Do we need to admire Charles Bukowski to honor his poetry?

cirerita

Founding member
AL MARTINEZ; Do we need to admire Charles Bukowski to honor his poetry?
AL MARTINEZ. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Jan 7, 2008. pg. B.3

Oscar Wilde went to prison in 1895 for flaunting his homosexuality. Ezra Pound was indicted for treason in 1943 for broadcasting on behalf of the Italian fascists in the Second World War. Dylan Thomas died in 1953 after proclaiming that he had just downed 18 straight whiskeys and wondering if it were a record.

I mention them to emphasize that not all poets are whispering pixies. Some are maniacs, some are drunks and some are general hell-raisers. Which brings us to Charles Bukowski, who was probably all of the above. Although those who knew him might agree that he was a raving, brawling alcoholic, the question has arisen: Was he a Jew-hating Nazi sympathizer? I knew you'd wonder.

The allegation was made by a one-time Bukowski friend turned severe critic who wrote a book suggesting that both might be true. The observation became an issue when the Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission proposed that the East Hollywood house in which Bukowski wrote much of his poetry be declared a historical landmark. The current owner of the home said, more or less, over her dead body, and hired a lawyer.

Victoria Gureyeva is quoted by L.A. Weekly as saying, "This man [Bukowski] loved Hitler. This is my house, not Bukowski's. I will never allow the city of Los Angeles to turn it into a monument for this man." But the commission voted to do just that, and now it's up to the City Council to confirm or deny.

Among those commenting on the issue -- and there are many -- is the poet FrancEyE, who lived with Bukowski for three years and bore him a daughter. She said that the whole thing was, to rephrase it into more acceptable terms, bull manure. "He'd get drunk and say anything," she said, "but he wasn't a Nazi."

Her real name is Frances Smith, but someone told her that Frances sounded plural so she changed it to FrancEyE. A sprightly woman in her mid-80s, she lives alone in a small Venice apartment adorned with posters of Bukowski. They once occupied the ramshackle place at 5124 De Longpre Ave. that is being proposed as a landmark.

FrancEyE says that Buk, as she calls him, was never a Nazi but often made outrageous statements while drinking in order to drive away those he no longer wanted around. She recalled that he once physically threw a man in a wheelchair out of the house. "He was in a wheelchair," she remembered, "because he had thrown himself out of a second-story window in anger from people below calling him a beatnik." She added, somewhat wryly, "The guy just seemed to lend himself to being thrown out."

Allegations of Bukowski's Nazi sympathies came in a book, "Visceral Bukowski: Inside the Sniper Landscape of L.A. Writers," by Ben Pleasants, a onetime acquaintance of the poet. Pleasants, who may have been one of those that Bukowski didn't want around, seems to be yet another guy who wishes he had been born with Bukowski's awesome talent.

Making it easier for him to pretty much say what he wants is the fact that Bukowski has been dead for 14 years and can't defend himself, which is probably fortunate for Pleasants.

OK, so probably Buk wasn't a Nazi, but was he anti-Semitic? FrancEyE isn't sure but says he never made a public issue of it if he was. He was born in Germany, and his maternal grandmother, whose last name was Israel, was Jewish. It's difficult to imagine anti-Semitism evolving from that. Basically, he was a man challenging the world, both with fists and words, a provocateur of amazing abilities.

Bukowski's poetry is often powerful, emerging with explosive force. An admirer once described his work as "the spoken word nailed to paper." But he could also be reflective, almost mournful. In one poem he writes: "in the company of fools/we relax upon/ordinary embankments, enjoy bad food, cheap/drink,/mingle with the men and/ladies from/hell./in the company of fools/we throw days away like/paper napkins."

I have been a Bukowski fan since moving to L.A. 35 years ago. I never drank with him and it's just as well because I can be argumentative as hell too, and being smashed in the face by another drunk is not my idea of a poetic evening. I may not even have liked him in person, but that isn't the point. Poetry is not to be judged by the manners of the poet but by the impact of the stanzas he produces.

Like Ezra Pound, Oscar Wilde and Dylan Thomas, Buk left us with the magnificence of words and images born in dark places of the soul, unfiltered by antipathies, refined by a chemistry that is beyond description. Forget his drunken bombast. We're not bringing Bukowski home to tea here, we're having a few ghostly beers with him on De Longpre Avenue. In the company of fools, we can all party.
 
