PULP is spectacular! (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, i read around 130 pages of PULP over the last few days (i've been having a tough week at work, so i don't read more than 30-40 pages a day before i fall asleep). anyway, its spectacular. i am still thinking about it, but i think PULP could be nearly as good as FACTOTUM and it sort of outguns HAM ON RYE, POST OFFICE, WOMEN and HOLLYWOOD.

bukowski is in the form of his life here. the humor is brilliant. the social commentary is sharp. and it also has the two most depressing pages (chapter no.22 in the Ecco; 1st Ecco Ed edition ,May 31, 2002; i think this is the one, i'll check once again when i get home.) bukowski has ever written.

it is incredible how bukowski combines slapstick humor, sharp social commentary and melancholia without any of it coming off as malapropos. he was an incredible craftsman. man, he knew how to write a good fucking novel.

more when i finish.
 
i know, the plebs didn't really get it

allright, i came home early and finished pulp, read the last 72 pages in no time. spectacular is the world. just incredibly audacious writing. he just hit the ball out of the park in his last novel. what a wonderful farewell.

the social commentary in PULP is among the best bukowski has ever done. top of the league stuff.

(10/10)
 
As much as I like "Pulp", I think it's crazy to rank it amoung Buk's greatest works. Funny? Yes. But Life changing and Profound? No. Bukowski wasn't very good at writing highly ploted works, and this really shows in "Pulp". Strictly for hardcore Bukowski fans. Too full of esoteric in-jokes for the average reader.
 
it is very very profound. man, the social commentary in PULP is among the best that bukowski has ever done. the idea of all of us waiting for death and doing this and that while we wait for it. humans competing with each other and being nasty at each other for seemingly no reason.
 
the idea of all of us waiting for death and doing this and that while we wait for it. humans competing with each other and being nasty at each other for seemingly no reason.

You could say this about 95% of Bukowskis work, especially the first part.
 
I always though Pulp sucked, but I only read it once in 1994, so recently I thought I would read it again with an open mind and get a fresh take on it.

It still sucks. It might even suck worse if that's possible.

I was embarrassed for Bukowski when I re-read it. Long form fiction was not his forte, as the kids say. He has many short stories and some poems that are pure fantasy, and some of them are quite good. But Pulp, oh, poor Pulp, what an ugly, amateurish mess.
 
Because of all the amateurish bits.

"Well crafted" never crossed my mind, nor do I think it would for anyone who really knows what that means.

I understand though, you're probably a young man, in your 20s, and it's easier to see something as "great social commentary" when you have a limited range of experience. Nothing personal, mind you. We were all in our 20s at some point.
 
true, I was in my 20s for a good 18 years.

Pulp isn't very good. I think Buk was rushed because he knew he was dying. he dedicated it to bad writing because he knew it wasn't very good. it's heavy handed and clichéd, and he doesn't play with the clichés enough to create irony (not hipster irony, literary irony).

but, full disclosure, I prefer Bukowski's poetry to his prose. his poetry is game changing and started a revolution (for better and worse) that most people, academic and otherwise, haven't really realised yet. I think his prose, for the most part, was for a bigger payday (not that he didn't work at it and take it seriously).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: mjp
I liked Pulp. Not his best, but I still liked it. I was in my twenties when I read it however.
 
Because of all the amateurish bits.

"Well crafted" never crossed my mind, nor do I think it would for anyone who really knows what that means.

I understand though, you're probably a young man, in your 20s, and it's easier to see something as "great social commentary" when you have a limited range of experience. Nothing personal, mind you. We were all in our 20s at some point.

i bet you got a real kick out of berating me and my taste in books by talking about my age. somebody else must have said the same to you when you were in your 20s. and you had told yourself, i'll say this to somebody one day. its all right, no hard feelings
 
Let's just put it this way, that his social commentary is as good as ever. And before anyone would write this novel off and prove it based on Buk's dedication, it would be a mistake as it is clearly intended as a joke. He was struggling to write these 200 pages and because of that he knew that he was not up to the standard which he always wanted to lay out so by this dedication, he ran forward, so I wouldn't advice anyone to take that seriously. For me what makes this good, and at some point pretty remarkable is not because it is well crafted - still, to some level it is - but his undying charisma. Buk was writing this knowing that the world is already familiar with his works and I think he intended his last work to his audience and not for the newcomers.

