Justin Hyde ...

Status
Not open for further replies.
You shouldn't compare someone to bukowski because he is dead. This guy still seems to be alive.

Maybe I"m dumb but I can't tell you why I like buk. I can't tell you what makes good poetry except it makes me feel something. Something I've felt before or something different. I try to write but I just end up writing. I don't know where to put a break, or a new line, or some fun format thing. I just do it where it makes sense to me. Is that good poetry? I don't know. I fiddle around and make something I like. Its always like a secret code where I am the only one who gets it. I read the boards here and I feel kind of stupid because I have no idea what makes something good or bad or buk so great or some other guy suck or anything like that. on the rare occasions I write i do it for me.

It's unfair to this guy to call him the next bukowski. He is the first, whatever the fuck his name is.
 
Bob Seeger and Bruce Springsteen. So many fuckers worshiped them in High School. I always referred to them as the BS brothers. If you want to reside in High School for the rest of your life, you've found your niche. I swear that Bruce is still 17, and his music clearly states it. How many times can you write a song about banging a girl in the back seat of your parent's car, or wanting to to bang a girl in the back seat of your parent's car? God, he's as annoying as a dung-drop that doesn't quite want to happen.

Just add a black saxophone player and it's cool, right?:rolleyes:
I think you miiiiiiight be guilty of having quite a reductive view of Bruce Springsteen... His output is actually pretty varied musically and, to a lesser extent, lyrically.
 

Rekrab

Usually wrong.
Not having read Justin Hyde (he may be great) or even the other posts in this thread (I'm in a hurry), I can say there is no new Bukowski. Ever. That happens once in this universe. It happened. There's more coming, but it's not going to be the new Buk. It'll be something else. And it probably won't be as good as Bukowski was.
 
Clarification

OK, I don't know why previous replies here haven't posted, but I'm giving it one last try.

First off, I'm David Blaine. I'm the member at The Guild of Outsider Writers who thought of having the Micheline Memorial contest.

Paul Corman-Roberts is a member of our group, but he didn't join us until after the contest was over. In fact, Paul withdrew his entry to the contest when he decided to join us, just so there would be no conflict of interest.

We try to run a straight ship. We didn't charge any entry or reading fees for our contest. The judge, Todd Moore, isn't a member. Neither are SA Griffin, who wrote the introduction, or AD Winans, who wrote the afterward.

In the review of Justin's book at our website, Paul said that it was unfair to compare Justin to Buk. OK? He said he was going to do it anyway, because others were going to if he didn't.

So I really don't see that he said anything wrong, anything disrespectful to either Justin or Buk. Can you disagree with him? Do you think if he hadn't made what he claimed was "an unfair comparison" that no one else would have brought it up?

Buk is a benchmark for anyone who writes this type of poetry. It's like when you go overseas and people want to know how much gas costs in Italy. They don't want to know how many Euros, they want to know how many US Dollars. Because that's the benchmark here. The fact that you couldn't buy any gas in Italy with US Dollars is irrelevant.

OK, maybe that comparison doesn't help explain my point, but I don't claim to be a world class poet or writer!!!

Take care, nice visiting here and this looks like a great website.

BTW, if anyone would like to read Justin's book, it's only six dollars post paid
and you can order it from our website, www.outsiderwriters.org.
 

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
In the review of Justin's book at our website, Paul said that it was unfair to compare Justin to Buk. OK? He said he was going to do it anyway, because others were going to if he didn't.
I thought that it was odd to say that it was unfair to compare Hyde to Buk and then (i believe) he mentioned Buk (as Sir Charles, Hank, Buk, Chinaski) more times than Hyde. I guess that I did not really get the review. I have no problems comparing anyone to anyone, but I just find it a bit easy. Kinda like saying a band sounds like Group A meets Group B. It does not do that band justice as maybe their sound is their sound and the marriage of the groups is in the eye of the reviewer.

Truth is that I would not buy a book by anyone specifically because someone compared them to someone that I liked.

As a rule, I don't like writers who write like Buk. I like Buk and I like writers who write like themselves.

And saying that anyone is better than anyone else when it comes to art is like saying that blue is a better color that red.

Bill
 

mjp

Your Host
Moderator
Founding member
In the review of Justin's book at our website, Paul said that it was unfair to compare Justin to Buk. OK? He said he was going to do it anyway, because others were going to if he didn't.

So I really don't see that he said anything wrong, anything disrespectful to either Justin or Buk. Can you disagree with him? Do you think if he hadn't made what he claimed was "an unfair comparison" that no one else would have brought it up?
This is so defensive that I thought I missed something in the thread here. Someone ripping into the publisher, reviewer or their mothers. But all I see is people discussing the uselessness of the "next Bukowski" tag. The review was just a jumping off point. Nothing more.

The reviewer comments on his own review, "Well, boy I sure pissed a lot of folks off with the Buk comparison..." You did? I can't find any pissed off comments anywhere. But maybe I'm not trying hard enough.

