Which is not to say he hadn't the potential had he foregone the grog, and devoted himself to his muse
Printable View
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 itQuote:
Originally Posted by MystyrMystyry
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
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I want to be you when I grow up.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by breathtest
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
"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.
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
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: ]
That is good. He is all that. But there is many writers like this. Specially those pesky journalists...Quote:
Originally Posted by MystyrMystyry
Sorry, but being a bum and a drunkyard is not poetry or literature. Means nothing if you are discussing the merits of a writer.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
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
Saying he went to a place and others didnt, is comparing.Quote:
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
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.
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!
"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.
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?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by 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...
Cool, Sir, I will certainly be onto them
You've read Marquez, I presume?
Yes, I did. Didnt mention him or Paz, because those are very well know.
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.
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
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.
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.Quote:
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
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.Quote:
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.
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"