Printable View
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.
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/...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.
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.”Quote:
IN MY OPINION BUKOWSKI IS A BETTER WRITER 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...Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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 don't think i'm explaining it very well, but that's the best i can do at the moment
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.
I wonder if anybody's going to post on this thread about Bukowski. I'm up for a discussion.
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:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by breathtest
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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 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.
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!Quote:
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.
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.:)
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spookymulder93
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
Have i seen this post somewhere before?Quote:
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...
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?
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?
Pretty much sums up The Sun Also Rises.Quote:
Originally Posted by spookymulder93
Yep, listen to Neely Spooky.
just found out we will be able to study bukowski at some point at my uni.
I only know him through his worship of a great author I enjoy 'John Fante'
He wrote a foreword to 'Ask The Dust'
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jassy Melson
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jassy Melson
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.
You may look into how the uni feels about capitalization...Quote:
Originally Posted by breathtest
**** capitalization, let's talk about bukowski! ;)
And a great big thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Thorne
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!
asdfg
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...
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...
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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...
Or it might be the fact that there is about 100 years of medical development between them.Quote:
Originally Posted by country doctor
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
you have a point...just not a very strong one...