What Did literary Geniuses Think of Themselves

[Transmodernism]

In a recent thread, JCamilo pointed out that T.S. Elliot considered himself perhaps lower in poetic stature than W.B. Yeats. This shocked me. And it raised, in my mind, interesting questions about how great authors thought of themselves.

Of course, there are always authors with a god-complex. But I've heard of a number of authors who didn't esteem their works as highly as we might think. For example, at the end of his life Goethe said his poetics were of little consequence compared to his scientific works. In The Four Quartets T.S. Elliot indicated that his poetry had been somewhat a waste of time, and ineffective (East Coker, sections II and V). Elizabeth Browning would eventually become somewhat annoyed at how much people appreciated her poetry more than her husband's.

So I'm interested in hearing, based on your knowledge, how great literary geniuses thought of themselves. Where they always megalomaniacs? Or did they often lightly esteem their work?

I have a little theory that excessive pride begets complacency, which begets mediocrity. Thus I think that many great artists may not have had as high self-esteem as we might think. What do you think?

[JCamilo]

Some of those guys have a humble arrogance. Like Borges who said that just handful of his poems and short stories would even be remembered and was surprised to see his work published in the 70's with popular editions.

Eliot in the case, is just praising a great poetic Genius. If I recall in his speech for the Nobel he also mentions that he was surprised to be considered as a poet since according to him, he wrote too little of it. Goethe is special. He is a genius and know it. I do not think he ever considered to be a great poet (Faust apart) and the relative proximity to Schiller helped it. Robert would today show a similar annoyance seeing his work shadowing Elizabeth work.

We have egomaniacs like Byron or Voltaire, albeit they are more about them than their works (Voltaire always reckonized the genius of Racine and Corneille over himself). But we have Keats that for many reasons died thinking to be a complete failure and expressing the wish to have more time to do something meaningful. Flaubert who hated all and was always not satisfacted with his work. Dostoievisky always admired Tolstoy and once wished to have as much time as Tolstoy had to "finish" a work and achive the count level of excellence. Meiville had great visions for Moby Dick but afterwards he became more shy, suspecting every work. Coleridge never considered himself higher and often used this to praise Wordsworth.

[Jeremydav]

And then there was Kafka who ordered his work to be burned. Not everyone is so confident.

[Transmodernism]

And then there was Kafka who ordered his work to be burned. Not everyone is so confident.

See, it is things like that which lead me to believe that truly great genius requires a strong sense of inferiority. Only a powerful insecurity and sense of some lack can provide the drive to do better and improve.

This is why it is foolish to try to inflate children's self-esteem, as the education system in my country is bent on doing. High self-esteem leads only to mediocrity, because you won't strive unless you feel there is a lack.

This is not to say, of course, that we should be masochistic self-flagellators; neither does it mean children should be put down. It means that to be great you have to have a sense that there are unscaled heights and unplumbed depths to be explored and attained.

[JCamilo]

Kakfa is repeating an arquetypical story. Mallarme did the same. Nabokov with Laura. And Virgil did first. But for Virgil was a strong sense of perfectionism, not inferiority.

There is enough big egos among genius. Dante is not humble (he basically equate himself to Homer, Ovid, Horace, Virgil,etc) and even a little more, since Virgil cannt go with him to heaven.

Cervantes is not humble, his rivalirity with other authors was not small. Milton, Joyce, Tolstoy are hardly humble either.

[Transmodernism]

Kakfa is repeating an arquetypical story. Mallarme did the same. Nabokov with Laura. And Virgil did first. But for Virgil was a strong sense of perfectionism, not inferiority.

There is enough big egos among genius. Dante is not humble (he basically equate himself to Homer, Ovid, Horace, Virgil,etc) and even a little more, since Virgil cannt go with him to heaven.

Cervantes is not humble, his rivalirity with other authors was not small. Milton, Joyce, Tolstoy are hardly humble either.

Good points. James Joyce' ego was infamous ("It will take the scholars centuries to figure out what I meant," to paraphrase). I love the story about how when someone remarked to Joyce' wife that she was married to a great man, she replied, "But you don't have to live with the bloody fool!"

BUT, having said that, you could make the argument that Joyce' greatest work (Portrait of the Artist and Ulysses) were written before his egomania reached its highest peak; after Ulysses he wrote Finnagin, which everyone considers inferior to the foregoing. Maybe he got too big for his britches and thus ceased to write as well as he had before.

[JCamilo]

I would think not. Ulysses is the work of an ambition that is imense.

[MystyrMystyry]

I think it's not totally about ego. It's a feeling of satisfaction perfectionists derive from putting a lot of effort into their words. The picture of themselves artists and writer send to the public is often one of arrogance, but what they might be saying is 'Leave me - I've got work to do.'

In the case of Kafka, there's a self-loathing depressive aspect to the poor guy. Who knows how many times in his social isolation he debated with himself to burn, not to burn, to burn, not to burn. It's just that we're left with the last one.

Tolstoy wouldn't have wanted his enormous life's work to go up in flames - he knew how much of a cultural contribution they would be.

