Poet Laureate of Douchebags? (1 Viewer)

I'm grateful for the gift of Bukowski's words.
I'm very comfortable with my minority tastes.
I'm happy that shmucks like that don't get it.

It's for us... and screw him.
 
Seems like he's just trying to be controversial because he knows Buk has a lot of loyal fans. I can't see any other need for the author of the piece to mention him. Yawn tbh.
 
poorly written article. I would expect a little better from Esquire.

But then, they are esquire...

This article could have been written by a High School Senior.

Bill
 
Yeah, this is just one of those typical pieces that attempts to elevate itself by plugging names and quoting untouchable figures like Walter Benjamin... and he fails miserably. My first impulse is to go through this thing play by play and rip it apart, but I think that'd be giving it more credence than it warrants.

Seidel isn't that good. And as for his comment on poets now trying to be "nice guys" just to get a grant, that's bullshit too. If a poet is whoring the literati for money, (s)he won't last. That's the beauty of the genre, the bullshitters and parasites just fade in accord with their own nature... and in reference to Marche's article, I think Ayn Rand would agree with me :D.
 
Well, he got that 100% wrong... I mean, I haven't read every poem, but did Buk EVER write a single line (much less an entire poem) about "how much women like it when you puke on their floor?" I'm serious--I can't even think of 1 line where he says "my woman loves it when I vomit on the floor" or "I was vomiting on the floor & my woman said, 'that's fantastic!'"

Now, assuming DC is ousting douchebags in favor of tough SOBs...perhaps Esquire will follow suit...& we won't have to suffer more of this dude's ill-conceived word-doodles, & send him back to his freshly-muddled mojito...
 
Talk about taking a lifetime of work and shitting on it in just a few meager lines. Geesh. May we all be thankful BUK didn't scribe, write like this:

We follow blindly, clad in coats of pink/A beast whose nature is to run and stink/I am civilized in my pink...

This is the macho voice? "The poet of the tough son of a bitch?" Hardy har har...
 
Bukowski was the poet of douchebags, producing hundreds of indifferent lines a day about how much women like it when you puke on their floor.
Click to expand...

This guy has obviously read his Bukowski very careful. Several times. He know what he's talking about.
 
Absolutely! He would never say we were douchebags without having studied Bukowski's books. I'm sure he's read all the bio's too, and maybe even written a dissertation on Buk. Thank God for true scholars...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
digitalgeoff said:
What is a douchebag ?
Click to expand...


douchebag.gif
 
Why so serious ?

Though expressed in a caricatural and quite provocative way, it's JUST this man's opinion about Bukowski. He has the right not to appreciate him as well as you have the right to adore him. I don't think that any of us has any legitimacy to declare that the guy understands nothing to Buk's work. No writer can fit to everybody
pamoi.gif
; that also applies to our beloved Hank. Take it easy ;)

digitalgeoff said:
What do women like ?
Click to expand...
Men who do not puke on their floor.

digitalgeoff said:
What is a douchebag ?
Click to expand...
A son of a bitch who keeps puking on women's floor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Has anyone contacted this person? Or is it irrelevant? I'd be happy to, and voice my voice.

Funny, my neighbor just gave my a copy of the NYer relative to LAX. Lacrosse, for those who may think it's an airport. And Sumbitch, the illustration was done by Ralph Steadman. And a damn fine one. Haven't read the article yet, but it was exciting to see the art. He still fuckin kicks. Here's the article, not sure if the illustration shows up...but if you like LAX, it's a good article anyway, with historic implications, etc.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/23/090323fa_fact_mcphee

Pax
 
Ambreen, I don't think people here are upset with the writer's opinion of Bukowski, just that his opinion is based on a false premise. Buk never wrote about how much women liked it when he puked on their floors.

it's a erroneous generalization based on the writer's preconceived notion of Bukowski without reading much of the work. something a writer for one of the largest U.S. periodicals shouldn't be doing, no matter who he's talking about. if he wrote "Barrack Obama is a douche because he thinks all white people pick their noses and eat it," people would take issue. because Obama does not think all white people eat what comes out of their nose. and Bukowski didn't think that the ladies love Buk puke.

whether they are douchebags or not is a matter of opinion, not made up facts.
 
