charles bukowski

[WICKES]

Anyone read him? What do you make of him? I have just finished Ham On Rye, which I thought pretty good. I dislike American literature generally but I may go through Bukowski's other novels.

It is a very moving work. The tenderness and compassion occasionally displayed by the brutalised, miserable boy, in spite of his efforts to be tough and in spite of the relentless cruelty around him, really got to me. Bukowski's hard, clear, objective style adds to the effect. It was heartfelt, authentic, honest yet never seeming to strive for an effect or to be asking for your pity. It is also funny. Not laugh out loud funny like Evelyn Waugh- more 'amusing'. It is also very easy to read (which is always welcome). In fact it seemed more like lots of very good short stories strung togethar in chronological order. Did anyone else feel this?

[breathtest]

you've definitely hit it right on the nose. I think he is a great writer, perhaps the best, and everything you said is exactly how i feel. Bukowski is a minimalist but this has such a great effect. And there are times when i felt great compassion for him, as when he is watching the cat being cornered by the dog and how he wants to help. Fantastic writer.

You should read Factotum and Post Office. They are two books which are just as good, if not better, than Ham on Rye.

[Onikeflava]

you've definitely hit it right on the nose. I think he is a great writer, perhaps the best, and everything you said is exactly how i feel. Bukowski is a minimalist but this has such a great effect. And there are times when i felt great compassion for him, as when he is watching the cat being cornered by the dog and how he wants to help. Fantastic writer.

You should read Factotum and Post Office. They are two books which are just as good, if not better, than Ham on Rye.


I agree that Post Office is a good read, but Factotum wasn't as good as Ham on Rye. Either way, I love Bukowski's work as well.

[WICKES]

[QUOTE]you've definitely hit it right on the nose. I think he is a great writer, perhaps the best, and everything you said is exactly how i feel. Bukowski is a minimalist but this has such a great effect. And there are times when i felt great compassion for him, as when he is watching the cat being cornered by the dog and how he wants to help. Fantastic writer.

I thought the two most moving passages were the 'fly rescue' and the 'dog blessing'. If you remember, another boy calls him over to where a gang are watching a fly struggling in a web as a spider approaches. Bukowski breaks the web and the others chase him. It is a more moving incident than the killing of the cat. Here he does what he does at the risk of a beating. His innate sensitivity overpowers him and he acts almost automatically.

I also liked the scene in which he baptises a stray dog "cos dogs have a right to get to heaven too". The priest says nothing when he confesses to kicking his parents, to swearing and stealing, but he's furious that they've baptised the dog. It says so much about the idiocy of organised religion. His acts of cruelty and violence are listened to without emotion or interest. His one act of tenderness- wanting to help a poor, half starved dog- is condemned. It is a wonderful little episode that would make a great short story. It really does read like lots of short stories arranged in chronological order. Did you feel that?



You should read Factotum and Post Office. They are two books which are just as good, if not better, than Ham on Rye.

I am 2/3's of the way through Factotum and, tbh, a little disappointed. The anecdotes are less striking and entertaining and the crudity, which he gets away with in Ham On Rye, is simply ugly and even tedious. However, the big failing, compared to Ham On Rye, is the absence of redemption. In HOR Chianski's squalid, bitter, brutal, ugly little life is redeemed by those flashes of compassion and humanity- his pity for a stray dog, for a cat or fly, his contempt for bullies and gangs. He seems a romantic outsider, pouring his misery into his books. A life saved by literature. There is none of this in Factotum. Here is simply an *******. Now I know he's keeping it real, but the world is crammed to bursting with horrible people whose lives I am not interested in. In HOR you felt this was a kid whose life was worth something. There was clearly a sensitvity and intelligence that should have been nurtured rather than crushed. Perhaps Bukowski is trying to tell us this very thing when Jan says "your parents hated you- the lack of love has warped you". The problem is, without the tenderness, without the kindness, it is hard to empathise with him- to see him as a fellow sufferer. Instead he has become one of the very *******s who make life so miserable.

Sorry to ramble. Be interested to hear any thoughts on Factotum. :santasmil

[breathtest]

I thought the two most moving passages were the 'fly rescue' and the 'dog blessing'. If you remember, another boy calls him over to where a gang are watching a fly struggling in a web as a spider approaches. Bukowski breaks the web and the others chase him. It is a more moving incident than the killing of the cat. Here he does what he does at the risk of a beating. His innate sensitivity overpowers him and he acts almost automatically.

Well i thought the cat scene was more moving because he really wants to help the poor thing and yet he is completely helpless. But i do agree that the spider passage was very moving as well. I think a lot of people misjudge Bukowski.


I am 2/3's of the way through Factotum and, tbh, a little disappointed. The anecdotes are less striking and entertaining and the crudity, which he gets away with in Ham On Rye, is simply ugly and even tedious. However, the big failing, compared to Ham On Rye, is the absence of redemption. In HOR Chianski's squalid, bitter, brutal, ugly little life is redeemed by those flashes of compassion and humanity- his pity for a stray dog, for a cat or fly, his contempt for bullies and gangs. He seems a romantic outsider, pouring his misery into his books. A life saved by literature. There is none of this in Factotum. Here is simply an *******. Now I know he's keeping it real, but the world is crammed to bursting with horrible people whose lives I am not interested in. In HOR you felt this was a kid whose life was worth something. There was clearly a sensitvity and intelligence that should have been nurtured rather than crushed. Perhaps Bukowski is trying to tell us this very thing when Jan says "your parents hated you- the lack of love has warped you". The problem is, without the tenderness, without the kindness, it is hard to empathise with him- to see him as a fellow sufferer. Instead he has become one of the very *******s who make life so miserable.

Well, to me, Factotum was a book filled to the brim with helpless suffering. Chinaski is suffering through life, job after job, pretending not to care, when really he is medicating himself every night with alcohol and constantly looking for women just so he can have company, rather than be alone. In this respect, i think the humanity does not come in little flashes, like in HOR, but instead exists throughout the book. I felt such compassion for Chinaski because i could see that he was suffering. Everything he does is an attempt to distance himself from the pain of his reality. And that is why i loved the book.

But anyway, i enjoyed reading what you had to say about this. It's cool to discuss Bukowski with someone as there doesn't seem to be many fans of his around.

[Hank Stamper]

i think i prefered factotum more than post office, but is a while since i read it so can't remember why.. but ham and rye is def his best

you should also try his collection of short stories, the most beautiful woman in town

[kelby_lake]

Anyone read him? What do you make of him? I have just finished Ham On Rye, which I thought pretty good. I dislike American literature generally but I may go through Bukowski's other novels.


There is so much great American literature- how can you generally dislike the literature of an entire country? I read one of Bukowski's poems (about writing) and it wasn't that great. Is there anything about him that distinguishes him from the hundreds of other American writers?

[breathtest]

Kelby Lake, you should read his earlier poems and also his novels because he is unique and i can't name another american writer who is anything like him.

[spookymulder93]

Just finished Ham on Rye. 2nd best book I've read this year. There's beauty in all that ugliness.

[kelby_lake]

Kelby Lake, you should read his earlier poems and also his novels because he is unique and i can't name another american writer who is anything like him.

What's his style like? From the Wiki information, it looks like he's a Hemingway style guy.
There's few American writers I'd describe as unique, although a lot of them are very distinctive. At the moment I'm liking Neil LaBute's stuff.

[stlukesguild]

I think he is a great writer, perhaps the best,

:rofl::smilielol5: Yeah! Ranks right up there with Shakespeare and Dante. :rofl::smilielol5:

[spookymulder93]

I like Dante but Shakespeare is pretty boring. I had more fun reading Ham on Rye than I did Romeo and Juliet so that makes Ham on Rye better than Romeo and Juliet IMO.

[Virgil]

I like Dante but Shakespeare is pretty boring. I had more fun reading Ham on Rye than I did Romeo and Juliet so that makes Ham on Rye better than Romeo and Juliet IMO.

