Quote from: Cain on May 27, 2009, 05:17:37 PMQuote from: LMNO on May 27, 2009, 05:09:07 PM
I think I can go with that, with a few exceptions, e.g. Carroll/Burroughs/Joyce et al, who use semantics and language in extremely non-traditional ways for a specific intended effect.
In what sense though? I would have to disagree with Joyce - the level of multiple meanings and associations interwoven into his works (also the fact he wrote books) suggests exactly the sort of ambiguity I would consider belonging to the holistic side of things. Burroughs too, since when while you consider something like Naked Lunch as non-linear, there are segments which alone do make sense, just not necessarily as part of a larger whole.
Of course, I came up with this classification off the top of my head, so take from that what you will.
If naked lunch didn;t make sense to you as a whole I'd suggest reading it again. It made sense to me the third time. It might be me doing a starbuck's pebbles, but it made a hell of a lot of sense.