Martinez has been writing for the Times for as long as I can remember. I think he's a just-bang-it-out-for-today kind of guy by now. When you have to be "creative" on a daily schedule like that you must miss as many as you hit.The article isn't great. Its a tabloid piece. Perhaps the leader is ill judged.
I don't admire him for breaking Lynda King's nose, or ostracizing himself from many friends or masturbating whilst watching a 9 year old skate....
But I admire his honesty, putting himself on the front-line in terms of Literature for exposing himself to so much scrutiny.
(Charles Bukowski) was quite good at combining truth and fiction to produce very readable stories.
If we're talking narcissism, its been with us since Adam grew hairs around it.
If we're talking voyuerism, its been around since Eve grew tits.
And if we're talking credulity, well take a look at some of them ancient
rock paintings. Women with tits the size of watermelons. I betchya young cavemen
put in a good part of their lives looking for that tribe.
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.
..."GIVE PEACE A CHANCE" is it valid regardless of who states it?...
The fact is, intentional or not, he has written a piece which contains homophobic sentiments.
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.
Do we need to admire Charles Bukowski to honor his poetry?
Yes it is."GIVE PEACE A CHANCE". Is it more meaningful if uttered by a pop star rather than a penniless hobo given to staggering out of cheap dives?
It doesn't matter what kind of man John Lennon or Martin Luther King or Bob Marley (to name a few pop culture peaceniks with less-than-saintly personal lives) were.
The statement "The sun will rise in the east tomorrow"
is true no matter who you are, whether you like it or not
(or even if you believe it or not).
As "Give peace a chance" is a moral imperative,
do you believe there is a direct relationship
between the morality of the sayer
and your understanding of what is meant?
and then your acceptance of what is said?
I know what GIVE PEACE A CHANCE means (& etc...)
Is that an anti-alcoholic sentiment?
You see, the point isn't someone's orientation, someone's belief's or
someone's genetic make up. The point, in the authors own words is. . .
These are men (where are the women! He is against women!), with whom he illustrates his point. . .
Don't get me wrong, I see your point.
because his consumption of alcohol is his own character flaw and Homosexuality, of course, is not a character flaw
. . .
Centuries of science begs to differ with you.
For me Bukowski was one of those fortunate few whose thoughts transcend cultural barriers and speak directly to the hearts and souls of those who have ears to hear him.
As I said, my ignorance on this topic is a flaw in my argument. But my main points I think are still valid. The quote we are discussing can be constrewed as homophobic, and I'm suprised it has been allowed to be published. The writer could easily demonstrate the same point with a more fitting example. Wilde just seems to come from nowhere, despite your reading that it is about the darkness of human spirit, which he has been victim to, that is what the article attempts to highlight. This may be so, but I maintain that the writer should have been more sensitive and more aware of the possible implications of his article. Wilde was subject to external prejudice, as opposed to harbouring prejudice himself or being the victim of alcoholism, which are both questions pertinent to Bukowski. Moreover, Wilde's position was beneficial to society. By grouping him with Pound and Thomas we overlook these points and implicitly group them together, which I think is what people may react to.
If we are to seperate the writer and the text, surely this is a prime example. The writer is not homophobic, but has produced something in which homophobia can easily, if possibly not correctly, be read into. It is clumsy, at best. (Edit: Sorry, this is in relation to the writer of the article, not Thomas, Pound, Wilde or Bukowski)
And I don't know what "hosed" means.