Charles Bukowski: Outsider, Maverick and Misfit
- Thread starter Ponder
- Start date
Thanks Ponder. What's funny is the bulk of academic discussion about Hank's work is about wether Hank's work is worth discussing at all. In the end, according to those degreed university pashas, is that any work that is direct, visceral and unambiguous, is of no real merit. So many hatreds in their contempt. For the working class, the undereducated, the disenfranchised...Hank doesn't NEED to be deconstructed by those precious pussies, he already did it himself. He is ultimately and finally, critic proof. That's why they hate him.
Well, yes and no. That someone questions Bukowski's output in the context of appropriate/inappropriate only serves to further his contribution if one is willing to dig a bit. Those who hate will never come around, and they will always cling to the seriousness of what literature means to them; those who love will never be dissuaded; those who are in the middle can make up their own minds. Nothing has changed; there's no need to be more concerned today than you might have been before reading this.
It is what it is. I feel no need to convince anyone to think differently and I have no concern that future endeavors will be compromised because a few academics question what is appropriate in terms of subject matter for literary expression.
Skygazer
And in the end...
Reading the Essay (and it is from 2008) so perhaps things have improved again. It is in the main, calling for Bukowski work to be included as "serious" literature and poetry - or more specifically his better stuff - citing his absence from The Norton Anthology of Modern and Contempary Poetry.
For scholars who do like his work and want to see him recognised this is an important battle to fight out in academia.
It isn't going to affect his popularity with ordinary readers around the world.
One thing throughout the piece that did annoy me, was his reference to Bukowski's private life and the way he lived it, as if it were some criteria to be considered when deciding whether he was "fit" for inclusion. I know it is difficult because of the quasi autobiographical manner of it. But judging him and citing specific incidents in his life; the incident on video with Linda is used.
Do other writers past and present get similarly judged? - don't think so, otherwise there would be a sudden dearth of authors from university libraries, the difference is they didn't write about it - which brings us back to the point about what is suitable "material for literature".
For scholars who do like his work and want to see him recognised this is an important battle to fight out in academia.
It isn't going to affect his popularity with ordinary readers around the world.
One thing throughout the piece that did annoy me, was his reference to Bukowski's private life and the way he lived it, as if it were some criteria to be considered when deciding whether he was "fit" for inclusion. I know it is difficult because of the quasi autobiographical manner of it. But judging him and citing specific incidents in his life; the incident on video with Linda is used.
Do other writers past and present get similarly judged? - don't think so, otherwise there would be a sudden dearth of authors from university libraries, the difference is they didn't write about it - which brings us back to the point about what is suitable "material for literature".
For them, yes. But in no way will any degree of acceptance, or rejection, for that matter, change any of the words or the impact of these words to me. It's irrelevant what anyone else thinks. Art is a personal thing. I don't care one lick how many people like, hate, or are indifferent to Buk.