M

MULLINAX

Excellent, Buk was innocent of Pleasants's charges but Ezra Pound was a fascist and a collaborator to boot and I regret that he was not executed for treason. Yeah, that's right, he made radio broadcasts for Mussolini. That's not acceptable.

I don't know anything about Hamsun and Celine but if it's true that they did indeed actively collaborate with and support fascists and occupiers (activities that often resulted in the deaths of innocent men and women) then I will spit on their graves. Figuratively, of course, since I won't be in Norway or France anytime soon.

Yeah, yeah, their politics don't always figure in their work but artists do NOT get a free pass to consort with the bad guys.

"Oh, Mr. Pound, your Cantos mitigate your betrayal. Case dismissed". Not.
 
You know what really bothers me about this piece-being homosexual (Oscar) is tacitally being compared to deviant less than socially acceptable behaviour.
I understand that at the time this was the case but Oscars behaviour could be seen equally as a brave stand against society's norms.
There is a big difference between consorting with guys and consorting with bad guys.
 

Father Luke

Founding member
Pleasants, who may have been one of those that Bukowski didn't want around, seems to
be yet another guy who wishes he had been born with Bukowski's awesome talent.


Woot!
 

ROC

It is what it is
You know what really bothers me about this piece-being homosexual (Oscar) is tacitally being compared to deviant less than socially acceptable behaviour.
I understand that at the time this was the case but Oscars behaviour could be seen equally as a brave stand against society's norms.
There is a big difference between consorting with guys and consorting with bad guys.

Very well said.
 

jordan

lothario speedwagon
Here's the email i sent him...

Mr. Martinez,
First, I greatly enjoyed your article about Charles Bukowski in the LA Times. As someone who dedicated a good amount of study to Louis-Ferdinand Celine, another great author turned fascist, I can understand the need to separate an author's body of work from his/her failings as a person. As well, the claims being leveled against Bukowski in this case are beyond ludicrous, and I'm happy you pointed out that Ben Pleasants, although he observed Bukowski's alleged anti-semitism while he was still alive, waited until Bukowski was long gone to publish said claims.

My reason for emailing you, however, is your inclusion of Oscar Wilde and homosexuality in general in your list of famous authors and their personal failings. Really, I don't see how homosexuality could in any way be compared to fascism or anti-semitism. Most unfortunately, I don't think including Wilde is necessary to prove your point; many great authors this century have had fascist leanings (Wyndham Lewis, Celine, Heidegger, in addition to Pound), and I think that is enough to support your argument that, even if Bukowski had similar leanings, his writing stands separately from his character. Going so far as to lump fascists, anti-semites, and gays all together and then claiming that Pound's, Bukowski's, and Wilde's work (repsectively) are separate from their "similar" or at least "comparable" personal flaws borders on offensive.

I don't need to launch into a defense of homosexuality, but the bottom line is that I find it deeply troubling that, to you, homosexuality constitutes a personal flaw.

Thanks for your time,
Jordan Hurder
 

ROC

It is what it is
Good one Jordan.

"In the company of fools, we can all party." Something about that last line bothers me as well.:cool:
 

Father Luke

Founding member
huh?

I'm missing something.

From the article:

Like Ezra Pound, Oscar Wilde and Dylan Thomas, Buk left us with the magnificence of
words and images born in dark places of the soul, unfiltered by antipathies, refined by a
chemistry that is beyond description.


How the fuck can anyone get gay bashing from any of that?

Mr. Martinez didn't arrest anyone. He didn't imprison Solzhenitsyn, he didn't drag
Federico Garcia Lorca into a field, shoot him and toss his body into an
unmarked grave, he didn't arrest Isaac Babel in 1939 for his work's lack of
Socialist Realism, then execute him in a gulag in 1941.

He did group together writers who have faced the darkness of the world,
and have become heralded as voices crying out from the . . .

dark places of the soul

I saw Mr. Martinez championing these writers, and their triumphs despite their
overwhelmingly absurd conditions. And, yes, I agree that being jailed for
homosexuality is absurd.

So, I'm missing something.
May I ask someone to kindly point me in the direction of reason?

P.S. Great find cirerita.
sign0087.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jordan

lothario speedwagon
In answer to Father Luke, this is how the fuck i can find something offensive about homosexuality in the Martinez article.

