My argument here is not that artists per se are particularly good role models as people and i don't see why they would necessarily have to be.The point i'm trying to make is that the narrow mindedness of some (in this case Bukoswki) ultimately poisons their work to the extent that it alienates rather than embrace different factions of a potential audience/readership.Comparing Orwell to Bukowski is pointless from whichever side that comparison is coming from as they are totally unrelated writers.

Edit-Not saying that you were comparing the two but his name has been thrown into the pot for some reason.

Do I really have to explain nitwit?

We're having a discussion. I enjoy having discussions about things I feel strongly about, in this case: books, poetry, writers, literature.

Don't be afraid of people having different opinions than you.

Miller's a crime of passion, I realise. I probably should've said Bataille, but I very much doubt that Bukowski was aware of him. Before anyone lays into this, I'll point out that Batialle wasn't, to my knowledge, translated into English until after Bukowski started writing.

I do think Miller, regardless of his standing in 'proper' literary circles, is incredibly important to the beats in general. For better or worse...

Sorry Glice, I mis-read your original post (whoopsie), so consider Miller reinstated.

Of course, granted. It's a difficult thing to negotiate though - for all the hatefullness of Burzum, they are fucking awesome. Bukowski doesn't really sustain my interest, probably for the reasons you've illustrated above, but he doesn't particularly worry me enough to detract from him. I do, however, think that before he's put on a pedestal he should be put within a literary context.

No worries, as our equatorially opposed friends might say.

Someone who is afraid of others opinions are more likely to be the people who resort to name calling and condescension. I've did neither, unlike yourself.

Discussion is fine. But Arguments, which you described this as being (in your first post directed towards me), are lame.

The only person who seems to be 'fighting' here is you.Forum discussion,if you ain't gonna say something constructive just shut yer gob!Me,Racehorse,Pookie and Glice are having a civilized conversation that also implies some sort of disagreement.You are just spitting vile bollocks and adding nil to nothing.Either you say something remotely intelligent or be happily ignored.Ok?

This post was completely irrelevant to anything. It was made up of bitterness and past tears.

Therefore, I'll forever be happy to be ignored by you. :)

Argument:
Meaning number 1: a fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true
Meaning number 2: a dispute where there is strong disagreement.

In my post I was using Meaning number 1.

Now THAT'S condescension, nitwit.

Does anyone else think that Bukowski's parodies are brilliant, a bit like Fugazi?

That means talking down to someone considered inferior.

Post of the week.

Opinion of the year.

Agreement of the decade.

Opinion of the strong.

It's all getting a bit Nietzschian, no? I'm off to cry over a flogged horse.

Sorry, I tried to edit but deleted instead, thus rendering your post baffling to those who hadn't read my original post.

i sense a reductio ad absurdum in our midst.

The pack has attacked again. Following eachother off cliffs to impress one another on the way down. Quite sad by any means, but especially when you consider the age factor.

Drama queen.

I'm sure you bum-buddies will agree.

Oh don't even quote him Pookie.That way you spare me his crocodile dundee tears.

and why shouldn't they? in my opinion, this "table" is basically a meaningless elitist creation, formed over time to maintain the barrier between audience and artist.
if people have the tools, why not utilize them.
i think this is the problem, the artist and the audience have become so alienated from each other, why should art be structured towards the consumer? surely art is better art if it is created without any preconcieved notion of what is expected by society. if a person has feelings, he/she should express them. in my mind, this is art.
although i'm straying from the point. i do agree with your point in full about people who pretend to have a full knowledge of language/brush strokes etc etc, but in my mind, that's only a tiny part of the full picture. were sonic youth "cheeky amateurs?" because they had no formla training in music?
perhaps! but they sure made some fucking amazing art.[/quote]


Right,back to more interesting things than Norma J's desperate calls for mummy and daddy.I'm not saying that if a person didn't get some formal artistic training they wont be able to produce beautiful art and,as you've rightly pointed out,Sonic Youth are one such example of that.I'm not sure if i 'm totally convinced about this 'divide' between audience and artist and quiete frankly i think that it is an idea that gets dusted out of the cupboard because of the notion of i'ndie cred' and that old and sterile punk rock way of thinking that has been perpetrated on musicians and scenes for a bit too long now.If the work of an artist is good enough,i shall think that it will still manage to communicate to me intimately even if it is being performed from the peak of a mountain.

yeah, for sure, although what makes bukowski great to me (although not drastically original as glice pointed out. ) is the focus and insight on the unimportant everyday details which make up life.
"the miniscule is the proper domain for the artist" is a quote i remember from somewhere. (obviously joyce and co. were using this technique years before, and the buddhist zen poets centuries before)
but anyway, that's why i think he is wonderful, breaking down the barrier between artist and audience by describing easily relatable details that break down the alienation between writer and reader.