But Shakespeare evidentally, didn't really care what happened to the plays - they'd served their purpose, and new playwrites will come and write new ones - because for him the thing was performance. 'The play's the thing' may refer to his attitude - the play, not the published text. Just a little entertainment - one that's become a pretty big industry.

[Transmodernism]

But then there's Emily Dickinson, who wrote solely for herself. This indicates that at least some artists create for non-egotistical reasons.

[stlukesguild]

Shakespeare never even thought highly enough of his plays to push for their publication... which he could easily have afforded... and did do for his sonnets and other poems. Kafka, as already mentioned, sought to have the majority of his writings burned. Dante, on the other hand, had no small ego... and admits to as much in the Inferno when he places himself among the greatest poets of history, and in Purgatorio when he admits that he will certainly be doing time for the sin of pride.

Within the field of the visual arts, the critic Robert Hughes stated that doubt always comes with the highest genius, while absolute self-certainty is but the consolation prize of the mediocre. I wonder about this with Picasso... and yet Pablo did roll up his great breakthrough painting, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (perhaps THE touchstone of Modern painting) after a slew of negative criticism... including the famous comment by Matisse who declared, "Pablo is trying to make us drink gasoline and eat fire." Michelangelo, on the other hand, had his nose broken as the result of a punch in the face from a fellow artist whose drawing he had mocked, while his own auto de fe, undertaken at his orders upon his death bed, was intended to eliminate any insight into his working process as well as any less-than-satisfactory art that might undermine his reputation as El Divino (the Divine One).

[stlukesguild]

But then there's Emily Dickinson, who wrote solely for herself. This indicates that at least some artists create for non-egotistical reasons.

Did she? Samuel Bowles published some few poems and later she would reach out to the critic Thomas Wentworth Higginson, who would do the same. You also must consider the manner in which she carefully preserved her poems and you suspect that she may have imagined a future audience. Of course, like most artists, Dickinson carried on with or without an audience... driven by the need to create.

[Alexander III]

I know Victor Hugo had a massive ego, he considered himself the greatest french writer, the Shakespeare of france.

But as to the question, I doubt there is any general rule, great writers of the past have had completely different personalities. One one side of the scale we have Byron's and Rimbaud's, the former bedding 200 venetians in one year and considering himself a little demi-god (which makes his death all the more tragic, he wanted a glorious death in war and well...). The latter at the age of 17 wanted to revolutionize poetry and though himself above all poets except Baudelaire. All the while both of them abused drugs and alcohol and lived lives riddles in excess and depravity.

On the other hand we have men like Kafka who were extremely shy and wrote most often in a very private manner living quiet and calm lives.

These various character stereotypes go back to ancient times. We have Sophocles the womanizer ( or rather the boyizer) and Aeschylus the soldier, both knowing to have had a passionate taste for drinking wine pure. (drinking wine pure, as we drink it today, was considered the ancient greek equivalent of using drugs, as the greeks had 1 part wine, 2 parts water and one part honey; only barbarians drank pure wine). And then there is Euripides the quite recluse.

There is no golden rule, with writers of genius, much like any man of genius in a specific field. especially in art, that's the beauty of it. We have the poetry of mad Verlaine and the poetry of perfectionist Virgil, and both are of genius, though in this case Virgil ranks higher than Verlaine by popular consensus.

[MystyrMystyry]

Shakespeare may have initially thought the plays were fairly top notch - let's not presume he wasn't aware.

But there's a chance that learning, hearing and reciting his own words at two performances per day over whatever length of time started to pall.

Imagine being Richard Grant walking into the local and a bunch of drunks shout out 'You've got to help us - we've come of holiday by mistake!'

Night after night after night...

[Sancho]

Ernest Hemingway thought highly of himself, and he was willing to fight if you disagreed.

[JCamilo]

Oh many did. Rousseau got crazy because Voltaire give a damn about him, which meant Rouseau ego asked for the reckongnition of the most influential thinker of France. Virginia Woolf was not exactly humble, Eça de Queiroz was a puncher, Pushkin certainly had enough ego to stand before the Emperor and Chekhov who told society to go to hell but at same time was always humble about his work.

In the end, many are both, humble and unsecure until creation and then, afronting and arrogant to defend what they have created.

As the Emiliy, she didnt took as much care, there is slightly difference between the few poems that were published and those that did not. The punctuation mostly. Since it is hard to tell what she did thought, reading her work in order gave me the impression this subject of fame and publishing was later in her work, as if she accepted some battle between her own temperament and editing process... Kafka also carried about publishing during his lifetime. The other Emily (Bronte) was true shily, not showing her poems even to her sisters.

[breathtest]

Bukowski 'knew' he was a genius.

[Alexander III]

Bukowski 'knew' he was a genius.

Ouch ! well he made a mistake... not to say he isnt a good writer...but genius?

