Women, and blogs and relevance (1 Viewer)

"Henry Chinanski likes only two things in life, alcohol and sleeping with women. Writing poems and novels are just a means of paying for the rest."

she sees right through the guy.
 
You are mocking at her but it is not as if it were the first time a woman wrote a negative review on a Bukowski book.

I am myself quite frustrated because I know most of my girl friends would not like him, I thus do not even try to lend them my Buk books.
 
If Chinanski had some great insight into what he's doing, that could be interesting, but he doesn't.
insight... funny
So what's with the Charles Bukowski cult? :eek:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You are mocking at her but it is not as if it were the first time a woman wrote a negative review on a Bukowski book.

i'm not mocking a negative review, i'm mocking the "insightful" quote about him.

do you think that's a fair description of bukowski?
 
I didn't notice the title of the blog, the content of the review made me believe it was written by a woman.

I don't agree with his limited perception of Bukowski but I won't mock him for that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're right.

I look forward to his television reviews. I can't wait to read his take on What's Happening!!, Taxi, The Incredible Hulk, Dallas, Mork & Mindy and The Blues Brothers first appearance on Saturday Night Live.

Ooh! Maybe he'll do some music reviews too! The KISS solo albums, Dire Straits, Who Are You, the first Van Halen album...
 
Are you saying that Women, Mork & Mindy and The Incredible Hulk are no longer relevant today? :eek:

Don't make me angry....
 
Wow, I take that review personally. I would like to punch the reviewer in the face. That is, of course if it's a dude, because if it's a woman, well then I'd invite her out for a drink, so that when she left you know, I could watch her walk away while her jeans cradled her ass.
 
I think this comment was unintentionally funny:

Posted by Anna van Gelderen on March 14, 2010 at 2:50 pm

I saw the movie Barfly when it came out and was instantly put off Charles Bukowski and all his books (none of which I have ever read). I quite like your review and am pleased to see my prejudice confirmed here ;-)

- Yes, it's always nice to get one's prejudices confirmed, especially when you have'nt read any of the books you're prejudiced against. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I find it amusing when people write such one-sided negative reviews. I mean if you didn't like it, fair enough just leave it. forget it. move on...it clearly wasn't for you. Instead some people seem to get a righteous kick out of picking it apart to see why they didn't like it, and then telling the whole world their opinion; as if it has any real significance! Waste of emotional energy in my opinion:confused:
 
I don't know, being really angry about something is often an inspiration to write about it for me. I guess I just don't get the point of writing a review of a 30 year old book. But if you hate Bukowski I suppose you have to go back a way to find your ammunition.

God damn that Ayn Rand! Atlas Shrugged? I shrugged! Give me a break. Her writing leaves me cold, and the movies made from her books are awful. Avoid her at all costs!

What's the point?
 
Yeah of course, but only if it is exercised with skill and wit. This reviewer takes her self too seriously - like she is some kind of moral compass. Sounds dull as hell.

One thing I don't understand is why the reviewer deliberately chooses the "milder" examples to make her point. The quotes she used were perfectly reasonable thoughts! Anyway, if you're aim is to put people off reading Buk/Women, well there are much better examples to use anyway!
 
God damn that Ayn Rand! Atlas Shrugged? I shrugged! Give me a break. Her writing leaves me cold, and the movies made from her books are awful. Avoid her at all costs!

What's the point?

you mean the point besides that being sound advice?

;)
 
Tony comes across like he wanted to make a late pc-statement (is anyone still using the term? me, okay) and picked up Bukowski to dismiss the sexist, macho filth he would have found elsewhere better, for his cause. Anyway, it's more of a benefitting self-portrait: Look at me, women. I, the important Tony would never call you c**ts.

Let us pray one day we are pure like Tony is.
 
Still, it brought a good quote to my attention:
"It's possible to love a human being if you don't know them too well."
-Charles Bukowski

Just one line you can chew on for days.
Me like.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think this comment was unintentionally funny:

Posted by Anna van Gelderen on March 14, 2010 at 2:50 pm

I saw the movie Barfly when it came out and was instantly put off Charles Bukowski and all his books (none of which I have ever read). I quite like your review and am pleased to see my prejudice confirmed here ;-)

- Yes, it's always nice to get one's prejudices confirmed, especially when you have'nt read any of the books you're prejudiced against. :D


This was my favorite part of the review-I could be wrong but is the reviewer Tony Danza?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't really find it that strange that people write reviews of older books, movies, or music. In fact, I've done it quite often over the years because I've been incredibly tardy to the party on many, many excellent things (not always because of how young I am, either).

But at the same time... to judge one's body of literary work by a single book... well that's tough to do. And I would also say that I think if you read Women and all you get out of it are how much of a sexist pig Chinaski is, then you're missing at least half of the book... By the end, no one gets away good, man or woman.

