What makes Bukowski so unique?

[cirerita]

That's one of the questions I asked all the people I interviewed in the US while doing my research into B.'s poetry.

Actually, the questions were:
What makes Bukowski's voice so unique?
What's so compelling about his work -not his persona?
Would you say he belonged to a literary movement or was he a "lone wolf", as Blazek said?

Ok, guys, open fire...

 

[theeffects]

a lot (okay, most...) poetry suffers from poets who do or did very little, they worked a job, paid the bills, got married... Bukowski lived, he roamed, he experienced a variety of 'living' situations; good and bad, sometimes very bad. I believe Bukowski had 'something' to write about. There are a ton of BUK knock-offs/wannabes living in moms basement and drinking beer hoping for the same success, not gonna happen.
For some of us being forced to read Shakespeare in high school was a major downer, to later on discover a writer (B) using language and words we speak and understood was very appealing.
Many compelling aspects to his work; just the vast amount of writing is impressive. The variety of the short stories, poetry, novels delivers so much more than you find from other writers.
Bukowski didn't belong to any movement (certainly not the BEATS), he was far and beyond any group of writers from his time. He was the last one that wanted to be grouped with 'others', he was an individual, no other poet comes close to what Bukowski achieved.

 

[Brother Schenker]

What makes Bukowski so unique?

His persona dominates the voice in his work. Not fair to separate the persona from the work. And what makes his work compelling is truly subjective, but for me it's his deadpan confessional style, his fatalism, his "bad" attitudes, his functional & unrepentant alcoholism, his bravado, his humour, his willingness to show his soft sides and weaknesses, his confessions of loss & rejections, and his overall misanthropic view of humanity.

His actual writing style, the craft of how he laid down the lines, is known as workman-like. Simple, direct, and un-pretentious. Like a security-related incident report with colourful feelings & remarks allowed to remain.

Buk really did not belong to any movement other than the Cult of Bukowski.
He can be classified as a mid to late 20th Century, non-academic writer, poet, and novelist, and that's about it, really. He didn't join any particular wave with regards to style & substance. He wasn't doing the Beat thing (Jazz, mysticism, enlightenment, skiving, etc). He was a working-class alcoholic agnostic who was usually employed full time until the age of 50. His biggest influence was Fante and that dude weren't no literary darling or beatnik, he was in fact an outsider, an independant, a dude with heart writing with spirit and doing it unpretentiously; laying it down without trying to appear clever or fancy.

Yes.

In summary, Bukowski's work is unique because Bukowski was unique. Only 1 Bukowski per temporary world regardless of how long that world may last. Only 1 Kinision. Only 1 Bogosian or Hicks or Hendrix or Vai. And only 1 Newport, too.

Uh-huh.

Check out this up & coming axeman from Mexico:

 

[Olaf]

his deadpan confessional style, his fatalism, his "bad" attitudes, his functional & unrepentant alcoholism, his bravado, his humour, his willingness to show his soft sides and weaknesses, his confessions of loss & rejections, and his overall misanthropic view of humanity.

This sums my thoughts up quite perfectly.

But what attracted me most to Bukowskis writing was the simplicity, the conversational feel, the feeling you where talking to the man on the street. who turned out to be quite a wise literate man indeed!

Bukowski was of no school of writing...if anything...he was the firts 'well known writer' (in hindsight) to make, 'everyday-writing' stand on its feet.

Bukowski is a kind of precursor to all the 'bad' small time poets, internet poets, average poets, terrible poets, loner poets, the poets who will not be known outside of a few close family and friends.

:eek:

 

[mjp]

Bukowski is a kind of precursor to all the 'bad' small time poets, internet poets, average poets, terrible poets, loner poets, the poets who will not be known outside of a few close family and friends.

That's like saying the Beatles were the precursors to every shitty garage band. They may well be, but they also inspired very many great musicians.

