Showing posts with label William S. Burroughs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label William S. Burroughs. Show all posts

Sunday, July 05, 2026

Engrams


Ludwig Sigismund Ruhl: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)


Soap bubbles


I don’t really remember what happened
I just know that Hutchinson

one of my school-friends
invited a group of us to come round

and play in the bush near his home
after much excitement and build-up

we all turned up
with our plastic guns

and headed for the trees
I recall crouching in a ditch

waiting for something
then    

[blank]

crying bitterly 
all the way home

the day was a failure    
my fault    of course

(default position)
perhaps a play fight 

turned into a real one?
it is the future generation 

that presses into being
by means of these soap bubbles

said Schopenhauer
sometimes I think 

he might be right 
and I should just cut myself 

some slack





Barry Miles: Call Me Burroughs (1978)


So apparently William Burroughs used to bore everyone rigid by going on and on about these things called engrams - defined as "a mental recording of a traumatic past event that occurred while an individual was partially or fully unconscious" - and how it was possible to "clean" them by recording them on tape and playing them over and over again until, eventually, they elicited no emotional response whatever.

He got this idea from Scientology, where auditors are trained to ask structured questions "intended to help a participant identify and address past experiences and emotional difficulties." They use a device called an E-meter to pick up "changes in the subject's mental state, including helping [to] identify which topics contain emotional or spiritual distress, and when a procedure is completed."
Outside Scientology, the device is regarded as a type of skin galvanometer that measures variations in skin resistance. It is not considered a scientific instrument, and its use and interpretation are not supported by evidence in psychology or medicine.
In the end, even Burroughs got tired of this procedure, and began to see flaws in its theoretical basis - not to mention developing reservations about the bizarre Scientology mythos of ancient aliens and billion-year-old struggles between all-knowing, quasi-immortal thetans and corrupt physical beings.

However, that didn't prevent him from continuing to try and identify just when the (so-called) "ugly spirit" had entered him, and proceeded to "squat on his life" (a bit like Larkin's toad work). Burroughs came to believe that it all stemmed from an early incident of child abuse:
It was Billy's Welsh nanny, Mary Evans ... who remained uppermost in his memory because of a traumatic incident that occurred when Burroughs was four years old. Little Billy was very close to his nanny, so much so that when she had her Thursday off he would throw hysterical tantrums, screaming, "All I want is Nursy!" ... Burroughs later assumed that his need for her must indicate that she fellated him to calm him and send him to sleep, but he also told one of his analysts that Nursy was "severe" and said that when she caught him masturbating she threatened to cut off his penis ...
Nursy was allegedly responsible "for a major trauma that occurred when Burroughs was four years old, something so extreme and shocking that despite ten years of psychoanalysis he was never able to properly retrieve it":
One Thursday in the late summer or autumn of 1918 ... Mary Evans took him along with her on her day out. Mary Evans had a girlfriend whose boyfriend was a veterinarian who worked from his home on the outskirts of St. Louis. They went there for a picnic. ... The general concensus among his analysts was that Mary had encouraged Billy to fellate the vet, and that, scared, Bill had bitten the man's penis, causing him to smack Billy on the head. Bill also theorized that he had witnessed Mary and her girlfriend having sex ...
In any case, "Whatever happened, it disturbed Billy greatly."

Reading the immensely detailed chronicle of Burroughs' life compiled by the indefatigable Barry Miles, I wondered from time to time if this demonisation of the nanny mightn't itself be a screen memory for some even earlier trauma to do with his parents, who supported him with saint-like patience throughout his turbulent life, but whom he seems to have (simultaneously) avoided physically, and refused to criticise on any level whatsoever.

But perhaps that's just the old Freudian in me rearing his shaggy locks again.


