Charles Bukowski

[Veva]

Hi,
I just started reading Charles Bukowski's Ham on Rye, and I am wondering what you people think of his style, because I am quite puzzled.

[Phaedra's Love]

I haven't read Ham on Rye yet -- but I've read Post Office and I liked it (except for the anticlimactic ending). I really enjoyed the whole bad boy lowlife kind of style. Wry and nihilistic.

I've read much of his poetry and I love them too :)

I thought it was easy to digest, but I guess it's personal preferences.

[dfloyd]

or Dijon mustard!

[Desolation]

As I said yesterday on another forum, I tend to think of him as kind of a caricature of John Fante, Louis-Ferdinand Celine, and Henry Miller. But I think that I should give him another chance at some point.

[Onikeflava]

What's there to be confused about? Bukowski is the most honest writer of the 20th century.

"Anticlimactic ending???" What do you mean, Phaedra's Love? I'm not sure you understand the concept behind the prose if you are expecting a climax of any kind in a Bukowski book.

[LukeS.]

I think he's great. I've read Post Office, Factotum and Pulp and many of his poems. His work is gritty, sure, and depicts an unpleasant underbelly of American life. If you find his stuff disturbing, I wouldn't blame him so much as society. He's an important literary figure for showing us the things he does.

[Veva]

Well,
the way he is confusing for me is not in his plots or the ideas, it is just the way he puts them. Maybe what I find disturbing is the plain simplicity of his narrative, which in fact should be a good thing, but I still can't just get it in. :brickwall

[Lynne50]

Ok, Phaedra's Love, Luke S, and Onikeflava You guys are very new to the forum and wouldn't know this but, you have just opened a whole kettle of worms. There has been much discussion on Charles Bukowski's poetry here on Litnet. Most people love, love, love him or hate, hate, hate him. There doesn't seem to be a middle of the road. Wait till you get some of the other litnetters started. Personally, I like him very much. I find his poems very honest and insightful, but that may be too strong a word.
Any 'hater' out there want to begin this?

[husker du]

I read Post Office and felt that he was ill-equipped as a writer and was trying far too hard to be offensive or shocking. As someone who can do a pretty good job at being offensive and shocking when I want to be, I give him a D in that department.

But "the kids" seem to love him. I guess all it takes to be popular with the kids is to write about rape and heavy drinking.

[mono]

Ok, Phaedra's Love, Luke S, and Onikeflava You guys are very new to the forum and wouldn't know this but, you have just opened a whole kettle of worms. There has been much discussion on Charles Bukowski's poetry here on Litnet. Most people love, love, love him or hate, hate, hate him. There doesn't seem to be a middle of the road. Wait till you get some of the other litnetters started. Personally, I like him very much. I find his poems very honest and insightful, but that may be too strong a word.
Any 'hater' out there want to begin this?
You read my mind, Lynne, and I wanted to keep my mouth shut (or my keyboard untyped, rather), until I found someone else relating to me. I have only read one of his novels, Factotum, but immense amounts of his poetry, and, as odd as it sounds, since you cannot really call either of his types of literature prose-poetry (maybe his poetry, but it seems like a stretch), they read with quite a bit of similarity, their bluntness, their raw emotion, their Stoicism, and their subject matters of substance abuse, admissions of failures, shame, Hedonism, and the antihero complex.
Like you, I have also found that most people have a love-hate relationship with Bukowski, and some even love and hate him simultaneously hardly knowing him or his works; personally, I feel the same about a contemporary of his, Richard Brautigan. Indeed, he sounded like a very disagreeable fellow - an alcoholic, a womanizer, outspoken, imprisoned a few times, slumming around L.A. for most of his life, but his literature seemed the very autobiography of his life - the stories of precisely these attributes of his in a low-life antihero. Everything detested, deviant, and dark, he embraced, much like several writers before him suffered for the sake of art, and ended up much as a sociological and psychological wasteful by-product of exactly what his parents bred him as, and even more as what such a pitiful societal circumstance nurtured him to, driven by his apparent self-loathing; denying his literature as one of the truest expressions of literary art seems a lot like denying the existence of a trashy neighborhood in a beautiful town.

