It seems that the problem with some writers is that they find it nigh on impossible to compliment the genius of other writers: they don't want to be compared, and I don't blame them. This is true of Dan Fante, true of James Ellroy, and it was true of Bukowski himself. And it wasn't because Bukowski felt that he was so good; it was because he felt that others were so bad. Then it's a matter of taste whether one believes him or not.Here is a short clip where Dan Fante (son of John Fante), comments on BUK:
Bukowski's nightmares: "Well, Lou was true to his word. I didn't see him for some time, not even on weekends, and meanwhile I was going through a kind of personal hell. I was very jumpy, nerves gone -- a little noise and I'd jump out of my skin. I was afraid to go to sleep: nightmare after nightmare, each more terrible than the one which preceded it. You were all right if you went to sleep totally drunk, that was all right, but if you went to sleep half-drunk or, worse, sober, then the dreams began, only you were never sure whether you were sleeping or whether the action was taking place in the room, for when you slept you dreamed the entire room, the dirty dishes, the mice, the folding walls, the pair of shit-in pants some whore had left on the floor, the dripping faucet, the moon like a bullet out there, cars full of the sober and well-fed, shining headlights through your window, everything, everything, you were in some sort of dark corner, dark dark, no help, no reason, no no reason at all, dark sweating corner, darkness and filth, the stench of reality, the stink of everything: spiders, eyes, landladies, sidewalks, bars, buildings, grass, no grass, light, no light, nothing belonging to you. The pink elephants never showed up but plenty of little men with savage tricks or a looming big man to strangle you or sink his teeth into the back of your neck, lay on your back and you sweating, unable to move, this black stinking hairy thing laying there on you on you on you."
There's a great book by Charles Seife called, Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, that is about the changes that have taken place since ancient mathematicians adopted the use of zero, which is the ultimate invisible number.I believe somebody famous once said that there are two types of numbers, the visible and the invisible.
interesting. reminded me of the ONE of neoplatonism. how far does the idea of zero go back? i first encountered neoplatonism in a book, Pathways of philosophy, by one Manly Palmer Hall. a readable book on a fascinating subject. i believe Hall was based in LA.There's a great book by Charles Seife called, Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, that is about the changes that have taken place since ancient mathematicians adopted the use of zero, which is the ultimate invisible number.
There was a tremendous amount of resistance to zero (much of it, probably not surprisingly, from religious leaders), and early proponents were ridiculed and dismissed as lunatics and enemies of the status quo.
And we think we live in interesting times...
It goes back quite a way, but it wasn't universally accepted until much more recent times. Early adopters were in India, and the Mayan's also had a representation of zero, but the concept confounded the Greeks and Romans who wondered how something could be nothing. ;)how far does the idea of zero go back?