Don't remind me
I would be interested to hear what people here at bukowski.net have to say about this:
http://www.outsiderwriters.org/content/view/690/1/
Especially those who have read his work.
My idiosyncratic viewpoint.
I've only read the Hyde poems in the article itself, and that's a very small sampling, I realize. But I miss the absolute seamless rhythm, the unfaltering pace of Bukowski's lines when compared to this brief sampling of Hyde's. I sometimes have to double-back with Hyde to reread or try to capture his rhythm because there is a very subtle faltering in the way it hits the eye... I'm easy thrown off the mark by most writers even if the verbal pictures they draw are essentially good. That never happens with me with Bukowski - his rhythm and words move forward always without a hitch or a glitch, and I've read thousand upon thousands of rounds of Bukowski's prose and poetry. It's one of the factors I admire so greatly about his awesome output.
I think the article does Hyde a disservice by drawing the comparison between the two: it puts the thought in the reader's mind to compare Hyde to a true literary master that might not have existed as strongly otherwise, rather than letting Hyde's work stand on its own and allowing the readers to draw their own comparisons or not. But it's part of the promotional process, like saying someone is the next Charlie Parker.
I've found over the years that if I am reminded of anyone but the original when I'm reading or listening, I'm immediately suspect and lose interest. I consider them good but not great. It's confusing to the brain to read Hyde and be reminded of Bukowski, and the writing ends up seeming derivative. The true originals don't remind the reader or listener of anyone but themselves, whether it's someone like Bukowski, Billie Holiday, the great jazz alto-player Charlie Parker, Dylan, Miles Davis, Henry Miller, Vonnegut, Fante, and so on.
What the article missed out on is whether Hyde has ever read Bukowski. If not, it places an entirely different spin on his poems. But of course, he probably has and the influence seeps through the floorboards and for me floods the decks. I think Bukowski found his rhythmic voice when he was writing about Herbert Hoover in elementary school; Hyde is 30 (if I'm correct about that) and is perhaps not yet fully formed beyond the Bukowski comparison. Maybe if I read more of Hyde I'd feel differently. But that's a problem because I already lack the motivation to do so. Nevertheless, Hyde may have a great deal to say for those who've never read Bukowski or consider Bukowski an anachronism. (Their loss!) Or perhaps it's a matter of Hyde's endurance. In any event, I wish Hyde the best for those who are drawn to him.
Poptop