Oh come on Spooky. What else by Shakespeare have you read? Don't judge him on one work. Have you read Hamlet or MacBeth?

[YORK]

I read most of his novels and a substantial portion of his poetry in my middle teen years and at the time thought he was very good.

As I've grown (slightly) older I seem to have similarly outgrown him. I still think he's good and appreciate the position his writing has in the modern American literary tradition. But as I've expanded my reading I've realised that he isn't the best thing since pumpkin seed bread (which we all know is the best type of bread).

EDIT: As a helpful suggestion (which most who like Charles will have already heard of, as the two seem to come hand in hand these days) John Fante is of a similar ilke and makes for a nice alternative.

[stlukesguild]

I like Dante but Shakespeare is pretty boring. I had more fun reading Ham on Rye than I did Romeo and Juliet so that makes Ham on Rye better than Romeo and Juliet IMO.

The key words being "in my opinion" which obviously has little merit within the world of "real" literature.:biggrin5:

[spookymulder93]

I like Dante but Shakespeare is pretty boring. I had more fun reading Ham on Rye than I did Romeo and Juliet so that makes Ham on Rye better than Romeo and Juliet IMO.

The key words being "in my opinion" which obviously has little merit within the world of "real" literature.:biggrin5:

The "real" world is such a bore. I'll stay in my "fantasy" world if it means I can have my own opinions. :smile5:


Oh come on Spooky. What else by Shakespeare have you read? Don't judge him on one work. Have you read Hamlet or MacBeth?

We had to go through most of that stuff in high school. I'm not saying that it isn't good, I'm just saying that it's boring.

I'll give him another try one of these days since most things your forced to do in high school tend to be boring anyway.

I liked the movie O. It was a modern version of his play Othello. They should do that with all of his works.

[stlukesguild]

I'm not saying that it isn't good, I'm just saying that it's boring.

Declaring any work of literature to be "boring" says more about reader than it does about the writer or the writing. And it offers little on that account. Why is a reader bored? Is it because the writing is commonplace, cliche, poorly written, a poor use of language (none of these would seem to apply to Shakespeare)... or is it because the reader prefers adolescent reading with lots of sex and action... perhaps a few car chases thrown in for good measure? Perhaps the reader really doesn't love reading at all but actually prefers TV and video games. Or perhaps the reader lacks the attention span demanded by a more challenging work... or perhaps the writing is over the reader's head... too many big and unfamiliar words, strange use of syntax or formal structure... and no aliens.

I'd be more interested in why a reader is bored... or enthralled.

[kelby_lake]

I liked the movie O. It was a modern version of his play Othello. They should do that with all of his works.

Slightly sceptical- but if you want non-taxing Shakespeare films, watch Love's Labour's Lost (the 2000 one).

Measure for Measure's very good and The Winter's Tale is quite good too. Chances are, you won't have had to study either. Julius Caesar is brilliant as well- loads of famous lines, jampacked full of action...it's basically the world of modern politics.

[spookymulder93]

I'm not saying that it isn't good, I'm just saying that it's boring.

Declaring any work of literature to be "boring" says more about reader than it does about the writer or the writing. And it offers little on that account. Why is a reader bored? Is it because the writing is commonplace, cliche, poorly written, a poor use of language (none of these would seem to apply to Shakespeare)... or is it because the reader prefers adolescent reading with lots of sex and action... perhaps a few car chases thrown in for good measure? Perhaps the reader really doesn't love reading at all but actually prefers TV and video games. Or perhaps the reader lacks the attention span demanded by a more challenging work... or perhaps the writing is over the reader's head... too many big and unfamiliar words, strange use of syntax or formal structure... and no aliens.

I'd be more interested in why a reader is bored... or enthralled.

I love TV, video games and especially music. Everything you said in your post is true. My attention span is nothing to brag on, but to me that says more of the author, because there are some authors that captivate my attention until I'm done reading, then there are others who don't.

I will not force myself to like something that I don't have to be involved with.

As much as you would like to believe it I don't have to run into a burning book store to save the Shakespeare plays.

[Alexander III]

I'm not saying that it isn't good, I'm just saying that it's boring.

Declaring any work of literature to be "boring" says more about reader than it does about the writer or the writing. And it offers little on that account. Why is a reader bored? Is it because the writing is commonplace, cliche, poorly written, a poor use of language (none of these would seem to apply to Shakespeare)... or is it because the reader prefers adolescent reading with lots of sex and action... perhaps a few car chases thrown in for good measure? Perhaps the reader really doesn't love reading at all but actually prefers TV and video games. Or perhaps the reader lacks the attention span demanded by a more challenging work... or perhaps the writing is over the reader's head... too many big and unfamiliar words, strange use of syntax or formal structure... and no aliens.

I'd be more interested in why a reader is bored... or enthralled.



Cannot the same argument be used in your dislike of Bukowski ?

Or do you like every work in the canon ?

[MaineTim]

I liked the movie O. It was a modern version of his play Othello. They should do that with all of his works.

I'd have to agree with you in part. I'm not all that fond of reading Shakespeare either, but I love to see his works performed. What can seem dry on the page really comes alive when it's... ,well, live. Plenty of good film versions of most of his major works, as has been noted, but on stage, even in a local production, is still the most fun to me. Seeing the plays performed, whichever way you do, also gives you tons of visual context to help you follow what's going on. That's tougher to do when just reading. Of course, that opens up a lot of the work to interpretation by the folks producing it, but that's part of the fun, and what helps keep the work fresh after 400 years or so.

As a bonus, after hearing really good Shakespearean performers give life to the dialog, capturing the beauty of the rhythm of the words, you learn to hear it that way as you read, which helps. But to my mind, Shakespeare is best experienced in the flesh.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Cannot the same argument be used in your dislike of Bukowski ?

Or do you like every work in the canon ?

Sorry to jump in but I can't resist.

Bukowski writes in the vulgar, about the vulgar and the result is mostly, well, vulgar. That's about all that can be said of him.

On the canon, it is not a case of having to 100% like every book in it at all, for that is not possible, anyone who likes every book in the canon is lying or delusional. However there is a world, a universe, of difference in acknowledging personal tastes, minor personal whims, and in coming out with comments such as "Milton is boring" "Shakespeare sucks" for such large-scale comments are clearly those of the inexperienced or insane. Such comments are not to be taken seriously at all, on any level. :smile5:

[spookymulder93]

So either you're Lying or delusional, or you're inexperienced or insane. The literary world is full of the most interesting people.

I'd like to think that I was 50% insane, 30% inexperienced, 15% delusional, and sometimes I like to lie just to make people upset so 5% lying.


I'd have to agree with you in part. I'm not all that fond of reading Shakespeare either, but I love to see his works performed. What can seem dry on the page really comes alive when it's... ,well, live. Plenty of good film versions of most of his major works, as has been noted, but on stage, even in a local production, is still the most fun to me. Seeing the plays performed, whichever way you do, also gives you tons of visual context to help you follow what's going on. That's tougher to do when just reading. Of course, that opens up a lot of the work to interpretation by the folks producing it, but that's part of the fun, and what helps keep the work fresh after 400 years or so.

As a bonus, after hearing really good Shakespearean performers give life to the dialog, capturing the beauty of the rhythm of the words, you learn to hear it that way as you read, which helps. But to my mind, Shakespeare is best experienced in the flesh.

I agree. It feels kind of funny reading a play.

[stlukesguild]

Cannot the same argument be used in your dislike of Bukowski ?

I have posted several times before comments as to why I dislike Bukowski and why I think he is a mediocre writer at best. Neely pretty much covers it. His writing is largely vulgar in style concerning vulgar characters that have few if any redeeming qualities... His writing strikes me as forced, and a tired cliche... trying so hard to come across as the bad-a** he only succeeds in writing something that sounds more like the efforts of the disillusioned juvenile. Of course Bukowski is far from acknowledged as being even a writer of minor importance by academia, subsequent writers of merit, or experienced readers so making a passing comment dismissing his work is not the same as dismissing Shakespeare, Milton, or Dante.