The same can be said for Bukowski. Everything that followed him or was inspired by him is not "bad," "average" or "terrible."

Popularizing something doesn't make you responsible for the mediocrity that inevitably takes over.

 

[baldy]

Bukowski works on different levels, for better or for worse. I always describe him as a 'Cat in the Hat' for adults. However the real joy is searching for the inner beauty in his work. If one knows how and where to look, there's a treasure of emotions and philosophy hidden in his stuff.

 

[bospress.net]

Hi,
Plus, there are some really great poets that are involved in the small press. They do not attempt to copy Buk's style, as his style is what made HIM. But to say that all the small time poets are bad is not being fair to the talent that IS out there.

Bill

 

[hoochmonkey9]

like others have said, I like his simplicity, which is a difficult thing to obtain. it also brings criticism("He just typewrites." - Truman Capote). people see a simple thing and say if it's that easy, it can't be art. see the critics of Jackson Pollock..."My 3 year old could paint that." well, yes, but the discipline, thought process, decision making skills wouldn't be there.
a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters would not come up with Post Office or the tragedy of the leaves, no matter how simple it appears.

 

[poptop]

>What makes Bukowski's voice so unique?

His life and his work were equal on the same plane. There was no separation.

 

[Olaf]

That's like saying the Beatles were the precursors to every shitty garage band. They may well be, but they also inspired very many great musicians.

The same can be said for Bukowski. Everything that followed him or was inspired by him is not "bad," "average" or "terrible."

Popularizing something doesn't make you responsible for the mediocrity that inevitably takes over.

Bukowski didn't popularise anything as I am aware.

As a reader of his wiriting I think his work
takes into consideration the all the 'bad' small time poets, internet poets, average poets, terrible poets, loner poets, the poets who will not be known outside of a few close family and friends.

despite its Greatness
he brings this 'type' of writing into
muhc greater accessibility

 

[poptop]

Bukowski works on different levels, for better or for worse. I always describe him as a 'Cat in the Hat' for adults. However the real joy is searching for the inner beauty in his work. If one knows how and where to look, there's a treasure of emotions and philosophy hidden in his stuff.

Beautiful....Poptop

 

[cirerita]

c'mon, guys, you know that I know that B and his persona were almost the same, but the question here is about his voice, his unique style, his work, whether or not influenced and shaped by his persona. There are already plenty of threads about his persona ONLY.

ok, let's put it as simple as possible. most of you say that his most compelling factor is his simplicity. what about that simplicity? how do you think he achieved that? do you actually think his style is simple?

 

[mjp]

I always describe him as a 'Cat in the Hat' for adults.

I guess I could see having that opinion if you've only read a handful of simpler poems, but I don't see how anyone who has read a substantial amount of his work could possibly characterize it that way.

Anyone who thinks Bukowski's style is simple should try to write - oh, I don't know - 10 poems on the same level. Since it's so simple that should be easy, right?

Go try. I'll wait.

But please don't post the results here, because I already know they are going to be practically unreadable.

When smog published poetry I got a dozen submissions a week (for 8 years), and most of them figured they were every bit as good as Bukowski. Funny thing though, 99.9% of it was unreadable tripe and derivative bullshit.

Which has nothing to do with Bukowski's style being "simple," but I never said I could stick to the topic...

 

[Olaf]

despite everything mjp
your words are quite ugly...

----
simplicity is an effect of Bukowskis poetry
for sure. even his novels. everything is
cut to the bone. simplicity is not a criticism.
nor does simplicity mean that bukowski could
be easily copied.

bukowski is
very distinctive
using minimalist expression
and straight talking
convey a simplicity in expression
- clarity. in many cases.

