Finally, an article about Bukowski that doesn't repeat the tired cliches (1 Viewer)

"In the echo chamber of the Internet, the idolatry of some of his enthusiastic admirers can assume exaggerated import."

Jeez, I can't imagine who they are referring to there!

I'm not sure I would say that the article "got it right" though. It repeats yet again the notion that the posthumously published work is lesser; "Bukowski's work has always been uneven, a matter compounded by the extraordinary number of additional poems to appear posthumously," and it seeks to bestow some sort of "validity" onto him by listing the commercial uses of his work and comparing him to academically accepted literary figures.

The posthumous books are lesser, without a doubt, which we know is primarily due to Martin's muddling, but I have not seen one scrap of evidence that suggests that the work itself was any better or worse than all of his work. For an article to "get it right" they would have to actually dig a little deeper than the surface and talk about that muddling, and so far no one (outside of the "echo chamber of the Internet") seems interested.

But ultimately and tellingly, the Los Angeles Times never did shit for Bukowski when he could have used their support. They only piled on in his later life, not long before he died. Like almost every other institution, they waited until he was safely buried in the dirt to dare to tentatively "honor" him.

So I'm afraid I have to say, fuck the Los Angeles Times, and while we're at it, fuck the usual cast of decrepit leeches who gather on his anniversaries to get their names into the paper. Hangers-on and glad-handlers the lot of them, the likes of which Bukowski spent a lifetime railing against. Everyone seems to overlook the comic irony of that. Pour one out for Hank!, you vampires.

Re: Barkowski, there hasn't been anything in recent memory that generated more email addressed to me or the site than that thing. They must have had some PR firm sending them. It was an inbox tsunami of idiotic promotion. Which is reasonable, I suppose, considering the place was created to attract idiots.

Look at that, I set out to type a reasoned and rational counterpoint, and I did it!

Wait, I didn't do that at all.

Well, maybe next time.
[...]I'm not sure I would say that the article "got it right" though. It repeats yet again the notion that the posthumously published work is lesser; "Bukowski's work has always been uneven, a matter compounded by the extraordinary number of additional poems to appear posthumously," [...]
Maybe it's the cockeyed optimist in me, but when I first read it I didn't take that line to mean the posthumous poems are less. Now that I think about it, thought, it does seem to suggest that. Well, at least they aren't calling him the "bard of the streets" and they don't use the term "underbelly."
Fair enough. The fact remains that when he was alive, for the most part the Times didn't want anything to do with him.
I always loved that Buk never fit into any neat and easy category, which always confused the mainstream media. Fuck them yeah, but he never needed that kind of validation anyway. His work only speaks for itself. He also never had any meaningful contemporaries to measure his work against, except maybe John Thomas. As far as the Hank posse, who's left that bad any long- term and meaningful contact with him? The most interesting ones are dead, and the rest (except for David), are just still fulfilling their roles of basking in reflected glory. And the Bukowski "brand" is sort of a joke, so what's left? Those whose lives were changed by picking up the books. Like all of us here, as it should be.
The article says, "...a biopic written and directed by James Franco is due in theaters this year.) It´ll be interesting to see how that turns out and who's going to play Bukowski.
I was interviewed for this article and am happy to see that I was left out. Good article though. I always get nervous that something will be misquoted and make me look like a dick. After I did the interview I felt uneasy so I'm not bothered by not being in there. Plus, truthfully, what I said was not all that interesting.
I found this article in the LA Times. It probably has already been mentioned elsewhere, but maybe not?,0,1446502.story#axzz2vWzecOdz

Anyhow, a few observations: 1) Author made a good point about Robinson Jeffers. Buk was no lover of rural landscape. One only need remember his recitation of "green trees, green trees"; and 2) While I am aware that there were elements of conflict between Cherkovski and Bukowski, it is my opinion that Cherkovski really understood Bukowski, in a way that other biographers did not. I must say, I'm feeling mighty ambivalent about the bars (evidently there are already TWO of them?) that are playing on the Bukowski "brand" for recognition (or whatever). That makes me feel mighty uncomfortable, and I have this feeling that Bukowski would have had a LOT to say about it - most of which would likely NOT have been pleasant. The entire thing is confounding, confusing and perplexing. I think I DO need another beer. Sehr schnell.
I can tell you for dead cert fact that the two Bukowski Tavern's in the Boston area (one near Berklee and the other in Inman Square, Cambridge), have very little to do with Bukowski. The Cambridge locale does have a wall mural with a typewriter and some poem text and a book cover or two (yawn). I thought about taking a picture of my collection and having them blow it up on the wall, and that idea faded quickly for a number of good reasons.

Users who are viewing this thread