ok here is my criticism of bukowski's writing:
1)
bukowski does not challenge the reader : i'm not talking about his writing style per se. but most bukowski novels are easy reads. i personally have no problems with this.
but look at this quote by norman mailer: "Great writers are not easy to read, and shouldn't be."
i think bukowski's themes are repetitive. bukowski doesnt make the reader work hard. for example, in FACTOTUM nearly every chapter is the same with chinaski finding a new job. in women, every chapter finds chinaski with a new woman.it is the same thing repeated over and over again but its fun to read because of his craftsmanship and humor.
2)
bukowski was not an ambitious writer: you could argue that he knew what he knew and wrote only that. but bukowski is not someone who seemed to be interested in social inquiry (
remember what he wrote about immigrants in HOLLYWOOD? - yes it was very honest but he didn't bother to find out why they were like that.) or who would go to great lengths to study history or a new profession to add variety to his repertoire. does anybody think he was pretty one dimensional?
more later.
i don't really have a problem with the two points i mentioned in my post above. bukowski is my favorite writer. but i just put those arguments out there to find out what other people think.
So how do I even go about comparing Buk to other writers I like - writers that are generally considered to be among the more popular "classic" writers, if not among the best? Let's consider Kafka, Solzhenitsyn, Steinbeck and Camus from the 20th century and even throw in Dosto(y)evsky for good measure. Where to begin? I get next nothing of Bukowski from these other writers, except for some broad similarity between Buk's sense of alienation from society and Kafka's portrayal of The System, Camus' portrayal of isolation, and Dos' underground. But these relationships are very tenuous, if they exist at all. If anything, I get more of Kafka, Solzhenitsyn, Steinbeck, Dos and Camus from Buk, but then again, I don't get much there either.
So Buk belongs with the best for me because he is a singular voice, not just prolific but often brilliant, and more than anything else, he speaks to me.
purplestickpin, i have only read camus, steinbeck and dostoevsky among the writers you mentioned. do you think you like bukowski more than those writers because his descriptions of alienation and anomie and sloth are easier to digest?
i would say bukowski, despite his seeming carelessness and air of detachment, was a very clever craftsman. he mixed scenes of depression and helplessness with a lot of machismo, humor and sharp social commentary.
somehow that makes him easier to read compared to the writers you mentioned. camus's THE OUTSIDER is incredibly depressing - it was hard for me to identify with meursault. or raskolnikov in CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. though i understood certain aspects of those characters. steinbeck - a far more ambitious novelist than bukowski.
i think those writers gave less to the reader than bukowski. they were too concerned with serving literature.
bukowski/chinaski - well he was alienated but all the drinking and womanizing made him easier to digest. even bukowski wrote about a tough life but the alcohol, the women and the humor made him more attractive.
You are asking where Bukowski stands with other 20th Century writers on Bukowski.net? I truly have no idea what the responses will be. He was/is one of a kind, if that helps. Forgive any sarcastic tone, beerbelly666, enjoy reading your postings here.
cheers. i agree, he was one of a kind. i think of bukowski as this boxer. a boxer with a pot belly and bad technique. he walked into a ring full of other great boxers (
hemingway, mailer, burroughs, updike, steinbeck etc). and he sneered at them all. he out boxed them all. he landed punches which the other boxers took years to perfect. he did not work as hard as they did. but boy, when he nailed it he nailed it like no other. he hated boxing. but when he landed those punches of his, they rang true. somehow, they rang truer than the other boxers punches.
what he did not have in terms of curiosity, knowledge and experience, he made up with audacity, guts and heart.
a truly unique writer. almost like a people's writer. a writer for the people. calling it like it was without any of the pompous bullshit.