Ernest Jones: Life and Work of Sigmund Freud (1953-57)


The jury's out on engrams at present, but they may well be perfectly real. Defined as "a unit of cognitive information imprinted in a physical substance," they are:
theorized to be the means by which memories are stored as biophysical or biochemical changes in the brain or other biological tissue, in response to external stimuli.
The term was first coined by German evolutionary biologist Richard Semon in his book Die Mneme (1904). As a result:
Demonstrating the existence of, and the exact mechanism and location of, neurologically defined engrams has been a focus of persistent research for many decades.
It's possible that particular types of memory may be localised in particular parts of the brain. There have certainly been some suggestive results from time to time. For instance:
In 2016, an MIT study found that memory loss in early stages of Alzheimer's disease could be reversed by strengthening specific memory engram cell connections in the brains of Alzheimer mouse models.
Engrams certainly can't be detected by "E-meters", however, and there seems no reason to believe that an individual can be cleaned of them by having them played back to them again and again, as Burroughs and the Scientologists claimed.






Robert Lowell: 'To Speak of Woe That Is In Marriage' (1957)


Robert Lowell's searing mid-career poem 'To Speak of Woe That Is In Marriage' begins with a rather elliptical quote from German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer:
It is the future generation that presses into being by means of these exuberant feelings and supersensible soap bubbles of ours.
Schopenhauer seems to be implying that our traumas may be driven as much by the future - what's to come for us - as by the past: what's already been. As it turns out, the title of Lowell's poem is also a quote: from the Wife of Bath in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales:
Experience, though noon auctoritee
Were in this world, is right ynogh for me
To speke of wo that is in mariage;
For, lordynges, sith I twelve yeer was of age,
Thonked be God that is eterne on lyve,
Housbondes at chirche dore I have had fyve ...
Lowell's poem, too, is written in the voice of the wife, not the husband, which is clearly not an aspect of "experience" which he could claim as his own. The husband in question does sound a bit like a self-portrait, though:
My hopped up husband drops his home disputes,
and hits the streets to cruise for prostitutes,
free-lancing out along the razor’s edge.
This screwball might kill his wife, then take the pledge.
If so, it's a pretty searing indictment.



Whether or not there are actual physical "engrams" involved, I'm sure that we all have our fair share of traumatic experiences involving "emotional or spiritual distress" (as the Scientologists put it). The question is if they can be cleared in any way by repetition, as Burroughs - at least initially - believed.

The poem "Soap bubbles", above, is an attempt to record one of my own childhood traumas: albeit one as masked and inaccessible to me as Burrough's own alleged experience of infantile abuse.

Mine may be a minnow beside his sperm whale, but it used to bug me nevertheless - until I wrote it down. I began to notice, over the years, that when I'd forced myself to write about any particularly puzzling or embarrassing experience, that it had the effect of externalising it. After that, it was simply a syntactic artefact which could be worked on and revised like any other piece of work.

Strangely enough, this process also robbed it of its potency somehow.


Edward Gorey: Cover illustration for Lucky Jim (1954)


Kingsley Amis, in an early novel, has his protagonist Jim Dixon refer to "those three or four memories which could make him actually twist about in his chair or bed with remorse, fear or embarrassment":
... the present top-of-the-list item [was] the time he'd been pushed out in front of the curtain afer a school concert to make the audience sing the National Anthem. He could hear his own voice now, saying in those flat tones, heavy with insincerity: 'And now ... I want you all ... to join with me, if you will ... in singing ...' And then he'd led off in a key which must have been exactly half an octave above or below the proper one. Switching every few notes, like everybody else, from one octave to the other, half a beat in front of or behind everybody else, he'd gone through the whole thing. Cheers, applause and laughter had followed him when he ducked his burning face back through the curtains.
I recognised that churning, twisting sensation when I first read Lucky Jim. I can't count how many such memories bedevil my life. So gradually, bit by bit, I've tried to disarm them - by writing them down. Admittedly, new ones arise as I deal with the old ones, so I doubt that the process will ever be finished. Sometimes it results in work I feel can be shared with others; sometimes not. It doesn't seem to make much difference to the effectiveness of the technique.

I don't know if this approach would work for anyone else, but I do think there's something in William Burroughs' ideas. They might sound a bit eccentric on the surface, but there's generally a bedrock of good sense beneath them. Anyway, I don't what else one can do about these self-imposed torments: writhing about or punching the wall doesn't really seem to help longterm. A modified version of his engram theory very well might.