[Perandorrrr]

I remember seeing a part of a lecture given James Ellroy on E! (they did a piece on him some time ago). He was speaking to a small group, probably at a Barnes and Nobles saying (as I paraphrase) 'this is my latest classic, it is a successor to my previous classics'. I couldn't believe how cocky he was, maybe he was joking, but I took him seriously. He and any other post-modern (IMO) can't even be mentioned with some of the names mentioned in this thread.

[Jeremydav]

Bukowski's a hack.

[Transmodernism]

He and any other post-modern (IMO) can't even be mentioned with some of the names mentioned in this thread.

I don't want to step on any toes, but frankly I think that when I am ancient and 90 years old the postmoderns will not have made it into the canon, English or otherwise. 1980 through the early 2000s will probably be a literary intermission in the grand scheme of things. Fields must at times lie fallow.

Sorry, Lucifer made me say it. If anyone here is a PoMo fan, just let me know and I'll :banghead:

[stlukesguild]

Bukowski's a hack.

Now that should get the pot stirred again.:hand:

[stlukesguild]

Sorry, Lucifer made me say it. If anyone here is a PoMo fan, just let me know and I'll :banghead:

That depends on what counts as "Post-Modern". Now if J.L. Borges, Italo Calvino, Julio Cortazar, Gabriel Garcia-Marquez, Gunter Grass, Anne Carson, Samuel Beckett, Vladimir Nabokov, Cormac McCarthy, Donald Barthleme, Philip Roth, Gore Vidal, etc... count as Post-Modern, well then I'll need to beg to differ.:hand:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't know how much being an artistic genius factors into it most times. I think popularity and what people around the artist say is what factors into it more than anything. Of course, you'll have authors who are arrogant no matter their circumstance, but, like someone said, that ego doesn't build up until they hit it big. And, maybe that's why we see some of the authors we now consider to be geniuses to have never been egomaniacs, like Melville, who never got the recognition in his lifetime.

Plus, you don't have to be a literary genius to have an insane ego. Look at Stephanie Meyers, who compared her Twilight schlock to that of Pride and Prejudice (even going as far as to intimate that it was better). Or, Nicholas Sparks, who in one interview bashes Cormac McCarthy. Or, hell, even James Cameron who almost seems to be renowned as a cinematic genius for his tripe. Each one is surrounded by yes-men, constantly being praised. And, when people offer criticism, even a large amount, it's just jealousy, or they "don't get it."

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That depends on what counts as "Post-Modern". Now if J.L. Borges, Italo Calvino, Julio Cortazar, Gabriel Garcia-Marquez, Gunter Grass, Anne Carson, Samuel Beckett, Vladimir Nabokov, Cormac McCarthy, Donald Barthleme, Philip Roth, Gore Vidal, etc... count as Post-Modern, well then I'll need to beg to differ.:hand:

And, as an aside, to StLukesGuild and the other intellectuals on this board, when you rattle off a list of names like that, whether it be authors or novels or poems, do you just have all that memorized? I mean, even in the subjects I am familiar with, if put on the spot, I have a hard time coming up with more than five examples. Or, are you like me, and do a quick Google search as a memory refresher? Just curious.

[Wilde woman]

This whole idea of authorship is a fairly modern one. It really only took off after the Romantics and their notion of individualism. Before that, and definitely in my area of specialty, medieval literature, the idea of the author was of little consequence. So much of the best and popular literature (not that I'm equating the two) was written anonymously, so the point was not to take credit for a certain work, but to situate oneself within a certain long-standing tradition of literature. It's simultaneously a refreshing and frustrating PoV to take - refreshing because nowadays we seem so concerned with brand names and who's trendy and who's not, but frustrating because we have so little biographical information about the authors of some of the greatest medieval literature.

[MystyrMystyry]

Bukowski's a hack.

He was also a pretty serious boozer - and as boozers go he was a largely enjoyable hack

I've met boozers that are no fun/entertainment value whatsoever, who's personalities could have only benefited from having a sideline, and I've met writers for whom a quick guzzle of something could've benefited everyone more than their drivel


But! In the red corner with all of the Englsh classics at his disposal StLukes!

In the blue corner with an axe to grind Mutatis

At the sound of the bell come out, shake hands, and let the games begin..!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Lol, I have no axe to grind. I'm just genuinely curious as to their recall ability with names and such, if that's what you're referring to. I greatly respect stlukesguild, even if we've disagreed.

[ZiggyStardust]

See, it is things like that which lead me to believe that truly great genius requires a strong sense of inferiority. Only a powerful insecurity and sense of some lack can provide the drive to do better and improve.

This is why it is foolish to try to inflate children's self-esteem, as the education system in my country is bent on doing. High self-esteem leads only to mediocrity, because you won't strive unless you feel there is a lack.

This is not to say, of course, that we should be masochistic self-flagellators; neither does it mean children should be put down. It means that to be great you have to have a sense that there are unscaled heights and unplumbed depths to be explored and attained.

I completely agree with this statement. I feel like most good writers and artists feel like they will never be good enough, and this in itself is a good thing. Almost every work gets richer in some way because the author continues to push and create even better pieces of work.

