In 1957, Allen Ginsberg submitted the
Naked Lunch manuscript to
Olympia Press, which had a reputation for publishing controversial novels such as
Tropic of Cancer and
Lolita. Olympia rejected the manuscript, arguing that it was inaccessible and lacked structure. Ginsberg then sent the manuscript to
Irving Rosenthal, editor of the
Chicago Review. Rosenthal published excerpts from the novel in the
Review's Spring 1958 and Autumn 1958 issues.
Jack Mabley, a columnist for the
Chicago Daily News, publicly criticized the
Chicago Review for publishing "obscenity". In response, the University of Chicago insisted that material from Burroughs and
Jack Kerouac could not appear in the upcoming Winter issue. Irving Rosenthal resigned from the
Review and founded a new literary magazine with Pete Carroll called
Big Table, which published the suppressed material in its first issue.
Post Office hearing Rosenthal and Carroll planned to mail the first issue of
Big Table in March 1959. However, the US Post Office considered the magazine obscene, which made it un-mailable under the
Comstock laws. On June 4th, 1959, the Post Office launched a formal hearing over
Big Table's obscenity, with a particular focus on Burroughs'
Ten Episodes from Naked Lunch and a short story by Jack Keruoac titled "Old Angel Midnight". Joel Sprayregen,
Big Table's attorney, advocated for the magazine's literary value and insisted it was not obscene under the criteria established in
Roth v. United States. Pete Carroll, the magazine's co-founder, testified that he considered Burroughs a satirist in the tradition of
Jonathan Swift and
Nathanael West and that his social criticism required vulgar language. William Duvall, the hearing examiner, admitted that Burroughs' work had some "intelligible satire", but felt its vulgarity outweighed any literary merit. He ruled that the magazine was in fact obscene and could not be mailed. In February 1960,
Big Table filed a federal complaint, arguing that the Post Office's decision violated the
First Amendment. On June 30, 1960, the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois overturned the Post Office's findings. The Post Office did not appeal this decision.
European and American publication Inspired by the attention around
Big Table's excerpts, Olympia Press reconsidered its rejection and published the novel. Olympia first published the English-language
Naked Lunch in France in July 1959.
Grove Press bought the American publication rights, and initially planned to exclude the chapters describing Hassan's "Rumpus Room" and A.J.'s party. Burroughs himself had called those sections "pornographic" and expected they would be cut from a US release, although he also felt they constituted a political argument against capital punishment. Ultimately, Grove decided to publish the novel uncensored, encouraged by the praise the book had received from
Norman Mailer and
Mary McCarthy.
Naked Lunch was first published in the US on November 20, 1962, and sold over 14,000 copies in the first 4 months. The US edition included a new appendix by Burroughs titled "Deposition: Testimony Concerning a Sickness". Burroughs originally wrote the deposition in response to a legal hearing in Paris; the text asserts that he and his novel do not promote the use of drugs. Allen Ginsberg criticized this appendix; he found it overly moralizing and felt Burroughs was avoiding responsibility for his own work. In 1962, the novel was translated into German, but the publishers intentionally left the most explicit sections in untranslated English. In 1964, it was published in the United Kingdom by
John Calder. Calder avoided selling the book to wholesalers and only distributed small print runs at a high price to avoid legal attention, and successfully avoided prosecution.
Boston Trial as depicted by
Hieronymous Bosch in
The Garden of Earthly Delights. During the Boston trial, authors and professors compared
Naked Lunch to the religious works of Bosch,
Dante Aligheri, and
Augustine of Hippo.
Naked Lunch was
banned in Boston, and in January 1965 the novel was tried
in rem. William Cowin represented the state of Massachusetts, while
Edward de Grazia represented Grove Press. Cowin argued the book's vulgarity overwhelmed any literary value it had, and that nearly every page contained something obscene. His prosecution emphasized the novel's lack of structure, arguing that the most explicit passages could be judged in isolation without considering the book as a whole. De Grazia called authors and professors to testify about the novel's social value and literary merit.
Norman Mailer praised Burroughs' literary talent and defended the novel's structure by comparing it to
Finnegans Wake.
John Ciardi compared the book to a hellfire sermon akin to the works of
Dante Alighieri and
Hieronymous Bosch and argued its vulgarity was a key part of its effect. He also argued that Burroughs' uncontrolled writing process did not undermine the novel's artistry. Professor Norman Holland agreed with Ciardi's interpretation and suggested
Augustine might have written a work like
Naked Lunch if he were still alive. Professor Thomas Jackson also compared the novel's explicit passages to Dante Alighieri's scenes of
cannibalism and scatology, and the novel's structure to
Ezra Pound's
Cantos and
T.S. Eliot's
The Waste Land.
Paul Hollander argued the novel showcased the depravity of addiction, and John Sturrock suggested it helped readers understand drug-induced
psychosis.
Allen Ginsberg discussed the book as a metaphor for addiction in general, analyzed connections between the novel's depictions of sexuality and drugs, and read his poem "On Burroughs' Work" from the stand. In his
cross-examinations, William Cowin suggested the novel was anti-Catholic, quizzed the witnesses on whether they could remember its characters, and challenged them to interpret provocative passages like the talking anus scene. He did not call any witnesses to testify against the book. On March 23, 1965, the court ruled that the novel was in fact obscene. Grove appealed this decision to the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. On July 7, 1966, based on new obscenity guidelines from the
United States Supreme Court in
Memoirs v. Massachusetts, the state supreme court overturned the ban, arguing that the testimony had demonstrated the novel's social and literary value. In a dissent, Justice
Paul Reardon insisted the book was "literary sewage". Grove Press exploited the trial as a marketing strategy. Grove compared
Naked Lunch to
Ulysses, ''
Lady Chatterley's Lover, and Tropic of Cancer'', which had also been challenged for obscenity, and included transcripts of the court testimonies in a new edition of the book.
Los Angeles Trial On January 28, 1965, the city of Los Angeles tried two people for selling copies of
Naked Lunch, arguing they had violated California's obscenity statute. Municipal Judge Alan Campbell described the novel as "repugnant" and argued that the chapter describing A.J's Party may have qualified as obscene, but found that the book as a whole did not appeal to a "prurient interest" and therefore did not violate the statute. Instead, the judge wrote that "its predominant interest is to complete boredom". ==Plot summary==