View Full Version : The Pleasure of not reading Bukowski
PrinceMyshkin
10-18-2007, 07:14 AM
is only exceeded by the pleasure
of not listening to him
read Bukowski! That dumb phuck
who had nothing really going for him
but the courage ( if that’s what it was )
to be nothing but the dumb, depressed
bore that he was!
No animals were tested in the writing of this poem.
Virgil
10-18-2007, 07:28 AM
is only exceeded by the pleasure
of not listening to him
read Bukowski! That dumb phuck
who had nothing really going for him
but the courage ( if that’s what it was )
to be nothing but the dumb, depressed
bore that he was!
No animals were tested in the writing of this poem.
:lol: Ah there are pleasures in life after all. Very good.
TheFifthElement
10-18-2007, 07:35 AM
Of course you know I have to leap in here and defend bukowski! What's not to like? I've almost finished reading 'Pulp' (he wrote books too!) and, having waded my way through page upon page of not quite knowing what's going on, of nothing really happening, of wondering if it is just as bald, and nasty, and pointless as it seems, I've realised - actually, that's the point! Genius!
a piece of bukowski for you to appreciate :
no help for that
there is a place in the heart that
will never be filled
a space
and even during the
best moments
and
the greatest
times
we will know it
we will know it
more than
ever
there is a place in the heart that
will never be filled
and
we will wait
and wait
in that
space.
Virgil
10-18-2007, 07:45 AM
Fifth, that proves my point. That is such a nothing poem. The one conceit, Place in the heart to be filled, is such a cliche. And the rest is nothing.
Sweets America
10-18-2007, 07:54 AM
I do not know Bukowski's work but wow, you guys sound a little mean. I agree a little with Virgil, but I think the poem is not that bad. Though it's not that good either, but this is only my opinion, because there must be people who love this poem.
But, Jer, I am a little saddened by the mean tone of your poem. I know you need to vent, but still...:smash:
aashishameya
10-18-2007, 08:01 AM
though i am not great Bukoswy fan, but yes he wrote really great poems, which goes deep inside human being...explore man....may be some guys didnt saw this side of him
Sweets America
10-18-2007, 08:20 AM
though i am not great Bukoswy fan, but yes he wrote really great poems, which goes deep inside human being...explore man....may be some guys didnt saw this side of him
Yes, maybe. I think it really depends on people, we cannot say 'this poem is good' or 'this poem is bad', we can only say 'This poem appeals to me' or not. But, I've always wondered if there could be some kind of supreme objective view on artwork, some kind of criteria that could help us to decide that one poem IS good and another is NOT. We can judge the form, maybe, but on the content and emotions, I am not sure. It's just like about beauty for instance. Is there an objective beauty, or does it depend on each one of us? But I am being carried away.
Now, about your poem, Jer, I accept that someone might not like someone's poetry, but what saddened me in your poem is that you attacked the man himself with words such as 'That dumb phuck who had nothing really going for him' and I could not really see the point in doing that. Though, I am opened to discuss it with you because it's interesting. :)
Virgil
10-18-2007, 08:22 AM
Yes, maybe. I think it really depends on people, we cannot say 'this poem is good' or 'this poem is bad', we can only say 'This poem appeals to me' or not. But, I've always wondered if there could be some kind of supreme objective view on artwork, some kind of criteria that could help us to decide that one poem IS good and another is NOT. We can judge the form, maybe, but on the content and emotions, I am not sure. It's just like about beauty for instance. Is there an objective beauty, or does it depend on each one of us? But I am being carried away.
Now, about your poem, Jer, I accept that someone might not like someone's poetry, but what saddened me in your poem is that you attacked the man himself with words such as 'That dumb phuck who had nothing really going for him' and I could not really see the point in doing that. Though, I am opened to discuss it with you because it's interesting. :)
Sweets, he's actually mocking Bukowski. That is how Bukowski writes.
Sweets America
10-18-2007, 08:25 AM
Sweets, he's actually mocking Bukowski. That is how Bukowski writes.
May I ask you to explain a little more to me, if you have time? :idea:
Virgil
10-18-2007, 08:40 AM
May I ask you to explain a little more to me, if you have time? :idea:
I guess you just have to read some of his poems to get into his style. Here's another poem:
Cows In Art Class
by Charles Bukowski
good weather
is like
good women-
it doesn't always happen
and when it does
it doesn't
always last.
man is
more stable:
if he's bad
there's more chance
he'll stay that way,
or if he's good
he might hang
on,
but a woman
is changed
by
children
age
diet
conversation
sex
the moon
the absence or
presence of sun
or good times.
a woman must be nursed
into subsistence
by love
where a man can become
stronger
by being hated.
I actually like the thought, but again there's not much poetry there. He is sooo over rated.
And here's yet another.
Eat Your Heart Out
by Charles Bukowski
I've come by, she says, to tell you
that this is it. I'm not kidding, it's
over. this is it.
I sit on the couch watching her arrange
her long red hair before my bedroom
mirror.
she pulls her hair up and
piles it on top of her head-
she lets her eyes look at
my eyes-
then she drops her hair and
lets it fall down in front of her face.
we go to bed and I hold her
speechlessly from the back
my arm around her neck
I touch her wrists and hands
feel up to
her elbows
no further.
she gets up.
this is it, she says,
this will do. well,
I'm going.
I get up and walk her
to the door
just as she leaves
she says,
I want you to buy me
some high-heeled shoes
with tall thin spikes,
black high-heeled shoes.
no, I want them
red.
I watch her walk down the cement walk
under the trees
she walks all right and
as the pointsettas drip in the sun
I close the door.
I find it amazing that women actually like his poetry. So sexest. :D I do get a kick out of them. But I don't find them great poems, as far as poetry goes. :sick:
TheFifthElement
10-18-2007, 08:46 AM
Fifth, that proves my point. That is such a nothing poem. The one conceit, Place in the heart to be filled, is such a cliche. And the rest is nothing.
Precisely! The poem is its subject matter.
I maintain, genius.
Sweets America - as Virgil has said, the way Prince Myshkin has written the poem is very much in the style of bukowski - his writing is very sparse, very bald, very harsh. The 'f' word makes many appearances! I can only recommend that you read some of his work and make up your own mind. There is no middle ground with bukowski, you love him or hate him. I love him, but I also understand why people would not. What I love about bukowski is that in the midst of all that 'down and out', arrogance, nothingness, there are moments of pure wonder. bukowski, to me, reflects the bald reality of life.
Sweets America
10-18-2007, 08:48 AM
Thanks Virgil.
I think this Bukowski poem is made of stereotypes, and I'm not sure what was his aim in writing it, but anyway, I still think that as much as one dislikes someone else's artwork, one should only judge the artwork, not the artist. And I don't like the word 'judge' anyway.
But...maybe I'm wrong. I don't like what I am saying either because it sounds like I am wanting to impose my point of view. Who am I to tell people what they should judge, after all? :crash:
Precisely! The poem is its subject matter.
I maintain, genius.
Sweets America - as Virgil has said, the way Prince Myshkin has written the poem is very much in the style of bukowski - his writing is very sparse, very bald, very harsh. The 'f' word makes many appearances! I can only recommend that you read some of his work and make up your own mind. There is no middle ground with bukowski, you love him or hate him. I love him, but I also understand why people would not. What I love about bukowski is that in the midst of all that 'down and out', arrogance, nothingness, there are moments of pure wonder. bukowski, to me, reflects the bald reality of life.
Ok thanks, now I understand better Jer's intentions. And his poem, too. It makes better sense. Now I think that my objections are not that accurate, because I see there is a point in how Jer wrote his poem.
PrinceMyshkin
10-18-2007, 09:56 AM
Yes, maybe. I think it really depends on people, we cannot say 'this poem is good' or 'this poem is bad', we can only say 'This poem appeals to me' or not. But, I've always wondered if there could be some kind of supreme objective view on artwork, some kind of criteria that could help us to decide that one poem IS good and another is NOT. We can judge the form, maybe, but on the content and emotions, I am not sure. It's just like about beauty for instance. Is there an objective beauty, or does it depend on each one of us? But I am being carried away.
