Art should be its own hammer.
Anyone read this one yet? Opinons?
I'm not familiar with this one...details?cirerita said:Baughan's bio
speaking of which, I hope she includes some of the (unpublished as of yet) letters she wrote to B. some of them are so hot they burn! talk about explicit sexual content!The one I really look forward to is Linda King's Loving and Hating Charles Bukowski, which is supposed to come out this year.
just picked this one up and completely enjoyed it. Slim, yes, but a very perceptive take on Buk and his own myth-building.mjp said:Jory Sherman also wrote a decent (short) bio, Bukowski: Friendship, Fame & Bestial Myth. Hard to find (small run published in 1981), but it shows up on ebay now and then.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/2004-10-14/art_1.htmlcirerita said:speaking of which, I hope she includes some of the (unpublished as of yet) letters she wrote to B. some of them are so hot they burn! talk about explicit sexual content!
Mine is a 2009 Virgin/Random House printing and the Miles copyright is dated 2005. I've looked ahead for those references (the first is on p144 and the second is on p228 of my edition) and neither error has been changed from what you noted above.I was flipping through Miles Buk bio the other day and within 15 min. I found two (minor?) errors.
On page 130 he writes: "His Ginsberg-influenced poem I Shot A Man In Reno...". - but that's a short story (from Erections.../Tales Of Ordinary Madness) and not a poem!
On page 206 he writes: "The story which upset most people was The Fiend...The story caused a good deal of controversy because it was written in the first person". - That's not true! It's written in the third person, not the first. The controversy stems from the subject (of child rape), not from the person it was written in.
I see. Thanks! - Mine is the Virgin hard cover, also copyrighted 2005, and printed in Great Britain. It does'nt say anything about Random House. Maybe yours is a paperback (which often have more pages with less words on each page) ? That could account for the differences in page numbers. My copy is 314 pages long, including the index.Mine is a 2009 Virgin/Random House printing and the Miles copyright is dated 2005. I've looked ahead for those references (the first is on p144 and the second is on p228 of my edition) and neither error has been changed from what you noted above.
Right! Miles did that a lot, not only with the novels but with the poems too. If Buk wrote several poems about a topic or event, then Miles says it must have happened in real life, otherwise Buk would'nt have mentioned it in several poems. Well, that may be, but one can't use such poems as "evidence" in a biography if that's all you got for "facts", but apparently Miles can...i read the first couple chapters of the miles book and gave up, because i didn't like that he used passages from the novels as "evidence."