Don't try, do? (1 Viewer)

I noticed that a common theme in Bukowski's work is to not try to do things but to just do them. J D. Salinger has the same theme in some of his work-mainly in "Seymour an Introduction" with the playing marbles scene. What other American authors have a similar theme? More importantly, answer some of these questions.
-is this really possible, or just a fantasy?
-is it the nature of a writer to be this way?
-is that one philosophy the single back Bone behind the beat generation?
-is it voluntary, can that way of life be a choice, a controlled action (i don't think so)?
-Do any of you writers live that way?
-Do you think its foolish?
-Did Bukowski really do that?
 
Brandon g said:
-is that one philosophy the single back Bone behind the beat generation?

well my friend i can't really answer any of those questions or even understand this thread but i know that Buk would never want anybody to classify him in the "beat generation" even though some do, he was never affiliated with anything even remotely related to it.

Brandon g said:
-is it the nature of a writer to be this way?

it is the nature of any writer to try to be as orginal as possible and Bukowski achieved this not only in his writing but in his way of life in general.

Brandon g said:
-is it voluntary, can that way of life be a choice, a controlled action (i don't think so)?
-Do any of you writers live that way?

yes to the first part of this, you can choose any way of life or conduct yourself under your own code of morals, thats what i do at least. any person who would want to do this, has to find their own reasons for doing so.

although this thread is very broad i still dont understand it

Brandon g said:
-Do you think its foolish?
-Did Bukowski really do that?

no, it's not foolish but this thread may be.
Bukowski wanted to be away from everyone and everything. i don't think it's so much "don't try" as it is "just let things happen"
 
Buk exemplified the "just do it" trip as a writer by literally typing whatever came to mind---and loads of it, as he said, was pure drivel. But that's what he did. He sat down and typed and didn't censor his output. He didn't outline his work. He typed whatever came to mind, pulled out the sheet, set it aside, and put in a clean one. Then the next day he would review the previous night's work, throw out the the obvious crap, and "knock out the kinks" of those pages that impressed him, and then retype them and send them off (or stick 'em in his archive pile).

Alot of writers waste time...they talk about what they're gonna write, they spend loads of time on outlines & preliminaries & reworking old pieces, but Buk just stuck the sheets in regardless if he felt inspired, happy, sad, or hungover, he just sat down and typed.

In this regard he was much like a professional photographer: They shoot hundreds--even thousands--of photos but only end up using very few. Just keep clicking & clicking and, if you have a good eye for composition & form & lighting, then you're bound to produce a few winners. But you have to stick with it, have to keep clicking & clicking, and that's what Buk did.

He laughed at Hemingway for writing standing up, but christ, fucken Buk was relentless. You only have to read the "new poems" coming out in the last few years to see that. Alot of these "new poems" exemplify writing just for the sake of sitting in front of that typer and making it sing even if alot of the songs were dull & pedestrian. He loved being at that machine. And he had a decent enough return of damn good stuff, some of it immortal, to justify this sort of scattershot way of production and excuse the inevidable drivel that comes along with it.

Don't get me wrong, the current collections of "new poems" are worth reading, not because they are great (they aren't) but because they show that Buk wrote from many different psychological & sociological angles that aren't apparent in the older collections.

They show he was not the lazy, track playing, whore-chasing drunkard that so many fans would like to believe. He was a hard worker. He spent far more time at that typer than he did at any bar or bed or female body. That motherfucker spent countless hours writing, and stuffing envelopes---and, no doubt, reading magazines and finding places to send his stuff.

Bukowski succeeded because of talent, persistence & steady output. He did not try to write. He simply "did it"---even when he wasn't feeling immortal or inspired.

As for the "beats": They were an invention of Madison Avenue, and Ginsberg was their tireless promoter. The only one of them that had any true talent was Kerouac---the rest were bad jokes that got out of hand (especially Burroughs). They were just wave riders at the right place at the right time. Bukowski was not a beat writer. He was not part of that sham. Bukowski was simply Bukowski.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Bukowski wanted to be away from everyone and everything. i don't think it's so much "don't try" as it is "just let things happen"
I think the message of "Don't Try," is don't try to do something, just do it (do I owe Nike money for typing that?).

https://web.archive.org/web/2020/https://bukowski.net/dont_try.php

Brother Schenker said:
Alot of these "new poems" exemplify writing just for the sake of sitting in front of that typer and making it sing even if alot of the songs were dull & pedestrian. Don't get me wrong, the current collections of "new poems" are worth reading, not because they are great (they aren't) but because they show that Bukowski wrote from many different psychological & sociological angles that aren't apparent in the older collections.
One thing I've noticed in a lot of the later poems was a few stanzas of somewhat dull stuff, with a strong closing stanza. That was really apparent in the latest book, Come On In! I'm not at home at the moment to give examples, but that thought occurred to me a few times while reading the book.
 
A great insight, mjp. And I'd probably read a piece of toilet paper that he crapped on just to see how his mind worked. His is one of the most fascinating I?ve ever studied (and I?ve studied a few). To watch his evolution and the arc he took throughout his life is a hell of a wonder (and your posts of his early work are great, btw). Thanks for doing it for the world.

SamDusky
 
i dont have time now but

this is 'the thread'
don't try
i dont have time now but...
the nike cops are out phillips
i thought i said that
i did say that
just do it
its in my toa books
just be ,dont try ,just do it

the way
the word ...
i know more than linda on this subject
that sounds stupid
but toaism has been around my campfire as long as buks philosophy
of life has

5 year old pulling on me
ill be back....in 2064
 
empireattaque4.jpg


do or do not
there is no try

yoda...taoist master
 
If you buy into critical theory, he's the epitome of the Romantic poet. His language is common, he writes about his "natural" world, he did very little editing, his talent was innate and his work is in the moment and for him. . .his work is the actualization of what those guys wanted to do, and although I love me a good Keats, Coleridge or any of those guys, I don't think you could call any one of them as pure and organic a writer as Buk.
God, sorry for talking all of this academic b.s. Too many years of intensive literary studies is like being Catholic; once you're in, you struggle to not always perceive everything according to a formula or rules. That Onion article called "Grad Student Deconstructs Take-Out Menu"? Dead on truth. I hope Buk can't see this.
 
I was referring to his entire writing career. Bukowski could have never written as much as he did if he edited as extensively as this. Bukowski worked his ass off, yes, but more so generating pretty amazing material the first go-round. Tweaking a word here or there before getting it published--or trying to get published--is still very little editing. I'm not one of those Buk fans who claims to be thrilled with everything he ever published, but I believe him when he said that writing "just happens". This is trying.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top