[...] WHY does there seem to be such an urge to link up Bukowski and the Beats? ...
i see a point in it:
- Both (
Buk and
'the Beats') were a phenomenon, that was based on the need to create a 'new style', far away from traditional thought of what literature should be, using 'real talk' etc.
(i'm talking of the late 50s-60s here - of course, Buk had been writing from the early 40s to the early 90s, which is a much wider period than that of the Beats.)
- Both were using their everydaylife to produce literature out of it.
- Both were more depending on 'feeling' than on 'brain' (like intellectual dispute etc) - (please excuse my bad ability of expressing this thought in English, but i'm sure, you do know what i mean here.)
- Both were not really fans of the major majority, the society, the leading politics.
which leads to the reasons, why Buk is NOT a Beat:
- even though he wasn't happy with the state of society / politics, he Never had the urge to go out and preach in order to change things.
and another:
- he never was a person to cling to a clique. he was an individual and a loner all over. the Beats were Not. (Neeli has pointed to that in his bio, and i find this a valid point.)
so far today.
okay,
roni