I think these guys were expecting some sort of worldwide outcry and wave of animosity to wash over them on account of this wild, iconoclastic review, so they are clutching at a few tiny straws here and there. Their protestation and defensiveness is way out of proportion to the couple minor grumbles that were heard.

Well, controversy breeds sales, boys! Keep trying!

Though I have to admit, I don't know what an "outsider" writer is. Not when I read them on a web site, anyway.

Just sayin'.
 

Gerard K H Love

Appreciate your friends
As a rule, I don't like writers who write like Buk. I like Buk and I like writers who write like themselves.
And saying that anyone is better than anyone else when it comes to art is like saying that blue is a better color that red.
I agree with Bill. I like blue more than red, but that's just my opinion today. The other day I preferred red.
 

Rekrab

Usually wrong.
Bill, I have to disagree with you on this one. Purple is always nice. Red too. Blue is usually good. Green is very seldom okay. Usually it's just plain wrong. Yellow always works. Brown is soild. Gray is safe as hell. White is perfect, unless it's dirty. Then it's embarassing.
 

Black Swan

Abord the Yorikke!
Yeah David, but let's look at it this way ,purple is always nice but it does something strange to me, red is hot as chili sauce, blue is a slide guitar, green is in, yellow is Buk's favorite color , brown is the new black, orange is queen's day in Holland, white is easier , black is the latest so I guess once it was first.
So, who is on first...:p
where is the PH thread?
 

Gerard K H Love

Appreciate your friends
No that looks like a drag queen. Please don't do that to Charles Bukowski ever again.

It's funny I saw a guy with a complection like that and hair like that but not that blouse and jacket or whatever. He thought he looked hip. I snickered to myself quietly.
 

Gerard K H Love

Appreciate your friends
But what if the next Bukowski was a woman?
Good point. (Nice new avatar-notice green hat.)
If the next Bukowski was a woman: She would have to have endured a very rough and tramatic upbringing and would have wandered around for about 10 or 12 years. Plus the acne vulgarus. I don't know....would her mother have to be abusive to her and her father be the more passive? What factors would bring about that possibility? Or has Father Luke now demonstrated how absurd the main question is to begin with? In that case very good point.

The very spiritual wisdom shines through our very inspired man of the cloth here on this forum. Thank you and once again nice green hat, very fitting.
 

hank solo

Just practicin' steps and keepin' outta the fights
Moderator
Founding member
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!


HAaaaaaa!!!!

:D
 

Gerard K H Love

Appreciate your friends
Hahahahahahaha! snort! Hahahaha!
That looks like someone you could meet from an online dating service. She gets the big hands from her father's side of the family.
Where is the green hat??
 
In the end my purpose for starting this thread was to see what the people here had to say about this topic, the review and whether or not there can be a Next Bukowski. I enjoyed reading the responses and never meant to offend anybody or get anybody all worked up.

I am pretty sure I didn't offend the author...because that was never my purpose.

Again, I truly enjoy Hyde's poetry...I recommend buying the chapbook. It's quite well done...both writing-wise and the book itself...courtesy of Brian Fugett over at Zygote in my Coffee.
 

wayne

Founding member
The next - there is no next. mjp hit it on the head with his reply - you only pass this way once in life and the Buk lived and wrote that way. The next, I don't think so.
 
The Next Bukowski?

I just read the new Justin Hyde chapbook and I think it's very, very good. I'm not sure I understand all the "He is the new Bukowski!" hoopla, mostly because, while it's obvious his work owes ALOT to Bukowski, Hyde's own voice is in there too. It's quite rare, to see someone able to pick up the essence of Bukowski (the brokenness of spirit, the escapism-through-booze, the prevailing decency of the narrator, despite some terribly bad luck), and not merely copy the nihilism, the drinking, and the debauchery.

Since this guy is only 30, it will be very interesting to see how his work evolves over time. It's some of the best new poetry I've read in a long time, and I highly recommend it.
 
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
 

mjp

Your Host
Moderator
Founding member
I just read the new Justin Hyde chapbook and I think it's very, very good.[...]
Imagine that, your first post and it reads like a poorly written press release. I suppose we'll see you again when Mr. Hyde's next chapbook comes out. You need to work on your fake-fan shill in the meantime though. It's quite transparent at the moment, and not easy to pull off under the best of circumstances.
 
It's some of the best new poetry I've read in a long time, and I highly recommend it.
We might actually believe you if you introduced yourself in the new blood forum and had something good or even bad to say about Bukowski. We are not idiots, although enterprising Capitalists like you might like to think so.

Identify and relate; don't sell yourself out here. Too many of us have had the inconvenience of people trying to buy our souls. Mine's worn thin enough; please leave it alone.

And it may well be very good. But I sure as hell won't read it just because you presented it this way. Congratulations. You failed.
 
I have absolutely NOTHING to gain by "shilling" the Hyde chapbook, as you so charmingly put it. As far as "introducing" myself, and letting everyone know how much I admire Charles Bukowski, visiting a thread such as this speaks for itself, doesn't it?

I SINCERELY thought the Hyde book was honest and fresh. Compared to the stale, bland, over-wrought stuff I've been reading lately, it's pretty goddamn good. Period.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top