Now, about your poem, Jer, I accept that someone might not like someone's poetry, but what saddened me in your poem is that you attacked the man himself with words such as 'That dumb phuck who had nothing really going for him' and I could not really see the point in doing that. Though, I am opened to discuss it with you because it's interesting. :)
As always, my sweet, sweet friend, you have a moral/spiritual point worth considering. I wrote that somewhat in the tradition that anything that is published is part of the general public discourse and therefore a response (of any sort) is permissible. I do detest on the whole the anything goes sloppy is more "honest" than careful aesthetic of B's poetry & its influence on others. But insofar as it diminishes the standards in writing poetry, a more appropriate, less mean-spirited response from me might have been to write a poem of my own according to the highest standards I'm capable of. There was an element of envy at work in my poem insofar as the more attention given to B., the less there is for ME!
symphony
10-18-2007, 10:02 AM
I know its not wise to judge a poet by not reading much of his works, but of what i've read/heard of him, he doesnt leave much of an impression on me...
the poems somehow sound like they were meant to be different, and that alone makes no difference. But again, I shouldnt judge a poet!
PrinceMyshkin
10-18-2007, 10:28 AM
I know its not wise to judge a poet by not reading much of his works, but of what i've read/heard of him, he doesnt leave much of an impression on me...
the poems somehow sound like they were meant to be different, and that alone makes no difference. But again, I shouldnt judge a poet!
It's not so much a question of wisdom as of informing yourself on a controversial subject. So for heaven's sake, go http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Bukowski%2C+Charles&search=Search
and inform yourself! What if you find out he's just your guy!
Horsehead
10-18-2007, 11:11 AM
you mean mr. right? or mr. write?
I heard someone mention Bukowski just the other day, and he spoke of him in such a way that I expected this post was by Bukowski, upon the joy of not reading.
Where I heard of Bukowski was in the dank local poetry hut, and I was reading 'The Protest', and I got the worst reaction I'd ever gotten from a reading. It's about a group of protesting women chained to trees, and a magician who was able to put a civil stop to the protest by sawing them in half without hinder.
...is that at all like the stuff of Bukowski?
...Bukowski seems contraversial....against verse!
Sweets America
10-18-2007, 04:29 PM
As always, my sweet, sweet friend, you have a moral/spiritual point worth considering. I wrote that somewhat in the tradition that anything that is published is part of the general public discourse and therefore a response (of any sort) is permissible. I do detest on the whole the anything goes sloppy is more "honest" than careful aesthetic of B's poetry & its influence on others. But insofar as it diminishes the standards in writing poetry, a more appropriate, less mean-spirited response from me might have been to write a poem of my own according to the highest standards I'm capable of. There was an element of envy at work in my poem insofar as the more attention given to B., the less there is for ME!
Wonderful answer, Sweet Jer!!! Very honest and intelligent.
I agree that a response is permissible, but it's just that sometimes there is a lack of arguments and responses are not based on open debate, just on pure meanness and insult. I am not talking about your poem here, since I have come to a better understanding of the way it is written. I agree with what you say about B's poetry. I mean, I agree with your general statement, but I cannot really say anything about B's poetry since I am not familiar enough with it.
symphony
10-18-2007, 04:47 PM
It's not so much a question of wisdom as of informing yourself on a controversial subject. So for heaven's sake, go http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Bukowski%2C+Charles&search=Search
and inform yourself! What if you find out he's just your guy!
Checked. But I still dont think he's my guy. :(
May be I'll go check him out again when I'm 30?
barbara0207
10-18-2007, 05:55 PM
is only exceeded by the pleasure
of not listening to him
read Bukowski! That dumb phuck
who had nothing really going for him
but the courage ( if that’s what it was )
to be nothing but the dumb, depressed
bore that he was!
No animals were tested in the writing of this poem.
Ah, I loved that one, Jerry! As everyone can see, here's another Bukowski-hater. (Sexist, as Virgil said. Dirty old man. Period)
I had a good laugh, especially at the line "No animals were tested ..."
That's the kind of humour I love!
The poem and the last line reminded me of Douglas Adams' "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Arthur Dent and his friend are trapped on a Vogon spaceship and have to endure the Vogon captain reading his poetry to them - "the worst poetry in the universe". :lol:
TheFifthElement
10-19-2007, 03:37 AM
Ah, I loved that one, Jerry! As everyone can see, here's another Bukowski-hater. (Sexist, as Virgil said. Dirty old man. Period)
This begs the question whether you're judging the poet on his work, or on how you perceive his personality to be. Is the bukowski we see the real bukowski, or a persona? Are you always the 'I' in your poems? Had he dressed up the 'sexist' 'dirty old man' with fancy words and tricksy poetic devices would you judge him in the same way? How many of your favourite poets could have been mysogynistic wife beaters in their private lives?
Like him or not, it's poets like bukowski, who push the boundaries of what is considered to be poetry, that enable poetry to move on and be more than just stilted meter, oppressive form and rhyme. Without poets willing to change what is considered the 'norm' most of us here wouldn't be writing at all, and how many of us is likely to achieve the level of success that bukowski did?
Sweets America
10-19-2007, 06:37 AM
This begs the question whether you're judging the poet on his work, or on how you perceive his personality to be. Is the bukowski we see the real bukowski, or a persona? Are you always the 'I' in your poems? Had he dressed up the 'sexist' 'dirty old man' with fancy words and tricksy poetic devices would you judge him in the same way? How many of your favourite poets could have been mysogynistic wife beaters in their private lives?
Like him or not, it's poets like bukowski, who push the boundaries of what is considered to be poetry, that enable poetry to move on and be more than just stilted meter, oppressive form and rhyme. Without poets willing to change what is considered the 'norm' most of us here wouldn't be writing at all, and how many of us is likely to achieve the level of success that bukowski did?
Ah, I love this comment!!! Very intelligent!!! About Bukowski's poems that Virgil has quoted, I was actually wondering: everyone seems to think that he is sexist in those poems, or that he just uses stupid cliches, but I was thinking that maybe, through his poetry, he's just mocking those cliches, maybe he used them on purpose, and his poems are ironic. I don't know about that, but that was a possibility. I agree SO MUCH with what you said, FifthElement, about the persona in the poem not necessarily being the author himself! Yes! People tend to misinterpret sometimes! And, when we have an idea or an opinion about someone, we tend to judge all that the person does or says according to that opinion (just like the 'halo effect' in psychology). It reminds me also of how everyone thought thad Jer and I had broken up when I had written a sad poem, which was actually not about our relationship at all. But sometimes, the mind is set on something, and we cannot detach ourselves from it. So, I greatly agree with you, FifthElement, and I agree even more with this sentence of yours: How many of your favourite poets could have been mysogynistic wife beaters in their private lives?
Your last paragraph considers a very interesting point as well.
I edit the message to add one thing: when I wrote my poem called 'Poets must be silenced', that did NOT mean that I was in favor of censorship!
PrinceMyshkin
10-19-2007, 07:29 AM
This begs the question whether you're judging the poet on his work, or on how you perceive his personality to be.I was addressing his persona (though it is implicit in his work that he is attempting to present at all times, the "real" Bukowski, without adornment Is the bukowski we see the real bukowski, or a persona? Are you always the 'I' in your poems? Had he dressed up the 'sexist' 'dirty old man' with fancy words and tricksy poetic devices would you judge him in the same way? How many of your favourite poets could have been mysogynistic wife beaters in their private lives?I would have one set of judgment on their life, insofar as I knew it, and another on the work.
Like him or not, it's poets like bukowski, who push the boundaries of what is considered to be poetry, that enable poetry to move on and be more than just stilted meter, oppressive form and rhyme.Poetry can indeed be poetry without the imposition of this or that form. My objection is that Bukowski just spews things out, a continuous stream of consciousness, which might be all right with me if the consciousness were other than banal. Without poets willing to change what is considered the 'norm' most of us here wouldn't be writing at all, and how many of us is likely to achieve the level of success that bukowski did?What does the level of his success have to do with anything? That is the market approach to excellence... One of my personal ideals for poetry and literature in general is that it stand outside of and generally in opposition to the market, whether of politics, religion or aesthetics.
Virgil
10-19-2007, 07:51 AM
This begs the question whether you're judging the poet on his work, or on how you perceive his personality to be. Is the bukowski we see the real bukowski, or a persona?
About Bukowski's poems that Virgil has quoted, I was actually wondering: everyone seems to think that he is sexist in those poems, or that he just uses stupid cliches, but I was thinking that maybe, through his poetry, he's just mocking those cliches, maybe he used them on purpose, and his poems are ironic. I don't know about that, but that was a possibility.
I have no idea what the real Bukowski was like. I have never read anything biographical about him. I don't know if it matters that much. I'm not even judging him on his ideas, when he has them. I am considering him solely on his use of language as poetry. I'm not offended by his use of profanity or even his sexism. Hey, I'm a fan of D.H. Lawrence, who in his day was also known for his frankness of sexuality, language, and certainly sexism. I just don't feel that Bukowski's poetry is rich. It's mostly relies on shock value, and that is not poetry. That's sensationalism. Once you get beyond the shock, I find his language is mostly cliche.