----

and how would writing ten poems
LIKE bukowski and failing
reveal the COMPLEXITY of his writing?

from a certain perspective
no writer can be replicated
good or bad
like or unliked
published or unpublished

 

[hoochmonkey9]

his writing isn't simple, it's deceptively simple. and I do think he aimed for that. it took his entire career for him to achieve that. and I do think he was working towards that goal. like i said in my earlier post, simple is not easy. 99% of the stuff I write that I try to be simple as possible is crap. the other 1% is derivative.
and just because I think Buk took his entire career to try and boil his style down to a spare, lean, simple thing, does not mean I think I can write better poems than he can. and my 2 1/2 year old could not paint a Jackson Pollock, no matter how much it may look like one.
as far as Buk belonging to a literary movement, no he didn't. he belonged to a timeless group of writers that shared a similar attitude. from li po to D.H. Lawrence, etc. they'd rather sit and watch society at a distance.

 

[Olaf]

Bukowski wrote the man: that's who he was on the most basic level....

He worked his craft
but largely
it was already there
he was jsut workin
with what he had
writing and
expressing
in a way that was
integral to his
entire way of life
and mindset

same as
e.e. cummings
alasdair gray
calvino

 

[bongobill]

this is all bullshit

 

[cirerita]

nice example of simplicity, indeed!

 

[cirerita]

back to (non) bullshit matters.

would you say that apparent simplicity was a "gift" from "the gods" -as B liked to call them- or was it the outcome of his extra-ordinary discipline? or both?

 

[baldy]

Yes, 'Cat in the Hat' simple.
That's how I describe Bukowski to those who haven't read him.

And no, you can't do it because you didn't think to do it yourself.

It took years, decades for Bukowski to get to where he wanted to be. Years of writing, millions of words, thousands of 'pomes' so that people could read his stuff and think 'Shit, I could do this!

Reminds me of a Coltrane anecdote about when he was approached by a fan that called him a 'natural.' He got a little pissed because he felt that to call him a natural was to negate/overlook all the years of hard work, struggle, and patience that he put into his craft.

 

[hoochmonkey9]

nice example of simplicity, indeed!

ah, yes, yes..but derivative.

 

[bongobill]

lmao..

:D

 

[Brother Schenker]

ok, let's put it as simple as possible. most of you say that his most compelling factor is his simplicity. what about that simplicity? how do you think he achieved that? do you actually think his style is simple?

Look, when it comes to books & writing you either like the ideas someone is expressing or their persona. Most of us gravitate to Bukowski because of his persona; we like his sense of humour and honesty; we like that he has an above average intelligence but doesn't write like William F. Buckley, Jr; we like the fact that he unashamedly enjoys alcohol, smoking, calling in sick to workhell, playing the horses, not giving a fuck about the Establishment or politics, and so on.

His simple lines were relative to the way he thought: slowly and carefully. He wrote about it somewhere...It had to do with his dad. He had to be careful how he spoke lest he got hit.

If you look at his earlier writings they already had simple lines but contained novice-writer's fat. As time went on, and he has wrote more & more, he gained the wisdom to think lines without fat and thus write the same.


His style was simple because he was simply writing the way he thought. Most writers seem to think you have to do anything but that. Anyone here can do it but most don't like their results because there is no persona shining through---or the one that is, is unattractive.

 

[HenryChinaski]

He wasn't reallly "Cat In The Hat" simple, as you so elegantly put it. He really wasnt that simple. Simple yes, as in you don't have to look real deep into his work to find an underlining meaning. All of it is really cut and dry. As for the words, they can be hard to understand to somebody whos vocabulary isnt really that wide.

But as to why Bukowski is so unique, I would say it's because of his pure love for the word. The fact that he never really gave up no matter how bleak it all looked. Yes, the spark I saved still has a chance...as he said in an interview. He never gave up.

He figured out how to let one simple line flow right after the other and never grew tired as he wrote so it didnt wear thin.

Plus his writing appeals to everybody. No matter who you are in this life, you can always find something in Bukowski to relate to. It's that simple.

