It surprised me. I thought every civil institution was like a prison for him.
Why did Bukowski marry?
- Thread starter liquor store
- Start date
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
That it the PERSONA, not the man. This is the same persona that leads people to believe (falsely) that Buk would have been PISSED if he knew that his books were collectible and expensive. He certainly knew it during his lifetime. He certainly signed books for Red knowing that he was going to sell them for more. He certainly agreed to have expensive editions of his books published. This is why people confuse Bukowski with Chinaski. In real life Bukowski could be very warm and tender or rude and violent and everything in between. Just look at him cry on camera as he reads a poem about his wife. That is not what you would expect from his public persona (Chinaski).
That is the reason that it pisses me off when people say that Bukowski would hate the idea of this forum, or that he would hate this or that.
He was complex; like most of us.
Bill
That is the reason that it pisses me off when people say that Bukowski would hate the idea of this forum, or that he would hate this or that.
He was complex; like most of us.
Bill
LickTheStar
Sad Flower in the Sand
The difference between author and character has been a serious problem for me. I've constantly had to defend the authors I like because of what their characters do, or the content contained in their books... My sister still refuses to read any more Fante because of Bandini's racist rants in Road to LA... I told her it wasn't the right book to start with but...
Alas, alas, alas.
But let's be honest here... Marriage is a prison. I mean, seriously.
(but don't tell my wife, I'll be in solitary for weeks)
Alas, alas, alas.
But let's be honest here... Marriage is a prison. I mean, seriously.
(but don't tell my wife, I'll be in solitary for weeks)
Black Swan
Abord the Yorikke!
Could it be that you do not like to be in solitary? :)
Gerard K H Love
Appreciate your friends
It is a force of nature and spirit. Besides Linda is a young hottie and the old man would have been crazy to resist.
Well, isn't that just so perfectly put? Seriously; and well done, Bill. Indeed, it explains a multitude of apparent discrepancies that are not actully such.
Take it home: Buk was not Chinaski. Well, he was and he wasn't.
In Episode 50 of The Charles Bukowski Tapes ("Privacy") he says:
"I know they expect the drunken, idiot, clown type of creature. So, I give them that...I don't like to joke, but I love the money."
Obviously this is the real Bukowski (not Chinaski), talking about how he commercializes himself.
In Episode 22 for example concerning marriage he remarks:
"You get married, like marriage is a victory...there is no glory in it, there is no steam, theres is no fire..."
Theres is another negative statement from him according marriage and relatives (I hope to find the episode soon).
I guess, he likes to be a bit ambivalent. According to Episode 1 ("Give Me The Cities") nature is totally boring to him, but:
"I wanna' be out in a park, I wanna' be sailing down the river in a sailboat...anything decent" (Episode 3)
P.S.: Don't call me a german pedant. :)
"I know they expect the drunken, idiot, clown type of creature. So, I give them that...I don't like to joke, but I love the money."
Obviously this is the real Bukowski (not Chinaski), talking about how he commercializes himself.
In Episode 22 for example concerning marriage he remarks:
"You get married, like marriage is a victory...there is no glory in it, there is no steam, theres is no fire..."
Theres is another negative statement from him according marriage and relatives (I hope to find the episode soon).
I guess, he likes to be a bit ambivalent. According to Episode 1 ("Give Me The Cities") nature is totally boring to him, but:
"I wanna' be out in a park, I wanna' be sailing down the river in a sailboat...anything decent" (Episode 3)
P.S.: Don't call me a german pedant. :)
I believe a writer edits was happened, what he thinks even if he's trying to be as factual as possible. Also, the writer may be wrong or forgotton the facts or have a slightly screwed perspective of it all.
This is all allowed and should only disturb readers of history books. We are not fans of Buk we are, or should be, fans of his work.
This is all allowed and should only disturb readers of history books. We are not fans of Buk we are, or should be, fans of his work.
I've studied 'literary scholarship' or whatever the right term is and it's one of the first things they teach you: The author isn't his writing!
That's true and it's most important to learn that difference (esp when an author writes in the first persona, like Hank does).