Or do you like every work in the canon ?

Of course not. I haven't even read them all. There are works that I liked better than others, but I recognize that there is a difference between making an objective value judgment ("Shakespeare sucks", "Shakespeare is boring", or "Bukowski is the greatest writer ever") and making a statement of opinion ("I don't like Shakespeare. He didn't do anything for me.") The first suggest a statement of fact and places a burden of proof upon the writer when such statements fly in the face of the larger accepted opinions. The latter admits to being but personal opinion and acknowledges that the "problem" may lie as much of more with the reader as with the writer.

[spookymulder93]

I think where we differ is that a lot of you look at literature from an analytical view point. I just like to read good stories that make me think and keep me entertained.

I guess you could say that you're looking at literature from an inside view and I'm looking at it on the outside.

The only point I'm trying to get across is that whether something is interesting or not cannot be proven. It's all based on opinion. I'm entitled to believe that something is boring if I want to. Just as much as you dislike the fact that I find Shakespeare to be boring I feel sad for you that you don't like Bukowski. There's beauty in all that vulgarity if your able to see it.

[Alexander III]

Stlukes I would have perfectly agreed with your earlier statement if Spooky had said Shakespeare is boring, but he didn't, he acknowledged that Shakespeare was a great but in his opinion he found Shakespeare boring and uninteresting. And with that there is nothing wrong. I mean I personally find the english romantics and the symbolist french poets more agreeable than Shakespeare. Does that mean that there is something wrong with me that I don't understand Shakespeare full and thus underrate him ? possibly, could it mean that I am such a genius that only I can truly understand the complexities of the two latter movements and thus academia is wrong ? possibly, but not probably. Nonetheless if we all agreed and had the same tastes, damn that would be an ugly world.


Oh and I have never read any of Bukowski so I cant judge, however I have heard that in style he is similar to Kerouack, and he is one of my favorite novelists.

[kelby_lake]

I agree. It feels kind of funny reading a play.

It isn't once you get used to it. Unfortunately there are some wonderful plays that just don't get performed- maybe because of staging difficulties or they're simply overlooked because they're not commercial enough. A bad production of a Shakespeare play can put you off what may well be a very enjoyable play.
It's like watching film adaptations of novels and not reading the novel. More often than not, the film misses out lots from the novel.

[stlukesguild]

I think where we differ is that a lot of you look at literature from an analytical view point. I just like to read good stories that make me think and keep me entertained.

And this assumption is where you miss the point. Certainly an academic may read certain works solely for academic purposes... to provide a context for another writer, to analyze how a given work mirrors the conventions of the era... but most experienced readers... what Virginia Woolf referred to as the (not so common) "common reader" read for pleasure or enjoyment. The difference is that with experience, one finds pleasure in works that others find "difficult" or "boring"... and by the same token, one becomes bored with the works that pander or talk down to the reader... that don't challenge his or her intellect... that employ the usual tired cliches.

I guess you could say that you're looking at literature from an inside view and I'm looking at it on the outside.

And this may be a good analysis. As an artist and someone with a great deal of experience in looking at art, there are endless works of art that do not impress me that the less experienced gush and fawn over. Skills, such as the ability to render in a realistic manner, blind them to the overall merits of the work... while I have seen endless artists whose skills are as good or far better... and I largely know how to do the same myself. As a result of this experience I recognize the cliche and I am looking for something more... an original voice. This is not to suggest that my opinions are flawless or that those who are highly experienced or even "experts" in their field will always agree. However... it is highly unlikely that someone with such experience in art, music, or literature is going to make a statement such as "Michelangelo can't draw," "Mozart sucks", or "Shakespeare is boring"... even if they personally do not like Michelangelo, Mozart, or Shakespeare. They recognize that liking something is not the same as recognizing its merits or importance.

The only point I'm trying to get across is that whether something is interesting or not cannot be proven. It's all based on opinion.

Again, liking something is not the same as recognizing it's merits. There is no objective opinion in art... but there is the collective opinion formed over time by "experts": academics, subsequent artists in whatever discipline, and the educated art lovers, music lovers, readers, etc... Shakespeare is not someone that can be simply dismissed by declaring "He's boring." Your opinion... and mine... is meaningless and has no impact upon his continued reputation... especially if it is not accompanied by a logical argument giving examples of where he has failed.

I'm entitled to believe that something is boring if I want to.

But of course... but then others are entitled to counter and challenge your opinion when you word it as fact.

Just as much as you dislike the fact that I find Shakespeare to be boring I feel sad for you that you don't like Bukowski. There's beauty in all that vulgarity if your able to see it.

If I want beauty in ugliness or vulgarity I can turn to Rabelais, François Villon, Chaucer, John Wilmot, Jonathan Swift, Rimbaud, Jean Genet, and many other far greater writers than Bukowski.

It feels kind of funny reading a play.

But then we might remember that Homer was originally transmitted orally (as was Beowulf) and many poems were written for a specific incident or event or audience... and yet we can read and enjoy these today. I think that seeing Shakespeare performed well can be enlightening... can open you up the the flow of the text, the comedy, the sound of the language, etc... On the other hand... the complexity... the cognitive difficulties... and the utter brilliance of language leads me to the recognition that reading the plays is a necessity.

[WICKES]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]
If I want beauty in ugliness or vulgarity I can turn to Rabelais, François Villon, Chaucer, John Wilmot, Jonathan Swift, Rimbaud, Jean Genet, and many other far greater writers than Bukowski.

It depends what you mean by beauty. Bukowski's prose isn't elegant and beautiful like, say, Scott Fitzgerald or Evelyn Waugh. You never get gorgeous passages that you want to mark with a pencil. But I do think you should give Ham On Rye another shot. There is a lot of ugliness in Bukowski's novels it's true. And there are times when you think "why have you even bothered to write this down? It's just crude and repetitive." But there is real beauty in that account of his wretched 1930s childhood. The first third of Ham On Rye is great literature: stripped down, unsentimental, tender and deeply moving. The young Bukowski is savagely beaten by his father, bullied and rejected by his peers, poor, ugly and alone. If that was all there was to it it would be pretty pointless- just another misery memoir. Yet there is a deep tenderness, a kindness and compassion in the boy which all that suffering has been unable to grind out of him and that I found beautiful- as moving as anything you'll find in the great poets of the Depression: Orwell, Steinbeck etc

[spookymulder93]

It depends what you mean by beauty. Bukowski's prose isn't elegant and beautiful like, say, Scott Fitzgerald or Evelyn Waugh. You never get gorgeous passages that you want to mark with a pencil. But I do think you should give Ham On Rye another shot. There is a lot of ugliness in Bukowski's novels it's true. And there are times when you think "why have you even bothered to write this down? It's just crude and repetitive." But there is real beauty in that account of his wretched 1930s childhood. The first third of Ham On Rye is great literature: stripped down, unsentimental, tender and deeply moving. The young Bukowski is savagely beaten by his father, bullied and rejected by his peers, poor, ugly and alone. If that was all there was to it it would be pretty pointless- just another misery memoir. Yet there is a deep tenderness, a kindness and compassion in the boy which all that suffering has been unable to grind out of him and that I found beautiful- as moving as anything you'll find in the great poets of the Depression: Orwell, Steinbeck etc

That's exactly how I felt about it. I especially like the passage where he's hiding in the bushes and looking in on his senior prom and then he says to everyone inside even though they can't hear him that one day he will be happier than they are.

[country doctor]

bukowski is grit...the drunken scribbler of notes that you can find at a local vfw (or at least you could 20 years ago, they are starting to die out)...the person who finds more value losing a honeybee on the ponies than having a good paying job...

some can find some truth in his works, for others it's just ramblings of a mad man...no way is he in the pantheon though...the doc just re-read a book of short stories this winter...in the doc's opinion: bukowski is like a solid caramel dump that tapers nicely at the end...a nice healthy remnent in the toilet bowl for the guy on the john, but not too nice to look at when you flush...

[breathtest]

Yeah! Ranks right up there with Shakespeare and Dante.

