charles bukowski

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spookymulder93

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Or do you like every work in the canon ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spookymulder93

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.

Quote:

---

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaineTim

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spookymulder93

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

[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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WICKES

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.