Thread: And what of Charles Bukowski?

Hate him? Love him?

I sometimes think I do both....

The only thing of Bukowski's that I ever read (Women) I could not stand. I just don't see the attraction. It's been awhile since I've read it - about 10 years - but all I remember was "I had sex with this woman," "I threw up," "I had sex with that woman," "I drank some more" throughout the whole book.

I'd be willing to give Bukoswki another chance, though... maybe one of these days I'll check out some of his other work as Women was apparently criticized even among those who liked his other stuff.

Love his novels, dislike his poetry. Bukowski's Hemmingway-like prose lends itself to his declarative and sparse narrative style. The effect usually enables the reader to (sometimes unwittingly) enter his shoes, even when Henry Chinaksi (his fictional alter ego) does not appear especially sympathetic. He is uniformly honest and humorously self-deprecating in all of his novels. His poetry is also admirably honest, but I find it too sparse. Bukowski's poetry is often formulaic; granted he is following his own formula, but he does not take many, if any, risks in his poetry (aside from his trademark chutzpah). They usually elaborate on the same themes, relentlessly and endlessly. It doesn't help that much of his poetry which is in print is stuff they published posthumously from piles of paper in his apartment. One suspects that there is a reason he never put those poems out there while he was still alive.

There is also, for some, the issue of how "authentically" Henry Chinaski's adventures correspond to actual events in Bukowski's life. It seems that he actively and consciously encouraged the image of himself which appeared in all of his novels. In my opinion this issue is irrelevant because is has no bearing on the entertainment value, or literary depth, of his stories, nor is self-mythologizing unique to Bukowski as an author. The Bukowski legend, if there is such a thing, does not detract at all from his brilliance as a story teller or literary importance to his legions of fans.

Out of his four main novels, Women is easily the weakest. You are correct in charecterizing it as a series of sexual encounters. His other books also feature sexual relationships as a common theme, but usually there are other, more prominent subjects. Factotum might be called his most "philosophical" or "existential" novel, insofar as it explores themes of alienation, hopelessness, and social degradation under the veneer of a deceptively simple hard-luck story. Post Office is less profound, but no less powerful (not to mention factually interesting in its descriptions of the spiritually crushing experience of working in the post office). It might be the most autobiographical novel Bukowski wrote considering he dedicated 15 years or so of his life to the US Postal Service. Ham on Rye might also take the title of the most autobiographical Bukowski novel. I consider it a twist on the "coming of age" story. Given its scope (Chinaski's childhood through his young-adulthood) it is the most varied novel of his. Like all of his novels, it is essentially structured in the form of anecdotes as the narrative jumps from scene to scene. Unlike his other novels, Ham on Rye has no all-encompassing thread to tie the incidents together (aside its being a chronologically organized "coming of age" story).

First thing of his I read was Women and I'll admit that it kept me interested and prompted me to look into him further despite its weaknesses. Post Office or Ham on Rye might be better introductory novels for the uninitiated. Can't really choose a favorite out of the non-Women novels. They are all fantastic.

I recommend John Fante's novels to any Bukowski fans. He credited Fante's Ask the Dust as his main inspiration and it is easy to see why. Fante is a much more sophisticated story teller than Bukowski, and, arguably, more literary in the sense that his novels are richer than Bukowski's in imagery and symbolism. Thematically they overlap to such an extent that one might confuse the men for brothers from other mothers.

Edgewise, I'm just the opposite. I don't care for his prose, but I love his poetry. The things you said about his poems are generally true, but I've sorted through a number of collections of his, selected the gems, made them into a PDF file, and stuck 'em on my Kindle. IMO, that's the best way to deal with any poet who isn't Emily Dickinson, hehe. I agree that he never took risks, and I agree that much of what he wrote was similar thematically, but it's rare that I read someone else's writing and I go, "YES! That's it! That's exactly what I think!" Weird that happens to me with Bukowski of all people, though... not sure what that says about me, haha.

…the crowd stops singing to
look at me.
I stand in the broken window
the blood on my
face.

“this,” I yell at them, “is in defense of the
poverty of self and in defense of the freedom
not to love!”
“leave him alone,” somebody says,
“he is insane, he has lived the bad life for
too long.”

I walk into the kitchen
sit down and pour a
glass of whiskey.

I decide that the only definition of Truth (which changes)
is that it is that thing or act or
belief which the crowd
rejects.

(from "people as flowers" ~~ Chuck "the Postman" Bukowski)

Yer right. I can't decide if I like that, and I must have read it a thousand times, and had it read TO me at least five or six times. (To have and keep the inestimable rock star James West for a close friend, one needs to learn, at the very least, to sit patiently through Buke readings, if not be ready to give an impromptu exposition oneself.)

(In retrospect, that must mean I like it. "That thing or act or belief." Yep.)

Originally Posted by Scarlett_156

…the crowd stops singing to
look at me.
I stand in the broken window
the blood on my
face.

“this,” I yell at them, “is in defense of the
poverty of self and in defense of the freedom
not to love!”
“leave him alone,” somebody says,
“he is insane, he has lived the bad life for
too long.”

I walk into the kitchen
sit down and pour a
glass of whiskey.

I decide that the only definition of Truth (which changes)
is that it is that thing or act or
belief which the crowd
rejects.

(from "people as flowers" ~~ Chuck "the Postman" Bukowski)

Yer right. I can't decide if I like that, and I must have read it a thousand times, and had it read TO me at least five or six times. (To have and keep the inestimable rock star James West for a close friend, one needs to learn, at the very least, to sit patiently through Buke readings, if not be ready to give an impromptu exposition oneself.)

(In retrospect, that must mean I like it. "That thing or act or belief." Yep.)

This is a good example of the trite, self-absorbed nonsense that Bukowski would usually write. I've yet to find anything profound in his work. I don't think he was capable of having a profound thought to be honest. He certainly had no style. I just couldn't take him seriously. I'm not so sure that it is worthy of any admiration or appreciation when a writer draws only on the most crude and lowly aspects or events of personal experiences and passes them off as art and poetry. Tepid and tedious, if you're asking me.

^^^ This is a perfect example of why I love the internet so much. You can't beat the internet for a cheap good time. My feelings about Buke are mixed, but my feelings about the internet are always <3 <3 <3

Yeah, it's amazing to me... the man loved Mahler but still he wrote repulsive nonsense!

Originally Posted by kennyc

Hate him? Love him?

I sometimes think I do both....

Bukowski was always to the point. I love his short detailed descriptions == especially of his past as a young boy. Though I am amazed he managed to get published. I suppose being in the right place at the right time is very important huh?

Originally Posted by backstory

Yeah, it's amazing to me... the man loved Mahler but still he wrote repulsive nonsense!

Amazing isn't it, I mean, Hitler loved Wagner...

Originally Posted by Blue Road Blogger

Bukowski was always to the point. I love his short detailed descriptions == especially of his past as a young boy. Though I am amazed he managed to get published. I suppose being in the right place at the right time is very important huh?

As is writing stuff that people want to read.

Originally Posted by Rob

As is writing stuff that people want to read.

That doesn't explain Meyer, Rowling, Masterton or Brown.

Wait... they aren't people, but pod people.

As you were gents.

Originally Posted by philistine

That doesn't explain Meyer, Rowling, Masterton or Brown.

A lot of people wanted to read them. Apparently, that makes some writers feel uncomfortable.

Originally Posted by Bloggsworth

Amazing isn't it, I mean, Hitler loved Wagner...

Yes, amazing!

for Jane is still my favorite poem of his.