interesting blogspot perspective

[Digney in Burnaby]

Maybe this has been posted before. In case it hasn't:
http://artrecess2.blogspot.com/2005/08/learning-from-bukowski.html

 

[bospress.net]

He picked a bit of a soft poem to use as an example. There are certainly more poetic examples that he could have chosen. That nbeing sid, it was not a Jay Nash slash piece, so that is nice!

Bill

 

[Olaf]

Fuck!

That was the finest essay I have ever read on Bukowski and I haven't read many. This was spot on, very informative, providing great insight into Bukowski's style and manner, his love of Content over Form.

Thank God Bukowski was in existence
to cut out some much of the excessive
fat of poetry and poetic pretense.

god love
his doe soft
eyes!

 

[cirerita]

I don't think Bukowski's line breaks were arbitrary, though...

 

[Digney in Burnaby]

I've never really understood the line breaks of most poetry, especially modern. Rhyming stuff makes sense (the line ends with the rhyme!, maybe).

 

[cirerita]

I think good line breaks create a good sense of rhythm while crappy line breaks create shitty poems.

 

[ROC]

That was the finest essay I have ever read on Bukowski and I haven't read many.

That makes your opinion on this worth about what?... two pinches of shit?

 

[mjp]

I think good line breaks create a good sense of rhythm while crappy line breaks create shitty poems.

Exactly. Bukowski had a sense of rhythm, and that shouldn't be dismissed. It isn't something that every poet has. Read most of the bad Bukowski imitators to get a taste of real arbitrary line breaks.

 

[bospress.net]

I don't know
what you are talking
about.

some
imitators can lay down
a line

apparently
not
me.

 

[ROC]

It's true, huh.
I have typed out some Buk poems to send to friends, and if you change his line breaks the thing does not hang together so well.
I'll admit it seems arbitrary - bit it ain't.

All great art has a feeling of inevitability.
That's why some folks assume it's easy I guess.

 

[cirerita]

whenever asked, I always say that Buk style is deceptively simple or artfully artless. I'm positive his line breaks were not arbitrary. By this I don't mean he spent half an hour trying to figure out each line break because, basically, that wouldn't work as well as the line breaks created by the sense of rhythm Bukowski probably felt as he was typing the poems...

 

[Erik]

artfully artless

whenever asked, I always say that Buk style is deceptively simple or artfully artless....

Love that AA-phrase cirerita. Totally agree. Gonna remember it. Same thing goes for the best song lyrics.

 

[Olaf]

That makes your opinion on this worth about what?... two pinches of shit?

What are you talking about? Don't be so uptight...really there is no need for that. It has nothing to do with my opinion, it has everything to do with the content of the essay and what it says about bukowski.

O yeah, and what I love about bukowski (perhaps more so being a Scot) and something we all seem drawn too, is his perfect nailing of the street-wise L.A. vernacular, it has its own timing, its own rhythmn, and poetry. His speaking voice and poetic voice being one and the same.

Absolutely fucking brillant!

 

[ROC]

It's just an incredibly strange thing to write.
You undermine your own position in the same sentence you state it.

It's like saying English is the hardest language to learn and can only speak English!

 

[Olaf]

What are you talking about?

Leave me alone or I'm telling!

 

[ROC]

:D

you tool!

:D

 

[Olaf]

Moving on...

Does anyone else see that as a hall mark of Bukowskis poetry and stories? The nailing of the L.A. street-wise L.A. vernacular? The timing of the everyday speech and diction, really seems to be quite a unique aspect of his work and he does it so well. Comparable to irvine welsh or someone who writes in the manner of their own locality.

amazing!

 

[Ninjerk]

Fuck!

That was the finest essay I have ever read on Bukowski and I haven't read many.

Olaf, that line specifically is the one he is referencing. Despite what your intention may have been this line tells the readers (us) that you have not read many essays on Bukowski and that this is the greatest one you have ever read, telling us essentially that your opinion meant very little. I'm having a hard time relating it better than ROC did.

 

[Olaf]

What are you talking about now as well?

I did elaborate in other replies to this thread but I'll do it again. The central point was that 'it was a strong essay'.

That is a fine essay, displays real insight into Bukowski's writing style, intention, aim, flaws and general temprament. Nothing to do with my opinion but rather the content of the essay.

Now I haven't read many essays on bukowski, but the few I have, did not have the insight that this one demonstrated, which is great! I was just commenting on that, like everyone else, just being a happy camper.


jesus christ!
save me!

 

[Ninjerk]

Well, I understood it as the thread progressed. I thought it was an awkward (and quite humorous by itself) line, and I saw a friendly type of discussion turning into an unfriendly bout of fisticuffs over it.

 

[ROC]

...and I saw a friendly type of discussion turning into an unfriendly bout of fisticuffs over it.

Nah...
Olaf and I have an understanding of sorts.
He says the first things that pop into his head - and I give him a hard time about it.
We are obviously both happy fools.

And, Olaf, yes to your last question.

There is a combination of universality and specificity in the Bukowski oeuvre.
His work is, all at once, a unique product of Bukowskis particular time and space and it (at his best) transcending these.
Specific reference with universal application?
Specific application with universal reference?

 

[Bukfan]

Speaking of Buk essays. One of the best I've read is the one by Jay Dougherty. You can easily find it on the net...