Naked Lunch: Okay, what EVEN was that??? (Cronenberg's Version)

Okay, so I finally watched Cronenberg's Naked Lunch. I know, I'm late to the party. As a Burroughs fan, I went in knowing it wouldn't be a straight adaptation (Burroughs himself said it was "impossible to film" directly). But... wow. Just wow. I'm still trying to process it. So, I get the thematic stuff, the paranoia, the drug-induced hallucinations, the blurring of reality and fiction. But, like, the Mugwumps? The typewriter bugs that give instructions? I'm starting to believe you COULD make a straight adaptation, its just that it would be unfilmable, or so expensive it would make Avatar look dirt cheap. The whole thing feels like a fever dream made into a movie, and I kinda respect it for that. Davis Cronenberg certainly went the distance here. Specifically, I'm curious about the whole Joan Lee situation. In the book, she is just one of Bill's wives, and doesn't play that big of a role. Here she is Bill's partner in crime (and drug abuse). Did Cronenberg do that to give the film some emotional anchor, or was there a more literary reason I'm missing? Also, Peter Weller is AMAZING as Bill Lee. He perfectly captures that detached, almost robotic vibe of the character. It's probably the best casting choice they could have made. Anyway, anyone else totally baffled/fascinated by this movie? Let me know your thoughts!