What Did literary Geniuses Think of Themselves

[JCamilo]

Yes, I did. Didnt mention him or Paz, because those are very well know.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

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.

[MystyrMystyry]

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

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

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.

[breathtest]

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

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.

[breathtest]

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.

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.

[Alexander III]

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"