This is from his article (which I honestly did enjoy and kind of regret hijacking the discussion about, although such is the reality of this post):

"Oscar Wilde went to prison in 1895 for flaunting his homosexuality. Ezra Pound was indicted for treason in 1943 for broadcasting on behalf of the Italian fascists in the Second World War. Dylan Thomas died in 1953 after proclaiming that he had just downed 18 straight whiskeys and wondering if it were a record.

I mention them to emphasize that not all poets are whispering pixies [read by me as: not all poets are without their own personal flaws, thus equating homosexuality to a personal flaw like alcoholism or fascist tendencies]."

He's conflating the three, and that was what motivated me to write him an email. He's launching into a discussion of whether or not we can forgive Bukowski's alleged anti-semitism by essentially saying, "Pound was a fascist, Dylan Thomas was a mean drunkard, and Wilde was a fag, but we can still appreciate their writing." I don't understand where Wilde and homosexuality fits in. That's like saying that we're able to enjoy the writing of W.E.B. DuBois even though he's black, or that we can get something out of Jane Austen even though she "flaunts" her femininity. How is Wilde "flaunting" his homosexuality any worse or more of a knock against him as a person as any heterosexual man who has ever flaunted the fact that he fucked a woman? Anyway, I digress.

Here is the essential problem with his, and by extension, Father Luke's reasoning. Assume for discussion's sake, that Buk was a raging anti-semite. We are faced with the task NOW of deciding whether or not we can still appreciate his writing in the face of that anti-semitism (which I think we can). Pound isn't out of the woods, nor is Lewis or Celine, because most people agree that fascism is pretty rotten. These are debates that are ongoing. Can we appreciate Heidegger's philosophy even though he fired the Jewish professors from the University of Heidelberg? and so on.

It is NON-PARALLEL to bring Wilde into it, because we've already forgiven him his "sin," because it's not a sin and is ridiculous that he was imprisoned for it in puritanical England. What debate is there? Of course Wilde's writing stands on its own two legs. The fact that he's gay should have no bearing on it whatsoever, because there's nothing wrong with being gay. There is, however, (in my opinion) something wrong with being a fascist or an anti-semite, which warrants consideration of whether or not such authors' work can survive the authors' characters.

Another problem with this logic: Martinez championing authors depsite absurd conditions (as explained by Father Luke)... This seems to suggest that Bukowski and Pound persevered through their writing in the face of wrongful, overly paranoid accusations about their personal lives (in the form of questionable charges of fascism and anti-semitism, respectively). Where does Wilde fit in? He was clearly gay, and he made no bones about it. He was busted for a bullshit crime (of which he was guilty), whereas Bukowski and (in my opinion, to a lesser extent) Pound were questionably guilty of real, serious, and offensive character flaws.

Anyway, long story short: he's either conflating fascism, anti-semitism, and homosexuality as something we need to look past in order to judge an author's work on its own merits, OR he's bringing up Wilde in a totally non-equivalent situation, which doesn't lend any logical force to his argument.
_________________________________________________________________
for those that still care, here his his response to me, and my follow up to him.

He wrote:
"flaunting his homosexuality sent oscar wilde to prison in puritanical england, and that was the reference in the lead. i don't consider homosexuality a crime or dishonorable or repugnant...but they did. i obviously chose wilde because by his actions as much as his literary output he was considerably more famous than those you mentioned."

(no, he didn't address me or sign his name, which is impolite, in my opinion. also, he seems to suggest here that wilde's actions somehow inform our perception of his writing, but certainly not in a negative way, as Pleasants accusations of Bukowski urge us to reinterpret Buk. This is like questioning whether or not we can enjoy What is the What by Dave Eggers on its own merits, given that Eggers donated all the profit from it to Sudanese reconstruction. I'm sorry, but his article is NOT about authors who made names for themselves through their personal lives- it's about Bukowski possibly being anti-semetic, not his drunkard, hobo, poet laureate of skid row persona.)

Anyway, I wrote back to hiim:
"I understand your point, but your article seemed to
suggest that we, today, no longer in puritanical
England, still must wrestle with whether or not we can
appreciate Wilde apart from his personal life. Either
way, I realize it's sidetracking your main focus in
the article to hammer this point, and so I won't push
it beyond this email. Thank you, though, for your
response.
-Jordan"
 
M

MULLINAX

Reprobates - Embrace Them!

I saw Mr. Martinez championing these writers, and their triumphs despite their
overwhelmingly absurd conditions. And, yes, I agree that being jailed for
homosexuality is absurd.