Stlukesguild -

Do you really understand the difference between subjective and objective worth? In my opinion, he is one of the greatest writers i have read. That is because when you open his books or his poetry you are going to get something which you can relate to much more than anything of Shakespeare or Dante. Yeah shakespeare and dante are good lyrically, but the whole thing about Bukowski is that he wrote as though he was speaking to you, telling you the story, and sometimes that's better at getting whatever feelings and emotions across than all this confusing, distorting imagery and word play.

I respect your opinion that writers like shakespeare and dante are better, and i respect the fact that they are more widely studied because they are better technically. But if you're not going to have any respect for anybody's opinions, then what's the point in coming on this site to discuss things?


Declaring any work of literature to be "boring" says more about reader than it does about the writer or the writing. And it offers little on that account. Why is a reader bored? Is it because the writing is commonplace, cliche, poorly written, a poor use of language (none of these would seem to apply to Shakespeare)... or is it because the reader prefers adolescent reading with lots of sex and action... perhaps a few car chases thrown in for good measure? Perhaps the reader really doesn't love reading at all but actually prefers TV and video games. Or perhaps the reader lacks the attention span demanded by a more challenging work... or perhaps the writing is over the reader's head... too many big and unfamiliar words, strange use of syntax or formal structure... and no aliens.

I'd be more interested in why a reader is bored... or enthralled.

Stlukesguild -

I would say this post says much more about you than it does about the person to whom it is directed.

[stlukesguild]

Do you really understand the difference between subjective and objective worth?

Objective is based upon fact. The closest that we have to objective facts in terms of judging artistic merit is the communal opinion... the combined judgments of "experts" (critics, teachers, academics), later writers, and subsequent generations of experienced readers. To this we might add those quantitative elements... things that can be proven as facts... such as innovations and influence on later writers. By such standards certain writers tower over others... but of course this is all meaningless to the individual. We like what we like. But then there is probably a reason that certain writers are held in such esteem... not merely because of technical perfection... but because they are able to continually impress audiences with their innovation, audacity, their brilliance of form and language and idea, the manner in which these powerfully convey emotions and drama. Great literature affords the reader an experience akin to engaging in a dialog with a brilliant mind. The writer may be far removed from my own thoughts and experiences... but then again, I don't look to literature to reinforce my own values, standards, beliefs, and even prejudices. One of the greatest values of literature is that it can lead us to appreciate other possibilities beyond the world as we know it.

By objective standards, Bukowski is a minor figure at best. His imagined audacity as a writer is pathetically akin to that of the teenager shouting obscenities from a passing car. If reading is to engage in a dialog with another human being, reading Bukoski is not akin to a dialog with a brilliant mind, but rather more like a drunken rant... a tirade from one of life's losers spewing forth venom and hatred for all the usual suspects... pretty much anyone but himself... especially women. As country doctor suggests, you can pretty much experience the vitriol and tired, cliche diatribes that Bukowski has to offer in nearly any bar... or on-line political forum. Perhaps by that measure Bukowski is more true to "reality"... but art and "reality" are not the same thing.

[Darcy88]

Alright this is ridiculous. Shakespeare is better than Bukowski but Bukowski is still a genius. I don't see how either of these facts can be disputed by those on either side.

[breathtest]

Alright this is ridiculous. Shakespeare is better than Bukowski but Bukowski is still a genius. I don't see how either of these facts can be disputed by those on either side.


What i'm arguing is that in my opinion, Bukowski is a better writer than Shakespeare. And that is also what Spookymulder is trying to say as well. And it is purely opinion. I understand Shakespeare is more widely valued, especially within academia, but in my opinion he is overrated and i would much prefer to sit and read Ham on Rye than Twelfth Night.

But what stlukesguild is arguing is that the majority's opinion is closer to fact than the minority. That because Shakespeare is studied in academic circles that makes him a better writer.

There should be no arguments on here i understand, we should be able to say, okay i respect that you like Bukowski better, but the reason i think Shakespeare has more worth is...etc.
But that's all i'm trying to do. Some people feel the need to attack your opinions and beliefs. The thing i've been trying to say is that yes Shakespeare is better technically in terms of word play and imagery and such, and yes he is more widely read than Buk, but for me Buk is an honest writer and actually there is a lot of empathy in his writing that you might be able to see if you read one of his books with your mind open rather than with a snooty, no-writer-will-ever-live-up-to-the-classics attitude. I have read all of bukowski's novels and a lot of his poetry, and i've also read and studied quite a few of Shakespeare's plays and his sonnets, of which i liked a few pieces, but not all.

Shakespeare and Buk shouldn't even be compared, because they are completely different writers anyway. Base writers' quality on their on merits rather than weighing them against others. The only reason i even mention Shakespeare and Dante is that they were brought up earlier on.

[stlukesguild]

Alright this is ridiculous. Shakespeare is better than Bukowski but Bukowski is still a genius. I don't see how either of these facts can be disputed by those on either side.

Bukowski is far from being a literary genius. Why do you think he doesn't show up in the curriculum of most university courses... even those that focus upon Modern American literature? Of course the obvious answer is that all those academics and critics don't know any better... or they can't take his dark nihilistic style... and yet Rimbaud, Baudelaire, Dostoevsky, Rabelais, Jean Genet, etc... are all accepted as major... even "canonical" writers... in spite of being every bit as dark and subversive. The reality is that all of Bukowski's imagined subversiveness and audacity is pathetic and cliche. His poetry is commonly praised by those who have virtually no experience in reading poetry just as his novels are jumped on by teenagers and 20-somethings with slim experience of reading as daring and original.

[stlukesguild]

What i'm arguing is that in my opinion, Bukowski is a better writer than Shakespeare.

That is not a statement of opinion. To say someone is a "better writer" is making a value judgment. If you declare, "I like reading Bukowski better than I like reading Shakespeare" or "I don't enjoy Shakespeare" there is no way to dispute this. It is a statement of your own opinion. I prefer Proust, J.L. Borges, Kafka, Italo Calvino, Faulkner and several other modern writers to James Joyce... but if I make the statement "Italo Calvino is a better writer than Joyce"... then certainly my statement is open to being challenged.

And that is also what Spookymulder is trying to say as well. And it is purely opinion. I understand Shakespeare is more widely valued, especially within academia, but in my opinion he is overrated and i would much prefer to sit and read Ham on Rye than Twelfth Night.

You should probably let Spooky speak for himself/herself... although I might note that someone with a declared preference for Sparksnotes over Shakesperae might not be the best choice in defending one's opinions on literary manners.:sosp:

But what stlukesguild is arguing is that the majority's opinion is closer to fact than the minority. That because Shakespeare is studied in academic circles that makes him a better writer.

And now you presume to speak for Stlukesguild as well? You imagine my opinions of literature are based simply upon what academia has deemed of merit? In actuality, my personal opinion of Bukowski is informed by my own experiences as a reader with more than a little exposure to a vast array of literature. Not surprisingly my opinion often mirrors that of many academics, critics, writers, and other readers with an equal or greater experience with reading... but it also disagrees at times. When it comes to art, all opinions are subjective... but some opinions are far better than others. Does that sound "elitist"? In case you have yet to learn this, art is an elitist endeavor.

for me Buk is an honest writer

What is an "honest" writer? Writing is an art... as in "artificial." Even non-fiction is laden with fiction... art, exaggeration, elaboration, distortion.

and actually there is a lot of empathy in his writing that you might be able to see if you read one of his books with your mind open rather than with a snooty, no-writer-will-ever-live-up-to-the-classics attitude.

And what if you were to actually learn to read in the reverse manner... by recognizing that an inverted snobbery of anti-intellectualism... an assumption that experience and standards count for naught... may be far worse than the perceived "snobbery" of "elitism"? You might discover that the academics, and critics, and experienced readers you imagine as being close-minded are actually quite the opposite: passionate and obsessed with reading and learning and discovering something new... even in literature that is far from new. You might also discover that there is a universe of great writing to be discovered that has nothing to do with the notions of "classics" or "great literature" as something dry, dated, and removed from life. You might just realize that someone who has read a great deal... quite possibly a great deal more than yourself... might just reach a point where Bukowski or Kerouac or Ginsberg no longer deeply impress. Where things that one once imagined as daring and innovative are later recognized as rather cliche and commonplace.