Ambreen said:
Why so serious ?
Click to expand...

You're quite right Ambreen. We must look like a bunch of sycophantic fanboys/fangirls sometimes. That's surely the product of our passion.

If anything, I'd say the comment in the article is likely based on a second-hand point of view; how much reading (of Bukowski) do you imagine the journalist has done? We've all seen Bukowski's work dismissed just as easily countless times, and will continue to do so. I don't think such throw away criticism ever bothered him when he was alive, so should it really bother us today?

Ambreen said:
digitalgeoff said:
What do women like ?
Click to expand...
Men who do not puke on their floor.

digitalgeoff said:
What is a douchebag ?
Click to expand...
A son of a bitch who keeps puking on women's floor.
Click to expand...

Perfect. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
hoochmonkey9 said:
Ambreen, I don't think people here are upset with the writer's opinion of Bukowski, just that his opinion is based on a false premise.
Click to expand...

Esquire writer: But Bukowski was the poet of douchebags, producing hundreds of indifferent lines a day about how much women like it when you puke on their floor.

Well, for one, I am upset and offended by someone who writes journalistic shit, claims another poet was far better (in what the writer claims was BUK's category), who certainly wasn't even in BUK's league, and pisses on BUK. Call me crazy. Call me a frat boy. But never tell me BUK produced hundreds of indifferent lines a day that had no meaning. Sorry. But. Fuck him. And his editor, too. They can both kiss my ass.

No pax,

Munch
 
hank solo said:
If anything, I'd say the comment in the article is likely based on a second-hand point of view; how much reading (of Bukowski) do you imagine the journalist has done?
Click to expand...
I don't know and wonder if it is only possible to determine his whole bukowskian antecedents by relying on a mere line thrown in an article.

Of course his assertion is an exaggerated one. He assuredly could have expressed his disinterest for Buk more tactfully (or not expressed it at all) but he deliberately quoted Hank and reduced him to such kind of writers for reasons that some of you have mentioned ( mediocre journalism + desire to hit Buk's fans, a goal he has actually reached with success).

By denigrating him in turn, you're paying too much attention to somebody you think doesn't deserve any. Quite a paradoxical reaction, isn't it ? ;)

hank solo said:
I don't think such throw away criticism ever bothered him when he was alive, so should it really bother us today?
Click to expand...
You've got it ! One of the greatest lessons Hank taught and carry on teaching through his work.

hank solo said:
You're quite right Ambreen. We must look like a bunch of sycophantic fanboys/fangirls sometimes.
Click to expand...
Sure ! And not only sometimes ! I considered myself as a fanatic till I came on this forum and realized that I couldn't compete with any of you :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Ambreen;
I have no problem with actual criticism, but to criticize Bukowski for writing hundreds of poems about how women like having puke on their floor is both lazy and unfair.

I would not have a problem if someone said that they did not like Bukowski because they did not like his style, etc. I WOULD have a problem if they said that they did not like him because he was a NAZI, as that is not true.

It is easy to make a throw away line and label someone. Most people don't read any further. Most people that would have read that article and had not read Bukowski would believe that he wrote poems like this. Fiction becomes fact.

Bill
 
Hi Bill
chatquibougelapattegh0.gif
,

I don't care about what people who don't know Buk would think of him after reading the line. If they're stupid enough not to go further and content themselves with trusting the first so-called journalist, there's nothing I can do for them. I rather think this kind of people will forget about it very soon.
Fiction becomes facts everyday, it's up to everybody to beware of what they read, hear or see.

