Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glice
Orwell's subsurvient to Joyce and Miller in my book. He was also a hack first and foremost. He's great, but he's not 'a great'. Actually, disregard my opinion, I'm a wanton classicist, so I'll probably poo-poo everything.
Bukowski's entertaining, but I hardly think he was some great rebellion. Poets, since time immemorial have always been lewd, unpleasant fuckers. I was reading Horace recently, he's a rum bugger. Virgil's positively pornographic in parts. Most of the (big-c) Classics are. Of course, the problem is that a lot of people think of poets in the romantic vein, like the gayer parts of Wordsworth, but if you look further into most of their corpus', there's a lot of paedophiles, philanderers and pricks in every great poet.
|
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.