But then - I always felt that's what makes the difference between a trivial 'commercial' writer who's ONLY [!] writing with his craftmanship but without being personally involved - and a true artist:
The true artist always gives (at least something) of himself!
This goes for Hank and Hem and Whitman and Van Gogh and Warhol and Lou Reed and Beethoven. I don't think it goes for Dan Brown or Hannah Montana.
So, now I often find myself in the position to explain to people, they need to keep in mind:
Bukowski is NOT Chinaski -- BUT: Chinaski has a BIG LOT of Bukowski.
Back to topic:
The above said is the reason, why I don't find it a stupid question in the first place. It's the qualified attempt to find out, what in the writing actually IS reflecting the author and what is not.
ps - slimey:
I personally am a fan of both.
That's true and it's most important to learn that difference (esp when an author writes in the first persona, like Hank does).
But then - I always felt that's what makes the difference between a trivial 'commercial' writer who's ONLY [!] writing with his craftmanship but without being personally involved - and a true artist:
The true artist always gives (at least something) of himself!
This goes for Hank and Hem and Whitman and Van Gogh and Warhol and Lou Reed and Beethoven. I don't think it goes for Dan Brown or Hannah Montana.
So, now I often find myself in the position to explain to people, they need to keep in mind:
Bukowski is NOT Chinaski -- BUT: Chinaski has a BIG LOT of Bukowski.
Back to topic:
The above said is the reason, why I don't find it a stupid question in the first place. It's the qualified attempt to find out, what in the writing actually IS reflecting the author and what is not.
ps - slimey:
I personally am a fan of both.
Marriage is nothing like prison.
I mean, has your wife ever said "don't do the dishes? That's a night in the box"
sorry, watched Cool Hand Luke today. love that movie.
I mean, has your wife ever said "don't do the dishes? That's a night in the box"
sorry, watched Cool Hand Luke today. love that movie.
well it's the opposite for me "you did the dishes? That's a night in the box" :D
sorry couldn't resist...
Yes, but Bukowski in The Charles-Bukowski-Tapes IS Bukowski and NOT Chinaski.
The fact that he is a poet and writer is insignificant for my question.
He could have written nothing.
I'd think yes and no. Being filmed like that - he's bound to turn it on - make something of a performance out of it.
The tapes were recorded a few years before he and Linda married.
Perhaps he just changed his mind regarding marriage.
The tapes were recorded a few years before he and Linda married.
Perhaps he just changed his mind regarding marriage.
Thanks. That's more comprehensible to me than the reference to Chinaski.
Even a genius has the right to change his mind. :)
his marriage comment is not referring to himself. i think - i haven't seen that episode in awhile - but i think he's speaking in general about people who give into and live the standard mundane 9 to five existence with all the trappings. he says something like 'i'd rather murder myself than live like that'.
i don't think he meant marriage as a whole, but a certain hellish lifestyle that goes along with alot of them (marriages i mean)
i don't think he meant marriage as a whole, but a certain hellish lifestyle that goes along with alot of them (marriages i mean)
Then give me a pro-marriage quote from him, please ;)
OK, you may have me there! But take a look at "The Wedding"--you get at least a "highly qualified" endorsement of marriage:
"I had known Linda Lee for eight or nine years, many of those years lived together. To live with a man who is a drunk, a horseplayer and a writer combined is a courageous thing to do, and Linda Lee is such, a courageous lady. And so because of my love for her and to honor her properly, marriage seemed in order. It did bother me to have the Church and the State sanction our decision but there seemed to be no other way to legally bind the ceremony."
:rolleyes:
"I had known Linda Lee for eight or nine years, many of those years lived together. To live with a man who is a drunk, a horseplayer and a writer combined is a courageous thing to do, and Linda Lee is such, a courageous lady. And so because of my love for her and to honor her properly, marriage seemed in order. It did bother me to have the Church and the State sanction our decision but there seemed to be no other way to legally bind the ceremony."
:rolleyes:
Shakin' it here, boss.
Didn't he offer to wed francEyE as well when she fell pregnant? Seems like, with regard to marriage, the man's actions speak louder than his words.