Burroughs himself appears to have tried this "externalisation" idea quite early on, in a passage from an early draft of Naked Lunch, written in Tangier around 1957-58:
We are prepared to divulge all and to state that on a Thursday in the month of September 1917, we did, in the garage of the latter, at his solicitations and connivance, endeavor to suck the cock of one George Brune Brubeck, the Bear's Ass, which act disgust me like I try to bite it off and he slap me and curse and blaspheme. [...] The blame for this atrociously incomplete act rest solidly on the basement of Brubeck, my own innocence of any but the most pure reflex move of self-defence and - respect to eliminate this strange serpent thrust so into my face [...] so I [...] had recourse to nature's little white soldiers - our brave defenders by land - and bite his ugly old cock.

William S. Burroughs: Interzone. Ed. James Grauerholz (1989)


When he included this passage in the late compilation of outtakes, Interzone, Burroughs' longterm friend and editor James Grauerholz did some background research which failed to reveal any veterinarians named George Brune Brubeck in St. Louis at the time, although "there is an Edward H. Brune":
'Brune' ...B-R-U-N-E ... 'the Bear's Ass' ... bruin ... this name, although unearthed from a work of fiction, seems well established in Burrough's mind. With all due respect to the late Dr. Brune's descendants, we cannot convict him on this slender evidence, but it certainly points in an interesting direction.
I can't help feeling that the engram theory may take us in a more helpful direction here than such direct attempts to identify the true nature of the crime, interesting though Grauerholz's speculations undoubtedly are.

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8: 32). Possibly so. But the mere act of writing it down, then editing it for rhetorical effectiveness, might have the same result of making it no longer simply a part of you. As the wiseacres are keen to tell us, you don't actually remember things, you just remember yourself remembering them, and then remember yourself remembering yourself remembering them - and so ad infinitum.

If you want to get rid of them, they have to be first snared in the ether, then fixed and mounted on some kind of memory board: real or metaphorical.


Joseph Cornell: Untitled (Butterfly Habitat) (c.1940)





Monday, October 04, 2010

Johnsons or Shits


I've just been reading a very entertaining graphic novel (or series of comics brought to a premature end by lack of commercial success, if you prefer) called Outlaw Nation, by Jamie Delano. It elaborates on a concept of William S. Burroughs, which divides the population of the world into two groups: Johnsons and Shits. A bit of ferreting around on the internet brought up the following definition:

Burroughs first encountered the concept of the Johnson Family while still a boy reading the book You Can’t Win by Jack Black [no relation to the actor - Ed.]. First published in the 1920′s, Black’s autobiographical account of hobo life was immensely popular in its day. Burroughs describes the Johnsons in The Place of Dead Roads:
`The Johnson Family’ was a turn-of-the-century expression to designate good bums and thieves. It was elaborated into a code of conduct. A Johnson honors his obligations. His word is good and he is a good man to do business with. A Johnson minds his own business. He is not a snoopy, self-righteous, trouble-making person. A Johnson will give help when help is needed. He will not stand by while someone is drowning or trapped under a burning car.
In contrast to the honorable world of hobos and criminals, Burroughs describes a type of person known simply as a `Shit.’ Unlike the Johnsons, Shits are obsessed with minding other’s business. They are the town busy body, the preacher, the lawman. Shits are incapable of taking the honorable road of each-to-his-own. Burroughs describes the situation in his essay “My Own Business” thus:
This world would be a pretty easy and pleasant place to live in if everybody could just mind his own business and let others do the same. But a wise old black faggot said to me years ago: `Some people are shits, darling.” I was never able to forget it.

So what about it? Which one are you? A Johnson or a Shit? I came across what seems to me the perfect example of a literary shit the other day whilst idly clicking on links in other people's posts: British Historian Orlando Figes.


