Ginsberg Or Bukowski? (1 Viewer)

Some of Ginsberg's early poems (like Howl and Kaddish) were absolutely brilliant beyond comparison. Whereas if you compared Ginsberg's entire body of work next to what Bukowski had written it hardly seems that Ginsberg is even in the same league. I don't think you can narrow down Bukowski to one or two poems without being deprived of his genius. Although Ginsberg in my opinion is a completely different animal. So much of what Ginsberg wrote seems lackluster when you compare it to his best stuff.
Brilliant beyond comparison?!

Howl is hardly brilliant beyond comparison.

If we are talking poetry and therefore comparing it to, say, the Cantos, Leaves of Grass or even Jeffers longer works*, then Howl sucks dogs balls.
And not even a big dog... but one of those pissy, annoying little yappers.

More seriously... yes. Ginsberg lacked endurance. He couldn't keep his poetic pecker up (to borrow a Bukowski-esque image). A most patchy output.

* Even Olsons Maximus poems... if you could be bothered.
If you read "A Rambling Essay..." you'll see B was pretty enthusiastic about GinsbUrg... though that might have been the only time he ever talked about G in positive terms ;)
Ginsberg was a good networker and socialized in the right circles, however his poetry has some merit
Comparing Bukow with Ginsberg doesnt make any sense. Ginsberg is a poet for the intellectuals... But bukow is for common man.. Remember!!! Ginsberg is one of the " Beat Geneartion" experimenters... Ginsberg is a well known communist too.... He associated himself with lots of social activities and he is a well known social networker. He always stand in the basements of traditional philosopies despite his experiments with "beat generation"...He involved himself with the rubbish philosophy of communism which was already thrown into the trash can of history...

Now, to talk about bukow, he is a lonely poet. He always likes lonliness. He never indulge in any of the famous sdocial activities.. Also, he remains unknown to the americans till his death.... We nerver compare bukow with Ginsberg.. These two dont have sny similarities.. Moreover bukow's writings are more or less autobiographical notes... He hardly hides anything from the reader........

So guys..plz dont make any fucking comaparisons between bukow and Ginsberg..
I have probably mentioned this before, but I was at a Ginsberg reading once and it took all the effort I could muster just to stay awake. Which is funny, considering the deadly Bukowski monotone -- you'd think he would be the one to put you to sleep. But there was nothing in Ginsberg's stuff - at least what he was reading that night - that made me hungry for the next line, the way Bukowski does every time.

Instead of, "What is he going to say next?" I was just thinking, "When will this be over?" Not cool. Of course I may just be too dumb to be excited by Ginsberg. I haven't ruled that out.

HOWL bored me too, I have to say. Though that first line does kick your ass and trick you into thinking that you're about to read something really awe-inspiring. But then we are reading it out of context now, here in 2007.
I think it was Ferlinghetti who said a couple of years ago: Someone needs to stand up. It's time for a new HOWL.
I have probably mentioned this before, but ...

HOWL (snip)

we are reading it out of context now, here in 2007.

Nail on the head.

Bill Hicks was born, grew up, lived, had a career, and died in my lifetime
without me ever hearing about him until after he was dead.

Frankly, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. He was "okay" for me,
you know?

But there is perspective. In understanding the way things evolve, Bill changed

Good, bad, indifferent, Ginsbu changed things.

As to Bukowski?

Welcome to the forum,
you know?

Users who are viewing this thread