Could Buk be considered an existentialist? An absurdist? (1 Viewer)

[Kingcargo.jb]

Thanks to Buk, I've had the pleasure to read some of the authors he has mentioned in his work - Camus, Sartre, Kafka.

My question to you: How deep was their influence on Buk?

In my opinion, Buks' stories and poems deal with the everyday absurdities of life; his life was without meaning until he gave it meaning. He accepted it instead of fighting it. It seemed that he saw the value of just going with the flow of life. His gravestone sums it up: "DON'T TRY".

Am I the only one that sees this? Am I way off base? Your thoughts????

 

[Father Luke]

My question to you: How deep was their influence on Buk?

I think, my opinion, as a guy, not a moderator, or
anyone associated with any particular branch of
medicine, my opinion is that Bukowski was
a Poet.

I think that all of us are influenced by the things
we've done, and the things we experience, and
Bukowski certainly read those authors you
mentioned, and a whole lot more.

But I don't think that Bukowski was representative
of the existentialists. He is more representative of
Poets in general.

Seems simple, but poets, while sharing something
with the existentialists, transcend that whole
smear. And in transcending, become greater than
the whole.

Again, just my opinion. But I see where you are
coming from (does anyone still say that?) with all that.

 

[rjwink666]

I see a lot of similarities between Orwell's 'Down and Out in Paris and London' and 'Factotum'

 

[PaulFowler]

I just finished on my dissertation arguing his postmodernist credentials. In my research I did find there'd be a strong case for calling him an existentialist, although of course Bukowski himself wouldn't be quick to align with any such pigeon-holeing. Generally I think that your reading of Bukowski will have the greatest influence on whether he is an existentialist, absurdist, realist, romanticist or whatever.

 

[Bukfan]

It seemed that he saw the value of just going with the flow of life. His gravestone sums it up: "DON'T TRY".

In my opinion, "DON'T TRY", has nothing to do with ,"going with the flow of life". It simply means don't try to do it - but do it! If you only try nothing will happen. You have to do it 100% to get a result. Just trying won't do it.

As for Buk being an existensialist (Sartre), I have my doubts. He certainly did'nt live consciously as an existensialist, embracing the existensialist philosophy. If that was the case he would have mentioned it somewhere. Maybe he was living like an existensialist without knowing it. I'll have to look further into it before I can offer an opinion...

 

[mjp]

...his life was without meaning until he gave it meaning. He accepted it instead of fighting it. It seemed that he saw the value of just going with the flow of life.

The quotes above are contradictory. Someone who was just accepting things as they were and "going with the flow" would sit home and watch TV every night, not strive to give their life meaning. I think Bukowski fought against the flow all his life.

 

[Joseph K]

I always thought "Don't try" was "don't force it, it will come naturally or not at all". Did I get that wrong?

 

[Kingcargo.jb]

Hey MJP

As far as my "going with the flow" comment, he actually did (in my humble opinion). He was a writer and he never tried to not be what he was. Being a writer was the flow of his life and he didn't fight it. He did what he had to do by working at the p.o., or any other job, but he always made time to write. He had the need to write and he did. He didn't try. . . he just did it.

 

[David]

Yes, an existentialist, absurdist, funny buddhist

Yes, absolutely an existentialist. But WITH HUMOR. That's how he's different from Sartre, Camus, Dostoyevsky....And how he's different from Hemingway. And he also is absurd like Beckett, but to me a lot funnier than Samuel Beckett. And there's the Lao-Tzu, Buddhist, "spiritual" side to Bukowski also, although I hesitate to use that word. Sacred, trying to find the still point within, to shut out the madness of the world and find peace in moments with wine, with love, with Shostakovich, etc. But yes, everything with Bukowski is this question of choice, of the moment forking into various possibilities and you have to choose what to do: you are condemned to be free, as Sartre said. Or, do you know the joke: "To be is to do"--J.P. Sartre; "To be or not to be"--Shakespeare; "Do be Do be Do be"--Sinatra.

 

[Johannes]

And he also is absurd like Beckett, but to me a lot funnier than Samuel Beckett.

I generally agree, although Beckett brought me to laughing tears reading Murphy one boring lonely night. I don't remember many books which forced me that way.

Coming to think of it, the whole story bears some famous B. - similarities in content: Here's Murphy who doesn't want to do anything but sit in his chair all day. He falls in love with a prostitute. She's forcing him to get a job. He says he can only do it if she gets his astrological charts from some obscure master. She does it. He ends up as a guard in a mental asylum ... etc, etc.

The scene where Murphy is playing chess in the middle of the night with one of the inmates and gets so involved that the inmate is able to sneak away and terrorize another patient simply called "The Hypomaniac" by turning the light in his room on and off til he ("The Hypomaniac") jumps against the wall like "a fly in a jar" is the one which got me.

Hilarious, absurd, brilliant, genius writing.

 

[Short Bus]

he was destined to be an existentialist

 

[roni]

Buk liked Camus, and especially felt related to his 'stranger'. But he didn't like the later works nor did he like Camus giving university lectures. same goes for Sartre and his political ambitions. (see letters + 'Notes')

anyway, in German language we have a similar sounding name, than the one of the 'existentialists' (Sartre, Camus,...).
We use it for the likes of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Kirkegaard. The German term is 'Existenzphilosophie' (='philosophy of existence') or 'Lebensphilosophie' (=philosophy of life'), meaning to give up the former aims of the philosophers to build general, 'objective' evidence, and instead, look for the 'subject', the individual human condition in a given situation. (and thus go back to the marrow of human 'existence' - that's where the name came from.)

i certainly would exclude Kirkegaard here, but we all know, that he had read and admired Schop and Nietzsche. And I clearly would state, that he, Bukowski, IS a 'philosopher of existence' in this tradition. (yeah, i know, i've said that before...)