Is this book just really bad or am I missing something?

>>9080105
I watched the movie by based Cronenberg and it was great.

>>9080105
Don't try and make logical sense of the narrative. Just blitz through and enjoy the scenes.

>you will never sling black-market placentas with Hassan the Dealer

it's bad on purpose duh

>>9080105
It is amazing. Do Drugs.

>>9080258
>Do Drugs.
i'll pass
Schizophrenia is a pain in the butt.

>>9080105
you're missing the point

>>9080262
This is why you will always be a boor

>>9080287
dumb phoneposter

>>9080262

not sure if troll but drugs only enhance the likelihood of developing schizophrenia if you're predisposed to it (hereditary genetics etc). essentially if you already were going to develop schizophrenia later in life when it usually begins to manifest itself taking (certain) drugs can speeds up the process.

>>9080328
>but drugs only enhance the likelihood of developing schizophrenia if you're predisposed to it
wrong

>>9080328
>we could ever know that you were going to get it before you got it
Do you also believe in God's divine plan for each of us?

Its a towering work of art.
And a less than great read. I think it sits outside literature to a certain extent.

You've got to see it in the time and climate in which it came out.
He did violence to society with a typewriter.

You can't be accused of edgelording if they are actually going to arrest you for it.

>>9080331

keep on believing whatever you would like to believe. there is no evidence of drugs having been a direct cause in the development of schizophrenia in a patient and any mental health professional will agree with that statement. drugs can however certainly cause psychosis -- a symptom of schizophrenia. really schizophrenia isn't very well understood at this point in time and any sweeping statements about why or how it is developed should be taken with a large grain of salt.

>>9080332

what? genetics play a large role in assessing the likelihood of patients developing certain health problems. it is one indicator of many that is taken into account when creating risk-profiles/suggesting pre-screenings.

>>9080354
>>9080354
>there is no evidence of drugs having been a direct cause in the development of schizophrenia in a patient

>drugs can however certainly cause psychosis -- a symptom of schizophrenia.

lol
stupid dumb retard

>>9080258
naked lunch is perhaps the ultimate anti-drug novel, but it's anti-drug from a position one must have done lots of drugs to arrive at.

>>9080291
I post where I can, I'm not some wageslave shackled to a home office.

>>9080357

Having temporary audio/visual hallucinations as a result of having a high fever is not evidence of someone being schizophrenic. It's only a symptom that schizophrenia shares with another condition. Does that mean that the person with the fever should now be diagnosed with schizophrenia? No, it does not.

>>9080383
>backpedaling this hard

>>9080357
>using a WebMD symptom list to diagnose Schizophrenia

>>9080391
stop drive-by shitposting and read the posts in the comment chain before you make a fool of yourself
see
>>9080354
>drugs can however certainly cause psychosis -- a symptom of schizophrenia.

>>9080389

Lol troll confirmed. Have a nice night buddy.

>>9080399
>Lol troll confirmed.
no u desu

>>9080354
>parents have a mental health issue
>never do drugs
This kind of model is not helpful for people.

File: almond.png (56KB, 209x248px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 209x248px

>>9080402
>drugs are usually helpful
mild activation at that one

>>9080394
People can experience psychosis and not be Schizophrenic

>>9080408
>can
being the operate word

>>9080394

Just because someone has an episode where they experience psychosis doesn't mean they have schizophrenia. Psychosis can be caused by many different things. The diagnosis of mental health conditions is a much more complex process than you seem to think. So is the causal relationship between drug use and the development of mental disorders.

>>9080424
the initial claim was
>>9080328
>not sure if troll but drugs only enhance the likelihood of developing schizophrenia if you're predisposed to it

Which is wrong.

>>9080402

What are you implying here?

>>9080438
He's implying that everyone should try drugs and that you shouldn't worry about your parents having mental conditions and just get high anyway.

>>9080419
So you think that a majority of people who experience psychosis are also schizophrenics?

>>9080436
>not sure if troll but drugs only enhance the likelihood of developing schizophrenia if you're predisposed to it
>Which is wrong.

How is that statement wrong exactly?

>>9080105
>doesn't enjoy piss and shit humor
why are you even on this website?

File: 1486008354201.png (4KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 225x225px

>>9080447
>How is that statement wrong exactly?
m8...
Disinfo doesn't work here.

>>9080447
>So you think that a majority of people who experience psychosis are also schizophrenics?
Did I
>
that?

>>9080436

If you're going to make sweeping statements like these the onus is on you to provide evidence. Link me an academic paper that proves otherwise.

As I've said before drugs can cause symptoms of schizophrenia to appear TEMPORARILY. Just because someone exhibits a symptom of something isn't grounds for a diagnosis. Not even close.

>>9080457
>If you're going to make sweeping statements like these the onus is on you to provide evidence.
????

>>9080328
>lol it's only moderately likely to happen
I'll pass.

>>9080453
You aren't proving your point. Please state exactly what is wrong with saying "drugs only enhance the likelihood of developing schizophrenia if you're predisposed to it"

>>9080475
Because he feels the the need to the qualify that statement in the very same post, bud.

>>9080105
I can think of at least two things wrong with that title.

>>9080463

I haven't made any sweeping statements. The available evidence at this point only allows us to talk about the development of schizophrenia in terms of risk-profiles and probability. You're the one arguing that there is a 1:1 direct relationship between drug use and schizophrenia. What data set are you using as the basis of your hypothesis? Nothing I've said is considered controversial by industry professionals.

>>9080515
>You're the one arguing that there is a 1:1 direct relationship between drug use and schizophrenia.
Am I though?

>>9080517

Alright we're done with this conversation. Nice talking to you.

>>9080536
And you, mamwazzel.

wild boys is better

>>9080407
>>9080438
I'm implying that "just say no" mentalities are not going to improve humanity's complex and inevitably intimate relationship with psychoactive chemicals.

>>9080342
This is true.

WSB was a sort of intellectual terrorist, his ability to cause disgust and aversion persists even against our jaded modern day sensibilities.

>>9080595
>tfw you will never fuck a brilliantly dressed boy in a adult movie house while his outfit changes color by the light from projector

>ywn release piranhas, electric eels and candiru fish into a socialite party pool
>ywn enter with a baboon on a leash
>it will never fuck someones shit up

how am i even supposed to read this book if i can't understand anything he's trying to say? seems like a book i would enjoy if i didn't have to look everything up.

File: 1486570661148.jpg (42KB, 479x414px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 479x414px

>>9080113
This. If the book is as good as the film, than op is just retarded. I love Cronenberg

File: FILENAME.png (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>9080105
I was just about to make a thread about this book. I don't read much but I wanna get into the beat stuff. I'm finding it a real slodge to get through though. Am I a brainlet? Is Junkie more approachable?

Like, what the fuck does this mean?

>>9082425
>Like, what the fuck does this mean?
It means Burroughs was a braindead junky and a pretentious faggot.

Don't worry, you too are supposed to be a pretentious faggot who pretends this is, like, deeply enjoyable art and shit.

>>9080105
Obviously an important and crucial work. In a way, however, it's lazy, expecting that naming should have an effect, and the haphazard, disorienting nature is supposed to impress. I found it to be quite boring and ineffective. The merit of the book primarily lies in the trip.

Obviously, if you fail to get into the trip, you're unable to tell how good and effective the book is. The nature of the work can be criticized though, and it explains the failure of the joining the trip for many, quite convincingly. It also fails to be more than a trip. It's quite ridiculous to claim that Burroughs did little with the material considering that he did what no one did, it's still true though.

Not comparable in many respects, but Last Exit to Brooklyn in infinitely better.