[husker du]

denying his literature as one of the truest expressions of literary art seems a lot like denying the existence of a trashy neighborhood in a beautiful town.

People can like him, but pretending like this is an accurate comparison is ridiculous. If Bukowski is one of the truest expressions of literary ART, then so are the scribblings on the back of every 10th grade boy's binder. It is base and nearly thoughtless.

I think much of his impact is due to novelty since people are used to things appearing in only their appropriate places, and Bukowski is relatively well-known and talks about trash and the less touched upon elements of modern society. It can and has been done about a billion times better.

Henry Miller, please.

[Hank Stamper]

ham on rye is his best work imo - his style might not win him much literary acclaim but i like him for the raw simplicity of his prose..

[Phaedra's Love]

"Anticlimactic ending???" What do you mean, Phaedra's Love? I'm not sure you understand the concept behind the prose if you are expecting a climax of any kind in a Bukowski book.

Sure, maybe I don't. Post Office is the first (and only) novel I've read by Bukowski, I'm not surprised that you feel I don't "understand the concept behind the prose".

I don't mean that I felt the plot to be anticlimactic. I'm guessing -- forgive me if I'm wrong -- that you think the point of his text was, in fact, to be repetitive, portraying a life that gets nowhere, without ever achieving any kind of accomplishment (and even if a minor one is achieved, it all falls back down again). I don't find anything wrong with that. It's not like I wanted him to suddenly sober up and become the head of Post Office.

I just thought the ending was too abrupt, too small to conclude such a book. Perhaps it was Bukowski's intent which I could not appreciate, just like how some people can't stand the brutal frankness of his voice despite it being fully intentional.


Lynne50, a kettle of worms hey? I too very much like his poetry. "Question and Answer" remains as one of my all-time favourites, and "A Smile to Remember" made me cry.

Hank Stamper, I hear that from everyone. I've got to read it sometime.

[paperleaves]

I absolutely LOVE Charles Bukowski's poetry. I have had many discussions with Bukowski haters, and I do also understand where they are coming from. There is a certain level of appreciation that one must have for raw, intense, uninhibited poetry-- a disturbing, dirty, even sickening curiosity for the places he describes. I hope you enjoy Bukowski as much as I :)

love,
paper

[stlukesguild]

Ackkk!! 13 responses to the "poetry" of Charles Bukowski... one of the absolute worst poets ever... and the thread on Mallarme goes ignored.:brickwall

[stlukesguild]

Bukowski is the most honest writer of the 20th century.


He should have lied more often... might have made for better reading.

[husker du]

There is a certain level of appreciation that one must have for raw, intense, uninhibited poetry-- a disturbing, dirty, even sickening curiosity for the places he describes.

This is the kind of stuff that brings my dislike for him to the level of hate. He is not doing anything special. Nothing he writes is any more shocking than the 11 o'clock news or a 60 Minutes piece. He doesn't even write in an interesting style so people might as well read news transcripts.

[paperleaves]

I'm sorry that my opinion has provoked you to despise my Chinaski! lol. It is quite interesting to see everyone's perspective, though. I honestly had no idea that so many people didn't care for Bukowski on this forum. Enjoy Ham on Rye ;)

[husker du]

Haha, I hope my post didn't come off as too harsh or as a personal reaction towards you. It's just that that type of stuff is the only defense I ever see of him! It drives me insane. In my experience, a large number of people who like Bukowski have never read anything but Bukowski.

[paperleaves]

I completely see where you are coming from--I started a Literary Arts Club a few years back and believe me, we had to weed out the pseudo-intellectual hipsters who had never read anything BUT Bukowski and had no appreciation for other works..as the quote in Stlukes sig reads, "Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid"
^_^

[husker du]

Bingo! If we can agree on this then there is hope for world peace after all.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I thought Ham on Rye was alright. I guess I am the exception to the rule, because I didn't love, love, love it, or hate, hate, hate it. I may try another of his novels out, but not now. He just didn't grab me.