[breathtest]

And now you presume to speak for Stlukesguild as well? You imagine my opinions of literature are based simply upon what academia has deemed of merit? In actuality, my personal opinion of Bukowski is informed by my own experiences as a reader with more than a little exposure to a vast array of literature. Not surprisingly my opinion often mirrors that of many academics, critics, writers, and other readers with an equal or greater experience with reading... but it also disagrees at times. When it comes to art, all opinions are subjective... but some opinions are far better than others. Does that sound "elitist"? In case you have yet to learn this, art is an elitist endeavor.

Well then why do you keep bringing up the fact that bukowski is not studied by academics and therefore he has no litarary value? That is what you are saying, so don't try and make out like it's not. And you've also mentioned that teenagers and 20-somethings are useless in judging quality literature, so what's the point in debating this subject with me, an eighteen year old? I would have thought somebody like you would just scoff at such little experience.



That is not a statement of opinion. To say someone is a "better writer" is making a value judgment. If you declare, "I like reading Bukowski better than I like reading Shakespeare" or "I don't enjoy Shakespeare" there is no way to dispute this. It is a statement of your own opinion. I prefer Proust, J.L. Borges, Kafka, Italo Calvino, Faulkner and several other modern writers to James Joyce... but if I make the statement "Italo Calvino is a better writer than Joyce"... then certainly my statement is open to being challenged.


Oh for god's sake stop splitting hairs you know exactly what i mean by my statement that Bukowski is better than shakespeare, especially when i say IN MY OPINION BUKOWSKI IS A BETTER WRITER THAN SHAKESPEARE.



And what if you were to actually learn to read in the reverse manner... by recognizing that an inverted snobbery of anti-intellectualism... an assumption that experience and standards count for naught... may be far worse than the perceived "snobbery" of "elitism"? You might discover that the academics, and critics, and experienced readers you imagine as being close-minded are actually quite the opposite: passionate and obsessed with reading and learning and discovering something new... even in literature that is far from new. You might also discover that there is a universe of great writing to be discovered that has nothing to do with the notions of "classics" or "great literature" as something dry, dated, and removed from life. You might just realize that someone who has read a great deal... quite possibly a great deal more than yourself... might just reach a point where Bukowski or Kerouac or Ginsberg no longer deeply impress. Where things that one once imagined as daring and innovative are later recognized as rather cliche and commonplace.


Actually my statement about close-minded snooty types was aimed directly at you. I know a lot of people, academic professors and such, who love the classics but don't much care for more modern literature and writers like Bukowski. I can actually debate with these people because they realize that my opinion is as valid as theirs, regardless of how well educated in literature i am. I have also studied a lot of classic literature and don't immediately assume that all those who prefer classic literature are snobs. I am not anti-intellectual.
You immediately assume that those without extended formal education in literature have no valid opinions.


Anyway enough of this, i've had enough i'm not commenting on this subject anymore because it's just making me angry, plus you keep bringing up other writers like Kerouac and Ginsberg, even though this thread is specifically about bukowski. It really is getting pathetic now.

[Darcy88]

"I'm a leg man, always have been. First thing I ever saw. But then I was trying to get out."

That's not an exact quotation. I don't have my copy of his book here. But that is hilarious. The man is a genius. Maybe (definitely) not a genius on the level of a Shakespeare, a Dostoyevsky, a Lawrence, ect - but a genius nonetheless.

He makes me think of Dostoyevsky's Underground Man.

[Darcy88]

Alright this is ridiculous. Shakespeare is better than Bukowski but Bukowski is still a genius. I don't see how either of these facts can be disputed by those on either side.

Bukowski is far from being a literary genius. Why do you think he doesn't show up in the curriculum of most university courses... even those that focus upon Modern American literature? Of course the obvious answer is that all those academics and critics don't know any better... or they can't take his dark nihilistic style... and yet Rimbaud, Baudelaire, Dostoevsky, Rabelais, Jean Genet, etc... are all accepted as major... even "canonical" writers... in spite of being every bit as dark and subversive. The reality is that all of Bukowski's imagined subversiveness and audacity is pathetic and cliche. His poetry is commonly praised by those who have virtually no experience in reading poetry just as his novels are jumped on by teenagers and 20-somethings with slim experience of reading as daring and original.

The funny thing is that the only reason I purchased and read one of Bukowski's books is because he was recommended to me by one of my professors.

[Alexander III]

I would just like to mention that in the early 1900's the opinion of Rimbaud's work by most in academia was exactly the one you bring forth of Bukowski, yet Rimbaud is now arguably considered to be the greatest french poet of the second half of the 19th century.

In essence both stluke and breath-test's opinions are worth squat, as my own of course, in regards to bukowski's value in posterity as we are to close in time to him and thus our bias is inescapable when judging him.

[stlukesguild]

I would just like to mention that in the early 1900's the opinion of Rimbaud's work by most in academia was exactly the one you bring forth of Bukowski...

Really? And yet Victor Hugo, the towering figure of French literature could refer to the young Rimbaud as Victo "an infant Shakespeare". By the same token, Rimbaud's achievements were recognized by such leading figures of French poetry as Verlaine and Mallarme... pictured in in the leading painter, Henri Fantin Latour's Writers Around the Table:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4139/4873541863_940a8bb630.jpg

Rimbaud also figured prominently in poet/critic Arthur Symons' landmark 1899 critical text, The Symbolist Movement in Literature which largely introduced French Symbolism to the English-speaking world and stands as a major inspiration for both W.B. Yeats and T.S. Eliot.

All of this suggests that Rimbaud was far from being an ignored enfant terrible. Bukowski has been churning out books since the 1960s. This is not exactly yesterday. The critics and academics have addresses any number of other writers from this same time frame including Anthony Hecht, Allen Ginsberg, Richard Wilbur, John Ashbery, John Barth, Donald Barthelme, Philip Roth, and Cormac McCarthy. Of course it is true that there are always those artists who are not immediately recognized... but such is an easy defense. One might argue that the worst possible writer is not ignored or criticized with good reason... but because he or she is so subversive and shockingly original that it will only be later generations who recognize his or her "genius". Somehow I doubt Bukowski fits that mold.

[LitNetIsGreat]

IN MY OPINION BUKOWSKI IS A BETTER WRITER THAN SHAKESPEARE.

I’m sorry but that is almost too silly for words. If you are still reading in five or six years time and are still on Lit Net that statement will either make you laugh or cry – or a bit of both. It is the voice of inexperience and there is nothing wrong in that, what you really mean though is “at this moment I personally gain more pleasure from Bukowski than I do from Shakespeare.” However this does not mean that Bukowski is better than Shakespeare, at all, on any level. For now just be satisfied with enjoying a work without having to try to promote that work as “better than Shakespeare.”


The man is a genius. Maybe (definitely) not a genius on the level of a Shakespeare, a Dostoyevsky, a Lawrence, ect - but a genius nonetheless.

You know, the more I read and study the more I realise that there is to read and study, and that “genius” in life and literature, is a very rare thing indeed...

[breathtest]

I’m sorry but that is almost too silly for words. If you are still reading in five or six years time and are still on Lit Net that statement will either make you laugh or cry – or a bit of both. It is the voice of inexperience and there is nothing wrong in that, what you really mean though is “at this moment I personally gain more pleasure from Bukowski than I do from Shakespeare.” However this does not mean that Bukowski is better than Shakespeare, at all, on any level. For now just be satisfied with enjoying a work without having to try to promote that work as “better than Shakespeare.”

I see what you mean, but i don't think it's as silly as all that. If Bukowski gives me more pleasure as a reader than shakespeare, then to me he is a better writer. Although shakespeare has a lot of skill and is very clever, i think the fact that Bukowski entertains me and gives me more than shakespeare does, i think, for me, that makes him a better writer.