As for the statement about children's self esteem and the common misconceptions made by society, well, I agree with that too. Instead of chasing all of that "negative" energy away, why can't we get our children to turn it into something creative and positive? I feel like this would also produce more long-term happiness in a child's future because through this they would learn how to handle tough times on their own...

[stlukesguild]

And, as an aside, to StLukesGuild and the other intellectuals on this board, when you rattle off a list of names like that, whether it be authors or novels or poems, do you just have all that memorized? I mean, even in the subjects I am familiar with, if put on the spot, I have a hard time coming up with more than five examples. Or, are you like me, and do a quick Google search as a memory refresher? Just curious.

Coming up with a list of mid- to late-20th century writers doesn't really involve much of a challenge... especially considering that several of those I listed are among my personal favorites... but even if it were, I need only give a cursory glance around the room at the books on my shelves considering that my computer is in the midst of a small library:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5168/5285262899_e21accc037_z.jpg

(That's the corner of the desk to the lower left)

And that's but one set of shelves:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5005/5285861124_6b0c5e738d_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5286/5285861084_af65e28141_z.jpg

I'm at the point where I've had to have shelves in rows jutting out into the space (like an actual library) and not merely lining the walls!:yikes:

Of course I do use Wikipedia and Google to rapidly search for statistics or the exact words of a quote, but I have the advantage of an almost photographic memory when it comes to something I've read. Now if I could remember my car keys and cell phone...:sosp:

[stlukesguild]

This whole idea of authorship is a fairly modern one. It really only took off after the Romantics and their notion of individualism. Before that, and definitely in my area of specialty, medieval literature, the idea of the author was of little consequence. So much of the best and popular literature (not that I'm equating the two) was written anonymously, so the point was not to take credit for a certain work, but to situate oneself within a certain long-standing tradition of literature. It's simultaneously a refreshing and frustrating PoV to take - refreshing because nowadays we seem so concerned with brand names and who's trendy and who's not, but frustrating because we have so little biographical information about the authors of some of the greatest medieval literature.

This is even more true of the visual arts. The Renaissance began to establish artists as "artists" and intellectuals... not unlike poets and philosophers... and certainly higher than mere artisans or craftsmen. Romanticism pushed this even further with the notion of the "artist as visionary", "artist as genius", and "artist as voice of the masses". This has led to a great deal of rank amateurs who do little more than stare at their navels and think "deep" thoughts while waiting for inspiration to strike while proclaiming themselves to be "Artists" (with a capitol "A"). It has also led to the "cult of personality" which has resulted in greater value being afforded to worst piece of crap by a well-known or "important" artist, while the most marvelous work by less-well-known artists is ignored.

[JBI]

Sorry, Lucifer made me say it. If anyone here is a PoMo fan, just let me know and I'll :banghead:

That depends on what counts as "Post-Modern". Now if J.L. Borges, Italo Calvino, Julio Cortazar, Gabriel Garcia-Marquez, Gunter Grass, Anne Carson, Samuel Beckett, Vladimir Nabokov, Cormac McCarthy, Donald Barthleme, Philip Roth, Gore Vidal, etc... count as Post-Modern, well then I'll need to beg to differ.:hand:
And the verdict is? most art is bad, and most artists are worse.

That being said, it takes a bit of ego to write and create art - especially to create something so beautiful that you think it can rival or be heard - hence why there have been lots of artists, especially poets who do not publish. I would think Dickinson's silence had to do with not wanting to be restrained or influenced by a world outside of the artistic dimension of her poetry - a place where she can play without constraints.

[Jeremydav]

Off topic but that's quite an impressive library you have there. I'm in the same boat as you, though I don't have as many books as you:
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/8721/122310115701.jpg

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4540/libwq.jpg
Sorry for the terrible quality, my phone doesn't always cooperate.

[stlukesguild]

I don't have as many books as you

I've been an incurable bibliomaniac for some 30+ years and had the advantage of being able to buy books at independent and used book stores before the big chains and Amazon brought these to a virtual end.

[Patrick_Bateman]

I don't have as many books as you

I've been an incurable bibliomaniac for some 30+ years and had the advantage of being able to buy books at independent and used book stores before the big chains and Amazon brought these to a virtual end.

There's a bookstore near me which has beautiful book covers, with the text on gorgeous pages. I compare them to the prices on Amazon though and sadly I submit to the big internet company.

It's a shame as it is much more satisfying foraging in a bookstore for treasures rather than just clicking 'add to basket'.

[Patrick_Bateman]

And then there was Kafka who ordered his work to be burned. Not everyone is so confident.

Then at the opposite end you have Edgar Allan Poe who knew he should be revered and much loved.

[breathtest]

just for the record I don't necessarily think that Bukowski was a 'genius', but he clearly thought he was.

[JBI]

There's a bookstore near me which has beautiful book covers, with the text on gorgeous pages. I compare them to the prices on Amazon though and sadly I submit to the big internet company.

It's a shame as it is much more satisfying foraging in a bookstore for treasures rather than just clicking 'add to basket'.