[ElectricCatfish]

the books of his letters are pretty entertaining

[mono]

Haha, I hope my post didn't come off as too harsh or as a personal reaction towards you. It's just that that type of stuff is the only defense I ever see of him! It drives me insane. In my experience, a large number of people who like Bukowski have never read anything but Bukowski.
Your previous post did not, but this one did, at least a bit, for me. I have encountered several Bukowski fans who, I almost consider it safe to say, grew an obsession with him and his works, but calling even "a large number of [Bukowski readers]," or any reading population, for that matter, poorly read, naïve, and/or selective to the point of restricting one's reading material to one author sounds like a poor generalization measured more by a pessimistic bias than objectivity. I would not label myself as one of Bukowski's "obsessed" fans, but a big fan nonetheless, particularly of his poetry; this fact, I feel, does not make me poorly read, and I regret you should jump to that assumption - with 8,000-something posts on this forum alone, I should hope I have discussed at least a few other authors, other than Bukowski.
To some degree, I have witnessed what you describe, as the less literary readers exploring Bukowski more for his very dark, twisted, uninhibited, risqué nature of writing, as opposed to appreciating his unique literary art; some read him more out of curiosity in the popular deviance than out of literary appreciation. I would not wholly discount these readers as "non-fans" (since how does one define "fan?"), giggling behind a copy of Bone Palace Ballet, and certainly not poorly read in such a generalization, as even these readers can often eventually delve into other deviant writers, like William S. Burroughs, Richard Brautigan, or Raymond Carver.

[husker du]

There are a million miles of separation between Carver and Bukowski.

And how recently have you been on a college campus? Bukowski is as popular among non-readers as King and Rowling are.

[Boris239]

I haven't read much of the poetry, but I really enjoyed "Women", "Factotum" and "Post office". To be fair after reading one of his books, the others seem kind of similar... I think you just have to like a special kind of humor to enoy Bukowski... But well- some people don't find "Pulp Fiction" funny :)

[Bastable]

There are a million miles of separation between Carver and Bukowski.

And how recently have you been on a college campus? Bukowski is as popular among non-readers as King and Rowling are.

so not very popular then?

[mono]

There are a million miles of separation between Carver and Bukowski.
Indeed, I acknowledge their differences without regret, just as any writer has disparities from another, but Michael Hemmingson, writer of The Dirty Realism Duo, declared Bukowski and Carver the "fathers of dirty realism." At a mere 200 pages in length, I would recommend it, then perhaps debating your opinion with Hemmingson, a fiction writer and critic whose current project consists of a biography upon Raymond Carver; one would hope he knows his stuff with such a pursuit.

And how recently have you been on a college campus? Bukowski is as popular among non-readers as King and Rowling are.
Again, agreed, and I attempted to describe this shared, mutual opinion in my second paragraph of my last post on this thread. To answer your question directly, however, as I feel unsure whether you intended this query out of curiosity or in a facetious manner, I live one city block away from one university, where I tutor on an irregular basis upon the subject, applicable to this subject, of creative writing, but also upon human anatomy and physiology. I typically dislike sharing personal information on a public forum, but in addition to my presence on university campus grounds, I graduated from two of them in 2006 simultaneously with degrees in literature and creative writing as well as nursing.

I haven't read much of the poetry, but I really enjoyed "Women", "Factotum" and "Post office". To be fair after reading one of his books, the others seem kind of similar... I think you just have to like a special kind of humor to enoy Bukowski... But well- some people don't find "Pulp Fiction" funny :)
Many readers, I feel, tend to have explored one of two of his works, poetry or fiction. As opposed to you, I have read more of the former, and hope to read more of his fiction with time, but, alas, so much to read so little time! I regret to hear that many of his novels have blended in with each other, for better or worse; indeed, one has to like his dark, awkward humor to indulge in his works, so his novels blending in with each other may seem a virtue or vice, yet I can contest something different of his poetry. The majority of his poetry, as with almost any poet, reads with a similar theme and mood, but certainly upon different subjects to the point that many works of his poetry appear fragmented as well as own a unique connection to each other, much like puzzle pieces that fit together with jagged edges.
Thanks for the tip, regardless, that many of his books read with a lot of similarities, having only read one of his novels, Factotum, yet hoping to read more - perhaps a good discussion topic when the time comes? :D

[tonywalt]

I love the novellas of Carver and the poetry of Bukowski. I think Bukowski's novels lack the profundity of his poetry, although he was beginning to get there when he wrote "Ham on Rye" in the latter part of his career.