What Did literary Geniuses Think of Themselves

[JBI]

Sorry, Lucifer made me say it. If anyone here is a PoMo fan, just let me know and I'll

That depends on what counts as "Post-Modern". Now if J.L. Borges, Italo Calvino, Julio Cortazar, Gabriel Garcia-Marquez, Gunter Grass, Anne Carson, Samuel Beckett, Vladimir Nabokov, Cormac McCarthy, Donald Barthleme, Philip Roth, Gore Vidal, etc... count as Post-Modern, well then I'll need to beg to differ.

And the verdict is? most art is bad, and most artists are worse.

That being said, it takes a bit of ego to write and create art - especially to create something so beautiful that you think it can rival or be heard - hence why there have been lots of artists, especially poets who do not publish. I would think Dickinson's silence had to do with not wanting to be restrained or influenced by a world outside of the artistic dimension of her poetry - a place where she can play without constraints.

[Jeremydav]

Off topic but that's quite an impressive library you have there. I'm in the same boat as you, though I don't have as many books as you:



Sorry for the terrible quality, my phone doesn't always cooperate.

[stlukesguild]

I don't have as many books as you

I've been an incurable bibliomaniac for some 30+ years and had the advantage of being able to buy books at independent and used book stores before the big chains and Amazon brought these to a virtual end.

[Patrick_Bateman]

I don't have as many books as you

I've been an incurable bibliomaniac for some 30+ years and had the advantage of being able to buy books at independent and used book stores before the big chains and Amazon brought these to a virtual end.

There's a bookstore near me which has beautiful book covers, with the text on gorgeous pages. I compare them to the prices on Amazon though and sadly I submit to the big internet company.

It's a shame as it is much more satisfying foraging in a bookstore for treasures rather than just clicking 'add to basket'.

[Patrick_Bateman]

And then there was Kafka who ordered his work to be burned. Not everyone is so confident.

Then at the opposite end you have Edgar Allan Poe who knew he should be revered and much loved.

[breathtest]

just for the record I don't necessarily think that Bukowski was a 'genius', but he clearly thought he was.

[JBI]

There's a bookstore near me which has beautiful book covers, with the text on gorgeous pages. I compare them to the prices on Amazon though and sadly I submit to the big internet company.

It's a shame as it is much more satisfying foraging in a bookstore for treasures rather than just clicking 'add to basket'.

I am not going to lie, I like Amazon - it surely gives a much wider range to choose from. Then again, the price is slightly more, unless you are creative in how you shop - for instance, Thrift editions are replacing all the pricey Penguins for public domain texts, which is a good thing, and my specialized texts are available now, when to be honest would be completely unavailable otherwise. My only quibble is that Amazon hasn't done a good job of killing off the big book chains yet.

[Wilde woman]

This has led to a great deal of rank amateurs who do little more than stare at their navels and think "deep" thoughts while waiting for inspiration to strike while proclaiming themselves to be "Artists" (with a capitol "A"). It has also led to the "cult of personality" which has resulted in greater value being afforded to worst piece of crap by a well-known or "important" artist, while the most marvelous work by less-well-known artists is ignored.

Yes, agreed. Sometimes I wish books were published anonymously and then perhaps we'd get a better idea of which texts are worth reading, rereading, and studying.

[Emil Miller]

just for the record I don't necessarily think that Bukowski was a 'genius', but he clearly thought he was.

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.

[stlukesguild]

Of course Joseph Conrad's real name was Józef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski... but Bukowski was no Joe Conrad.

[MystyrMystyry]

Which is not to say he hadn't the potential had he foregone the grog, and devoted himself to his muse

[Alexander III]

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 it

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

[breathtest]

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.

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.

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.

[AlfredtheGreat]

And, as an aside, to StLukesGuild and the other intellectuals on this board, when you rattle off a list of names like that, whether it be authors or novels or poems, do you just have all that memorized? I mean, even in the subjects I am familiar with, if put on the spot, I have a hard time coming up with more than five examples. Or, are you like me, and do a quick Google search as a memory refresher? Just curious.

Coming up with a list of mid- to late-20th century writers doesn't really involve much of a challenge... especially considering that several of those I listed are among my personal favorites... but even if it were, I need only give a cursory glance around the room at the books on my shelves considering that my computer is in the midst of a small library:



(That's the corner of the desk to the lower left)

And that's but one set of shelves:





I'm at the point where I've had to have shelves in rows jutting out into the space (like an actual library) and not merely lining the walls!

Of course I do use Wikipedia and Google to rapidly search for statistics or the exact words of a quote, but I have the advantage of an almost photographic memory when it comes to something I've read. Now if I could remember my car keys and cell phone...

I want to be you when I grow up.

[MystyrMystyry]

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.

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.

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