[porkmarras]

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.

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by Norma J

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

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.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Pookie

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

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...

[Pookie]

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

[Glice]

Originally Posted by porkmarras

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 poinless from whichever side that comparison is coming from as they are totally unrelated as writers.

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.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Pookie

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

No worries, as our equatorially opposed friends might say.

[Norma J]

Originally Posted by Pookie

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.

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.

[porkmarras]

Originally Posted by Norma J

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

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?

[Norma J]

Originally Posted by porkmarras

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.

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by Norma J

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.

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.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by porkmarras

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?

Originally Posted by Norma J

Actually, it's me that's having a civilised conversation. You've been following me around, and you can't even use a spacebar. We have both flora AND fauna here, so that prooves that argument wrong. In fact, I strongly suspect you may be KittyfromChina. HA!

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

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Pookie

...condescension...

That means talking down to someone considered inferior.

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by Glice

That means talking down to someone considered inferior.

Post of the week.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Pookie

Post of the week.

Opinion of the year.

[porkmarras]

Originally Posted by Glice

Opinion of the year.

Agreement of the decade.

[porkmarras]

Originally Posted by Pookie

Post of the weak.

Opinion of the strong.

[Glice]

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

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by porkmarras

Opinion of the strong.

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

[racehorse]

i sense a reductio ad absurdum in our midst.

[Norma J]

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.