Timeline (1 Viewer)

[mjp]

The timeline is becoming a little weird in the early/mid 1940's due to cirerita's recent letter finds.

As I look at the new information and what we already know, I think Bukowski "hit the road" twice, and both times with Philadelphia as his eventual destination.

In 1943 and 1944 we know he was in Philadelphia, but his letter to Crosby would seem to indicate that he was back in Los Angeles before his father "shipped him back" to Philadelphia. So maybe he stayed in Los Angles with his parents longer than the current timeline would indicate. He may have left in 1943 rather than 1942.

That, or his "on the road" period was longer than I gave him credit for.

Either way, it's more difficult to keep the timeline "accurate" the more we know about his whereabouts. Heh. Which is only fitting, I suppose.



Finding a little bio in Write would surely help answer some questions. ;)

 

[cirerita]

I'll hopefully receive the Burnett/Bukowski correspondence next week. I bet some questions will be answered.

 

[roni]

Finding a little bio in Write would surely help answer some questions. ;)

okay, I have some copies of this one laying around somewhere under my dirty dishes. May have a look this week and tell you if there's a bio in it...

 

[mjp]

Yeah, try to remember before you throw it away.

 

[rjwink666]

Out of interest did Buk ever read 'On the Road', and did he ever correspond at all with fellow drunk Mr Kerouac?

 

[1fsh2fsh]

as I recall Buk had nothing good to say about Keroac, or any of that crowd, don't think that there was any corespondance either. tho he did meet Neil Cassady shortly before his death. ( Cassady's)

 

[roni]

Yes, he met Neil and writes about that in the 'Notes'. (pp 23ff in my edition.)

What I remember, he seemed to say not too bad things about Kerouac (in contrast to what he wrote about Burroughs, whose writing he really disliked). But am not sure now.

Don't have the letters with me here, but am sure a quick look into the appendix would show up the name 'Kerouac'.

 

[1fsh2fsh]

What I remember, he seemed to say not too bad things about Kerouac (in contrast to what he wrote about Burroughs, whose writing he really disliked). But am not sure now.

yep your right roni, I just looked it up and I stand corrected.

 

[roni]

...thogh I will NEVER understand it! When I tried to read Kerouac, I just couldn't do it. He was sounding like such a wannabe! Same problem with Salinger! I'll never see why Buk liked this poser. But that's another thread, sorry.

 

[Purple Stickpin]

Yes, he met Neil and writes about that in the 'Notes'. (pp 23ff in my edition.)

What I remember, he seemed to say not too bad things about Kerouac (in contrast to what he wrote about Burroughs, whose writing he really disliked). But am not sure now.

Don't have the letters with me here, but am sure a quick look into the appendix would show up the name 'Kerouac'.

Well, in Hollowood, he writes of Kerouac: "It's about a writer who couldn't write but got famous because he looked like a rodeo rider." I recall a few other not-so-glowing remarks in other places.

 

[Bukfan]

(in contrast to what he wrote about Burroughs, whose writing he really disliked).

Really? In Sounes'Buk bio it says on page 141:

"Of the beat writers, only William Burroughs had given him the cold shoulder, snubbing him at a reading, which was ironic because Burroughs was the only one he admired."

Maybe Sounes wasn't correct or Buk changed his mind?

 

[roni]

[...] or Buk changed his mind?

as he often did. (see his many differnt remarks on Hem.)

well, I don't have my books here, but seem to remember, that Neeli stated, Buk liked Ginsbergs 'Howl' and said something like "It is a shame that we had to wait for a homo to teach us how to write" (not verbatim) - in Whitmans Wild Children. Of course he also critizised Ginsberg for holding public addresses at universities and such.

On Burroughs I remember three things: one - when he had the opportunity to meet him in person, he wasn't interested (so wasn't Burroughs in return btw). second - I think it was in 'The big Pot game' (title?) where he states something like "Burroughs was the only pro with heroin" (not verbatim). But nothing about his writing there. third - somewhere (in an interview?) I've read, that he just couldn't get warm with Burroughs writing.

On Kerouac, I really don't recall where I could have read that he 'liked' (or at least didn't hate) his writing. Maybe I was all wrong with that.

On all three authors I'd first look into the letters, then interviews. I think there must be plenty of remarks on all of them.

 

[Rekrab]

Somewhere I read nice words Bukowski had for Ginsberg, calling him one of the greats or one of the heavyhitters. I think he had mixed feelings for the Beats, and jealousy may have played a part. He envied the amount of attention they got and seemed to feel he was competing with them for the limelight. But he also seems to have been genuinely put off by their posturing. He saw all that success spoiling them in the worst way.

 

[jabble]

So what's the go criteria?

 

[roni]

did you say criteria or cirerita?

 

[cirerita]

B explains his not wanting to meet Burroughs in That's It, page 50.

 

[cirerita]

I'll hopefully receive the Burnett/Bukowski correspondence next week. I bet some questions will be answered.

I received them today. Apparently, he was in Philly in 45 and 47 as well. Will post details later on today.