Appearently a lot of chapters are closed with some disturbing image or sayings that express the depravity of our world. "I was easy to please. It was the rest of the world that was the problem" (Pulp 194: 14) or a brutally honest comment "It was a quiet evening. A quiet evening in hell. As the earth burned like a rotten log full of termites" (Pulp 198: 5-6).
But there are also great deal of remembrances to his younger self coming through the silly plot,which gains more attention because of this. "We all died broke and most of us lived that way. It was a debilitating game. Just to get your shoes in the morning was a victory" (Pulp 81: 2-4). His ever present thoughts regarding the ones who couldn't make it and the guilt that now lingered over him as he became a respected and wealthy person is appearent as well: "We were all disgusting, doomed to our dirty little tasks. Eating and farting and scratching and smiling and celebrating holidays" (Pulp 89: 7-9). His observations are accompanying this unbelievable story all through and being at the very end of his life, his affection comes out clearly, without any useless imagery toward the ones who live on the fringe of the society, from where he came:

"I wasn't sleeping on the streets at night. Of course, there were a lot of good
people sleeping in the streets. They weren't fools, they just didn't fit into the
needed machinery of the moment. And those needs kept altering. It was a grim
set-up and if you found yourself sleeping in your own bed at night, that alone
was a precious victory over the forces" (Pulp 152: 6-12).

In my view, Bukowski finished his literary oeuvre casually with a very unusual and quite superfluous story - even to his standards. Still, the main motifs lying behind Bukowski's social criticism, is present and brings another undeniably typical Bukowski work to the table.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i bet you got a real kick out of berating me and my taste in books by talking about my age.
"A real kick" is the last thing I get out of you.

By the way (BTW, for the youngsters), I was significantly more stupid than you in my 20s. But there was no Internet for me to use to demonstrate my stupidity to strangers. For which I am eternally grateful.

Now stop sobbing into your hankie (that's a fabric square that men used to carry around), act like a man and own your youthful idiocy. It's all you've got, and one day you will be able to ridicule some as-yet-unborn kid with the scathing wit you gain through your life experience.

Bukowski finished his literary oeuvre casually with a very unusual and quite superfluous story - even to his standards.
"Finished," is right, and that's the only reason it saw the light of day, because it was his final long work. I would hazard a guess that if he had written it 10 years earlier it would not have been published. Or he wouldn't have bothered finishing it.
 
Last edited:
Any writing (well most of them) had to be finished to be published so that's inevitable but I don't think Buk was incompetent in his last months to judge his work if it is worthy to be published or not. I would also hazard a guess too, that ten years earlier he wouldn't have written this work and that's the point about this novel. Appearently death is everywhere in the novel, dead characters, deadly ending of chapters as I previously noted. These are all put their marks on the novel and intentionally and there were various reasons for Buk to write this novel at that particular time of his life. I think not everything came through to you while you were reading Pulp, as seemingly you were expecting the very same kind of writing as he previously did, contentwise, narrativewise, agewise but Buk also wanted change. I'm sure if he wouldn't have been ill and had more years to live, he would have done a much better job because it ain't perfect I know but the thing is not that square as you put it.
 
:wb:
I would hazard a guess that if he had written it 10 years earlier it would not have been published. Or he wouldn't have bothered finishing it.
What I was trying to say is that someone who knows Buk so well or in this case Pulp to be more exact, as you indicate, this sentence goes off the rails a bit.
 
the lack of craft is part of pulps charm. its wonderful that as an old man bukowski was willing to try something new. its a real demonstration of his spirit. i love pulp. its better than hollywood. much better. i do think that the book is probably more appealing to younger people. but thats also impressive. i love that he made his last book so youthful. remember its dedicated to bad writing. so that says a lot.
 
"A real kick" is the last thing I get out of you.

By the way (BTW, for the youngsters), I was significantly more stupid than you in my 20s. But there was no Internet for me to use to demonstrate my stupidity to strangers. For which I am eternally grateful.

Now stop sobbing into your hankie (that's a fabric square that men used to carry around), act like a man and own your youthful idiocy. It's all you've got, and one day you will be able to ridicule some as-yet-unborn kid with the scathing wit you gain through your life experience.

i guess you listen to george carlin. most of your comments are so unoriginal. i dont have to own up to anything. i sill maintain that PULP is one of bukowski's best. i am sorry i hurt your fragile ego, mjp. you run this totalitarian blog where everyone praises you all the time. you just cannot handle it when somebody new comes in and calls out your bullshit. pathetic really.
 