Sweets America
10-19-2007, 08:19 AM
I have no idea what the real Bukowski was like. I have never read anything biographical about him. I don't know if it matters that much. I'm not even judging him on his ideas, when he has them. I am considering him solely on his use of language as poetry. I'm not offended by his use of profanity or even his sexism. Hey, I'm a fan of D.H. Lawrence, who in his day was also known for his frankness of sexuality, language, and certainly sexism. I just don't feel that Bukowski's poetry is rich. It's mostly relies on shock value, and that is not poetry. That's sensationalism. Once you get beyond the shock, I find his language is mostly cliche.
I agree with that. I mean, I think your way of considering things is good, according to my own vision of things, that is.
I'm for B and here's just one reason why:
The Blackbirds are Rough Today
lonely as a dry and used orchard
spread over the earth
for use and surrender.
shot down like an ex-pug selling
dailies on the corner.
taken by tears like
an aging chorus girl
who has gotten her last check.
a hanky is in order your lord your
worship.
the blackbirds are rough today
like
ingrown toenails
in an overnight
jail---
wine wine whine,
the blackbirds run around and
fly around
harping about
Spanish melodies and bones.
and everywhere is
nowhere---
the dream is as bad as
flapjacks and flat tires:
why do we go on
with our minds and
pockets full of
dust
like a bad boy just out of
school---
you tell
me,
you who were a hero in some
revolution
you who teach children
you who drink with calmness
you who own large homes
and walk in gardens
you who have killed a man and own a
beautiful wife
you tell me
why I am on fire like old dry
garbage.
we might surely have some interesting
correspondence.
it will keep the mailman busy.
and the butterflies and ants and bridges and
cemeteries
the rocket-makers and dogs and garage mechanics
will still go on a
while
until we run out of stamps
and/or
ideas.
don't be ashamed of
anything; I guess God meant it all
like
locks on
doors.
'On fire like old garbage.'
I've noticed PrinceMyshkin seems to have a sort of moral issue with folks being depressed. P, you once called firefangled, 'that most audacious of things, a happy man' and elsewhere, as here, you deride people, in a general way, naming no names (except Bukowski), for being sourpusses or, as here, just 'depressed'.
I can just about see your point. It might be said to take a certain guts to maintain a sunny disposition. It might also be said, however, that this is a bit of distinctly nineteen fifties, post war, post depression (there's that word again) morality left over from your youth - exactly the kind of mentality to which Bukowski, the beats and the movements of the sixties were, in their different ways, a critical reaction. Critical - another good word. I've worked in ad agencies and if there's one thing they don't like there it's criticality or negativity. The Nazis, to err a little awry of Godwin's Law, didn't much like those things either. 'We accomplished the task without losing our sense of humour' said Eichman, reporting on the extermination of the Jews. Sorry, I know you're far from being a Nazi, I just think that quote says so much about the potential tyranny of the sunny disposition. Isn't the real courage (and often acute difficulty) in just being honest, whether it's about depression, joy or confusion? Because no matter which of those things you feel, there's always going to be someone who doesn't want to hear about it.
PrinceMyshkin
10-19-2007, 10:09 AM
Good God, BLP, what was THAT all about? I have NOTHING against people being depressed! Some of my best friends... and I, myself....! It's making a flag out of it (or of practically any other persona) that bugs me, offering it as if it were a far more 'honest' way to be than any other disposition. Life is sh!t! may be an honest evaluation of 'reality' or of one's perception of reality, but there really must be more (or more interesting) ways to say that than are offered by Bukowski.
Well, I was just going on stuff you'd said.
More to say about Bukowski, as it relates to this debate in particular, but I've run out of time. Back in a while.
Horsehead
10-19-2007, 10:56 AM
10/19/07
In order to be contraversial,
Against all order and verse,
Destroy all wretched harmony,
And kick it with a curse!
For getting fame, there is no frame,
For thought to be immersed,
The hand more clever finds it's frame,
Within the lady's purse!
But such a hand is hidden,
We should never bear it witness,
What beauty's in this exercise,
That's fit for burglar business?
To push the poet's bound's,
Which above should be a cell,
Advise the snail poet,
Leave behind impressive shells,
For we have seen how slugs progress,
Much better than the snail,
Likewise poets walk undressed,
But never go to jail!
The vicor says the poets,
Have all turned the poetic proffesion,
To a discourse properly,
Mistooken as confession,
The boundry's now a shaded box,
Where poetry may shout,
The vicor hears the murder,
But he will not hear it out!
Never reccomend,
A lick of verse to the confessor,
He'll say the likes of verse,
To be a wicked poet oppressor!
But advice is never taken,
Without out manner of device,
A monkey on this poet's back,
Would rid him of his lice!
You'll never see such monkeys,
Be by other monkeys ridden,
Unless you find the barrel,
Where those monkeys have been hidden!
And if you roll the barrel,
You might quickly undermine,
This cursed facade against all verse,
And make them curse in rhyme!
Rhyme is not the poet's bane,
It has been persecuted,
Though not the chain, they'd have it chained,
To have it ill reputed!
Horsehead
10-19-2007, 11:19 AM
10/19/07
In order to be contraversial,
And 'gainst all order and verse,
Destroy all wretched harmony,
And kick it with a curse!
For getting fame, there is no frame,
For thought to be immersed,
The hand more clever finds it's frame,
Within the lady's purse!
But such a hand is hidden,
We should never bear it witness,
What beauty's in this exercise,
That's fit for burglar business?
To push the poet's bound's,
Which above should be a cell,
Advise the snail poet,
That he leave behind his shell,
For we have seen how slugs progress,
Much better than the snail,
Likewise poets walk undressed,
But never go to jail!
The vicor says the poets,
Have all turned the poetic proffesion,
To a discourse properly,
Mistooken as confession,
The boundry's now a shaded box,
Where poetry may shout,
The vicor hears the murder,
But he will not hear it out!
Never reccomend,
A lick of verse to the confessor,
He'll say the likes of verse,
To be a wicked poet oppressor!
But advice is never taken,
Without out manner of device,
A monkey on this poet's back,
Would rid him of his lice!
You'll never see such monkeys,
Be by other monkeys ridden,
Unless you find the barrel,
Where those monkeys have been hidden!
And if you roll the barrel,
You will quickly undermine,
This firm facade against all verse,
And they will curse in rhyme!
Rhyme is not the poet's bane,
It has been persecuted,
Though not the chain, they'd have it chained,
To leave it ill reputed,
Just as the game of chess that's played,
Is valued for its rules,
That we in fun abide by them;
Will you mistake us fools?
Sweets America
10-19-2007, 12:26 PM
I'm for B and here's just one reason why:
The Blackbirds are Rough Today
lonely as a dry and used orchard
spread over the earth
for use and surrender.
shot down like an ex-pug selling
dailies on the corner.
taken by tears like
an aging chorus girl
who has gotten her last check.
a hanky is in order your lord your
worship.
the blackbirds are rough today
like
ingrown toenails
in an overnight
jail---
wine wine whine,
the blackbirds run around and
fly around
harping about
Spanish melodies and bones.
and everywhere is
nowhere---
the dream is as bad as
flapjacks and flat tires:
why do we go on
with our minds and
pockets full of
dust
like a bad boy just out of
school---
you tell
me,
you who were a hero in some
revolution
you who teach children
you who drink with calmness
you who own large homes
and walk in gardens
you who have killed a man and own a
beautiful wife
you tell me
why I am on fire like old dry
garbage.
we might surely have some interesting
correspondence.
it will keep the mailman busy.
and the butterflies and ants and bridges and
cemeteries
the rocket-makers and dogs and garage mechanics
will still go on a
while
until we run out of stamps
and/or
ideas.
don't be ashamed of
anything; I guess God meant it all
like
locks on
doors.
What a wonderful poem!!!!! I absolutely love it! It is quite different from the other ones by Bukowski that have been quoted here! I love this one very much!!! WOW!!!!! It's just wonderful, to me, and I loved the ending.
Anyway, is Bukowski a depressive, let alone one who waves his depression like a flag? I don't see it. There's a real joy in pleasure in language there, a lot imagination and playfulness, a lot of wit, a lot of irony. And the attempts to imitate him on the forum here, whether by people like 5th and I who admire him or P who doesn't, miss that and show that his appearance of flat, uninflected simplicity is a trick.