I am not going to lie, I like Amazon - it surely gives a much wider range to choose from. Then again, the price is slightly more, unless you are creative in how you shop - for instance, Thrift editions are replacing all the pricey Penguins for public domain texts, which is a good thing, and my specialized texts are available now, when to be honest would be completely unavailable otherwise. My only quibble is that Amazon hasn't done a good job of killing off the big book chains yet.

[Wilde woman]

This has led to a great deal of rank amateurs who do little more than stare at their navels and think "deep" thoughts while waiting for inspiration to strike while proclaiming themselves to be "Artists" (with a capitol "A"). It has also led to the "cult of personality" which has resulted in greater value being afforded to worst piece of crap by a well-known or "important" artist, while the most marvelous work by less-well-known artists is ignored.

Yes, agreed. Sometimes I wish books were published anonymously and then perhaps we'd get a better idea of which texts are worth reading, rereading, and studying.

[Emil Miller]

just for the record I don't necessarily think that Bukowski was a 'genius', but he clearly thought he was.

With a name like Bukowski, he was obviously going to be a loser even in a US that loves names potentially full of central European intrigue which might be attributed to a boxer as well as a gambler or small time crook. I have just checked Wikipedia for his biography and he very much corresponds to the stereotype mentioned. Looking at the basis for his writing and it's plot lines, the word genius is singularly inappropriate for this writer.

[stlukesguild]

Of course Joseph Conrad's real name was Józef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski... but Bukowski was no Joe Conrad.

[MystyrMystyry]

Which is not to say he hadn't the potential had he foregone the grog, and devoted himself to his muse

[Alexander III]

Which is not to say he hadn't the potential had he foregone the grog, and devoted himself to his muse

Blaming it on the alcohol and or drugs is a weak excuse, lets face it

Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Byron, Joyce were all alcoholics

Verlaine, Baudelaire, Rimbaud and D'Annunzio were alcoholics and drug abusers (opium), we could also put Byron hear (laudanum)

Yet all of them are geniuses and great writers in their own right

Bukowski was an alcoholic, but simply not a writer of the caliber of those I mentioned above

[breathtest]

With a name like Bukowski, he was obviously going to be a loser even in a US that loves names potentially full of central European intrigue which might be attributed to a boxer as well as a gambler or small time crook. I have just checked Wikipedia for his biography and he very much corresponds to the stereotype mentioned. Looking at the basis for his writing and it's plot lines, the word genius is singularly inappropriate for this writer.

I think you need to look deeper into what this writer says in his work. I don't think he was a genius, but he was closer than you think. Many people read his novels and his poetry with a closed mind based on preconceptions, the opinions of others, and his crude writing style. He was certainly very clever, and there are subtle things in his writing that a lot of people miss.

But anyway I agree with Alexander III. There were many writers who had addictions who were geniuses regardless. If you are a genius, there's not a lot that can stop you.

[AlfredtheGreat]

And, as an aside, to StLukesGuild and the other intellectuals on this board, when you rattle off a list of names like that, whether it be authors or novels or poems, do you just have all that memorized? I mean, even in the subjects I am familiar with, if put on the spot, I have a hard time coming up with more than five examples. Or, are you like me, and do a quick Google search as a memory refresher? Just curious.

Coming up with a list of mid- to late-20th century writers doesn't really involve much of a challenge... especially considering that several of those I listed are among my personal favorites... but even if it were, I need only give a cursory glance around the room at the books on my shelves considering that my computer is in the midst of a small library:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5168/5285262899_e21accc037_z.jpg

(That's the corner of the desk to the lower left)

And that's but one set of shelves:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5005/5285861124_6b0c5e738d_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5286/5285861084_af65e28141_z.jpg

I'm at the point where I've had to have shelves in rows jutting out into the space (like an actual library) and not merely lining the walls!:yikes:

Of course I do use Wikipedia and Google to rapidly search for statistics or the exact words of a quote, but I have the advantage of an almost photographic memory when it comes to something I've read. Now if I could remember my car keys and cell phone...:sosp:



I want to be you when I grow up.

[MystyrMystyry]

I think you need to look deeper into what this writer says in his work. I don't think he was a genius, but he was closer than you think. Many people read his novels and his poetry with a closed mind based on preconceptions, the opinions of others, and his crude writing style. He was certainly very clever, and there are subtle things in his writing that a lot of people miss.

But anyway I agree with Alexander III. There were many writers who had addictions who were geniuses regardless. If you are a genius, there's not a lot that can stop you.

But yet there are other aspects to the debate like f'rinstance 'why write?' and Mr B wrote in the lean times between jobs and drinks for drinks, and 'write about what?' in which regard he wrote about what he knew, that is the down and out, the deadbeat, the bum, the alcoholic. He wrote about a subculture almost as diverse as Shakespeare but of an entirely different kind of nobility - the kings of the road.
To attempt to argue he wasn't a good writer is ridiculous because his writing is some of the most legible, cohesive, and fluid I've ever read.
If he doesn't speak to you it's because you've never been on that side of the tracks -and hey, it's a dangerous place the wild side, not recommended for a comfortable holiday.