I enjoyed Pulp, and more so on a later re-read. But the popular consensus is that it is far from being the best of Bukowski. Not just here on this forum, but anywhere you find discussion of Bukowski's writing.

But you are entitled to your opinion, and to defend your opinion.

Oh, I nearly forgot:

All hail mjp, our glorious leader!​
 
The popular consensus is usually full of shit so let's just stick to our own appreciation and understanding. According to the popular consensus, Buk is still an average writer amongst other writers so this goes down the drain as well... On the other hand I agree that Pulp is the last thing I'd take down from my Buk shelf, but its far from being bad writing, or, as mjp put, something that 10 years earlier he "wouldn't have bothered finishing." It is a bit harsh from someone who respects and appreciate the works of Buk and moreover, understands it. And I'm not saying all what Buk did was glorious without any mistake but when mjp will produce a novel like as relatively good as Pulp then I will withdraw my statements but up until then...
 
i am sorry i hurt your fragile ego, mjp. you run this totalitarian blog where everyone praises you all the time. you just cannot handle it when somebody new comes in and calls out your bullshit.
Blog? I really have to brush up on my innernet lingo. But you're right, my ego is tremendously fragile. How dare you point that out! You are going to turn everyone against me!
when mjp will produce a novel like as relatively good as Pulp then I will withdraw my statements but up until then...
Fair enough.

So where can we find your novel that is as "good as Pulp"? The one that makes your opinion valid? Surely you aren't applying that rule only to me?
 
You applied it to yourself by making that kind of criticism. No pun intended. But yet again, seemingly you were expecting the very same kind of writing as Buk previously did, contentwise, narrativewise, etc. and I think that's the core of our debate.
 
"It's not a literary work, not meant to be."

Charles Bukowski on Pulp.
Reach for the Sun p.237.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He also said that he doesn't look at himself as a writer... come on. What does it prove? We all know that it IS. There are a lot of bullshit Buk said in order to discard all the bullshitters. In this sense his whole canon is not meant to be a literary work and we could find justifications from Buk's mouth for that too... we need to treat his words with much more understanding, without using it for our own good.

Also Charles Bukowski on Pulp, to put his intentions into context - "Reach for the Sun" p.244.

"Slowly working away at a detective novel, 'dedicated to bad writing.' It's not exactly literature, which is nice and relaxing. And the detective is a mixture of the stupid with just a touch of the sublime which allows me to say things I couldn't ordinarily say."

It is not about what is it meant to be, but what is the outcome. Only Buk is merely sarcastic about it. As he countinues,

"Only I get this dick into so many weird jams that it sometimes takes me a long time to figure my way or his way out of them. If I ever finish this thing it will be called Pulp. In the 30's there were many "pulp" magazines around in which the writer got a penny word, sometimes less. The writers wrote night and day to make it, they just lived on top of the typewriter. Romantic, weird and horrible times."
 
you were expecting the very same kind of writing as Buk previously did...
Yes, I was expecting good writing. But you have opened my eyes to the foolishness of that expectation. You and John Martin. Shame on me. God bless you.

Now let's rock and roll all night, and party every day, shall we?
 
:DD

Anyway, here's another few from "Reach for the Sun" just to prove what should not be proved here, at the forum that matters.

"But it's been a good year for the writing. Hundreds of poems and the novel is slowly moving along. 150 pages. This should be the detective novel to end all detective novels, that is, if I end it myself. I get the guy into impossible situations and have to work him out. But it's all inventive. Good for me. I have to work it out. It's fun until I run into a wall." p. 261-262.

"Working on a novel, Pulp, a detective novel, 'dedicated to bad writing.' this should help the critics in determining that I have finally lost it." p. 264.

Alright, I guess Buk really lost it as you suggest. But still I'm curious because seems to me that you make John Martin responsible for Pulp being published and Buk as someone who didn't want to turn down his wishes and that's why it materialized in the first place. When actually it was Buk who wanted to finish it so bad and not by coincidence in my view. Do you indicate that Buk became a bad writer in the midst of producing dozens of precious poems while writing this novel just because you don't like it for various reasons? Moreover Buk became blindfolded and didn't recognise his own writing which turned from gold to "ugly, amateurish mess," as you called it?

...and please don't get that easily offended. :wb:

Now let's rock and roll all night, and party every day, shall we?
:confused:
Actually, I came here to discuss Buk and his writings and not to listen to Kiss.
 