Here are some quotes from mini-reviews on Amazon.com of books by various of Figes' rivals:

Description by "Historian" of Molotov's Magic Lantern, by Rachel Polonsky:

"This is the sort of book that makes you wonder why it was ever published … Her writing is so dense and pretentious, itself so tangled in literary allusions, that it is hard to follow or enjoy."

"Historian" described Robert Service's 2008 work Comrades, a world history of communism, as 'rubbish':

"This is an awful book. It is very poorly written and dull to read … it has no insights to make it worth the bother of ploughing through its dreadful prose."

And here's a little piece by the same reviewer about one of Figes's own books:

The Whisperers (2008) was "beautiful and necessary":

"A fascinating book about the interior lives of ordinary Russians … it tells us more about the Soviet system than any other book I know. Beautifully written, it is a rich and deeply moving history, which leaves the reader awed, humbled, yet uplifted … Figes visits their ordeals with enormous compassion, and he brings their history to life with his superb story-telling skills. I hope he writes for ever."

And who was "Historian"? Why, none other than Orlando Figes himself.

Yes, yes, very naughty, I hear you saying, but surely puffing your own books anonymously isn't that mortal a sin? Silly, yes ("I hope he writes for ever"), but hardly criminal. Fair enough. Putting up damning reviews of other people goes a bit further, but it's still not completely beyond the pale.

Attend the sequel, though. Some of Figes' victims began to suspect who'd really written these "anonymous" reviews, and even began to voice their suspicions. Figes immediately instructed his lawyer to threaten them with a libel suit.

When that didn't work (his footprints weren't particularly difficult to trace: "orlando-birkbeck" isn't that cunning an alias for a historian called Orlando who teaches at Birkbeck College, London), he then blamed his wife, barrister Stephanie Palmer, for the whole thing. "I've only just found out about this, this evening," as he said in a statement released through his lawyer a few hours after demanding damages from a prominent newspaper which had printed some information on the matter.

But after a week of questions and increasingly critical headlines, Figes today [23/4/10] revealed that he had been responsible for the comments.

A bit reminiscent of Richard Nixon, really. I didn't do it; well, actually, even though it looks as if I did it, it was actually my wife; well, no, it wasn't my wife, it was me, but I was perfectly justified in doing it; well, no, I did do it, and I wasn't justified in doing it, but it was because I was under a lot of pressure of the time and I'm very sorry so please go away and don't bother me any more ... Man up, Orlando. For a historian of the Stalin era you don't exactly exhibit that good old Mandelstam spirit.

Robert Service, one of the Russian historians defamed by Figes puts it rather succinctly in his quote for the Guardian article I got all these details from in the first place:
I am pleased and mightily relieved that this contaminant slime has been exposed to the light and begun to be scrubbed clean ...

That's what Burroughs means by a shit, I think: a petulant little whinging coward who cries like a baby and begs for mercy when he's found out, all the time sharpening the knife he's longing to plunge into you the moment you turn your back. More like Beria than a full-fledged monster such as Stalin himself ...

What about a Johnson, though?


[Mike Johnson: Travesty (2010)]


Funnily enough, that seems to be the main subject of Mike Johnson's novel Travesty, which appeared earlier this year from Titus Books, after what Mike described at the launch as an almost thirty-year gestation period.

Travesty is a very strange book indeed. It includes some (very striking) illustrations by Darren Sheehan, some of which are in strip-cartoon form, but doesn't seem otherwise to conform to the "graphic novel" genre. Why call it a graphic novel, then? Why not simply an illustrated (or even, in a rather more Blakean vein, an "illuminated") novel?

I think part of the answer may lie in the book's lack of a conventional, overt narrative drive. Nobody, I suspect, could help but find the various characters and settings interesting - poor burnt-out glow-addicted Harvey, Drunk Len, the sneaky double-dealing therapist Dr Reingold, and (best of all from my point of view) batty old "people's advocate" Dilly Lilly, trapped in her mountainous accumulation of old toys and teddy-bears.