But he was often hacked off and, as he puts it, nearly crazy. It's there in his work. All this talk of judging the work not the man seems to me to be missing the point by a couple of inches, which is that Bukowski gives us, in various permutations, endlessly repeated portraits of roughly the same kind of man and it seems almost certain that this is him or someone very like him: a drifter and a drinker holding down meaningless, mostly manual jobs, living in cheap hotels, apartments and trailer parks, able to hold his own in a fight, battered and shabby and frequently callous with women.
Like any detailed description of a person, especially one aggregated from lots of little ones, some more fictitous than others, it's obviously not completely consistent, but then that's part of the point. In life or in art, if you think you really know a person, you're probably wrong. Not that Bukowski was engaged directly in some long-term meditation on the ambiguity of identity, but it's almost impossible to separate the work from the way he actually lived and that carries a lot of ambiguity a long with it inherently.
Dirty old man...period? (pace Barbara) It's what he called himself first, titling his first published work Notes of a Dirty Old Man, yet apparently, the phrase is enough for you to dismiss him. This willed lacuna is a huge target of the work I think. This depiction of derelicts is a making visible of something the celebrants of contemporary culture find hard enough to deal with that they usually ignore it. In that sense it's a critique, sometimes implicitly, sometimes absolutely explicitly, and it's one that suffers no fools gladly, whether among traditional authority figures or the denizens of the tasteful middle classes who might see themselves as radical and even anti-authoritarian. Think you know these dirty old men enough to dismiss them? You don't - and if you ever allowed yourself any contact with them, you might well be outsmarted. On the other hand, if you think you're tolerant and open-minded, here's a lifestyle you might not quite be able to take on board.
Oh, hey, glad you liked that one, Sweets.
TheFifthElement
10-19-2007, 01:58 PM
Phew, see what you miss when you're at work! Looks like there's a phew points to respond to here, as follows:
What does the level of his success have to do with anything? That is the market approach to excellence... One of my personal ideals for poetry and literature in general is that it stand outside of and generally in opposition to the market, whether of politics, religion or aesthetics.
True, success does not make poetry 'good', but it does indicate that in some form it must be communicating. I'm confused by your comment about 'the market approach to excellence..', are you implying that if something is liked by the masses it must intrisically lose value or 'excellence'. By your definition, poetry would be confined to some sort of elite intelligentsia, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea that for poetry to be 'good' it has to be inaccessible to most.
I was addressing his persona (though it is implicit in his work that he is attempting to present at all times, the "real" Bukowski, without adornment
My comments here were more aimed at Barbara's post wherein she stated that she hated bukowski because he was sexist and a dirty old man. That seemed to me to be a criticism based on the perception of the man, and not based on his poetry. I may be wrong, but then Barbara may be wrong about bukowski ;)
Poetry can indeed be poetry without the imposition of this or that form. My objection is that Bukowski just spews things out, a continuous stream of consciousness, which might be all right with me if the consciousness were other than banal.
Banal to you, perhaps, but I think bukowski gave a voice to those who don't see life as sunsets and rainbows, joy and beauty. In fact if you're down and out I should imagine that all those poems about such things are pretty much throwing your down and out status in your face. I also think that he made streaming consciousness look easier than it is, as I found when I had a go at emulating his work.
I am considering him solely on his use of language as poetry. I'm not offended by his use of profanity or even his sexism... I just don't feel that Bukowski's poetry is rich. It's mostly relies on shock value, and that is not poetry. That's sensationalism. Once you get beyond the shock, I find his language is mostly cliche.
Virgil, I have no issue with anyone not liking B's poetry. It's not for everyone. What I was more concerned about was the suggestion that it doesn't have its place, or that it's not poetry. Considering the subject matter I think that what he was saying would have been devalued if he had used 'rich' language. How can you portray the 'down and out' when using the language of the 'privileged' and highly educated? I think, in this respect, he got it exactly, exactly right.
blp - thanks for joining the debate. I think your appreciation of B is more in depth than mine. I found your comments really interesting.
PrinceMyshkin
10-19-2007, 02:41 PM
True, success does not make poetry 'good', but it does indicate that in some form it must be communicating. I'm confused by your comment about 'the market approach to excellence..', are you implying that if something is liked by the masses it must intrisically lose value or 'excellence'. By your definition, poetry would be confined to some sort of elite intelligentsia, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea that for poetry to be 'good' it has to be inaccessible to most.No, my point was that popularity per se is no proof of quality - and of course neither is the lack of it proof of no merit.
My comments here were more aimed at Barbara's post wherein she stated that she hated bukowski because he was sexist and a dirty old man. That seemed to me to be a criticism based on the perception of the man, and not based on his poetry. I may be wrong, but then Barbara may be wrong about bukowski ;)Without speaking for Barbara, I'd say that my objection would be based on his presenting sexism, drunkenness, cynicism, as if these were a more real or more valid representation of reality than any other. That in its way is as false as a persona that is the paradigm of Judaeo-Christian virtue and idealism.
Banal to you, perhaps, but I think bukowski gave a voice to those who don't see life as sunsets and rainbows, joy and beauty. In fact if you're down and out I should imagine that all those poems about such things are pretty much throwing your down and out status in your face. I also think that he made streaming consciousness look easier than it is, as I found when I had a go at emulating his work.
Can we leave it then that Bukowski speaks to and for you in some way and is on the whole abhorrent to me - possibly because of needs each of us respectively has?
Virgil
10-19-2007, 02:53 PM
Virgil, I have no issue with anyone not liking B's poetry. It's not for everyone. What I was more concerned about was the suggestion that it doesn't have its place, or that it's not poetry.
I didn't say it didn't have its place. No, I don't think most of his stuff is particularly good poetry. I do think the poem "The Blackbirds are Rough Today" is a good poem. I haven't seen any Bukowski poems of this quality before. And I have read quite a few. Compare this "Blackbird" poem with the one's I posted and tell me there is no difference in quality.
Considering the subject matter I think that what he was saying would have been devalued if he had used 'rich' language. How can you portray the 'down and out' when using the language of the 'privileged' and highly educated? I think, in this respect, he got it exactly, exactly right.
What? Who says the language has to be privilidged and educuated? In the poems I posted there is no metaphor, no simile, no extension of diction except through cliche and shock. If you feel that's poetry then I can't help you. Here is a fine poem by William Carlos Williams on the underprividged and uneducated:
To Elsie
by William Carlos Williams
The pure products of America
go crazy—
mountain folk from Kentucky
or the ribbed north end of
Jersey
with its isolate lakes and
valleys, its deaf-mutes, thieves
old names
and promiscuity between
devil-may-care men who have taken
to railroading
out of sheer lust of adventure—
and young slatterns, bathed
in filth
from Monday to Saturday
to be tricked out that night
with gauds
from imaginations which have no
peasant traditions to give them
character
but flutter and flaunt
sheer rags-succumbing without
emotion
save numbed terror
under some hedge of choke-cherry
or viburnum-
which they cannot express—
Unless it be that marriage
perhaps
with a dash of Indian blood
will throw up a girl so desolate
so hemmed round
with disease or murder
that she'll be rescued by an
agent—
reared by the state and
sent out at fifteen to work in
some hard-pressed
house in the suburbs—
some doctor's family, some Elsie—
voluptuous water
expressing with broken
brain the truth about us—
her great
ungainly hips and flopping breasts
addressed to cheap
jewelry
and rich young men with fine eyes
as if the earth under our feet
were
an excrement of some sky
and we degraded prisoners
destined
to hunger until we eat filth
while the imagination strains
after deer
going by fields of goldenrod in
the stifling heat of September
Somehow
it seems to destroy us
It is only in isolate flecks that
something
is given off
No one
to witness
and adjust, no one to drive the car
If you consider that the same as the Bukowski poems, then I'm afraid you don't have an ear for it.
jon1jt
10-19-2007, 02:54 PM
to add to blp's point about the difficulty of separating bukowski the man from bukowski the dirty old man, what oftentimes goes missed in his work is a heartwrenching vulnerability, the celebration for life in the thick madness of his own existence.
let us not forget that bukowski had awful boils on his face in high school which left bad scars thru his adult life. if we are to take as true his account of the relationship with his condescending, abusive father, his work reveals a vulnerability, a desire to come up from under the dirty man mask. and yet he knows this was impossible. the dirty old man wins out because - like blp said, "celebrants of contemporary culture find hard enough to deal with that they usually ignore it..."