Same here. I love Wilde (not in that way, heh, heh) and saw Martinez's article
as definitely full of admiration for him and the other so-called "reprobates" of the literary world.

Methinks some people doth protest too much about the slings and arrows (not) directed towards "the love that dares not speak its name".

Anybody like the historical novels of Gore Vidal? He was often slighted, in a snide manner, by Wiliam F. Buckley, a vile right-winger and snob.
 

jordan

lothario speedwagon
see my above response for a reasoned, non knee-jerk reason why i feel my criticism was justified. you probably have a thinner skin about some things, mullinax, they just haven't surfaced on this forum.
 

Father Luke

Founding member
In answer to Father Luke, this is how the fuck i can find something offensive about homosexuality in the Martinez article.

That's not what I asked, but onward.

This is from his article (which I honestly did enjoy and kind of regret hijacking the discussion about, although such is the reality of this post):

"Oscar Wilde went to prison in 1895 for flaunting his homosexuality. Ezra Pound was indicted for treason in 1943 for broadcasting on behalf of the Italian fascists in the Second World War. Dylan Thomas died in 1953 after proclaiming that he had just downed 18 straight whiskeys and wondering if it were a record.

I mention them to emphasize that not all poets are whispering pixies [read by me as: not all poets are without their own personal flaws, thus equating homosexuality to a
personal flaw like alcoholism or fascist tendencies]."

A personal flaw like alcoholism? Despite years of medical evidence suggesting
that alcoholism is a disease?

So, is homosexuality then, by extension, a "choice"?

Look. I'd like to debate you about all this, but it will become . . .conflating.

Let's just take the author at his word when he says. . .

i don't consider homosexuality a crime or dishonorable or repugnant...but they did.

He's conflating the three,

Well, he is doing that to demonstrate an atmosphere of intolerance, though,
isn't he?

and that was what motivated me to write him an email. He's launching into a discussion of whether or not we can forgive Bukowski's alleged anti-semitism by essentially saying, "Pound was a fascist, Dylan Thomas was a mean drunkard, and Wilde was a fag, but we can still appreciate their writing."

We will have to agree to disagree here. I don't see it that way. Not at all.

I don't understand where Wilde and homosexuality fits in.

Intolerance

That's like saying that we're able to enjoy the writing of W.E.B. DuBois even though he's black, or that we can get something out of Jane Austen even though she "flaunts" her femininity. How is Wilde "flaunting" his homosexuality any worse or more of a knock against him as a person as any heterosexual man who has ever flaunted the fact that he fucked a woman? Anyway, I digress.

Here is the essential problem with his, and by extension, Father Luke's reasoning. Assume for discussion's sake, that Buk was a raging anti-semite.

You are missing the point.

Wilde was jailed on a bullshit charge.
Pound was fucked in a Kangaroo Court.
Thomas was a drunk.

None of the three were mincing asswipes, unlike Pleasants who never had the
balls to address Bukowski while he was living.

Wilde, Pound, Thomas, and Pleasants. Of the four who refused to stand up for
what he believed?

We are faced with the task NOW of deciding whether or not we can still appreciate his writing in the face of that anti-semitism (which I think we can). Pound isn't out of the woods, nor is Lewis or Celine, because most people agree that fascism is pretty rotten. These are debates that are ongoing. Can we appreciate Heidegger's philosophy even though he fired the Jewish professors from the University of Heidelberg? and so on.

Care for a drink?

It is NON-PARALLEL to bring Wilde into it, because we've already forgiven him his "sin," because it's not a sin and is ridiculous that he was imprisoned for it in puritanical England. What debate is there?

Care for another drink?

Of course Wilde's writing stands on its own two legs. The fact that he's gay
should have no bearing on it whatsoever, because there's nothing wrong with
being gay. There is, however, (in my opinion) something wrong with being a
fascist or an anti-semite, which warrants consideration of whether or not such
authors' work can survive the authors' characters.

And, by your words, there is something wrong with being a drunk.

Another problem with this logic: Martinez championing authors depsite absurd conditions (as explained by Father Luke)...

sign0100.gif


This seems to suggest that Bukowski and Pound persevered through their writing in the face of wrongful, overly paranoid accusations about their personal lives (in the form of questionable charges of fascism and anti-semitism, respectively). Where does Wilde fit in?

in the form of questionable charges

He was clearly gay, and he made no bones about it. He was busted for a bullshit crime (of which he was guilty), whereas Bukowski and (in my opinion, to a lesser extent) Pound were questionably guilty of real, serious, and offensive character flaws.