Bukowski was a genius in the same way that Salvador Dali and Fellini were genius - to himself, and at the end of the day that is for whom art is created: oneself, the only genius who can truly understand the creation and purpose.

Most true artists I've met detest critics and analytics with equal disdain, the mere thought of having their work open to question and prosecution doesn't have the effect of trying to please them, but rather anger them - the art should speak for itself

In Shakespeare's case, he may have touched on the disenfranchised, but never lingered; and why can't their stories be as great as those of royalty, if not for chance, because of choice

Bukowski was a kind of genius, that kind of genius in its own class, and shouldn't be compared to other geniuses who couldn't go where he went

[Alexander III]

"to himself, and at the end of the day that is for whom art is created:"

Pray may I ask, why did he ever publish then, if it was only made for himself.

You seem to miss a point. No one critises Bukowski for his content, it is for style. No one say's he was a bad writer but no one thinks he was a genius either. Off the top of my head, Hugo, Rimbaud, Dickens all wrote about the harsh side of the tracks as you would call it, the difference was they wrote like geniuses.


"If he doesn't speak to you it's because you've never been on that side of the tracks -and hey, it's a dangerous place the wild side, not recommended for a comfortable
holiday."

That like saying if Byron's poetry doesn't speak to you it's because you were not a whormongering english lord... So clearly it's your fault for not being a whormongering english lord.

[MystyrMystyry]

Appreciate the response Alexander, but all the relevant information is in my last post - including the reason he wrote, who he wrote for, the fact of unneeding to be seen as a genius and everything else. Please learn to read between the lines - it shall increase your literary enjoyment 1000 times

[MystyrMystyry]

And that wasn't meant to open a debate about what you reading skills are or anything else, it's just it's all in there - I made sure it was

[edit: though of course I was really tired when I hashed all this down and for which I must apologise to all concerned. The thing is you are right - I have left a few things out, and must have been reading between my own lines and then between other lines that I'd imagined were there.

Forgive me for this and it'll make at least one of us :blush2: ]

[JCamilo]

To attempt to argue he wasn't a good writer is ridiculous because his writing is some of the most legible, cohesive, and fluid I've ever read.

That is good. He is all that. But there is many writers like this. Specially those pesky journalists...


If he doesn't speak to you it's because you've never been on that side of the tracks -and hey, it's a dangerous place the wild side, not recommended for a comfortable holiday.

Sorry, but being a bum and a drunkyard is not poetry or literature. Means nothing if you are discussing the merits of a writer.


Bukowski was a genius in the same way that Salvador Dali and Fellini were genius - to himself, and at the end of the day that is for whom art is created: oneself, the only genius who can truly understand the creation and purpose.

Dali was a show-off! Pretendius even. Ok, he can go with Bukowski, but to himself? What does it mean? In the end of the day, all artists are the only who can really understand their creation and you do not need to be genius to go fo it. Otherwise I am a genius.



Most true artists I've met detest critics and analytics with equal disdain, the mere thought of having their work open to question and prosecution doesn't have the effect of trying to please them, but rather anger them - the art should speak for itself

That is bs. The public does exactly this, open the work and question it. The notion that criticism is prosecution is ridiculous. Those artists must be just idiots, do you think Beethoveen give a damn to criticsm? Yes, because being angered is giving a damn. Or what about a thousand artists who were critics themselves? Poe, Baudelaire, Borges, Eliot, Woolf, Stevenson, Machado de Assis, Ezra Pound, etc?


Bukowski was a kind of genius, that kind of genius in its own class, and shouldn't be compared to other geniuses who couldn't go where he went

Saying he went to a place and others didnt, is comparing.

[MarkBastable]

Bukowski was a genius in the same way that Salvador Dali and Fellini were genius - to himself, and at the end of the day that is for whom art is created: oneself, the only genius who can truly understand the creation and purpose.

I'd say that the purpose of art is to get an idea from the head of the artist to the head of the audience. An artist who intends to create for himself alone is engaged in no more than intellectual masturbation.

Which would explain, actually, why Dali - a compulsive masturbator, according to his biographers - produced work that often seems like a bunch of old toss.

But to get back to Bukowski - a really good stylist, but I wouldn't say he was a genius. Though I'd rather have him mix me a JD and coke than Dali.

[MystyrMystyry]

As I say I was very tired, and there should be a button around here to recognise if someone is falling asleep at the keyboard and swerving all over the website

The writers that have been mentioned who have written about the wild side and modeled characters on people they've met are not giving you the full picture. Bukowski wrote of people he knew first hand, and who were his friends and favorite audience - the extended audience is getting a very near first hand account of actual people - people who all in my humble opinion wre geniuses in their own inimitable imperfect way

You want to talk about what Bukowski thought of himself as an artist (the theme of the thread) I'll tell you he didn't think of it anywhere near as much as being with his friends.