Feeling detached is really the most positive thing my bukowskian readings brought to me. You should try this, it will spare your energy :D

Amb
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi,
The problem is that the general population really is that gullible and easily swayed. In America, 18% of the population still thinks that our President is a Muslim based on an e-mail rumor started by his opposition. Not that there is a problem with being Muslin, but he is not. The point is that people read and believe what they are told. Thankfully not that many people read Esquire!

Bill
 
Ambreen said:
I don't care about what people who don't know Buk would think of him after reading the line.
Click to expand...

Calling Bukowski "the poet of douchebags" is just plain wrong. Whether it was in 10 lines or just one. Wrong, for multiple reasons. The first on my list is that it is insulting to a great writer. Ire, umbrage are well-deserved. And, as his silly and moronic voice will be read by many, I hope my opinion is, too.

Pax
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think, IMO, that it comes down to credibility. And to be apathetic about it seems I guess, to be where your coming from.
Ambreen said:
I don't care about what people who don't know Buk would think of him after reading the line. If they're stupid enough not to go further ......
Amb
Click to expand...

I think Journalist integrity has to have some merit. If you write about something you know nothing about that is just wrong. I know it happens all the time. Does that make it right?
It really pisses me off when someone "KNOWINGLY" divulges wrong, bad or unfounded and untrue information. And Fuck yeah we should get upset about it....
He didn't do his research and should be rightfully kicked in the ASS. Along with the blowhards who directed so many unsuspecting people into thinking they could live beyond their means etc..... ok don't get me started

Now if you don't feel that way, because I get the sense that people making a big deal over this is just silly in your opinion, then so be it and then it will just keep perpetuating itself. Which sucks.....

I really want people to be a bit more involved and thorough when divulging info to others who know nothing about it. How are those, what did you call them... " Stupid people going to know to look any deeper"

Anyway I guess what it comes down to me is.... Journalist Integrity.:D

And unless you are knowingly writing for a satirical publication you should do your homework.. That's all.

Just my 2 cents!

p.s. hoochmonkey is no douchebag, that's a fact, ... I think:p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
strangegirl said:
I think, IMO, that it comes down to credibility. And to be apathetic about it seems I guess, to be where your coming from. I think Journalist integrity has to have some merit. If you write about something you know nothing about that is just wrong. I know it happens all the time. Does that make it right?
It really pisses me off when someone "KNOWINGLY" divulges wrong, bad or unfounded and untrue information. And Fuck yeah we should get upset about it....
He didn't do his research and should be rightfully kicked in the ASS. Along with the blowhards who directed so many unsuspecting people into thinking they could live beyond their means etc..... ok don't get me started
Click to expand...
yes.

and while i know it's not necessary, thank you.
 
douchebages have muscles and very attractive girlfriends...as eggheads, are we being petty,? getting back at those bastards after all these years?, now that the internet can help us do it? Did they point out our lame-ness for so many years that now it has to be someone else's LAME art project to get back at them? Man, people...will never surprise you.
Detachment is the only answer. See if you can get some of that. Sheeesh.
 
scribbler said:
douchebages have muscles and very attractive girlfriends...as eggheads, are we being petty,?
Click to expand...

What's your point? I know you are sometimes left-field, but this makes no sense to me...Other peeps have muscles, girlfriends, wives, etc. Como se dice? WTF?

<EDIT> just read your last post, so it be what it be...whatever that be.
 

Similar threads

mjp
Poet Laureate of Skid Row
Replies
14
Views
5K
mjp
mjp
Olaf
Criticism of Bukowski as a poet
Replies
7
Views
8K
mjp
mjp
S
Poet from "Notes of a Dirty Old Man"
Replies
4
Views
4K
roni
roni
A
The Poet - unpublished novel???
Replies
9
Views
2K
LickTheStar
LickTheStar
justin grimbol
Who is this meat poet mentioned in Women?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Rekrab
Rekrab

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top