I'm too bored to read all of this conversation around frankD here, so maybe this might have been coming up before.
Spoiler:
It's in his Defense!!! (kinda)
There seems to be a general misunderstanding about his complaint against 'focusing on only one piece'.
to help remember, here's the initial statement:
[...] one poem is like looking at a small section of a TV screen - those few pixels will not show the entire picture - so IMHO any artist must display his entire body of work in order to be evaluated in total and by relation to each piece individually
I think, the main mistake he makes here, is NOT to say, that one should know more about an author than just one poem to say something about that author or his poetry.
I guess most here would agree on this more or less.
The main 'mistake' he made, was assuming
(because of this one very specialiced question) that we usually tend to focus on just a few bits and pieces.
Him being a newbie, he couldn't know, how DEEP this site goes and how many people here know so much about Bukowski, that we ARE indeed able to pick single poems or quotes or pictures and talk about them,
because the BACKGROUND is always there.
So, I think (and I'm not defending him as a person in general, but only on this point!),
he simply tried to get into action too quick.
Not looking around enough, who is here and what knowledge do people have here etc. As a single thought thrown into a conversation in a bar, he might've been right.
so,
frankD, for your 2nd chance:
look around.
dig.
find out, on with niveau some here talk and what
immense background some of the regulars have. THEN you'll see, there was no real cause for your argument in this case.
But if you then still think "this is why this site will have a limited utility for me" - okay. cu.
And sure it is limited. For example, we rarely debate about quantum-physics or plate-tectonics (which are interesting subjects too) - but concerning Bukowski, you won't find a richer source than this. Worldwide.