A bit fancy worded but still the right idea: the working-class-hero image does not work with Bukowski or his literary alter ego because he (or it) is completely apolitical. He represents the typical lower-working-class perfectly, almost deliberatly filling in every stereotype, but at the same time completely transcending ... ah, fuck the language barrier, he's simply not stuck with it. If he (or his literary alter ego) wants a revolution for the working class or something like that its a human revolution, starting with the individual and ending with it and not through unions and etc.Let's not confuse the iconic wordsmith with the unions of our nations who have brought us true equity and fair treatment in our factories!
This is a simplification and does not fit the rest of your well thought (and obviously well read) text. Keep on reading, you will find that to be untrue. Homosexual men and homosexual sex are often topics of satire in Bukowskis work, but so is everything else.Homosexual acquaintances were also in the firing line of verbal degradation and extreme prejudice. One might go so far as to say homophobia.
Thanks so much for reading my blog. Thus far, I've not encountered any dissent. Part of my reason for choosing Bukowski is because, among being one of my favourite writers, he has, relatively speaking, little critical attention. I like your reference to sparknotes authors, that about sums it up! My MRP advisor is very supportive and very excited about walking taking this journey with me. I hope you will enjoy my future blog entries.Have you come across any dissent amongst academics for your choice of critiquing Bukowski? It seems that many of my lecturers only advocate the discussion of works that need sparknotes to understand them. Here's looking at you, Pound. I enjoyed reading your blog by the way.
Wow, that's saying something! Thanks!I dislike blawgs in general but this blog
is pretty good. Thanks for the link.
bospress,One of Bukowski's best friends was gay. He accepted him and his partner into his house often. He may have used people in satire, but to say that he was homophobic is completely off base given what we know about him. He certainly was not politically correct by today's standards, but in the 60's - 80's, for a straight man to have openly gay friends makes him more of a renaissance man than an Archie Bunker-style homophobe.
Erica:a Master's MRP focusing on the sexual poetics of Charles Bukowski. I invite you to take a look.
I'm not home now and I can't double-check this, but I'm pretty sure there's a MA devoted to Bukowski's sexuality. Actually, I think it was a MA about the sexuality of three or four authors, not only Bukowski's.Master's MRP focusing on the sexual poetics of Charles Bukowski...
This was exactly what my advisor (or whatever you call it) wanted to push my Buk-study into. And don't get me wrong, me and her got, and get, along swell. It's just that her line of work on literature (Kristeva, Irigarary) bores me to death. They focus on extremes like: "unflaggingly, like an inescapable boomerang, a vortex of summons and repulsion"(Kristeva, 1982)", but in doing so miss the point. Yes Buk' life was extreme at times, but that's not the main thing. The main thing is that he was in full control of his art despite the "vortex of summons and repulsion" his life often touched.As my degree program continued, I found myself interested in the work of Luce Irigaray, Julia Kristeva and Simone de Beauvoir.
Erik,"The main thing is that he was in full control of his art despite the "vortex of summons and repulsion" his life often touched."
"Do you get it Erica?"
Sweetheart, I fear you may be too fragile to spend much time here.One thing that I 'get' is that the tone of this query (and it's following well wishes) are condescending and cross a line of respect between two equal individuals.
Isn't it just.Wow, that's saying something! Thanks!