On a similar note, to say that a man must be a great loved to have abused women go back to them shows me that this guy has basically never known a single woman in an bad relationship. I can't count how many girls I knew in college who kept going back and fucking (also, why does Tony avoid words like fucking for tedious ones like "get together" and the like? BORing) some douchebag that she swore she'd leave next week...

Some of them even married those douchebags... Poor things.
 
I don't really find it that strange that people write reviews of older books, movies, or music.
Movies and records are powdered and painted and re-released (and re-re-released ad nauseum), which gives a new perspective, or introduces them to a new audience. Books are different. How far back do you go? Do we need reviews of Mark Twain books?
 
I don't see the point at all. :confused:

Why couldn't books be given a new perspective and be introduced to a new readership? Of course, they are and will always be!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The point is Bukowski and Twain are long dead, and "reviewing" their books takes a review away from a new book, by, oh, say, a living, breathing writer who needs the exposure.

There's that.

Does the world need a new "review" of Women? That's a rhetorical question. The answer is; no, the world does not. Just because someone "discovered" Bukowski yesterday, or has always had a Bukowski chip on their shoulder and needs a "review" to air it is not a valid reason to review a book.

It doesn't matter anyway. Look at the comments under that "review." A bunch of imbeciles who never read Bukowski have now had their prejudices confirmed. So what does that accomplish? That's also a rhetorical question.

---

Well, at least "Father" Luke has posted a link to this thread in the comments of the review. So the six people who actually read that blog can come here and snicker at the low-lifes. It's cute that he still cares. I don't know how he finds the time, what with managing that literary juggernaut of a forum he presides over. You would think he has his hands full typing "cunt" and "LOL" 400 times a day. Selfless; that's the only word to describe it.
 
Tony comes across like he wanted to make a late pc-statement (is anyone still using the term? me, okay) and picked up Bukowski to dismiss the sexist, macho filth he would have found elsewhere better, for his cause.

You may be on to something here. Perhaps Tony got caught with his Winnie in too many honey pots and now he's in Sex Rehab. Next up will be reviews of the Kama Sutra, The Decameron, Deep Throat, R Crumb's Zap Comix and Tiger Woods PGA Tour 10 by Electronic Arts. It's all a part of the deprogramming process. I wish him well.
 
The point is Bukowski and Twain are long dead, and "reviewing" their books takes a review away from a new book, by, oh, say, a living, breathing writer who needs the exposure.

There's that.

Does the world need a new "review" of Women? That's a rhetorical question. The answer is; no, the world does not. Just because someone "discovered" Bukowski yesterday, or has always had a Bukowski chip on their shoulder and needs a "review" to air it is not a valid reason to review a book.
I don't think the world absolutely needs a new review of Women but a blogger is free to write on any book he wants, whether current or old. I also don't think that "living, breathing writers" lack exposure. And I'm not sure these latter deserve any exposure at all, at least a huge part of them. Sincerely, I prefer to read an umpteenth review of Women, even a negative one, than the review of a worthless brand new book.

It doesn't matter anyway. Look at the comments under that "review." A bunch of imbeciles who never read Bukowski have now had their prejudices confirmed. So what does that accomplish? That's also a rhetorical question.
I don't believe that all the readers of this review reacted like the few people who wrote comments. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
of course a blogger is free to write whatever he wants, and we are all free to talk about why he is stupid for doing so. just because he's free to blog about whatever isn't itself an insulation from criticism

there's a difference between a critical review of an old book and what this guy did. the believer magazine did old book reviews (of books like ulysses) for a while, but the point was to do some academic literary criticism recast in a popular writing context, and the articles turned out pretty good. also, there's the idea of evaluating a 30-year old book in terms of contemporary literature or social norms - also a fruitful endeavor. in fact, there are plenty of ways to review old books that make the reviews relevant and enjoyable to read.

fortunately, "tony" misses all of them and writes a "stay away" review - probably the most worthless kind of review you can write for any book that hasn't just been released. leaving aside the fact that the review recycles all the most basic and unfounded criticisms of bukowski that have been leveled since the book was published, it's his way of telling people to avoid a book that has been around forever, with thousands and thousands of copies in print that makes him seem so ridiculous.

at least he was able to convince anna that she was right in having an unjustified opinion.

edit: i meant to add how funny it is that his recommendation of sister carrie motivated one of his commenters to read it. seriously, you don't deserve to know how to read if you think sentences like, "gee thanks tony for tellin' me to read sister carrie instead of women - i'm SO GLAD you're around to recommend canonized literature!"
 
Question.

On page 17 of "Women", Bukowski refers to Lydia or April , being on ATD.
I assumed that it was some kind of a drug, but do not know what it is.
A question that a friend asked me. Anyone knows?
 
ATD may have also been a form of public assistance (welfare) in those days. That's how I always read that. Maybe a native Californian would have more info. I wasn't around here in the 70s.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top