But what's the point of them? They're all burnt-out, used-up human shadows, recycling old damaged neural pathways in some kind of semi-official holding-pen ("Travesty") threatened by the Lion King and his sinister allies named after old characters from Donald Duck (Chip 'n' Dale, the Beagle Boys, the Gladstone Ganders). And as the fog gradually envelops their clapped-out roach motel, the "rathouse", they're all gradually forced out onto the streets awaiting some wondrous (or horrendous) lolly scramble on the Day of Delights. And it seems that something apocalyptic has indeed been averted in the last couple of chapters, where Harvey gets it together sufficiently to complete the set of equations in his head.

But none of it's clear, exactly. All of it's told as though through a glass, darkly. And while it's hinted that Harvey's otherworldly saviour Hermes may simply have been sent by "Netlife, that vast illegal gambling operation on the blacknet where credits, zings and even souls are waged on how people behave":

Netlife is not above prodding things along when the show gets slow. Push the emotional infant, Harvey, out of his nest. Get cameras on him, take over Mercy's eyes, get the punters punting - build up the tension. .... Big bikkies riding on ever twist and turn. [p.231]

Travesty, then, "was caught up in Netlife in ways it did not understand."

Is Travesty, then, a huge gameshow run by net gamblers who prod it from time to time like children stirring up a big glass-fronted ant's nest? In one sense, yes, but it's not just that. Travesty can't be decoded as simply as The Matrix. Once you get behind the mask, you find the same confusions, the same infinite spectra of possibilities as in (so-called) "real life".

"I should like to live in a very much simpler world," Harvey says [p.196]

As Dr Reingold meditates on the (programmed) flirting propensities of his holographic secretary, as Nisa Michelangelo constructs his exact scale model (except in one respect) of Michelangelo's "David", we begin to see that the thing that holds these various levels of reality (or "virtuality") together is - as in the Christian cosmos of Dante's Divine Comedy - love, that Aristotelean "love that moves the sun and the other stars" (Paradiso, canto xxxiii, last line).

The book concludes with a series of meditations on works of art. Mercy, the holographic secretary, recites Keats's "Ode on a Grecian Urn" to her master Dr Reingold (himself, one presumes, named after the central symbol in Wagner's Ring):

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty' - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

We leave him contemplating the "her impeccable thighs and the perfection of her smooth backside. Cold pastoral! Pit this against the living, sweating, stinking, bloody flesh whose privilege it is to know pleasure and death in equal measure." [p.238]

Nisa Michelangelo, the (alleged) reincarnation of the "real" Michelangelo, sees the huge erect penis of his redesigned "David" being shot off almost at the moment of its completion. Like any revisionist artist, though, he manages to tell himself that this reversion to the statue's original state is somehow for the best:

Looking at the statue now, he sees there is a kind of truth in the mutilation, the severance; the gunman might have taken aim with an artist's eye. All the upright virtue of the lost member is merely suggested now, not blatantly exposed. The mind may build its own addition where he imposed his; the severance itself speaks in resonances. [p.243]

It's an interesting place to end. The fascination of Travesty has lain all along in the parts rather than the whole. The world Mike Johnson constructs up so painstakingly is contradictory, partial, jerry-built to its very bones. But so's the one we live in.

Dilly Lilly's long crawl through the rat burrows that criss-cross her heap of toys is a kind of narrative tour-de-force which calls to mind some of the more extreme passages in Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast, but the tiny mutant rat she extracts, then nurses on her own blood comes from an even more extreme universe (reminiscent as it is of Philip K. Dick's apocalyptic masterpiece Dr Bloodmoney, or How We Got Along After the War). In his refusal to resolve his warring plotlines, to explain the tie-ins which unite all these various levels, Mike Johnson goes them both one better, though.

The mercy of that all-forgiving narrative plot-doctor, knotting up all the loose ends, is perhaps the last thing we must abandon before opening the doors of perception to see each thing "as it is, infinite."

Travesty, then, is (at any rate in conventional terms) a magnificent wreck of a novel. Make sure you unroll a thread behind you before you venture into its intricacies, though. This is the kind of book that might insist on reading you.

[William Blake: The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (1790-93)]