I read this one when it was called "Hank". Now I understand it was revised after Buk's death and is now titled "Bukowski: A Life."
Anyone out there know if the revisions are substantial? Is it worth picking up?I was left a bit cold when I read it originally, though not as cold as some. I liked Howard Sounes" bio, and loved his "Bukowski in Pictures."
Crucifix of a Deaf Bio
According to my recollection of "Hank," which I read when it first came out, Neeli had over 40 or 50 hours worth of interviews with Buk. That's a hell of a lot of drinking, barfing and taping, and lord only knows what Neeli did with them, and what's still on them, that never got into the book. (I hope someday this treasure-trove of recollections will be made available, if not already.)
My main objection and disappointment is that I had a constant nagging thought in back of my mind that I would rather have been reading the transcriptions of the tapes themselves"”B's story in his own words"”rather than Neeli stepping down the feeling and tone and then interpreting in his words most everything B. said. This nagging thought remained throughout my entire reading of the book, and I concluded that Neeli was out of his league here. I would rather have read Neeli's own accounts of his experiences with B. and have that be his contribution to elucidate certain aspects of his life.
This process of "stepping down" is my main objection to many of the bios I've come across of authors of soaring talent and spirit. The biographer, out of unconscious envy or competitive spirit, ends up reducing the stature of these geniuses down to their own level of mediocrity, at least when compared to the level of genius they are trying to write about. That's why I prefer the version of these immortal writer's lives primarily from their own words and recollections, whether the "facts" are literally correct or not. Beyond a certain point, I'm not interested in a literal reality. It may get the facts right but it can lead to a misinterpretation of the subject's outlook, attitude and inner life going on at the time. (The same thing happened to Henry Miller when Jay Martin published his terrible bio, "Always Merry And Bright." It was so bad that Miller tried to block Martin personally and legally from publishing it, to no avail.)
Nevertheless, Buk and Neeli were friends and he felt that Neeli deserved a shot at writing the first bio"”or it wouldn't have happened"”and there are some Bukowski quotes in it that I've never seen anywhere else. So, it's not entirely without merit.
The bio also presents a useful overview of B's entire life as a starting point for those who haven't gleaned the gist of it from the original writings.
If Bukowski thought that even some of the so-called greatest writers and poets in history held little interest or magic (such as his complaints about Tolstoy), what is he likely to say about the literary efforts of these biographical attempts by friends? Not much.
Having said that, I still feel this is a disappointing work, though still worth reading, but Neeli was in over his head trying to write about a literary giant and make it interesting as only the subject could himself"”he did not have the background or experience to meet the challenge.
I may get around to glance at some of the other bios, though I have no burning desire to do so. I am enamored of first person narratives and I don't like my favorites watered down or being told what to believe about them. There's something beyond the literal words on the page that the reader can absorb from the original source. That's where the strength comes from reading them. You can make that essence a part of you even if you forget the words or never read them again, and I've never read a bio that could do that better than the writer him- or herself.
One reader's opinion.
Poptop
