charles bukowski

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

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

Quote:

---

Yeah! Ranks right up there with Shakespeare and Dante.

---

Stlukesguild -

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

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

Quote:

---

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

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

---

Stlukesguild -

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for me Buk is an honest writer

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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


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

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

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

He makes me think of Dostoyevsky's Underground Man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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

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

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

IN MY OPINION BUKOWSKI IS A BETTER WRITER THAN SHAKESPEARE.

---

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

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.

---

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:

---

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

---

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

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

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.