How authentic is Bukowski? (1 Viewer)

[Ewok]

I just read 'Locked in the arms of a crazy life' in one manic sitting and I have to say the more 'real' he becomes in comparison with his novels the more impressed I am at his literary construction.

The most surprising details I learnt in this book were:
- His '10 year drunk' phase involved him moving back to his parents house looking more dashing than ever
- He received financial support from his parents both before and after their death
- the 'one candy bar a day thing' seems to have been a personal choice and not actually necessary

Thinking about it...if he really was utterly destitute how could he afford all the drinking he was doing? The amount of drinking and the loneliness seem real but he did have a financial safety net he avoids writing about - - it makes sense because that would make him seem like he was forcing himself to be a loser in order to write about it.

In a way he seems like was confused in his 20's and tried to act like the poor writer hero (even if it was safer than he makes it seem) and then later he constructed the idea that he was truly living on the edge.

It doesn't change my opinion of his works in any way. In fact, I'm impressed by it. I think his heroes - Hemingway/Dostoevsky really were these daredevil insane macho writer people and Bukowski was a lot more cautious and afraid of the world than those guys.

Well, just some thoughts. I wonder if learning of these constructions put other people off his work?

EWOK

 

[Purple Stickpin]

I wonder if learning of these constructions put other people off his work?

I wonder if learning not to believe everything you read put other people off the Internet or books, or art, or the density of concrete in a bridge, or where the G spot is.

 

[Ewok]

Ha

I'm not sure your point as that biography seemed thoroughly researched and a labor of love.

 

[mjp]

There is no doubt that both of Sounes' Bukowski books were well researched. But Sounes never sat in the same room as Bukowski, so like most biographers he makes a lot of assumptions and fills in a lot of blanks with his own ideas. An easy (and dangerous) trap to fall into is using Bukowski's own writing to fill in those blanks. Which is the only way Sounes could postulate Bukowski's reasons or motivations for doing anything.

There is no research that can tell you what Bukowski could afford to eat or drink at times in his life when we don't even know for sure where the hell he was. Think about it. You can build part of the picture of Bukowski based on his writing, but only on the writing overall, and again, it's only part of the picture.

You're talking to a bunch of people who have spent years gathering facts and dispelling myths. Cutting through the bullshit, so to speak. So some of your ideas and concepts might be challenged here, like everyone's are. Even Sounes.

 

[zobraks]

I wonder if learning of these constructions put other people off his work?

I'll stop reading the old fraud's books this instant.

 

[Johannes]

In a way he seems like was confused in his 20's and tried to act like the poor writer hero (even if it was safer than he makes it seem) and then later he constructed the idea that he was truly living on the edge.

Bukowski most probably was a confused young man not fitting in the world in his early 20's who drank a lot, lived in different cities (New York, Philadelphia we know for sure), was jailed for draft dodging and worked different manial labor jobs. We've got proof for that.

If he ever really starved for longer periods of time, was homeless, slept on park benches, tried suicide and all that, we can't be sure of.

It depends how you define "living truly on the edge". For the archetypical bourgeois (whatever that is) working dull shit jobs while drinking until your stomach is collapsing and being jailed might qualify. But that were no very original signs of flamboyant genius by the young Bukowski, thousands and thousands of people live and lived like that. I'd say the typical Hells-Angels-Member of the 50's and 60's lived far more "outside the law" and "on the edge" than Bukowski ever did.

Whatever the actual facts of his life were, he created a force of work out of it which had never been done before this way or anything near.

 

[skiroomalum]

Self-mythologizing is not "posing." I doubt that writing in almost total anonymity for 30 years, working overnights at Terminal Annex for 12 years, and living in Hollywood courts and roominghouses until he was close to 60, was part of some grand design to camouflage his "safety net" and assure a cool image to a 25 year old in 2014. That he sold his parents house, and avoided long- term homelessness is to my way of thinking, fairly reasonable. Got it bitch?

 

[Ewok]

Weird - how do you know my age ?

 

[Gary Eisenberg]

My zwei pfennig: None of this matters at all. ALL that matters is the writing. Punto y aparte.

 

[Ewok]

Well the topic interests me because when I read his novels I assumed he was as tough as his narrator, but turns out that is kind of an act. I find that pretty fascinating - nobody wants to read novels about weak male lead characters although there have been some great ones (I am thinking of fitzgerald here)

He was a much more indecisive and sensitive man than he ever comes across in his works.

 

[5:28am]

It would be a mistake to take one part of Bukowski's writing and say, based on this, he was essentially lying about himself. Bukowski reveals a lot of himself in the sum of his works. In Factotum the main character's weaknesses are present, but very subtle. The other novels are less subtle about it, sometimes embarrassingly so. The poems are even more raw.

I don't think the "Bukowski myth" was the sole creation of the author. Certain aspects of his life and persona receive more attention than others. Bukowski once said, whether true or not, that he began including more sex in his writing because it sold better. Bukowski was lucky that he could write as honestly as he did. William S. Burroughs was stopped from giving a novel the title 'Junk' because the publisher felt that a popular audience would believe anything titled 'Junk' must be a piece of junk.

It doesn't change my opinion of his works in any way. In fact, I'm impressed by it. I think his heroes - Hemingway/Dostoevsky really were these daredevil insane macho writer people and Bukowski was a lot more cautious and afraid of the world than those guys.

