[racehorse]

bukowski is great. i love bukowski.
when you say he was shit, i disagree. he wrote poetry that was true to his life, and honest to god.
he was a spit in the face to the conservative poetry snobs that believed poetry should be about certain designated subjects and should avoid others. bukowski showed that he could write a poem about taking a shit if he wanted, and it would contain all of his juicy, witty rambling style, that would be just as valuable as a piece of poetry as anything else.

what the fuck is talent anyway? he showed that you didn't need genius spouting out of every pore to write a poem, it is equally valuable to have a mind that can soak up experiences and situations in his trademark insightful manner, and put it down in a way that is funny, interesting and often insightful to read.
he and the other writers around the time were questioning "what is poetry", so WHAT IS POETRY???
bukowski for president

[_slavo_]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

read Ham On Rye

then Post Office

those are seminal


Women is a harsh read.

great book though

Read his poetry as well
LOVE IS A DOG FROM HELL is a good choice to start
HOT WATER MUSIC too


Bukowski rules all forever

SONIC LIFE!

I'm with you on this one, Rob. Ham on Rye is essential !
Generally, I think Bukowski is amusing as hell.

[jon boy]

love bukowski.

[Norma J]

Originally Posted by Pookie

Well you've won me over with that killer argument.

I wasn't putting forth an argument. I didn't need to when Rob Instigator proved both of you two bitter poms wrong. Hence the 'Rob Instigator is right' part in my post

[porkmarras]

Originally Posted by racehorse

what the fuck is talent anyway? he showed that you didn't need genius spouting out of every pore to write a poem, it is equally valuable to have a mind that can soak up experiences and situations in his trademark insightful manner, and put it down in a way that is funny, interesting and often insightful to read.
he and the other writers around the time were questioning "what is poetry", so WHAT IS POETRY???
bukowski for president

That is also the same mindset that allows myriad people in any society to think that just because they have the tools for creation,they are automatically entitled for a seat at the table of art making.It is what confuses expectations in most 'knowing' art lovers and provides endless gibberish coming out from cheeky amateurs with a dubious knowledge of mastering a language,sounds,brushes etc.

[jon boy]

Originally Posted by Pookie

Well you've won me over with that killer argument.

whats wrong pookie? you feeling a bit pookie? (thats the new jon boy incase you didnt know)

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

rent and watch LIVE THROUGH THIS
the documentary about Buk

he was NOT a mysoginist.

If you mean Bukowski: Born Into This, then I've seen it. It includes him shouting abuse at his wife Linda, and kicking her off the couch and attacking her. She described this as a harrowing experience and not untypical behaviour.

[Norma J]

Porkmarras, you can't even use a spacebar. What the fuck would you know about literature?

Originally Posted by "racehorse"

he was a spit in the face to the conservative poetry snobs that believed poetry should be about certain designated subjects and should avoid others.

Bingo! You can see it happening in this thread.

[k-krack]

Originally Posted by porkmarras

Something that alcoholic,mysoginistic pieces of shit are really good at.

George Orwell also stripped down all his writing so that is is easily understood. Was he an 'alcoholic, mysoginistic piece of shit?" No.

[porkmarras]

Originally Posted by Norma J

Porkmarras, you can't even use a spacebar. What the fuck would you know about literature?



Bingo! You can see it happening in this thread.

......and a modern Australian Shakespere makes an appearance.

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by k-krack

George Orwell also stripped down all his writing so that is is easily understood. Was he an 'alcoholic, mysoginistic piece of shit?" No.

No, because he wasn't an alcoholic or a misogynist, numpty.

[porkmarras]

Originally Posted by k-krack

George Orwell also stripped down all his writing so that is is easily understood. Was he an 'alcoholic, mysoginistic piece of shit?" No.

I doubt that 'our' friend Bukowski could have ever endured fighting in the Spanish Civil War as well as Orwell with the due differencies in the state of their livers,eh?

[Norma J]

Originally Posted by Pookie

If you mean Bukowski: Born Into This, then I've seen it. It includes him shouting abuse at his wife Linda, and kicking her off the couch and attacking her. She described this as a harrowing experience and not untypical behaviour.

That was one section of the film, one very short section that lasted a few minutes, if that. You didn't touch on the part where he pined away at home for one of his girlfriends to return. Where he read one of his poems and weeped over her. He didn't hate women, he's stated that many a time. He just didn't understand them.

Why do you bother? Porkmarras is a bitter and twisted lonely fool. But you, why do you bother? You don't like Bukowski, and that's your choice. Why bother trying to convince people to not like him? Especially with the dismal case you've put forward.

[porkmarras]

Originally Posted by Norma J

That was one section of the film, one very short section that lasted a few minutes, if that. You didn't touch on the part where he pined away at home for one of his girlfriends to return. Where he read one of his poems and weeped over her. He didn't hate women, he's stated that many a time. He just didn't understand them.

Why do you bother? Porkmarras is a bitter and twisted lonely fool. But you, why do you bother? You don't like Bukowski, and that's your choice. Why bother trying to convince people to not like him? Especially with the dismal case you've put forward.

Didn't even read this post but i've noticed that it has been written by the redneck Australian who not so long ago started a thread called 'I Don't Understand Women'.I rest my case.

[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.

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by Norma J

That was one section of the film, one very short section that lasted a few minutes, if that. You didn't touch on the part where he pined away at home for one of his girlfriends to return. Where he read one of his poems and weeped over her. He didn't hate women, he's stated that many a time. He just didn't understand them.

Why do you bother? Porkmarras is a bitter and twisted lonely fool. But you, why do you bother? You don't like Bukowski, and that's your choice. Why bother trying to convince people to not like him? Especially with the dismal case you've put forward.

Because the thread is called BUKOWSKI SUX, you nitwit.

[Norma J]

Originally Posted by porkmarras

Didn't even read this post but i've noticed that it has been written by the redneck Australian who not so long ago started a thread called 'I Don't Understand Women'.I rest my case.

I'm Australian and we have bushes and fauna. So your lack of foreign education leads you to thinking that I'm a redneck. Open your mind!

Oh, and you don't understand women either. No man does. That's a fact. HAHA.

[Norma J]

Originally Posted by Pookie

Because the thread is called BUKOWSKI SUX, you nitwit.

But WHY do you feel it necessary to try and fight that Bukowski sux?
Why do you bother, that is the question I asked.

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by Glice

Orwell's subsurvient to Joyce...in my book. He was also a hack first and foremost. He's great, but he's not 'a great'.

True enough, I've omitted Miller so as to agree with the statement fully.

[racehorse]

[quote=porkmarras]... just because they have the tools for creation,they are automatically entitled for a seat at the table of art making.quote]
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.