Do you indicate that Buk became a bad writer in the midst of producing dozens of precious poems while writing this novel just because you don't like it for various reasons?
I don't like it because it's bad. That's one singular reason.

To answer your question, I do not indicate that Bukowski "became a bad writer." I indicate that he wrote a bad book. Those are two very different things, and recognizing and accepting or admitting that something is substandard is called being objective.

On the other hand, not recognizing or admitting when something is not up to an artist's usual standards, or suggesting that everything they do is wonderful or spectacular is hero worship. When you engage in hero worship it makes it easy for people to dismiss your opinion as inconsequential, because you have no standard for quality -- it's all good.

Now can we please get back to naming bands who mentioned Bukowski in a song? This is so boring.
 
On the other hand I agree that Pulp is the last thing I'd take down from my Buk shelf, but its far from being bad writing, or, as mjp put, something that 10 years earlier he "wouldn't have bothered finishing." It is a bit harsh from someone who respects and appreciate the works of Buk and moreover, understands it. And I'm not saying all what Buk did was glorious without any mistake...

Alright, end of debate. Let's get to other topics as well ;)
 
Sorry, but what is it that you are debating?

Our friend beerbelly666 claims that Pulp is one of Bukowski's best works and is a well crafted novel. You say it would be the last thing you'd take from your Bukowski shelf. So do you agree with beerbelly666 or not?

mjp thinks Pulp sucks. He can do that. So what.

I don't hate it myself, but I do think its Bukowski's worst novel. I can do that can't I?

Bukowski enjoyed writing it sometimes - but sometimes it was a struggle. Not least because he was very very ill. Sometimes he was just blocked. Sometimes he accidentally deleted large chunks of it as he learnt how to use his Mac. After struggling with it for over 2 years Bukowski must have been tired of it.

But he had wanted to rewrite it. Sadly that would never happen. He knew the manuscript that Martin had was not ready. But he was unable to do anymore work on Pulp.

It was always going to be published after Bukowski was gone. Only Martin could rework the rough manuscript into the book that beerbelly666 so enjoyed. Bukowski simply was unable to do work.

So what does that mean to the text of the book? Is it 95% Bukowski? 88%? We will never know.

But I don't think Pulp is 100% Bukowski. The book is disappointing. At best.

But I don't hate it. Maybe I will one day.
 
If you really want to know, read all my previous posts again so I don't have to repeat myself. I already did. Actually I was debating over the fact that it is not an "ugly, amateurish mess," as mjp put it. Now you can convert that to percentages. Being the last thing that I'd read from Buk does not mean automatically that I value it as mjp does (5%?). Is every god damn opinion got to be only black or white or what? It is still much more entertaining than other writer's works I appreciate. For instance I also love Mailer or HST but in my humble opinion they did hell of a lot more boring stuff than Buk's Pulp. Is that makes me a hero worshipper?

On the other hand I do think it's 100% Buk. If 150 pages were ready by November, 1992 that doesn't mean in my view that John was needed to rework the whole thing by early 1994 - only Buk certainly needed more time to get his stuff together so it can be more cohesive and thorough and that time went missing forever. From his correspondence it comes down clearly that he wrote the novel in a linear way, not parts and later copy paste them because in that case John's hand would have come handy but this was not happening. I think you overjudge Martin's work in this sense regarding the book. But if there are other things I need to know please enlighten me. So in this sense I think it is indeed Bukowski than Buk-Martin as you suggest. Oh, and we are talking about the guy who wrote Post Office in three weeks.
 
I read your posts in this thread again. 16%. Is that too generous?
 
stop. everyone. or I'll hack your facebook accounts again and tell everyone about that dream you had where you violated the Magi and then sprouted wings and flew to Scarsdale to dedicate your life to mime and the Pan flute.
 
...to measure any kind of literary work by percentages is more than I am capable of but I guess more than 3500 posts certainly qualifies you for that. Really, no pun intended. But if I just try to value those sentences which I previously quoted from Pulp, clearly they overpass those remarks that were made about the novel in this thread.

Now seriously, I'm not an expert on all Buk matters but strictly in the case of Pulp, can anyone bring some proof of John Martin's misconduct, or to what level he changed the original manuscripts? Cause even though Buk couldn't finish it, it is still makes it 100% Buk in my eyes. John rewrote sentences...?
 
And before hoochmonkey9 tries to blame me, I didn't change that one - honest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top