 

[baldy]

Here's a quote lifted directly from John William Corrington concerning Bukowskis relase of 'It Catches My Heart in it's Hands': (his style is a ) 'language devoid of affection, devices, and mannerisms that have taken over academic verse.' (his style is) 'the spoken voice nailed to paper.'

-nicely put, I'd say........

 

[poptop]

Oh, this is 'beautiful'. Let's put him in the conventional straightjacket of how most forgettable writers develop and say that he sat down one day and said to himself all self-consciously and all: "Gee, how am I going to be? What style should I use? Who should I imitate? What f**kin' impression should I try to make? How should I try to impress people?"

Do you realize how few writer's lives and work meet on the same plane? A pitiful handful! It's a miracle that it's done at all, considering the usual pressure from publishers and the crass/mass commercial market. He stepped completely away from that because he knew it wasn't him. His style came because he wasn't trying to develop a style, or be anything, or try to impress. And yet there a people who propose to understand him who understand not that he did none of those things. Genius is coming from your own unique voice, and when you're reading him, you are not reminded of any outside influence, or the influence of another writer on his creative outpourings, other than what comes from within Bukowski himself.

So make it complicated then rather than organic. He was organic. His process of writing came to him. He didn't deliberately set out to say or be anything. It was "Don't try." His life and work meet on the same plane, and that's why his voice is one powerful and unified whole. Try being simple sometime if you think it's so easy. But instead people want to complicate and obscure his creative process and say that it was because he deliberately and self-consciously set out to come up with a unique style or voice. Are we talking about the same Bukowski, or is there another one who wasn't simple at all and set out to deliberately imitate Hemingway, Celine, etc. and artificially create himself like a Frankenstein??because we can't be talking about the same B.

Poptop

 

[bongobill]

He wasn't reallly "Cat In The Hat" simple, as you so elegantly put it. He really wasnt that simple.

Plus his writing appeals to everybody. No matter who you are in this life, you can always find something in Bukowski to relate to. It's that simple.

when you say 'cat in the hat'
do you mean dr. seuss ?


my wife hates bukowski

 

[cirerita]

But instead people want to complicate and obscure his creative process and say that it was because he deliberately and self-consciously set out to come up with a unique style or voice.

Poptop

maybe I should re-type here my earlier question:

would you say that apparent simplicity was a "gift" from "the gods" -as B liked to call them- or was it the outcome of his extra-ordinary discipline? or both?

I'm not trying to define his style. What I've been wondering all along is: where does his style come from? The Corrington quote -nice one- just explains/defines his style, but there's no attempt at saying where did B get that style... The same applies to the "don't try" motto and the influence of his persona -or how his persona is intertwined with his work-, those things just define his style, they simply scratch the surface of the underlying iceberg...

 

[Bukfan]

There's probably many things that makes him unique. One of them being the fact that he wrote for the common worker/man. You know, the 8 hour daily work for a measely slave wage, then going home to the wife and watch tv or whatever. Caught in the daily grind. Not too many writers write about that
(G. Orwell comes to mind).
Another thing that makes him kind of unique, is the way he wrote his poems. They are not pretentious but easy to read and understand. And of course his humour and outlook on life is, if not unique, quite original...

 

[baldy]

I'll tell you where he got his style: John Fante/Ernest Hemingway/Charles Bukowski.

Contrary to what has been written here, he did edit his work. Sometimes savagely. No big words, no long sentences. He had his own personal feel for how a line should be laid down. Gut instinct.

I don't feel as though his tenure at L.A. City College influenced or harmed him much.......

 

[reasonknot]

buks style came from alot of reading and the gift of retaining information.
the retained info allowed him a foundation to work with or against.
also, his style was honed through the discipline to get the word down on
a daily basis.sort of like practice makes perfect.

shane has spoken

 

[Brother Schenker]

What I've been wondering all along is: where does his style come from?

Are you trying to stir up trouble like a troll?:D
His motherfucken style came from his motherfucken self!!!"?$%^!!!!
It came from his personality, mind, imagination, memories, preferences.
It came from him, dig?
Factory installed---stock.
It was a default style---no airs or graces or affectations. No attempts or immitations.


