I've only leafed through a few of Burroughs' books -- as opposed to actually reading them -- and have found that I'm mostly interested in his writings about writing. I mean his ideas regarding the creative process, the act of writing, the nature of language, and so on. For instance, I was mesmerized by his introduction to THE RETREAT DIARIES where he talked about his self-prescribed rules for paying attention to the visionary products of his own unconscious mind.
With his fiction, it's a different matter. I sort of enjoyed David Cronenberg's cinematic adaptation of NAKED LUNCH but have never been interested to read the novel, or any of his others, for that matter. I don't know why this should be so, since I've really enjoyed reading about Burroughs. This is a phenomenon I've encountered with a few other authors over the years. It simply happens that with some of them, I find accounts of their lives, writings, and ideas to be intensely interesting, but at the same time I feel absolutely no desire to read their actual work. With Burroughs it's a bit different, though; given that Tom is so powerfully influenced by him, I'll probably make a more concerted effort to read him some day.
ElHI -- Regarding your comment that "The Nightmare Network" and some of Tom's other stories would be great to expand via Burroughs' cut-up technique, you might find it interesting to know (if you don't already) that Tom really didn't enjoy that aspect of Burroughs' work. Offhand I can't remember the exact interview where the topic came up -- was it Neddal's FANTASTIC METROPOLIS interview? That sounds halfway likely -- but when he was asked whether he had ever used or considered using the cut-up approach, he answered, "No, and I wish Burroughs hadn't either."
