I wonder if anybody's going to post on this thread about Bukowski. I'm up for a discussion.
Printable View
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?