His Women novel acknowledges this conflict of the self between the explicit and implicit. and his Bluebird poem, in my opinion, is Bukowski's boldest attempt at an admission of this. enjoy-
Bluebird
there's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I'm too tough for him,
I say, stay in there, I'm not going
to let anybody see
you.
there's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I pour whiskey on him and inhale
cigarette smoke
and the whores and the bartenders
and the grocery clerks
never know that
he's
in there.
there's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I'm too tough for him,
I say,
stay down, do you want to mess
me up?
you want to screw up the
works?
you want to blow my book sales in
Europe?
there's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I'm too clever, I only let him out
at night sometimes
when everybody's asleep.
I say, I know that you're there,
so don't be
sad.
then I put him back,
but he's singing a little
in there, I haven't quite let him
die
and we sleep together like
that
with our
secret pact
and it's nice enough to
make a man
weep, but I don't
weep, do
you?
TheFifthElement
10-19-2007, 02:57 PM
No, my point was that popularity per se is no proof of quality - and of course neither is the lack of it proof of no merit.
I see, thank you for clearing that comment up.
Without speaking for Barbara, I'd say that my objection would be based on his presenting sexism, drunkenness, cynicism, as if these were a more real or more valid representation of reality than any other. That in its way is as false as a persona that is the paradigm of Judaeo-Christian virtue and idealism.
I'm not sure he presents them as more real, but perhaps as real. That is certainly my take on the poetry, that it is a portrayal of one aspect of society that, perhaps, up to that point had no voice, or certainly no voice in this medium.
Can we leave it then that Bukowski speaks to and for you in some way and is on the whole abhorrent to me - possibly because of needs each of us respectively has?
Yes! I think I said from the outset that with bukowski's work you either love it or hate it, there is no middle ground, and I can completely understand why people don't like it. That being said, it doesn't mean that it has no value or that it's not 'good'. There's a whole load of difference between those things. I'm not even sure what 'good' is. But I suppose that is true of all poetry (and a lot else!) :D
TheFifthElement
10-19-2007, 03:09 PM
If you consider that the same as the Bukowski poems, then I'm afraid you don't have an ear for it.
I don't consider it the same, just that each has its place, its champions and its detractors, its audience and those who wouldn't give it a second look. The poem by WCW is beautiful, well written and full of language which many, many people would have to look up in a dictionary, if they could even be bothered. Of course there's a difference. I just know an awful lot of people that would be able to handle bukowski, but that wouldn't be able to touch WCW.
I suppose a similiar situation arises in music. There's a wealth of difference between classical music and rap, but both are music. Or are they?...
What? Who says the language has to be privilidged and educuated? In the poems I posted there is no metaphor, no simile, no extension of diction except through cliche and shock. If you feel that's poetry then I can't help you. Here is a fine poem by William Carlos Williams on the underprividged and uneducated:
and perhaps there is your distinction. The poem by WCW is on the underprivileged, not for the underprivileged.
I may need help, Virgil, but not with poetry ;) (but perhaps with my debating skills - I hope I haven't offended you with any of my comments Virgil, there is none intended, I have great respect for your views. Same comment to Prince Myshkin - again no offence intended - you presented an 'extreme' view of B's work, which I wanted to understand)
Janine
10-19-2007, 03:58 PM
Who is this Bukowski? I never heard of the guy. I can't say, from the little I have read here, that I have missed much. Is he famous and if so is he still alive and writing? Like I said, I never heard of him before.
PrinceMyshkin
10-19-2007, 04:03 PM
Who is this Bukowski? I never heard of the guy. I can't say, from the little I have read here, that I have missed much. Is he famous and if so is he still alive and writing? Like I said, I never heard of him before.
There are several instances of him reading his stuff on Youtube. Both his poetry & his colorful life are wirth knowing about if for no other resaon than as a cultural phenomenon. Wasn't there a movie - "Barfly" - made about him?
littlewing53
10-19-2007, 04:07 PM
hey fifth...i was first introduced to bukowski back in the 70s...when i first read his books...he seems so..so..crude..i tossed the book thinking i was not going to read that again...a few weeks later had some time on my hands and picked up the book again..everybody, and i mean everybody was raving abt this guy...i started reading it again, taking more time...i found this one poem...this one poem...i laughed so hard...the audacity of the words....it's not one i can share here though....he is probably not one for everyone...
Janine
10-19-2007, 04:50 PM
He sounds too crude for me! I don't really like that sort of humor, but it does seem popular in our culture right now, which I think is sad. If you did not like him, on first reading him, littlewing, why did you pursue him, only after others were raving so about him? Is the crowd necessarily correct? I think some of the best talents and the best authors have been shamefully overlooked by the crowd and the world in general. Is popularity a litmus test for quality? I seriously doubt it. I probaby would not waste my time trying to like an author, I read and did not care for, on first reading. There is so much good material out there and much greater talent. Seems a waste of ones time to read this author.
barbara0207
10-19-2007, 05:34 PM
This begs the question whether you're judging the poet on his work, or on how you perceive his personality to be. Is the bukowski we see the real bukowski, or a persona? Are you always the 'I' in your poems? Had he dressed up the 'sexist' 'dirty old man' with fancy words and tricksy poetic devices would you judge him in the same way? How many of your favourite poets could have been mysogynistic wife beaters in their private lives?
Like him or not, it's poets like bukowski, who push the boundaries of what is considered to be poetry, that enable poetry to move on and be more than just stilted meter, oppressive form and rhyme. Without poets willing to change what is considered the 'norm' most of us here wouldn't be writing at all, and how many of us is likely to achieve the level of success that bukowski did?
Seems I'm a bit late answering your post, Fifth. Most things have by now been said by others posters. So just a few words:
1. I do not know how many of my favourite poets are "mysogynistic wife-beaters". I don't read too many biographies, so it'll have to show in their works. If it does, they're no longer my favourite poets. I encountered Bukowski's poetry as a young feminist back in the seventies. At the same time I read about the way he acted and saw photos. I got the impression that the speaker in his poems and his person were not too far apart. My friends and I swore never to read his works again.
2. Maybe I misunderstand you, but Bukowski and the Beat Generation were by far not the first to go against "stilted meter, oppressive form and rhyme". That had been done from the beginning of the 20th century when poets and artists were looking for ways of expressing themselves by liberating poetry and art from the bondages of form. Before that people by no means felt that meter and rhyme were oppressive. It was a kind of intellectual game to be able to compress a certain content so that it fit into a certain form perfectly. Even today we enjoy Shakespeare and Wordsworth's poetry. But maybe you only like modern poetry.
Horsehead
10-19-2007, 05:42 PM
10/19/07
In order to be contraversial,
And 'gainst all order and verse,
Destroy all wretched harmony,
And kick it with a curse!
For getting fame, there is no frame,
For thought to be immersed,
The hand more clever finds it's frame,
Within the lady's purse!
But such a hand is hidden,
We should never bear it witness,
What beauty's in this exercise,
That's fit for burglar business?
To push the poet's bound's,
Which above should be a cell,
Advise the snail poet,
That he leave behind his shell,
For we have seen how slugs progress,
Much better than the snail,
Likewise poets walk undressed,
But never go to jail!
The vicor says the poets,
Have all turned the poetic proffesion,
To a discourse properly,
Mistooken as confession,
The boundry's now a shaded box,
Where poetry may shout,
The vicor hears the murder,
But he will not hear it out!
Never reccomend,
A lick of verse to the confessor,
He'll say the likes of verse,
To be a wicked poet oppressor!
But advice is never taken,
Without out manner of device,
A monkey on this poet's back,
Would rid him of his lice!
You'll never see such monkeys,
Be by other monkeys ridden,
Unless you find the barrel,
Where those monkeys have been hidden!
And if you roll the barrel,
You will quickly undermine,
This firm facade against all verse,
And they will curse in rhyme!
Rhyme is not the poet's bane,
It has been persecuted,
Though not the chain, they'd have it chained,
To leave it ill reputed,
Just as the game of chess that's played,
Is valued for its rules,
That we in fun abide by them;
Will you mistake us fools?
Is it good to reply with my own poetics, as I have? I made this poem just for the thread to defend verse, because someone said that Bukowski was pushing boundaries by leaving off from strict form, but boundaries can be pushed by verse as well. Verse itself does not oppress.
...I've got nothing against Bukowski, but indeed, how could anyone have anything at all against verse itself? Who could be verses verse?
...and though I've got nothing against Bukowski, I think my poem is a little better, right?
Virgil
10-19-2007, 07:40 PM
Is the crowd necessarily correct? I think some of the best talents and the best authors have been shamefully overlooked by the crowd and the world in general. Is popularity a litmus test for quality? I seriously doubt it.
