loneliness as a lgbtq person and the raw writing style. Sorry buddy, I love you, but I gotta disagree. I'm a hater, first and foremost. I usually like more simplistic writing styles that are more brutalist, but for some reason, I couldn't get into it. Might be a me thing there. As for the themes, I agree that said themes are worth exploring, but the thing is that there are plenty of other books ABOUT this very subject that not only do it way better, but don't have the Main Character be a certified loverboy certified pedophile. It is a product of its time, and learning and reading about queer culture throughout history is important. But some things should be left in the past. Sometimes, things that are older, are worse.

If I wasn't giving this copy back to my friend, I'd burn it.

 My feelings for Queer are mixed and the only thing saving this book from a one star rating is Burroughs' straightforward and raw writing style. This book suffers severely from being a product of its time and if you are able to push through the obvious orientalism and offensive portrayal of South America, you will be met with a disgusting excuse of a main character.

Speaking of Lee, he is absolutely an unlikeable protagonist, which wouldn't have been an issue (I like BoJack Horseman and Catcher and the Rye) if it weren't for how gross this guy actually is. He is angry, manipulative, narcissistic and downright pathetic. He doesn't do anything redeemable and his constant racist and antisemetic tangents make for a rough read. On top of that, he is constantly trying to get into the pants of a straight man, Allerton (

to the point of coercing him into sex to pay for a trip

) and

lusts after and abuses young boys in Chapter Nine

which almost made me DNF this book if it hadn't been for the fact that I had one chapter left.

If you're expecting a plot, there is no plot, and very little happens and it can feel like a drag.

The only positive I can find in this book is the little bits of theme exploration. The isolation and yearning for human connection as a queer person in a world that has effectively turned its back on you. The despair and pain in those little excerpts make me rate it as high as I did, and maybe had Burroughs focused more on that rather than his obvious biases and worrisome behaviors, this could have been a better book about yearning for human connection. 

All the beat lit guys are a circle of bad fucking vibes

Edit: just found out this is matty healy's favorite book and the math is mathing