I'm not sure if I can defend my argument about a particular type of genius, but I'll try - there are many types of art which are both brilliant and unclassifiable, and because of the 'only unto itself' type of art, archictecture, music, poetry, what have you, they must have a certain degree of unmeassurable blue-ribbonness (was that almost an oxymoron? My first one I think)

To be true to oneself in order to create something new, is closer to what I actually meant

'Otherwise I am a genius'

Correct, sir, you are, but at the moment you are perhaps too focused on landmark literature - and many people for whatever reason, feel more comfortable shying away from self-acknowlegement or pursuit, people who may be ingenious geniuses under the right circumstances (if it wasn't just a little too much effort to go to the art store and buy tools for to create a masterpiece - I've heard it all before) and at least Bukowski gave it a proper go.

If you've got but one leg and are therefore unqualified to compete in the two legged marathon, how will you know if you had a chance, unless you ran regardless of being ultimately disqualified.


What's that over there! Could it be the hole the I've dug myself? I think I'll go and - run the other way!

[Alexander III]

"The writers that have been mentioned who have written about the wild side and modeled characters o people they've met are not giving you the full picture. Bukovski wrote of people he knew first hand, and who were his friends - the audience is getting a very near first hand account of actual people - people who all in my humble opinion wre geniuses in their own inimitable imperfect way"

Have you read any of the works by the writers I mentioned, i think not from your response. By the way, Dickens spent his childhood with his family in debtors prison and himself working 12 hours a day in a bottling plant; and this is not 21st century office or factory work, this is a 19th century factory where several injuries a day were standard and if you lost an arm due to a machine malfunction you would be expected to pay for the damage you caused to the machine. I assure you Bukowski's childhood would have been a ideal dream compared to the horrors of what Dickens had to face.

[MystyrMystyry]

This is going to bore me back to bed.

A work of art must be able to stand (or fall) under its own weight, and if it is to be judged on its own merits t must be done in isolation - a story in a collection must still be an individual work of art.

We're all guilty of clumping favorite author's works into one big pile and attempting to say: 'It's all good!'

Bukowski had a movie made called Barfly (wrote the screenplay I think?)which of itself is far from greatest movie ever made, but in my opinion it was one of the best movies I've seen, and I know no-one as yet who agrees with me.

The thing is, rather than sit around criticising and defending and praising and deploring wouldn't we all be better off pursuing what we like? I mean you can't please everyone, right?

[JCamilo]

If a work is meant to be measured on its own merits, Bukowiski personal lifestyle has nothing to do with it. It adds realism (and no, he did not paint a full image, paint what his limited perspective which may be bigger than Fitzgerard perspective granted, allow him to see) just like Melville having being a sailor adds. It does not say much of the work, Paulo Coelho is really the dude who goes to Santiago of Compostela trip, does his work this trip is any good? No. And because Milton was never a fallen angel, was his work bad? No.

And Bukowiski today is far form not landmark literature and frankly... he is nothing close to marginal brazilian literature. Which I work with and have interest to for it. Things that are published in paper and sold along big avenues like Cordel.

[Alexander III]

This is going to bore me back to bed.

A work of art must be able to stand (or fall) under its own weight, and if it is to be judged on its own merits t must be done in isolation - a story in a collection must still be an individual work of art.

We're all guilty of clumping favorite author's works into one big pile and attempting to say: 'It's all good!'

Bukowski had a movie made called Barfly (wrote the screenplay I think?)which of itself is far from greatest movie ever made, but in my opinion it was one of the best movies I've seen, and I know no-one as yet who agrees with me.

The thing is, rather than sit around criticising and defending and praising and deploring wouldn't we all be better off pursuing what we like? I mean you can't please everyone, right?

well this is disappointing, if you are gonna have the audacity to make gratuitous claims which few agree with at least have the cohones to stick by your argument and not just back out as soon as the going gets rough.

[MystyrMystyry]

Alexander, you're right, I should see it through, it's just that I've said it all before, so many times to so many deaf ears, that now I just make jokes about my own argument.

See my original post in this recent bit? It's incomplete, and I acknowledge that, but elsewhere I've already explained it fully (not just at Litnet), and I'm not bothered if you hate Bukowski's guts and want to spit on his grave or else place flowers there. Me, I'm neither school, I like what I like, and all the best in finding what you like -your examples certainly exhibit good taste - but to me, at this point in my life at least, I'm searching for something far better than all the books I've read so far

I could say that true genius is that which no-one dare copy and the proof is no-one has dard copied Bukowski, but that falls down when you say he isn't worth copying. Anything anyone says you're going to try to find an annoying argument with, and to be more blank than frank - get a life

Literature may expound on other literature, great literature expounds on life

[JCamilo]

Sure, Virgil didnt tried to "copy" Homer...
Voltaire did not tried to copy Racine...
Keats did not tried to copy Spencer...
Bioy Casares did not tried to copy Borges...

[MystyrMystyry]

Sure, Virgil didnt tried to "copy" Homer...
Voltaire did not tried to copy Racine...
Keats did not tried to copy Spencer...
Bioy Casares did not tried to copy Borges...