I don't think i'm explaining it very well, but that's the best i can do at the moment

[stlukesguild]

IN MY OPINION BUKOWSKI IS A BETTER WRITER THAN SHAKESPEARE.

I’m sorry but that is almost too silly for words.
...just be satisfied with enjoying a work without having to try to promote that work as “better than Shakespeare.”

You know, the more I read and study the more I realise that there is to read and study, and that “genius” in life and literature, is a very rare thing indeed...

I quite agree. The use of hyperbole and inflated and exaggerated comparisons to support one's claims with regard to the abilities of a favorite artist of any sort, generally result in little more than incredulous laughter. We have probably all read exaggerated critical blurbs promoting the latest book, musical release or movie... "The greatest novel of the twentieth century", "A Dickens or Tolstoy for our time!"... etc... Such declarations usually do little to convince the critical audience.

Comparisons with Shakespeare or Dante or Mozart or Bach or Michelangelo or Rembrandt are not ridiculous because these artists are above criticism... nor because it is not possible that we will ever see an artist that may eventually join the ranks of such towering figures. No, rather such comparisons are ridiculous if only for the simple reason that they ignore or forget the fact that no artist living and working today has been as profoundly influential on generations of artists... as integral a part of literature/music/art... as absorbed into the larger culture... as such greater geniuses. It is quite likely that even Bukowski... knowingly or unknowingly... has built upon elements of language, character development, words, phrases, etc... that were brought to literature by Shakespeare, Dante, Cervantes, Dickens, Dostoevsky, etc...

I agree that there is nothing wrong with wishing to share an enthusiasm for a favorite writer... even going forth in a gushing manner about his or her work... but comparing him or her with Shakespeare or Dante, etc... is quite likely only going to have the effect of undermining all you have to say. I am deeply enthralled with such "modern" writers as Proust, Kafka, Calvino, Borges, Rilke, Montale, Eliot, among others... and I might make comparisons between specific elements... ie. I might suggest that Proust's development of character and his lush sensuality of language are Shakespearean... but even as great as Proust is, I would think to make claims that he was "greater than Shakespeare, Dante, or Homer.

Of course the whole comparison thing is pretty much nonsense. The value of literary criticism isn't to be found in making declarations that Dante is greater than Cervantes or Homer is greater than Milton. The value of criticism is in the manner in which it leads illuminates writing... leads us to an appreciation of elements we might not have recognized... links with other works of literature... ways of interpreting a work that we might not have understood.

[breathtest]

I wonder if anybody's going to post on this thread about Bukowski. I'm up for a discussion.

[stlukesguild]

I wonder if anybody's going to post on this thread about Bukowski. I'm up for a discussion.

Why not you? Instead of exaggerated comparisons, inflated rhetoric, and hyperbole, why don't you share with others why you so enjoy Bukowski. Give examples. You are much more likely to convince through such methods than through the former.:seeya:

[Alexander III]

Actually breathtest what in your opinion are some of Bukowski's greatest poems, all this discussion about the man has made me interested in seeing his work.

[kelby_lake]

I see what you mean, but i don't think it's as silly as all that. If Bukowski gives me more pleasure as a reader than shakespeare, then to me he is a better writer. Although shakespeare has a lot of skill and is very clever, i think the fact that Bukowski entertains me and gives me more than shakespeare does, i think, for me, that makes him a better writer.

I don't think i'm explaining it very well, but that's the best i can do at the moment

I understand what you're trying to say- that Bukowski may be more accessible to the 'common' reader than Shakespeare is. But Shakespeare is not inaccessible. He's not this elite figure that only scholars who've studied him for thirty years can understand. The effort it takes to understand him is far smaller than the pleasure you will gain from him.

From what I have read about Bukowski, he seems like an unpleasant misogynist. I've seen quotes from his stuff and he just sounds like a second-rate Hemingway.

[breathtest]

Kelby Lake - No i don't think Shakespeare is inaccessible, it's just his writing does not provoke in me any deep emotions, not like other writers. I suspect the fact that his writing is a little more difficult to interpret may be taking away some of the impact, i don't know. It's just not the same for me as reading other writers like Buk. I understand why people might think he is a second-rate Hemingway. It's hard to beat Hemingway, but i think comparing Buk to Hem is taking away a lot of Buks individual style. I think Bukowski is more comparable to Celine in style.

Alexander III - Actually there's a website you can look at if you want to read some of his poetry. It's bukowski.net, and it has most of the poems he ever wrote on there. Some of his poems are probably a bit vulgar, but many of them have some really touching sentiments. 'The Suicide Kid' is a good one, probably one of my favourites, but he literally wrote so many poems that it would be very hard to list favourites. If you read some let me know which ones you liked, if any.

With regards to stlukesguild's post. I mentioned earlier on in the thread about some passages in his books, particularly Ham on Rye, where Bukowski witnesses cruelty and pain inflicted upon animals. In one scene, these kids have set an angry dog on a cat, and the cat is backed against the wall and is going to die. In this particular passage especially, Henry Chinaski wants to help the cat, and yet he is powerless to do so. And the emotional pain we see in him is heart-breaking. It is passages like this that make me enjoy Bukowski's work so much. The emotions it can bring out in you when you read it. I would suggest to anybody to read Ham on Rye if unfamiliar with bukowski, because there are many passages like this.

Another thing i take from reading Bukowski's work is that the macho and vulgar attitude a lot of people hate in him, is really just a front to protect himself against pain, against rejection. You can see this as well in Ham on Rye, but also in Women, where he has a number of sexual relationships with many different women, and the way he interacts with those women and distances himself emotionally is fascinating.

That's the kind of thing i mean when i say Bukowski's work is intended to be read between the lines. You can discover so much more depth to his work and to him as a person, as a lot of his work is autobiographical.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I see what you mean, but i don't think it's as silly as all that. If Bukowski gives me more pleasure as a reader than shakespeare, then to me he is a better writer. Although shakespeare has a lot of skill and is very clever, i think the fact that Bukowski entertains me and gives me more than shakespeare does, i think, for me, that makes him a better writer.

I don't think i'm explaining it very well, but that's the best i can do at the moment

What you mean is that you have read some Shakespeare and you have read some Bukowski and of the two you have made a much greater connection to the latter. There is something in Bukowski which has triggered something, some realisation, some enjoyment: humour, cynicism, daring - whatever, and you have not found that within Shakespeare, so by your thinking, in your opinion, Bukowski is a greater writer than Shakespeare because he has resonated with you on a personal level, somehow, in someway much more than Shakespeare. However, the premise that Bukowski therefore is a “better writer than Shakespeare” does not follow. It is false reasoning.

What you are doing is confusing pleasure with realistic critical opinion. You are too close to the text. You are taking the joy found with connecting to a work and then promoting that well beyond its status, based solely on the pleasure it gave you in the moment with little or no regard for anything else other than your enjoyment of it. When you make the claim of superiority, whether you realise it or not, you are trying to single-handedly take on the combined critical acumen of one of the cornerstones of western civilisation with Bukowski as your ammunition – this is silly, as I’m sure you’ll agree now.

As Stlukes pointed out comparisons are largely fruitless anyway, if it is just a case of saying X is better than Y it adds little comment to either writer or work, (this is not the point of criticism anyway). However, Shakespeare is on a whole different sphere to that of Bukowski he really is, even if he was as good as Shakespeare (which he isn't by a long, long way) then, as was pointed out, the fact that Shakespeare’s work and language has weaved its way into the very fabric of the English language in the last 400 years and has influenced just about every writer since, would still set him way, way above Bukowski for a long time yet anyway.

As was said there is nothing wrong with enjoying, admiring or even worshiping any writer at all if he gives pleasure (after all is that not a large part of reading?) but by trying to promote that given pleasure well above its actual worth shows nothing but a lack of critical judgment and/or inexperience. This is an observation and not a criticism of you directly. Just remember you’ll go a lot further if you stand back from the text and develop a wider critical opinion which will come with time and further reading.