Where the hell do you think it could've possible come from? A can? A tree? A dog? A bicycle? A creative writing class? A poetry workshop? A box of crackerjacks?

You keep glossing over the persona thang and therefore gloss over the answer to your question.

If you're merely asking about the physical look/style of how the words are laid down and how the chapters are relatively short, then I would say: Out of all the various books I skimmed or redd by authors mentioned by Bukowski, none of them came closer to Buk's style than John Fante. Next in line, but not too close, would be Hemingway. After him, maybe Catullus.

Just my two cents. Not better or worse than anyone else's. Just spot on. And, come to think of it, much better than everyone else's. Yea...that's right. What are you gonna do about it? :cool:

 

[poptop]

Here's a quote lifted directly from John William Corrington concerning Bukowskis relase of 'It Catches My Heart in it's Hands': (his style is a ) 'language devoid of affection, devices, and mannerisms that have taken over academic verse.' (his style is) 'the spoken voice nailed to paper.'

-nicely put, I'd say........

Excellent.

 

[cirerita]

ok, bro', let's say you're right -of course, you ain't ;)- then why B would always say that the poem was writing him, that his fingers were typing the poems as if he were in a "trance" and not being conscious -not even stylistically- of the words being typed?

 

[poptop]

maybe I should re-type here my earlier question:

I'm not trying to define his style. What I've been wondering all along is: where does his style come from?

Dear Cirerita,

Please don't take any of the following discussion personally. I may joke around and be challenging on this newsgroup, but I'm here to get to know everyone and stay on good terms.

Variation #2

Answering such a standard literary question?which is what it is, and it can lead to false conclusions?is like trying to express the inexpressible or like trying to explain the sea to the fish who live in it. It cannot effectively be done, imo; only experienced.

It seems to me that you are trying to define his style by looking for some concrete reasons, methods or techniques you think are probably behind it (from "where does his style come from?"). You're looking for reasons behind his persona that he doesn't consciously have, imo. It wasn't a mask or persona; what you saw was essentially what you got. That is extremely rare among writers who last and why there are so few of them. (I consider Henry Miller and Anais Nin, her diaries, among them...but for me, Hemingway, no.)

His "style" comes from deliberately not having a style. It's not about incorporating any kind of an outside influence, but about avoiding them and allowing what's left to express itself naturally from deep within this wellspring of feeling, organically through the simple line, devoid of any extraneous pressure, influence or affectation.

This usually comes after reading a hell of a lot of other writers and finding out what you don't like about them, the literary tricks they're using, or what they're not saying that needs to be said. So you shed influences or find that you were never deeply influenced by them in the first place, in what I feel was the case with Mr. B.

What's then left over becomes yours?or is you?and the "style" is not consciously performed or prefabricated; instead it's the product of the natural creative act of self-discovery. It's pure expression without the conscious mind standing in the way and blocking the source of inspiration. His style was the absence of style?or so it seems to me?and this is why his writing "style" is unmistakably identifiable as his. But just try to do it and it ain't so easy! And yet, he was still able to express complex emotions and complex thoughts, but they were organic and they came naturally out of the feelings of the moment. He didn't shape what came to him by use of what writers normally view as a style; he just got out of the way of it and put it directly down on paper like the champ he was. This is what I meant by stating that his life and work met on an equal plane. That is hardly an ordinary accomplishment, and let's not reduce this man's stature by comparing him to how most writers consciously try to develop their style through imitation, literary slight-of-hand, and contrived personas that are not a true reflection of their outer life or inner emotions. It's possible you underestimate how profound it is for the inner and outer life of this man, or any man or woman, to come together in such powerful creative harmony. It's a miracle.