I will be certain to investigate the Latin American authors you recommend, friend, would you care to suggest others? I worship Borges for the time when I first discovered him and still to this day - perhaps that's another quirk of mine?

[JCamilo]

Well, Cortazar is an obvious name, Ruben Dario, Felisberto Hernandes, Horacio Quiroga ... good names. Ernesto Sabato, Juan Rulfo,Bolanos and bioy of course...
in portuguese, there is Machado de Assis, Lima Barreto, Guimaraes Rosa... talking mostly of short stories writers...

[MystyrMystyry]

Cool, Sir, I will certainly be onto them

You've read Marquez, I presume?

[JCamilo]

Yes, I did. Didnt mention him or Paz, because those are very well know.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

When I read Ham on Rye, I couldn't help but feel all the vulgarity was purely for shock value, and that Bukowski was really hedging his bets, as it were, on that shock value from the vulgarity. Take out the vulgarity, and there wasn't much there. The vulgar parts had me laughing pretty much, and I don't think in a good way that Bukowski may (or may not) have intended.

[MystyrMystyry]

Quite correctly observed, Mutatis. But as I said before you take the good with the bad, and decide which is best.

Personally, since computer games like Fear and Oblivion have come along, I could honestly say I've not really been that bothered by Bukowski's 'achievements'. They do seem shallow at the best of times, but that's me contrasting new artform with diferent artform

The thing is really everything that you devour that is new and oblique and surprising will eventually form a pallor as you look for something else. I can see North of No South from here, and know I won't be reading it tonight, nor any other in the foreseeable

I didn't actually, believe it or not, try to set myself up as his apologist, just someone who can see the good in much of his work - I think he gets unfair press and must be seen to be good for what he is, not what he isn't

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I wasn't really bothered, nor shocked (well, maybe a little--an eye-brow raised during two parts: the woman yelling at the narrator while in the pool, and the description of the adolescents having sex in back of the car).

I see the good in his work. I don't think he's a "genius," but I wouldn't label him a "hack," either. He has a good grasp of the written word, that is for sure. And, he is unique. No doubt about that. The vulgarity just felt forced. Like maybe he was getting a little chuckle while writing, thinking, "Wait 'till people read this!"

That being said, the two scenes I mentioned are some of the most vividly remembered scenes I have ever read, and I don't always remember what I read so good. It did make quite an impact on me--that definitely counts for something. Probably a lot. I don't think the impact was from shock, just reading something so vividly obscene. I still remember the first time I read a sex scene in a book. It was the eighth grade and I was blown away. It doesn't stand in my memory as much as that, but it's there.

[breathtest]

But yet there are other aspects to the debate like f'rinstance 'why write?' and Mr B wrote in the lean times between jobs and drinks for drinks, and 'write about what?' in which regard he wrote about what he knew, that is the down and out, the deadbeat, the bum, the alcoholic. He wrote about a subculture almost as diverse as Shakespeare but of an entirely different kind of nobility - the kings of the road.
To attempt to argue he wasn't a good writer is ridiculous because his writing is some of the most legible, cohesive, and fluid I've ever read.
If he doesn't speak to you it's because you've never been on that side of the tracks -and hey, it's a dangerous place the wild side, not recommended for a comfortable holiday.

Bukowski was a genius in the same way that Salvador Dali and Fellini were genius - to himself, and at the end of the day that is for whom art is created: oneself, the only genius who can truly understand the creation and purpose.

Most true artists I've met detest critics and analytics with equal disdain, the mere thought of having their work open to question and prosecution doesn't have the effect of trying to please them, but rather anger them - the art should speak for itself

In Shakespeare's case, he may have touched on the disenfranchised, but never lingered; and why can't their stories be as great as those of royalty, if not for chance, because of choice

Bukowski was a kind of genius, that kind of genius in its own class, and shouldn't be compared to other geniuses who couldn't go where he went

I don't think i was clear in my argument. I love Bukowski's writing style, i said it was crude not that i didn't get anything from it or that it was bad. I think he was a fantastic writer, and i would rather pick up and read Bukowski than many other writers. I think he was very close to being a 'genius'. I think he was very talented.

[breathtest]

You want to talk about what Bukowski thought of himself as an artist (the theme of the thread) I'll tell you he didn't think of it anywhere near as much as being with his friends.

Actually i would argue tooth and nail that Bukowski was mainly interested in his art, in writing poetry and prose. Poetry and alcohol were the two things he regularly cited as being the reason that he didn't commit suicide.

[Alexander III]

Mystery I think you got the wrong idea's. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Bukowski being your favorite writer, and no one here is saying is was a bad writer. Everyone acknowledges he was a good writer.

But you must learn to separate personal feeling with objective calls. Personally I would rather have Byron or Shelley's works any day of the week rather than Shakespeare's. However objectively speaking I have the maturity to understand that when making a universal judgement i have to remove the colors of my bias, and I realize that aesthetically speaking Shakespeare is the stronger writer out of the three.

So there is nothing wrong if Bukowski is your favorite writer, but there is a huge difference between "Bukowski is one of my favorite writers" and "Bukowski is one of the best writers"