I'll agree with that. He is a drag. If i wanted to hear some drunk ramble on about nothing, i'd go down to the nearest bar and find one. just my opinion.

i dig your picture porkmama !**

well make sure you take yr notebook so any gold doesn't go unrecorded.

i've read nearly everything penned by bukowski, and i still admire his poetry.. this whole thread feels something along the lines of "i'm going to argue that marilyn manson is not goth, and the spooky kids will understand.."

much like music, literature is about the individual.. bukowski repeatedly attacked the hippies and the beats as they were trying to change the world the wrong way: trying to convert all to nonconformity makes a new norm of conformity..

bukowski did not hate women, he had suffered because of women, and was openly discussing such topics with a bitter sentiment.. he was alienated to an extreme point, had found semi-refuge in the bottle..

hunter s. thompson, anyone?
do you guys remember burroughs?
poe, baudelaire, they're not considered to be "ramblings under the influence..."

it's perfectly okay to say that you don't enjoy bukowski, but it's a whole other issue if you start name calling, and support a very inflexible idea based on hearsay and half-truths..

literature is a matter of taste.. there is nothing to discuss apart from views on specific topics regarding a writer.. i don't like kerouac that much, but i also understand his importance and influence - and i don't go around starting a thread against him..

basically, what are we arguing here?

partial points go to pookie and porkmarras to defending their stance, but they lose more points for closed-mindedness and hostility..

see you guys at the "vonnegut sux" thread for more gore and violence...

[quote=Glice]Of course, granted. It's a difficult thing to negotiate though - for all the hatefullness of Burzum, they are fucking awesome.quote]

That's a stimulating point in that i find myself more lenient towards good music being made by pricks with a good grasp of visuals rather than the crudity of the word itself.Music is intrinsically tied to the imagination of the listener because it isn't tangible or visible( if we discount the visual apparatus attached to it by videos,artwork,performers etc) so therefore it travels into channels opened by the conscious/subconscious and makes itself more difficult to be judged.

If you read this thread carefully, you'll notice that most of the hostility came from the pro-Bukowski camp. In fact, aside from the pro-Bukowski hostility, we were having a decent discussion.

As for close-mindedness, I've read a great deal of Bukowski's work, read a lot about him, and have formed my opinions over a number of years (about 25 since I first read something by him).

And yes, some of the criticisms aimed at Bukowski can be applied to other writers, but that doesn't make them any less true of his work.

he is funnier than most though!

Bukowski!

Bukowski doesn't suck. I'm hungry.

1. The writer is always alienated from the reader, and vice versa: The mechanistics of absence, the medium, the intangible force of interpretation will always mean that whatever the writer means cannot be understood in its entirety by the reader, and what the reader understands will never be heard by the writer. The writer's skill lies in appealing to enough alienated (in a different sense) people, not by breaking down the alienation.

2. I have a personal thing about conflating religious edicts with artistic ones. Very loosely, as a post-enlightenment artefact [sic], art is primarily concerned with an individual's interpretation of the world as s/he sees it. Religion, and many pre-englightenment works, are concerned with expressing the 'art' for the society (in non-religious works) or expressing the metaphysical/ spiritual/ epistemelogical [alleged] needs of a group or potential group. Where similarities occur is only in the post-enlightenment artist converging to a similar point for the religion, never vice-versa. Nonetheless, the individual's art, expression of the world takes precedence over any commonalities with religion (even if the artist is expressing his/ her religious self).

3. Personally, I can appreciate that a lot of people like to see the mundane exalted in art, and I do so myself. I'm a fan of Billy Bragg, and Beckett (who I was reading today) does a wonderful job of saying nothing. However, in Bukowski I feel this exaltation of the mundane is merely an expression - Thomas Hardy (for me, the zenith of mundane writing), meanwhile, can make the most absurdly fastiduous reams of florid prose spring tenfold on merely a few seconds of mundane dialogue/ narrative. It's very much a personal thing, of course.


There is plenty to discuss, always. 'Taste' is too bland and insipid a non-sequitur to leave unexplored, and this discussion hitherto (save a moment's light relief/ laconic nonsense) is exploring what this taste means in relation to Bukowski, with the exception of a few boorish individuals who are incapable of involving themselves in a discussion on any level. This last comment is not, in any way, shape, or form, directed at yourself.

What Beckett were you reading?

Complete Plays. Dipping in and out rather than sequentially, although I re-read Godot and End Game the other day. Went through some of the shorter ones today. Wonderful he is.

Cool. I'm a big fan of his novels, like Watt and the Molloy, Malone Dies, and the Unnamable trilogy.

My sig is from Malone Dies or Molloy, I can't remember which.

I've yet to read his literature, though I intend to this year, God willing. I can only imagine it's as good as his plays. You might want to check out Sarah Kane, the subject of another thread recently, as she's in a similar, albeit darker and more harrowing, vein.

I'd like to butt in with my opinion of Bukowski. I like his poems quite a bit, but I read Factotum and didn't care for it. It was really predictable and not very interesting.

But like I said, I enjoy his poems.

again, I recommend HAM ON RYE which is about his childhood (terrible horrible shit he dealt with)
and POST OFFICE


I liked factotum completely. I think it is the ultimate anti-work manifesto