Prior to reading this anthology, I had very little direct familiarity with the Beat writers apart from William S. Burroughs. After reading this anthology, I have three reactions: 1) I am glad I read it, because 2) I now have no desire to read much more Beat writing, and 3) Burroughs is in many ways much different from the rest.
I am glad I read this because it fills a gap the history of US literature for me. I knew the Beat writers by reputation, and by the influence they had on subsequent writers. Plus, I had read some works by writers associated with the Beats but not really among them, such as Amiri Baraka, Gilbert Sorrentino, and Frank O'Hara. I definitely needed to get a fuller picture of mid-2oth century American writing. All the energy to bust out of literary and social conventions that characterizes American writers 1945-1975 is pumped on steroids and set to overload in the Beat writers. Their drive to try things out is admirable.
However, I found out fairly quickly that, with the exception of Burroughs and some scattered works by others, I really did not much like Beat writing. For all its barely disciplined energy, the writing suffers because it is barely disciplined. For every flashy bit of wordsmithery, lines and lines, sentence after sentence go dragging along trying to find the next discovery, like a hiker on a nature trail going "Oh, look at that" and then moving on for half an hour before another "Oh, look at that." Despite the reputation, Beat writing appears to me less about the quality of the writing and more about the personalities of the writers. The writers create a cult of personality for themselves and for their favored few. They also create a kind of in-group cult, a bunch that outsiders just want to be a part of because they seem so cool and radical and hip (to use Mailer's term). Even more than with Hemingway or Thomas Wolfe or Walt Whitman, for the Beats the projection of a personal style was the goal. No collection of similar-minded writers in American literature that I can think of is so obsessed with themselves in their writing, to the exclusion of almost any other subject. This self-absorption might be fine except that I found the personalities they are absorbed with repulsive, and this goes for Burroughs as well as the others. Ann Charters, the editor of this volume, simply adores all this self-absorption and that the writers led such self-destructive lives in such a way as to draw others around them into the cycle of destruction. They have no concern for anyone other than themselves, no concern for any idea greater than raising drug use and criminality to the level of "art," no concern about whom they ruin along the way. So, I have no real desire to try out more of this.
Burroughs is different from the rest. This includes both the writing and the personality. I am not one of those who think that Burroughs is among the great novelists of 20th-century America. Nevertheless, Burroughs is readable from my perspective in a way that the others are not. This seems to me because Burroughs is of a different temperament, as one of Kerouac's wives or girlfriends pointed out. He's the 19th-century Romantic artist who fell into the trap of admiring the wrong things, who acts as if he believes that to admire the best one must experience the worst. And then, having experienced the worst, he could not find a way back out of it. He writes like this as well. Where other Beat writers try to discover a system for their writing as they go, Burroughs starts from a system, some kind of plan for how to put it all together. If accidents come along, he fits them into the plan. His methods come straight from early modernist writing, from James Joyce, John Dos Passos, D.H. Lawrence, and the like. While his books may be autobiographical in some ways, not all of them are, and most, even Naked Lunch, are about something else as well. Although he pretends not to, Burroughs has a point to make with each work. Thus, I would argue that Burroughs is not truly a Beat writer, but instead is a writer who hung out with the Beat writers.
So, in the end, I think that this anthology is very good for getting the sense and feel of Beat writing. It does fill in that gap in the American writing library shelf. For those interested in literary history, it is a handy resource.