Quite right Janine. Good point.
TheFifthElement
10-19-2007, 08:21 PM
Hi barbara - thanks for joining the debate :)
Seems I'm a bit late answering your post, Fifth. Most things have by now been said by others posters. So just a few words:
1. I do not know how many of my favourite poets are "mysogynistic wife-beaters". I don't read too many biographies, so it'll have to show in their works. If it does, they're no longer my favourite poets. I encountered Bukowski's poetry as a young feminist back in the seventies. At the same time I read about the way he acted and saw photos. I got the impression that the speaker in his poems and his person were not too far apart. My friends and I swore never to read his works again.
I can, as I have said (repeatedly) completely understand why you might not like B's work, I suppose what I was trying to explain is that the impression I received from your post is that you railed against his 'persona' rather than the work itself. Perhaps I'm tainted by experience in this respect, but some of the nastiest, most depraved people I've know have hidden behind a veil of respectability and charm. I think blp put it quite succinctly with this comment :
In life or in art, if you think you really know a person, you're probably wrong.
I guess I just don't like the idea of people being judged by what we think they are. If people disagree with that then so be it.
2. Maybe I misunderstand you, but Bukowski and the Beat Generation were by far not the first to go against "stilted meter, oppressive form and rhyme". That had been done from the beginning of the 20th century when poets and artists were looking for ways of expressing themselves by liberating poetry and art from the bondages of form. Before that people by no means felt that meter and rhyme were oppressive. It was a kind of intellectual game to be able to compress a certain content so that it fit into a certain form perfectly. Even today we enjoy Shakespeare and Wordsworth's poetry. But maybe you only like modern poetry.
I entirely agree with you barbara, I am not crediting bukowski with changing the basis of poetry, but rather poets like bukowski. Whether he has had an effect or not, I think we will not be able to judge for another 40-50 years. I recently read a book on the 'Imagist' movement and, interestingly, whilst their poetry was not considered particularly 'good' at the time (by all accounts) it had an immeasurable effect on poetry going forward.
Whether people found meter and form oppressive historically is difficult to judge. How many great poets have we missed because they didn't conform to the standards of the time? This is impossible to know. Is there any point being the greatest poet in the world, if no one ever reads your poems? These are things about which I can only wonder, and speculate.
hey fifth...i was first introduced to bukowski back in the 70s...when i first read his books...he seems so..so..crude..i tossed the book thinking i was not going to read that again...a few weeks later had some time on my hands and picked up the book again..everybody, and i mean everybody was raving abt this guy...i started reading it again, taking more time...i found this one poem...this one poem...i laughed so hard...the audacity of the words....it's not one i can share here though....he is probably not one for everyone...
Hi LW - perhaps you could pm me the poem in question?
It's interesting, your story, it reminded me of when I was 12 or so, and I used to help out in the school library. There was a book I swore I'd never read, because the cover disturbed me. It had a line drawing on it of a pigs face with drops of blood running down it. When I was 15 I bit the bullet and read it. It was Lord of the Flies. I kicked myself afterwards for having denied myself something for 3 years on the basis of my flawed perception.
Glad to see I'm not here in the 'stupid' corner on my own, for liking a poet that isn't a poet, apparently.
Virgil
10-19-2007, 09:35 PM
I don't consider it the same, just that each has its place, its champions and its detractors, its audience and those who wouldn't give it a second look. The poem by WCW is beautiful, well written and full of language which many, many people would have to look up in a dictionary, if they could even be bothered. Of course there's a difference. I just know an awful lot of people that would be able to handle bukowski, but that wouldn't be able to touch WCW.
So is the simplicity of the language what you're responding to? Well, simplicity is not a discriminator one way or the other. There have been lots of great poets who use the most simple of language. It seems to go in cycles. The most famous is William Wordsworth who in a statement "Preface to Lyrical Ballads" and the poetic collection Lyrical Ballads strove for poetic language of the common man. He says this in the "Preface":
"The majority of the following poems are to be considered as experiments. They were written chiefly with a view to ascertain how far the language of conversation in the middle and lower classes of society is adapted to the purpose of poetic pleasure." Check it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyrical_Ballads. And read the original if you get the chance. It seems that poetic diction evolves to complicated until it takes someone to bring it back to earth. But that is not what I object in Bukowski. Today poetry has evolved to not just elevated diction but such complex allusiveness that the poems have become inpenetrable at times. I remember making your very argument against inscrutable, obscure poetry in college over 20 something years ago. Haha, my times have changed. I personally think the reason for that is that poets are competing and trying to distiguish themselves against all the pop art (movies, dime novels, TV, rock music) that is so much more prevelant today. But many peots before have limited themselves to common diction: Wordsworth, Blake, Emily Dickenson. Even Yeats tackles both extremes. Here, one of my all time favorites:
I heard a Fly buzz -- when I died
by Emily Dickinson
I heard a Fly buzz -- when I died --
The Stillness in the Room
Was like the Stillness in the Air --
Between the Heaves of Storm --
The Eyes around -- had wrung them dry --
And Breaths were gathering firm
For that last Onset -- when the King
Be witnessed -- in the Room --
I willed my Keepsakes -- Signed away
What portion of me be
Assignable -- and then it was
There interposed a Fly --
With Blue -- uncertain stumbling Buzz --
Between the light -- and me --
And then the Windows failed -- and then
I could not see to see --
and
She dwelt among the untrodden ways
by William Wordsworth
She dwelt among the untrodden ways
Beside the springs of Dove;
A maid whom there were none to praise,
And very few to love.
A violet by a mossy stone
Half-hidden from the eye!
—Fair as a star, when only one
Is shining in the sky.
She lived unknown, and few could know
When Lucy ceased to be;
But she is in her grave, and, O!
The difference to me!
and one more
Crazy Jane On God
by William Butler Yeats
That lover of a night
Came when he would,
Went in the dawning light
Whether I would or no;
Men come, men go;
All things remain in God.
Banners choke the sky;
Men-at-arms tread;
Armoured horses neigh
In the narrow pass:
All things remain in God.
Before their eyes a house
That from childhood stood
Uninhabited, ruinous,
Suddenly lit up
From door to top:
All things remain in God.
I had wild Jack for a lover;
Though like a road
That men pass over
My body makes no moan
But sings on:
All things remain in God.
and perhaps there is your distinction. The poem by WCW is on the underprivileged, not for the underprivileged.
Quite right. I realized it after I posted. But (1) read above. (2) Are you saying that people should write poetry on a fifth grade level? I don't think you mean that. Simple language, fine, but it still has to have poetry.
I may need help, Virgil, but not with poetry ;) (but perhaps with my debating skills - I hope I haven't offended you with any of my comments Virgil, there is none intended, I have great respect for your views. Same comment to Prince Myshkin - again no offence intended - you presented an 'extreme' view of B's work, which I wanted to understand)
No need to apologize. It is I who should apologize to you. I get testy in my old age. ;)
Horsehead
10-20-2007, 03:29 AM
Many of my own poems contain a playfully brusque treatment of the fair sex. This may be the most striking example!
The Protest
There was once a sorry figure,
Who's be solemn bare of cape,
He'd win his bread with magic,
And he'd afterwards escape,
And thru the soggy gutter,
He'd take trouble there to traypse,
In doing this his object,
Was a pitied abject shape,
He was indeed a crafty tramp,
And stepping very well,
When he came across a quarry town,
That seemed no less a hell,
The women were upon a hill,
Chained against the trees,
Chanting loud among themselves,
Some manner of decree,
The tramp could hardly fathom,
What demon harness had them,
That already having trapped them,
Had them singing such an anthem!
He couldn't pass such ladies,
Who so clearly were in hades,
But he couldn't near them ayther,
For his fear was they had rabies!
He tipped his hat with manners,
And with pain he made a turn,
And he ventured into town,
To ask the folks what he could learn,
He checked his magic pockets,
That were somehow over budget,
The barkeep didn't get the tip,
But never kept no grudges,
They saw the tramp was magic,
For he wore the strangest collar,
And they say he was a stranger,
To the honest gotten dollar,
For a dollar is mistaken,
If it's taken without work,
So no mistake is honest, when,
It changes short the clerk!
And when it came to changing short,
The tramp would claim it sport,
He'd never play it fair,
For only then he'd feel remorse,
A foreman sat beside him,
With his face stuck in a beer,
And though his face did meet the glass,
It wasn't cause of cheer,
His garments were a tattered lot,
And murdered by their smears,
His face were wrinkled like a knot,
Tied from ear to ear,
The foreman made a belch,
Which to words has been disbanded,
"We don't need no loyders here,
Whose tricks and underhanded!
