Smashed; the pulp poetry of Charles Bukowski (1 Viewer)

I remember reading this when it first appeared in "The New Yorker." It's interesting re-reading it, because it is actually much more essentially positive and intelligently responsive than I had remembered. What is puzzling is the ending, where Kirsch brings up Hamsun and seems to say that Bukowski didn't laugh at himself the way Hamsun did, which therefore invalidates his poetry for "serious readers" of "complex, allusive etc" modern poetry. But this simply shows Kirsch really hasn't read Bukowski! I'm curious what others think of this article.

:confused:"Always demanding the reader's covert approval"?
I completely agree with David. I thought that it was a pretty well-written article until I got to the final paragraph. I got the impression that Kirsch might have only concentrated on some of his posthumous books, though. It seemed like he wanted to write a positive article, but at the end he threw in the token "great for immature teenage boys, but not for serious literature" addage.

That is why he is so easy to love, especially for novice readers with little experience of the genuine challenges of poetry; and why, for more demanding readers, he remains so hard to admire.
"He bears the same relation to poetry as Zane Grey does to fiction, or Ayn Rand to philosophy"”a highly colored, morally uncomplicated cartoon of the real thing."

The real thing? Like Coca-Cola?

I wonder how the author of that article defines real poetry from cartoon poetry? I think of Dr. Suess...
Last edited:
how bad I felt
when hit by belt,

I did not like
the pain I felt

I did not like
the pain he dealt.

I did not like
my dad at all

I did not like
to feel so small.

how I wished
that I could fly

I think I'll write
Ham On Rye.

Apologies to Dr Suess and Bukowski
blah blah blah

who cares what the new yorker has to say about anything
thats like judging cutting edge humor based on saturday night live

how many articles did buk have in new yorker?
i seem to remember, that he ran from nyc
when he was givin the opportunity of possibly being that kind of writer

and to even be compared with the great knut hamsun
i think buk would have considered it a huge victory

hamsuns hunger=fantes ask the dust=buk
and thank god her ran too. i read those early stories in wine stained notebook. shit was garbage with the exception of rejection slip. DONT TRY. shit good.
as lil wayne said(my second favorite poet)
boy so hungry he could eat the plate
and if i asked him
he'd eat your face!

besides the occational dave sedaris article
the new yorker doesnt have dick.
actually i thought the article on bukowski had some good points. anyway
i got to go eat some more raisins
gotta go fart this poetry out
Bukowski's narrative is like sitting on a barstool next to Philip Marlowe/Paul Bunyun? wtf? But I did like the article. Thanks, Black Swan.

an image of Bukowski that even cirerita hasn't posted:
Early on in the article when he says readers discover Buk with a "transgressive thrill" I knew this wasn't gonna be too good.

For the most part it's a pretty good article but anyone who uses a phrase like that is a pompous ass, plain and simple.

For what's it worth, I myself discovered Buk with a transgendered grill.
maybe those who aren't mainstream public actually outnumber those who are. or maybe some people are just lying.

Users who are viewing this thread