I don't understand this.

Anyway, long story short: he's either conflating fascism, anti-semitism, and homosexuality as something we need to look past in order to judge an author's work on its own merits,

Or he is showing that some Poets aren't mincing, two faced fuck heads who
hide behind someone's death to voice their opinions - they live their lives full
face fucking forward. . .

OR he's bringing up Wilde in a totally non-equivalent situation, which doesn't lend any logical force to his argument.
_________________________________________________________________
for those that still care, here his his response to me, and my follow up to him.

He wrote:
"flaunting his homosexuality sent oscar wilde to prison in puritanical england, and that was the reference in the lead. i don't consider homosexuality a crime or dishonorable or repugnant...but they did. i obviously chose wilde because by his actions as much as his literary output he was considerably more famous than those you mentioned."

(no, he didn't address me or sign his name, which is impolite, in my opinion. also, he seems to suggest here that wilde's actions somehow inform our perception of his writing, but certainly not in a negative way, as Pleasants accusations of Bukowski urge us to reinterpret Buk. This is like questioning whether or not we can enjoy What is the What by Dave Eggers on its own merits, given that Eggers donated all the profit from it to Sudanese reconstruction. I'm sorry, but his article is NOT about authors who made names for themselves through their personal lives- it's about Bukowski possibly being anti-semetic, not his drunkard, hobo, poet laureate of skid row persona.)

Anyway, I wrote back to hiim:
"I understand your point, but your article seemed to
suggest that we, today, no longer in puritanical
England, still must wrestle with whether or not we can
appreciate Wilde apart from his personal life. Either
way, I realize it's sidetracking your main focus in
the article to hammer this point, and so I won't push
it beyond this email. Thank you, though, for your
response.
-Jordan"

- -
Okay,
Father Luke
 

justine

stop the penistry
like jordan says, These are debates that are ongoing - in regards to whether an artist's alleged fascism/anti-semitism/etc. is relevant in judging the integrity of their body of work.

fascism; anti-semitism = a negative/malevolent attitude towards others
homosexuality/alcoholism = personal/lifestyle behaviours that concern the self.

one is political and one is personal.
 

justine

stop the penistry
is he trying to imply that jordan bats for the other team? i'm PRETTY SURE he doesn't...
 

ROC

It is what it is
"i'm PRETTY SURE he doesn't..."

No. I'm sure he doesn't... he's never at he meetings.


oops.
 
M

MULLINAX

Hold on now. Pound was rightly convicted of treason and was lucky not to be executed after WWII. Bukowski was guilty of being an asshole and he readily admits to that, all over the place. Wilde was convicted of sodomy, a crime also having to do with assholes, and we all agree, I think, that he should not have been, because we all disagree with 19th-century English law concerning buggery. Martinez points out, correctly and appropriately, to all three as having what were considered to be flaws, by either legal or personal standards, and that these flaws should not be used to judge their literary merits. So far so good.

He doesn't say that we should concur with Wilde's conviction. You seem to think that he's down on Wilde and that's not the case. Martinez's reasoning is ok as far as Buk and Wilde are concerned but I would say that Martinez is wrong to include Pound here because Pound was a sod and a rotter who actively helped to prop up murderers. Pound is the guy who does not belong here, not Wilde. Anti-Fascists like me are outraged. Gays have no reason to be.
 
When reading this thread, until I reached fathers post of 10:31am, I wondered all the time:

Why are they complaining that Wilde is in the line for being gay but NO ONE is arguing that Thomas is in for being a drunk?

- The reason I wonder is:
once you realize, that BOTH these things are not really 'faults', you realize, that they are not named by Martinez to blame them or to say gays (or drunkards) are equally mean as Nazis. Indeed, this line of names shows, that you can make a WIDE range of things - NO matter wether they ARE good or bad or evil - that are not accepted by the majority, even though the works of those people CAN be accepted.



For myself, I must admit, I'm not sure if I had the ability to seperate a man from his work - especially when his work is so much interwoven with his persona. (I had a hard time to still like the old songs of Cat Stevens after he blamed Salman Rushdie due to his muslim changing.) If I WOULD sense any Nazi-tendencies in Buk's work or character, I guess I never had discovered him.
 

hank solo

Just practicin' steps and keepin' outta the fights
Moderator
Founding member
Wilde was convicted of sodomy, a crime also having to do with assholes

If by sodomy, you mean buggery or anal penetration you are mistaken. Oscar Wilde was convicted of 'gross indecency' or homosexual acts other than buggery. Wilde is known to not practice buggery. I'm referring here to Richard Ellmann's excellent biography of Oscar Wilde.