Sincerely, Poptop

 

[reasonknot]

style oh style

ask the water dripping from a faucet while
the phone rings

 

[cirerita]

dear poptop,

don't worry about joking, that's just fine. otherwise, this would be way tooo boring...

anyway, your explanation as to where his sytle comes from may be right or not -subjective stuff is hardly right or wrong anyway- but you're dead wrong as to my approach to this question. you probably have forgotten the very first post where I said these are the questions I made to all the people I interviewed in the US while doing my research into B.'s poetry. When you make a question you obviously are somehow pinpointing where you want to go, but you don't usually answer the question, do you? So when I'm asking where does B.'s style come from I'm NOT excluding how important is his persona or his being or his brain or his heart or his dick in the creation of the morning line. I'm not looking for reasons nor for techniques. You may think I'm looking for that, but that's not the case. I just want to hear you out on this issue, that's all. If you think there's no technique at all, fine. If you think there's no reason, fine. If you think there are a million reasons, fine as well. I was just making a question and saying what B said regarding his own style. As far as I know, I haven't said what I think about this, have I? ;)

anyway, just a final note. when you make a broad question such as "Where do you think B.'s style comes from?", you may get answers such as Brother's one: "It comes from Bukowski himself, you moron" ;) or you may get a lot of different answers: "his discipline," "his readings," "alcohol," "sex", "all that", "none of that," etc. but if you make very specific questions such as: "do you think B.'s style is the outcome of his readings", then you're narrowing everything down.

when I was in the US I learnt it's much better to make broad questions because people tend to ramble on and on, but you usually get a lot of interesting info. Specific questions are normally used for very specific situations. so there :D

 

[cirerita]

this might be a little bit biased ;)

style is the answer to everything --
a fresh way to approach a dull or a
dangerous thing.
to do a dull thing with style
is preferable to doing a dangerous thing
without it.

to do a dangerous thing with style
is what I call Art.

bullfighting can be an Art.
boxing can be an Art.
loving can be an Art.
opening a can of sardines can be an Art.

not many have style
not many can keep style

I have seen dogs with more style than men
although not many dogs have style,
cats have it with
abundance.

when Hemingway put his brains to the wall
with a shotgun
that was style.

or sometimes people give you style:
Joan of Arc had style
John the Baptist
Christ
Socrates
Caesar,
Garcia Lorca.

I've met men in jail with style
I've met more men in jail with style
than men out of jail.

style is the difference.
a way of doing,
a way of being done.

6 heron standing quietly in a pool of water
or you walking out of the bathroom naked
without seeing
me.

 

[Erik]

when I was in the US I learnt it's much better to make broad questions because people tend to ramble on and on, but you usually get a lot of interesting info. Specific questions are normally used for very specific situations. so there :D

Well you've certainly proved your point there - with the results of this thread, thats for sure! :)

My take: Bukowski's style comes from his intellectual strength. He was damn intelligent, and this allowed him to to harness an enormous amount of simmering anger, vulnerable sensitivity and acute awareness, channeling it away from madness and self destruction, and into something creative (with an occasional lapse into bitch-slapping etc.). Thats where his talent with the word comes in. All artists get their style from whatever blend of intelligence and sensitivity they have. They find a style (and an art form) that fits their own special blend. Bad poets have to much (or none) of one or the other - intelligence or sensitivity - or not enough talent with the word.

 

[mjp]

despite everything mjp
your words are quite ugly...

Pointing out that most poetry is unreadable tripe and derivative bullshit? I don't think I'm alone in that outlook. If it's an ugly outlook, well, reality is ugly sometimes. Try not to let it get you down, kid.

Trying to define what it was that made Bukowski unique is like trying to catch lightning in a bottle. It is what it is, and no one else did, or can do, the same thing. That makes it unique.

But you are unique too, just like the rest of us. We are all very unique and special.




No, I'm not drunk, I'm at work. But if work isn't the one place where you should be drunk, I don't know what is.

Or something.

Too many late nights lately. Need sleep. Carry on.