Of things we need, son, you're the last,
And here I'm being candid,
You're quite a shifty beggar, lad,
What crimes have ye had hand in?"
(the magician)
"How contented a people you are, I swear,
If I'm the last thing needed,
By now your needs have all been met,
Don't wish I were deleted!"
(the foreman)
"We lack for many a thing besides,
And harbor many a woe,
We've need for much upon the list,
Before a magic show"
(the magician)
"Still, if I'm the last upon,
This list that you have mentioned,
That I've arrived ahead of time,
Should never make you pensive,"
(the foreman)
"Did you see the hill or not,
When you came into town?
Our axes can do nothing there,
To strike the timber down,
The women have protested us,
And they're of some reserve,
They'd even pass the winter there,
If they abided fur,"
(the magician)
"I saw the women, 'pon the hill,
They were of some reserve,
But I, who have no reservation,
Just might have the cure!"
The two slouched there in complot,
And they drained upon their beers,
Till the foreman saw the tramp's design,
And met their glasses near!
They stepped up to the sunny hill,
Smiling with design,
The women sneered at their approach,
Just thinking them benign,
They left off from their chanting,
And gave them such insult,
But neither of the gentlemen,
Saw reason they should halt,
Still the ladies discovered,
Every hovering fault,
And mocked upon the tramp's array,
To yield their tongue result,
They called the tramp a dandy,
For the shine upon his hat,
His cape was like a dress, they said,
But he said nothing back,
He set his case upon the grass,
And gave them such a pause,
He brandished in a wobbly arch,
His fine magician's saw!
Now if within a ledger,
There was ever, in this, conflict,
There was no lawyer present there,
To stop this magic trick!
The women were divided,
But they were not harmed a bit,
For ev'ry woman halved that day,
Was after made to fit!
---E. Streightoff
The sexism issue's still the elephant in the room. It bothered me occasionally when I first started reading Bukowski. There's a story in which a girl is raped by a vagrant and appears to enjoy it. He manages to make it wildly insulting to both men and women by suggesting that the reason she may have enjoyed it was that her own more sensitive middle class male companions weren't up to the job.
Barbara, that's about the worst example I could think of and I realise I risk putting you off completely with it. Still, I think there's more to it and it bothers me that you 'got the impression' there wasn't much difference between the man and the work and decided on that slim basis never to read him again. Still, it was the seventies, season of red mists and not-so-mellow dogmatism. I was only a little prepubescent lad myself at the time, but still managed to get myself scolded for my patriarchal attitudes and my objectification of women from time to time. Ah seventies feminism. Dat old time religion.
I said before that Bukowski, like a lot his generation of writers, represents a sort of critical response to the conservatism of the fifties. The trouble for him is that what came after, for all the good it did for classifiable minority groups (women and blacks) still leaves him and the other half crazy transients burning like old garbage in their flophouses and wanting to know why. Given this context, I think the horror of the story takes on a specific, quite enraged critical complexion. The girl who gets raped and her companions, are hippies, the emblem of a new generation that was supposed to have all the answers. We know pretty much for certain now that they didn't and can see fairly clearly that their smug sense of age of Aquarius destiny was a function of class privilege that Bukowski didn't enjoy. Given all of that, it seems bloody clear to me that the story is not an argument for rape, but a giant sneer that makes its point by stabbing at the heart of the pieties of the sixties generation. I wouldn't even see it as the beginning or prototype of the backlash that feminism eventually engendered – because, unlike the backlash, it is not an argument for a return to the old order. It's more like a reminder of ever-present disorder at the point where a new, already potentially oppressive order is being proposed. It's a bit like the story about Celine, a writer Bukowski hugely admired, being accused of Nazi sympathies in the paranoid atmosphere of France after WWII: 'How can they accuse me of being a Nazi sympathiser', he is reported to have screamed from his cell, 'I hate everybody.'
PrinceMyshkin
10-20-2007, 10:29 AM
May I say, Blp, that much as I cling to my belief that Bukowski is always playing Bukowski, I am deeply grateful for this thoughtful, articulate evaluation of what, to you, is valuable in him...
As for Celine, I confess to not having explored his work because of his reputation for anti-Semitism, but I find his 'defense' that he hated everybody contemptible intellectual facetiousness: ougtn't he to have hated the Nazis more than he did everybody else? Not as bad, no doubt, as those who did the actual butchery, but close enough are those who profess to be indifferent to it.
The idea that Bukowski is always playing Bukowski is interesting. It fits in with the fact that, of course, before he was a tramp or a transient, he was educated - well. Still, I can't see it as a criticism. It only adds to the interest of a figure who doesn't really fit anywhere.
I don't know much about Celine either and have, likewise, been put off by the reputation – even despite having known that quote for years. It was only as I was writing this here that it occurred to me to wonder how much of it was justified. Yes, no doubt, he should have hated the Nazis more. But that quote is a shout of rage that nevertheless succeeds in carrying a certain elegantly witty logic with it. Any nuance beyond that might just be asking too much – from the quote, not the man.
PrinceMyshkin
10-20-2007, 10:46 AM
The idea that Bukowski is always playing Bukowski is interesting. It fits in with the fact that, of course, before he was a tramp or a transient, he was educated - well. Still, I can't see it as a criticism. It only adds to the interest of a figure who doesn't really fit anywhere. It does indeed invite one to talk about the persona rather than the quality of the poems
I don't know much about Celine either and have, likewise, been put off by the reputation – even despite having known that quote for years. It was only as I was writing this here that it occurred to me to wonder how much of it was justified. Yes, no doubt, he should have hated the Nazis more. But that quote is a shout of rage that nevertheless succeeds in carrying a certain elegantly witty logic with it. Any nuance beyond that might just be asking too much – from the quote, not the man.
"[E]legantly witty logic" my Aunt Fanny. It is to me an example of how it requires a certain kind or level of intelligence to be really stupid - in this case, morally stupid.
Horsehead
10-20-2007, 11:38 AM
What many of his " 'proffessed' readers " fail to realize about Bukowski playing Bukowski is that he was type-cast, and I will say what I mean by this, because it is really quite interesting.
You see, Bukowski's persona was made much alterior to his actual self, and became so rippedly externalized by his readers and non-readers alike. Perhaps the greater part of his importance was imported by such a canal (or by analogy*!!!!!!!!!) that he became as what we should refer to in a coy regret as a type-cast misfit, which is not as rare a creature as we might think.
...And despite Bukowski's surly neglect upon verse, he was actually educated, and in no sense was he some rustic who would rue his fancy for the written word, but a formidable scribe, with a bit of a wit besides.
...Upon the subject of Bukowski's supposed hatreds, I think they were in a large portion contrived. You see, we might suspect that, just as the wordsmith contrives language into rubiant examples, the beatnik must contrive his persona with equal care, and he must sculpt himself into an adonis of surly sideglance and arrogant array. Then he has only to report upon himself through autobiographical discourse, and he will be as well of as a Rasputin nestled against a czarina's breast.
*of course, hindsight shows that it was those who did not read Bukowski that consigned him perhaps the greater portion of his prestige.
TheFifthElement
10-20-2007, 02:23 PM
So is the simplicity of the language what you're responding to?
You know, I've thought about this question, and I'm not sure if it is the simplicity itself, or the fact that it seems to be aimed towards, and to the benefit of, a portion of the population that poetry doesn't reach. Perhaps because it breaks the rules and says "forget what you've been told poetry is, this can be poetry too"...or something along those lines. On a personal level, I wonder if a large part of it is the thought. That in amongst all that apparent depravity and degredation (or rather the surface of this), there is something unexpected that looks kind of like hope.
It seems that poetic diction evolves to complicated until it takes someone to bring it back to earth. But that is not what I object in Bukowski. Today poetry has evolved to not just elevated diction but such complex allusiveness that the poems have become inpenetrable at times. I remember making your very argument against inscrutable, obscure poetry in college over 20 something years ago. Haha, my times have changed.
:lol: It seems we are singing, in part, from the same hymn sheet. I enjoy a lot of poetry, bukowski is one of them, at the other end of the pole is Stevens. But we all, I think, when starting out with poetry, read a lot, absorb a lot, and bukowski for me is a recent find. Whatever else can be said about his work, it is very different to what is considered to be 'great' poetry, by traditional standards.
But (1) read above. (2) Are you saying that people should write poetry on a fifth grade level? I don't think you mean that. Simple language, fine, but it still has to have poetry.