With regards to stlukesguild's post. I mentioned earlier on in the thread about some passages in his books, particularly Ham on Rye, where Bukowski witnesses cruelty and pain inflicted upon animals. In one scene, these kids have set an angry dog on a cat, and the cat is backed against the wall and is going to die. In this particular passage especially, Henry Chinaski wants to help the cat, and yet he is powerless to do so. And the emotional pain we see in him is heart-breaking. It is passages like this that make me enjoy Bukowski's work so much. The emotions it can bring out in you when you read it. I would suggest to anybody to read Ham on Rye if unfamiliar with bukowski, because there are many passages like this.

Another thing i take from reading Bukowski's work is that the macho and vulgar attitude a lot of people hate in him, is really just a front to protect himself against pain, against rejection. You can see this as well in Ham on Rye, but also in Women, where he has a number of sexual relationships with many different women, and the way he interacts with those women and distances himself emotionally is fascinating.

That's the kind of thing i mean when i say Bukowski's work is intended to be read between the lines. You can discover so much more depth to his work and to him as a person, as a lot of his work is autobiographical.
You know I first came across Bukowski, it would be about seven years ago now or so, when a good friend I worked with all but forced me to read them. I refused to read them at first (I had a quick flick and got the idea) but he kept bugging me about them. So in the end I agreed to read the books he lent me if he would read some Wilde. He lent me Post Office, Women and Factotum and I read them in a few days. I lent him Dorian Gray and he gave up after page 20. So that was that. He then tried to thrust Ham on Rye at me and at this I just gave him a look!

I can certainly see why people are attracted to Bukowski’s style of writing or his humour, but it is not going to do anything for me at this stage in life. Really though the best thing he could have done it the cat situation would be just to shoot the damn thing anyway, not only would it have been kinder, there would also be one less damn cat getting in the way!

I don’t share your views about his distancing technique in Women by the way. I wasn’t particular thrilled by the novel at all, in fact of the three I thought it was the worst and most vulgar – or is that a good thing, I don’t know? I didn’t find any skill there other than trying to shock a readership by his constant and obviously ridiculous sexual exploits that come so frequent throughout the novel that you can tell he ran out of ideas, and instead of trying to take the novel anywhere, he just threw in another dozen “conquests” until he had filled enough pages and then abruptly ended it!

Of the three I found Factotum marginally better. There was perhaps one or two moments of mild enjoyment. I raised a smirk at the elf in the dog factory I think, though the same thing occurs again, this time instead of going through whores at two every other page he goes through menial jobs and then just finishes the novel as abruptly, because it seems to me, he didn’t know how to end it or indeed have any idea of a plot at all. Of course you could argue that he is a drifter and as such the structure of the novel mirrors the character's very nature, but my position would be that he hasn’t got a bloody clue how to write or structure an extended piece of writing so he just fills it with nonsense until he’s reached the desired word count and that’s it. Overall, there is nothing in either of these novels that doesn’t soon become quite tedious and obviously lacking in a great deal.

Keep on reading though, if it works for you than that's pretty much all that matters.

Edit: I'm not being sarcastic in that last line by the way.:)

[breathtest]

Neely - i still think that one writer being better than another is more down to opinion than anything else. I realize Shakespeare has had a much much wider influence than Bukowski will ever have, and i realize that Shakespeare was much cleverer and perhaps better with words than Bukowski, but because they write completely different styles, i think the style that Buk writes in is better, for me. And i think a realistic critical opinion is still an opinion.
I also realize that comparisons shouldn't be made, but the only reason i did make the comparison in the first place is that stlukesguild brought it up. They are two utterly different writers anyway that i wouldn't have dreamt of comparing them.
But i can see what you are saying and parhaps in the future to avoid all this maybe i'll just say that i made a bigger connection with Buk.

I have to tell you that Ham on Rye is different from the other three books you read. It is an account of his childhood and there is no repetition of events like in women and factotum. It also has quite a few touching passages in it.

But i agree with what you said about 'Women'. It gets very repetitious after awhile. However i think that was the point of it. His books are all autobiographical and all he was doing was being true to life events. I did stop halfway through reading 'Women' though. I read another book and then came back to it because i'd had enough for awhile, so i don't blame you for thinking that.

[spookymulder93]

There's one passage in Ham on Rye, and I don't remember the exact quote, where Bukowski talks about how a role model is supposed to be, but he says that a guy like that didn't exist so you had to make him up and that was one of his reasons for beginning to write.

I don't see how anyone couldn't see beauty in that.

[Alexander III]

I read some of his poems and they were good, but nothing special in my opinion. Some were very well done like Suicide kid, but I hate to say it, but most of it was pretty Cliche stuff, but then again I like my poetry best from the 19th century, so I have a strong bias.

[LitNetIsGreat]

There's one passage in Ham on Rye, and I don't remember the exact quote, where Bukowski talks about how a role model is supposed to be, but he says that a guy like that didn't exist so you had to make him up and that was one of his reasons for beginning to write.

I don't see how anyone couldn't see beauty in that.

So he creates an alter ego who is an alcoholic bum. He can't hold down a job for more than five minutes and treats all women like crack whores? Now that is some role model indeed. Beautiful. I'm sorry you are going to have to do better than that.

I personally don't object to repulsive characters in literature of course, literature is full of them, even one who treats women like crap, whose only thought is when he is going to get his next pint of cheap whisky from, etc, etc, it is not that I'm offended by it, but all of this pretense to it being anything other than it is is silly. His actions are not "defense mechanisms" or derived from some nonsense about role models, he is what he is; a vulgar, misogynistic, alcoholic bum and that's that. However, the main point is that it is far from beautiful, and it is far from being well written.

[breathtest]

So he creates an alter ego who is an alcoholic bum. He can't hold down a job for more than five minutes and treats all women like crack whores? Now that is some role model indeed. Beautiful. I'm sorry you are going to have to do better than that.

I personally don't object to repulsive characters in literature of course, literature is full of them, even one who treats women like crap, whose only thought is when he is going to get his next pint of cheap whisky from, etc, etc, it is not that I'm offended by it, but all of this pretense to it being anything other than it is is silly. His actions are not "defense mechanisms" or derived from some nonsense about role models, he is what he is; a vulgar, misogynistic, alcoholic bum and that's that. However, the main point is that it is far from beautiful, and it is far from being well written.


His literary characters were not alter egos they were who he was in real life. He pointed out many times that the reason he became an alcoholic was because he suffered from serious depression, and he said that without the alcohol he would have commited suicide in his teens. He was rejected by his peers, never had a single friend in school, didn't get laid much until he was in his fifties, and was treated pretty badly by his parents and the people he worked with and for until he became a successful writer.

His life was pretty bad, which is why i firmly believe his behaviour was not his fault and was a defense mechanism against all the things he'd suffered.
There is a beautiful poem which he wrote, about how beautiful a bare branch looked in the morning. And that was it. He looked out of his window and saw a bare branch, and i think this side of him, the side that appreciates beauty and is full of introspection and awe was his true self.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Oh quit with the Bukowski stuff, forget Bukowski.

Try instead perhaps George Orwell, Down and Out in London and Paris, or Hemingway’s The Sun also Rises and A Moveable Feast, Bel Ami by Maupassant and perhaps Goncharov’s Oblomov – you’d be better off reading these, you’d probably like these if you like Kerouac and Bukowski only these are of a far higher quality.

[breathtest]

I'd rather not forget Bukowski, since i quite like him.

I happen to like Orwell and Hemingway as well. Also Dostoevsky, Kafkha, some of Dickens, Rimbaud, Edgar Allan Poe, the occasional Shakespeare sonnet, Oscar Wilde (the picture of dorian gray is a particular favourite), and many more classic writers. I wonder if this changes your opinion of me at all.

[breathtest]

do you think buk took a look at his dumps before flushing? do you ever wonder if they tapered elegantly at the end and were swirling large caramel snakes that took up a good portion of the bowl?

the doc just wanted to throw that out there...a few of his thoughts while ####ing this morning...

