Bukowski in Maxim Magazine (1 Viewer)


I just saw this in the newest issue of Maxim. Now, they did not seem to "get it", but the press will probably sell some books. Nothing like summing up his 60 year creative output as "A stiff triple shot of the late, great king of scumbag prose." What about the poetry?


STD-ridden Casanova? wow, I'd like to meet whoever wrote this article so I could punch that bastard in the face. this is the worse thing i've ever read. i guess maxim is letting anybody write for them these days.

should this piss me off? because it does.
I've found that no matter how many places (though few they may be outside of this forum) acclaim him for being a writer of poetry and/or prose (but usually they only know about his fiction) I can hardly ever find someone who has read any B. My oldest cousin and the friend that introduced me to him are the only people I know personally that have read Bukowski, and being from a sickeningly fundamentalist Christian family her mother found and threw away the only poetry book she had by him (it was either Love is a Dog from Hell or Burning in Water, Drowning in Flame).
well as long as this little shitty article sells books, then thats all that matters. no matter who the person is, they should at least be introduced to buk's work at least once in their lives. right?
shitty blurb, great exposure. and I must confess, I don't mind the new covers. if I were a Buk virgin and saw these in the shops, I'd probably pick one up to read the back.
Hi Abel,
I scanned it from my paper copy. I'm not sure that they are online. Also, you are seeing the whole article. It is really only a blurb...

Looking at it, it DOES look like it is a webpage, but infact, it is a slick men's magazine here in the US. They sell by subscription and on newsstands. I'm not sure, but I would say that they have a circulation of over 500,000 copies per issue. Great articles, a ton of advertising and scantily-clad women...

I scanned it from my paper copy. I'm not sure that they are online.

Dear Bill, would you mind us, using your own link (which of course appeares, when right clicking on that pic and chosing the properties-option) to let others know about it?
If you don't mind, I'd send the link to some friends.

Maxim has a German edition too. About one year ago, they asked us for help on an article on Buk. After I've seen what the were planning to write and called them instantly, correcting all mistakes and told them point by point what was simply not true, at the end they came up with the crap they had before I told 'em. They totally ignored my words. I had better use of my time. I mean, it was so simple stupid bullshit like claiming the 1985 marriage was his first one or in his short appearance in Barfly he would look at Faye Dunaway's ass (instead of sitting most calmly and cool on the bar).

This article was really pissing me. I was about to kill somebody, but then was too lazy.
I agree. It sounds like one of those inaccuracies that the writer guessed at. Now this has become fact to some as it is in print.

Last edited by a moderator:
Probably, but is that technically an STD (Sexually Transmitted DISEASE). Isay that crabs are an infestatiojn and not a disease. I know that we are talking about semantics, but it is fun to pich these guys frm Maxim apart...

didn't he have crabs in one?

Yes, in Factotum. I forgot about that. It's also a funny scene in the movie. But is it a disease? When I think about STD syphillis and the like comes to mind, not the crabs. But maybe technically/medically the crabs are a STD...
Last edited by a moderator:
Maxim is hardly the place anyone goes for any literary news or critique or literary anything for that matter. It's Playboy-lite for young men. The bottom line is it probably doesn't matter what you say about a writer or a singer or an ac-tor, it's about what they do, and the more people you can get to look at what they do, the better.

As for STD's, or other weird inaccuracies, those things only matter to us. ;) If the dink at Maxim who wrote this feels the need to sensationalize in order to get Bukowski across to someone, it's all good. Bukowski and Martin and Weissner did the same thing themselves, on a smaller and quieter scale perhaps, but hype is hype is hype.

Oh yeah, and poetry - based on the people I know personally who are recently new to Bukowski, they all started with the novels and short stories, and only warily and begrudgingly picked up the poetry books. I think most people look at poetry like string theory or international politics: probably very important, but not interesting to them. Of course if there is one poet who can convince someone with zero interest that poetry is actually not some sort of bitter medicine, it is Bukowski.

So I guess I say good for Maxim, and good for Ecco and their new covers. In the end the words either grab you or they don't.
Oh, it's all so much shit. These critics, these readers, you fuckin' groupies, why don't you try and live your own life or misery, whichever applies. as for me, I'll take another sip of this Jameson and wish I hadn't read all the words that I have, so I could find them for the first time. Oh, the nostalgia of it all. good luck to all, love and live as much as you can. And if you get the chance, go jump out an airplane, it's the best
love, peace and all that stuff
and misquote: "ah, misdirected animosity...the guy doesn't know a damn thing about me."

it's that "get a life" shit. a real bummer. subtle form of cohesion. ventriloquist's dummy.

Users who are viewing this thread