No not at all! I agree with you Virgil, that we should seek to write poetry to the very best level at which we are able, and then push the boundaries a bit further. I do wonder though, with bukowski, if he was very good at making what he did look easier than it is, and in his field and form I think he did achieve a form of excellence. Perhaps not in a traditional sense, but if nothing else he certainly appears to have excelled at causing contraversy ;) , and perhaps make some people think along the way (by the way, how old is fifth grade?!!).
No need to apologize. It is I who should apologize to you. I get testy in my old age. ;)
No worries Virgil, I'm glad you're not annoyed - I was getting a little worried :)
TheFifthElement
10-20-2007, 03:12 PM
The most famous is William Wordsworth who in a statement "Preface to Lyrical Ballads" and the poetic collection Lyrical Ballads strove for poetic language of the common man. He says this in the "Preface":
Check it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyrical_Ballads. And read the original if you get the chance.
Hey Virgil, interesting article, I will definitely look 'Lyrical Ballads' up.
Are you a fan of Wordsworth? I was going to make a glib comment about Wordsworth being one of the worst things that ever happened to the Lake District (Wordsworth and Beatrix Potter alike), ruining the lovely countryside with all those stomping tourists, but then I think the Lake District got it's own back with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D__Qx4Bsotg
This is no joke. This is an actual advertising campaign.
"[E]legantly witty logic" my Aunt Fanny. It is to me an example of how it requires a certain kind or level of intelligence to be really stupid - in this case, morally stupid.
Well, it's always made me laugh, but it wouldn't if he had to qualify it by explaining how much he hated particular groups of people. I really don't see how you can read so much into it. He's saying he's not a Nazi sympathiser and the proof is that he hates everyone. The wider point, which I think you can read into it, is 'and I also hate you lot precisely because you're so afraid of ambiguity that unless I absolutely spell out my allegiance to you, you're going to assume I'm against you and punish me for it. And I don't want to spell out my allegiance to you because I think you're all jerks in your own way too.'
To extrapolate a little, Nazism as acme of evil has been a pretty convenient way for everyone else to paint themselves as morally unimpeachable when, of course, they're not. Most, perhaps all of the major European powers were at one time or another involved in atrocities on a gigantic scale in Africa that were sanctioned by the same rotten logic as the Holocaust: racial superiority.
But whether that's Celine's point or not, I don't understand why his denial isn't enough for you. He's in jail and, as a defense, it's perfect: a total misanthrope who sympathises with someone would be an oxymoron. To go beyond that and denounce something everyone around him already reviles would seem not only superfluous, but less convincing since it's exactly what he's supposed to do.
As to the point about talking about the persona rather than the quality of the poems, well, yes, my point is that the persona is probably a large part of the work, but also, you can't separate that from the quality of the poems, which is to say, their qualities, less than their goodness or badness.
Virgil
10-20-2007, 10:37 PM
You know, I've thought about this question, and I'm not sure if it is the simplicity itself, or the fact that it seems to be aimed towards, and to the benefit of, a portion of the population that poetry doesn't reach. Perhaps because it breaks the rules and says "forget what you've been told poetry is, this can be poetry too"...or something along those lines. On a personal level, I wonder if a large part of it is the thought. That in amongst all that apparent depravity and degredation (or rather the surface of this), there is something unexpected that looks kind of like hope.
Perhaps then you're reacting to the aesthetics, which in this case is closely associated with the form. If I take a paragraph and shape through a form, does it make it poetry?
You know,
I've thought about this question, and
I'm not sure if it is the simplicity itself, or
the fact that it seems to be aimed towards, and
to the benefit
of, a portion
of the population
that
poetry
doesn't
reach.
Perhaps
because it breaks
the rules and says
"forget what you've been told poetry is, this can be poetry too"
...or something along those lines.
On a personal level,
I wonder
if a large part of it is the thought.
That in amongst all that apparent
depravity and degredation
(or rather the surface of this),
there is something unexpected
that looks kind
of
like
hope.
;)
:lol: It seems we are singing, in part, from the same hymn sheet. I enjoy a lot of poetry, bukowski is one of them, at the other end of the pole is Stevens. But we all, I think, when starting out with poetry, read a lot, absorb a lot, and bukowski for me is a recent find. Whatever else can be said about his work, it is very different to what is considered to be 'great' poetry, by traditional standards.
Have you read the other beat poets? Check out Alan Ginsberg and Lawrence Ferlinghetti. For me the beat poets are hit and miss, but they hit more often than Bukowski. :lol: Well, I agree that Bukowski is a character. There is certainly a sense of fun and defiance there.
No not at all! I agree with you Virgil, that we should seek to write poetry to the very best level at which we are able, and then push the boundaries a bit further.
Oh good. Because I was then going to recommend Dr. Seuas. :p
I do wonder though, with bukowski, if he was very good at making what he did look easier than it is, and in his field and form I think he did achieve a form of excellence. Perhaps not in a traditional sense, but if nothing else he certainly appears to have excelled at causing contraversy ;) , and perhaps make some people think along the way (by the way, how old is fifth grade?!!).
Hehe, fifth grade is eleven years old.
Virgil
10-20-2007, 10:43 PM
Hey Virgil, interesting article, I will definitely look 'Lyrical Ballads' up.
Are you a fan of Wordsworth? I was going to make a glib comment about Wordsworth being one of the worst things that ever happened to the Lake District (Wordsworth and Beatrix Potter alike), ruining the lovely countryside with all those stomping tourists, but then I think the Lake District got it's own back with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D__Qx4Bsotg
This is no joke. This is an actual advertising campaign.
That may not be a joke, but it's hilarious. Lovely country though. I like Wordsworth, depends on the poem. My favorite is "Tintern Abbey": http://www.online-literature.com/wordsworth/518/
Horsehead
10-21-2007, 01:34 PM
Well, it's always made me laugh, but it wouldn't if he had to qualify it by explaining how much he hated particular groups of people. I really don't see how you can read so much into it. He's saying he's not a Nazi sympathiser and the proof is that he hates everyone. The wider point, which I think you can read into it, is 'and I also hate you lot precisely because you're so afraid of ambiguity that unless I absolutely spell out my allegiance to you, you're going to assume I'm against you and punish me for it. And I don't want to spell out my allegiance to you because I think you're all jerks in your own way too.'
To extrapolate a little, Nazism as acme of evil has been a pretty convenient way for everyone else to paint themselves as morally unimpeachable when, of course, they're not. Most, perhaps all of the major European powers were at one time or another involved in atrocities on a gigantic scale in Africa that were sanctioned by the same rotten logic as the Holocaust: racial superiority.
But whether that's Celine's point or not, I don't understand why his denial isn't enough for you. He's in jail and, as a defense, it's perfect: a total misanthrope who sympathises with someone would be an oxymoron. To go beyond that and denounce something everyone around him already reviles would seem not only superfluous, but less convincing since it's exactly what he's supposed to do.
As to the point about talking about the persona rather than the quality of the poems, well, yes, my point is that the persona is probably a large part of the work, but also, you can't separate that from the quality of the poems, which is to say, their qualities, less than their goodness or badness.
That is one thing I noticed, blp, is that here we have seen the discussion treat almost completely of Bukowski's persona. But, as if to excuse us, you claim that his persona cannot be separate from his work, but that is not true, because his work has, of course, its merits proper to itself, even if Bukowski's reputation is not on every occation able to proceed his works. You may say, however, if you wish, that his persona may enhance his body of work, and provide context. But we can not be excused for how little we have spoken of his poetics. That we have seen here posted one or two examples of Bukowski's work is certainly fortunate, but that they have in themselves have not inspired much discussion suggests perhaps a lack of understanding towards those same poems, or a lack of merit within the poems; it being one or the other of those two, I'm afraid. But the willingness and ease with which we pay our attentions to the authors is what starves the arts as well as the artists. The greatest welder in the world would not be so much greater than other welders, we can assume, and perhaps there is really not so much difference from the most renowned artists to the highly competent among the obscures. And certainly, if the greatest welders in the world were identified, we would not do well to put the other welders out of work!
Horsehead
10-21-2007, 02:30 PM
The Bukowski Skeleton Key
by Horsehead 10/21/07
If a surgeon were to separate,
Persona from that achieved,
In the case of poor Bukowski,
Which would the patient be?
If persona lacked its laurels,
It would be so much berieved,
That he would call the doctor,
Wanting them to be retrieved,
But any operation,
On poetics or device,
Would be within the shadows black,
Of antics, fame and vice!
Bukowski is a legend,
His skeleton's the key,
His in and out is all in one,
Why do we bother we?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.