Have i seen this post somewhere before?

[spookymulder93]

This is the Bukowski thread. Why wouldn't we discuss Bukowski?

What makes the novels you mentioned above so much better than Ham on Rye? Do they share similar themes like loneliness, abandonment, not getting laid, and basically everything that I liked about Ham on Rye. I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I am truly interested in reading novels that are similar to Ham on Rye.

Do The Beats get as much hate on this site as Bukowski does?

[Jeremydav]

I don't see how you can compare Bukowski to Shakespeare. Why would you want to? It doesn't make any sense. Bukowski is a fun writer and holds at least SOME merit in the literary world for his visceral and exciting writing style. I wouldn't put him up high on any list of mine, but I didn't think that was something that should even be questioned, of course he's no Shakespeare. He's no Hemingway, Joyce, Faulkner, Proust, Kafka, Fitzgerald, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Wilde, or Rimbaud either. But since when did he try to be?

[kelby_lake]

What makes the novels you mentioned above so much better than Ham on Rye? Do they share similar themes like loneliness, abandonment, not getting laid, and basically everything that I liked about Ham on Rye.

Pretty much sums up The Sun Also Rises.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yep, listen to Neely Spooky.

[breathtest]

just found out we will be able to study bukowski at some point at my uni.

[Patrick_Bateman]

I only know him through his worship of a great author I enjoy 'John Fante'
He wrote a foreword to 'Ask The Dust'

[Jassy Melson]

Bukowski is a minor writer any way you look at it

[Bastard Child]

Bukowski is a minor writer any way you look at it

I hate such biased and obviously debatable views stated as fact, without any objective acknowledgement... it's like everyone should drink from the bigot's cup, just cause his entire family's been doing it for ages...

[Silas Thorne]

I keep coming back to this poem of his, 'a smile to remember', which I can't post here, I guess, but here's a link:
http://bukowski.net/poems/a_smile_to_remember.php

It's a painful poem, but in this pain there's a sad reality for many.
A bit of it:
'.. my mother, always smiling, wanting us all
to be happy, told me, "be happy Henry!"
and she was right: it's better to be happy if you
can
but my father continued to beat her and me several times a week
while
raging inside his 6-foot-two frame because he couldn't
understand what was attacking him from within... '

That 'can' really leaps out, alone there on that line.

[stlukesguild]

I hate such biased and obviously debatable views stated as fact, without any objective acknowledgement... it's like everyone should drink from the bigot's cup, just cause his entire family's been doing it for ages...

Biased? How is it any more biased thanthe notion that Bukowski is actually a great writer?

Debatable? With whom? 20 year-olds who've read 20... maybe 30 real books? What major critic has cited Bukoski as a major writer? What survey of world literature includes Bukowski as a major figure?

But of course we should all take your word as gospel rather than considering the opinion of these tired critics and professors... let alone our own experiences with reading which may (or may not) rival (if not surpass) your own.

Bukowski is a minor writer at best. Period.

[Silas Thorne]

Bukowski is a minor writer any way you look at it

I by no means like all of Bukowski. In fact, the poems I don't like of Bukowski's I dislike like headlice. I do really like a few of his poems though.

The problem with this statement for me is the phrase: 'any way you look at it'. You can look at things in a number of different ways.

I thought this was originally a discussion on Bukowski's poetry, which many people quite like actually.

[Modest Proposal]

just found out we will be able to study bukowski at some point at my uni.

You may look into how the uni feels about capitalization...

[Silas Thorne]

**** capitalization, let's talk about bukowski! ;)

[Bastard Child]

I by no means like all of Bukowski. In fact, the poems I don't like of Bukowski's I dislike like headlice. I do really like a few of his poems though.

The problem with this statement for me is the phrase: 'any way you look at it'.

And a great big thank you.
This point is all I was advancing.
Personally, I am not and have never actually been the greatest Bukowski fan - I just hate idiots who state opinion (however shared) as FACT...
Exemplified: Personally, I truly despise reading (plowing) through Dickens, but you'll never hear the likes of me say something along the lines of "Dickens is a tiresome old bore", though I may sometimes think it to myself, and though, truth be told, I've never read Martin Chuzzlewit, which a friend assures me will utterly change my mind - but do you see? A single book? To change an entire outlook?
Why not a single paragraph? A single line? Nothing is immutable and nothing is universal Truth...
Anyone who would claim otherwise needs shut the **** up!

[Bastard Child]

asdfg

[country doctor]

the doc's reading 'post office' right now...about a hundred pages in and there were some LOL's in the first section...

it's the same buk that the doc has read before...just in a longer form...

working class wisdom...

[country doctor]

ah, buk...the doc's about three quarters thru w/ 'post office' and he'll throw a few observations out there...

this one isn't as gritty and rancid as alot of his short stories...not quite as cynical, he's not quite as burned out...at least, so far...

this is just the doc's opinion, but he thinks that you really need to know that feeling of pushing through a day w/ a pounding headache, hungover something fierce, and know that feeling on a hundred different occasions to understand where the mad man is coming from...

it also helps if you've spent some of your time looking for the 'easy money' that comes via a gamble...whether it's the ponies, football or poker, if you have that gambler's mentality you should feel comfortable reading buk...

it helps if you've spent a good portion of your life living by your wits...no networking for you...not a chance of getting a step up from a connection...it's all you baby...that's all you really have in this world...all you can do is try to make the best of these circumstances...

and if you've developed some toughness and learned a few things the 'hard way' you would probably enjoy turning a few pages of buk...

the doc's been down that path and though he's been a little bit luckier than buk, financially, he's been there...and he appreciates that buk put it down on paper...

so here's to a life filled w/ cigarettes, booze, women and the ponies...if you're tough enough and smart enough you can keep your head above water in that environment...and once you've learned to adopt to the environment after years of living it and if you've got some talent, you can put it down on paper...like buk...

[country doctor]

buk and thoreau: two different attempts to quell the feeling of quiet desperation? they both see the same problem w/ society at different eras, they just have their own way of answering said problem as they see it...

just an idle thought by the doc today...and the irony is that thoreau goes down at 44 and for all of buk's hard living he lives to 73...

is the doc on to something here or not?

[Alexander III]

this is just the doc's opinion, but he thinks that you really need to know that feeling of pushing through a day w/ a pounding headache, hungover something fierce, and know that feeling on a hundred different occasions to understand where the mad man is coming from...

it also helps if you've spent some of your time looking for the 'easy money' that comes via a gamble...whether it's the ponies, football or poker, if you have that gambler's mentality you should feel comfortable reading buk...

it helps if you've spent a good portion of your life living by your wits...no networking for you...not a chance of getting a step up from a connection...it's all you baby...that's all you really have in this world...all you can do is try to make the best of these circumstances...

and if you've developed some toughness and learned a few things the 'hard way' you would probably enjoy turning a few pages of buk...


I am not a 19th century russian count and have never participated in war as an officer, yet I perfectly get where Tolstoy is coming from...

[Alexander III]

just an idle thought by the doc today...and the irony is that thoreau goes down at 44 and for all of buk's hard living he lives to 73...

is the doc on to something here or not?

Or it might be the fact that there is about 100 years of medical development between them.

[country doctor]

I am not a 19th century russian count and have never participated in war as an officer, yet I perfectly get where Tolstoy is coming from...

lot of folks don't 'get' buk...but for those that have went down that path that he did, even for awhile...well, the doc would guess that most of those folks do...

you have a point...just not a very strong one...

[country doctor]

Or it might be the fact that there is about 100 years of medical development between them.

lots of folks lived longer than buk did in thoreau's time...buk's living into his 70's probably has more to do w/ his strong constitution than the advances of medicine...

just typin'...

[FROADS]

I read Factotum and that alone made me not look for the rest of his other books. I'm not saying he's a bad writer or anything like that but he's way too much of a nihilist 4 me. Lemme guess, do the rest of his works deal with alcoholism, depressed loners, and women with character issues?