When I read the Martinez article, my interpretation was that he saying 'here are a number of well known poets who have each had their share of controversy.' Regardless of what you or I think about the people he refers to, it is certainly true that they have each suffered various forms of infamy.

We've talked about this elsewhere, with the likes of Hamsun too. Can we appreciate art and not necessarily agree with everything the artist did, said or felt? Sure we can.

I'm not offering an opinion or judgement on any of them. Elements of so called society in general though, have always and will always feel that it/they can pass judgement on individuals for anything and everything they do, say, feel or are.
 

jordan

lothario speedwagon
When did Martinez's article become about celebrating artists who were persecuted during their lifetimes? It's not- just look at the title. It's about wrestling with the question of whether or not you have to like an author as a person to like that author's work.

Here is the major difference: Wilde was persecuted because of what he WAS, just like Anne Frank or Matthew Sheppard.

Bukowski and Pound are being ACCUSED, not persecuted.

Look, for all my verbosity, this is simple. The article starts out by citing three poets: one a homosexual, one a fascist, and one an alcoholic. Then, it very clearly states that not all of our celebrated poets are shining examples of humanity, but that we read them anyway.

Bringing in the fact that Wilde was persecuted by a puritanical government is totally irrelevant, and it isn't close to being the author's point.

For the record, I don't find alcoholism to be a big problem or flaw, but it is still a choice. Bukowski (if he were an anti-semite) would have chosen to feel that way. One chooses to drink (at least at the beginning, before developing a clinical addiction). One chooses to be a fascist. One doesn't choose to be a homosexual, and so, for the last time (I promise, promise, PROMISE), it doesn't belong in the other list of "flaws" that an author may have.

Look, it's really easy to defend an article that we otherwise like by trying to morph it into some treatise about writers overcoming the biases of the day, but hating anti-semitism and fascism isn't a bias of the day that we'll someday hopefully outgrow, like homophobia. Martinez shouldn't have grouped the three together like he did. Otherwise, the article is good. It can have flaws and still have a valid point to make.
 

jordan

lothario speedwagon
Addendum

here is his response to me (cut and pasted), which I didn't respond to:

"I just don't readers to feel I'm homophobic. In 800 words or so you don't have a lot of room to explain; you do the best you can and move on. "

I do agree with this, and I don't think he's homophobic. Still, I don't think it's wrong to point out to a journalist when his writing has negative implications, even if unintended, and even if there are space limitations. This guy totally wants me to fuck off... why put your email address on, then? It's not like I launched into some tirade, and I even told him I wasn't going to press the point.
 
Wilde sort of contributed to his own downfall because he brought forward a libel case against the Marquess of Queensbury and because he lost the case, it led to the dirt being dug on his own private life. I think his private life is used as an example in the article because in the UK homosexuality was literally against the law until 1967 so it is relevant to him being placed in the same deviant bracket as an alcoholic and a man accused of treason in terms of the social context of the taboo's when they were active writers.

In terms of the question related in this thread, I strongly believe it is important to seperate the artist and the man (or woman)
 
The wack tree huggers of the 60's don't seem so wacky now.

For me the error in the article is that he did not provide what has been explained in this forum-an historical perspective.The article reads "Wilde went to prison for flaunting his homosexuality. Providing a date is not providing a perspective. That sentence will give creedance to every homophobe out there (like they need or want facts). Why not Wilde was unjustly imprisoned for etc...as Buk has been unjustly labelled etc..-a sentence like this (BETTER WRITTEN OF COURSE) would suffice.
Again and I think its been mentioned in a previous thread to have Nazi sympathies in the 1930's wasn't perceived to be as bad as it was in the 1960's (and beyond).

I hate about this forum-it forces me to re-evaluate my much valued opinions-an unforgivable act.
 

hank solo

Just practicin' steps and keepin' outta the fights
Moderator
Founding member
The article isn't great. Its a tabloid piece. Perhaps the leader is ill judged.

He doesn't seem to be overtly promoting a homophobic agenda. Or covertly for that matter.

If anything, its a clumsy opening. But you can take it however you choose.

In other news...
 
Top