Bukowski liked Hemingway's writing. He criticized the heroic posturing. Henry Miller felt that Hemingway's manly pretensions were a cover for inner cowardice.

 

[Ewok]

Ok but Hemingway was pretty daring and traveled extensively and is probably the most famed literary expat of all time.

Bukowski seemingly attempted to do something similar during his '10 year drunk' phase but basically barricaded himself in apartments with alcohol and a typewriter.

The most fascinating part of Bukowski to me is his reluctant engagement with life. He did take risks ...but it seems he took them cautiously.

 

[esart]

I find this conversation pretty interesting. I myself have a "story" and I always think one day if someone were to pull it apart and analyze it, they'd probably pick on a lot of contradiction in regards to my parents "supporting" me when I claimed to be homeless and/or destitute. Not to say that my life was exactly like Bukowski's or nearly as bad, but when I discovered him at age 14 or so, he was instant kin to me because of the parallels we had. Now I am writing a book about my life and I can see the writing on the wall about how people will start peeling the onion, debunking some of my claims.

Bottom line, like Buk, I always had a "home" to come back to if things got so bad out there and I had absolutely nowhere to go. Perhaps if I swallowed what ounce of pride I had, I could have asked my old man for a few bucks for a meal. I won't lie - they once bought me a used refrigerator after I got myself settled in one of my apartments. It was one of those times I was ever so attractively groveling at their feet, but I really wanted the cash so I could buy groceries and wine. But with them, you never quite got what you asked for and there were always strings attached, which was why I usually slept under a tree in the park. They were the last people on the list when it came to "help." I swear I'd pick a Nazi to help me before I'd ask them.

I bet Buk had a similar situation. Getting any kind of support from his father felt like absolute shit and he probably took it when he had no other means, and I mean not just no other means. It was probably below that. I remember suffering out for months, sometimes years before I'd call my father for anything. Most of the time, I would just lose my nerve. One of the first things out of his mouth on the phone, "Are you calling for money?"

"No Dad, just checking in."

But I moved back into the the old parents house here and there - to save a buck between apartments. You need first and last and I wasn't one to do the roommate thing, which was probably the case with Buk too.

My point is that some of the things that might look like his "choice" during his hard times - the candy bars - or whateverhtefuck, I can see all kinds of scenarios of him not wanting to eat at their dinner table or some such thing. We don't know the dynamics of that family, and knowing the dynamics of my family, I would not put anything past his. What I do know is that his story is authentic and any "myth" that's there wasn't put there by him on purpose. It was put there by nit-pickers looking for a hole in an authentic man's tortured life.

 

[Otto jr]

I think Buk was a master at taking a few incidents and making them into a mythology. All those bare knuckle back-alley fights with the bartender were really just two fights that happened within a few days of each other. Buk was a master at writing the same incident over and over again to the point where it seemed like it was a lifelong journey through the back alleys of the world.
We all took from our parents. No matter how hard core you might be, your parents have at times sent you nickels and dimes to get you through. I used to think that I never took from my family, but looking back there were many times they gave me $100 here or there to get me through. That's what parents do. I think Buk was pretty honest about that.

 

[shagnasty]

My zwei pfennig: None of this matters at all. ALL that matters is the writing. Punto y aparte.

...and there you have it.

 

[Hosh]

I assumed he was as tough as his narrator, but turns out that is kind of an act.

I don't think a few bucks from his folks every now and again means he wasn't "tough." I think surviving his cruel and indifferent parents, and decades of menial jobs for bottom-of-the-barrel wages outweighs whatever scratch his mom snuck him. It's not like he had a trust that covered all his life expenses on a monthly basis...he had to work.

He was a much more indecisive and sensitive man than he ever comes across in his works.

Which works? Because in the books I've read, I've seen tons of stuff that is both indecisive and sensitive.

 

[Dirtydoh]

This is a really interesting topic.

As much as some assume Bukowski was a pure reflection of his writing and the words printed in a handful of biographies I can't help believe that writers only have elements of themselves in their art. Sometimes we have blow by blow accounts of things they got up to and sometimes life can be fucking boring and we tend to exaggerate certain things that can make people laugh or gasp. It's what we love to read and it's what sells plus it's fun to write. As much as his work was semi-biographical we have to remember he was creative, he was a writer afterall.

 

[Black Swan]

Getting a few bucks here and there or shelter without love is worst than nothing.

 

[Buknut]

There's nothing incongruent about showing up well dressed to your parents' house in a period that you would otherwise characterize in a way that seems antithetical to being well dressed. Also, a bit of money from one's parents, working class parents, does not mean that one is living better than paycheck to paycheck. The biographer had something of a "gotcha" journalist's mentality, and the gotcha sections are the book's weakest, IMO.

 

[Andreas]

The biographer had something of a "gotcha" journalist's mentality, and the gotcha sections are the book's weakest, IMO.

That was my impression too, and the 'gotcha journalism' starts right away in chapter 1.
But okay, as a whole, I think, the book is both well written and well researched. You just have to be careful about the parts where Sounes mixes up facts with own ideas.

 

[BUKFAN78]

Damn Buk, living the high life all along ;)

 

[skiroomalum]

Haha, yeah brother!

 

[BUKFAN78]

you know it.

 

[zobraks]

Good point, bro!

P.S. Hahaha.