Yes He Was A Beat Writer! (3 Viewers)

I have heard many folks say that Buk was not a part of the beat generation. They say that he did not want to be considered as a part of that generation. So you all (some of you anyway) like to sit their and sound smart by claiming that Buk's involvement with the beat generation is an incorrect myth. Well if you say that he was not a part of the beat generation, you are wrong. If Einstein did not want to be called a genius, it would not change the fact that he was a genius. It?s the same with Buk, just because he may not have thought of himself as a beat writer, he still really was. Some would argue that he was to far after what they consider to be the beat generation . Even if we call the Beat generation the small period of time where Kerouac hoped around the country with all his happy drunk friends, Buk was still close enough to this time to be considered a part of it. He even knew many of the fellows, most of them are not very well known, but they where still beats none the less. Just because he was at the end of that whole party does, not mean he wasn't a part of it. Buk is the example of what happens to a beat if they don't die at forty of alcohol poisoning. (I might take that death by the railroad instead) Now let?s look at what the beat generation really meant. A Beatnik is a person who will commonly reject the norms of established society and indulge in exotic philosophizing, and mainly self expression. What the Beats did for literature was like what Duncamp, and Picasso did for painting. The Beats took literature and poetry and turned it from a meticulous precise process, and turned it into an art, like expressionistic writing if you will. The Beatnik generation consists of the forefathers of this new way of writing, and if you do not think of Buk as one of these forefathers than you are just a damned fool.
 
Agreed, i'm with you. People get pissed off when you talk about this shit, its crazy. I guess they want to think they have Buk all to them selves. Don't get me wrong I've read the beats, alot of it is crap, dosen't make any fucking sense. So far all the bukowski makes total sense. But who dosen't like girls,drink, and gambling.
 
then I'm damned fucking fool :D

B was no Beat, no matter how hard you try to make him fit into the description of what a Beat is supposed to be according to you.

B was older than most Beats and he was closer in attitude -not in writing- to the Modernists than to any contemporary Beat.

Rejecting society's impositions, rules, norms, etc, doesn't make a Beat out of you. It makes an "outsider" out of you, in any case. Some outsiders can be considered Beats, some can't. B is one of them.

At least that's my take.
 
Brandon g said:
I have heard many folks say that Buk is just a damned fool.
Trolling trolling trolling, rawhide!

Boy, I say boy, the term Beat was not invented by any of those who have been placed in that category. It existed before any of their works appeared. It was American slang for "I'm bushed, tired, fagged out."

The term was made famous by Kerouac (unintentionally) and then Ginsburgh and Madison Avenue conspired to create a "movement" utilizing the term (and them were the days when "movements" were quite popular).

As our learned Buk collector & potential PhD (and future Buk biographer) cirerita said, "Rejecting society's impositions, rules, norms, etc, doesn't make a Beat out of you. It makes an "outsider" out of you...Some outsiders can be considered Beats, some can't. B is one of them."

We take offense to Buk being called a Beat Writer because, with the exception of Kerouac, the Beats fucken sucked shit through straws while pretending to be poets & writers. Their works were weak, muddled, uninspired nonsense pretending to be profound & anti-materialstic when in fact, the "authors" were mentally deranged misfits who could barely keep body & soul together by any means whatsoever, and who clearly had no talent but loads of luck with regards to being at the right place at the right time.

The Beat Movement was absolutely nothing more than a marketing tag and at no time did Buk ever align his self or his work with that label. He knew the "Beats" were phony balonies and pseudo-mystical fakers & sell-outs whose main motivations for writing were fame & fortune at any cost rather than a fundamental therapeutical NEED to express & create.

Again, Kerouac aside, the Beats were posers and Buk was the REAL DEAL. He saw their works for what they were: Shameless tricks & lies embraced & approved of by Academia, and he wanted nothing to do with them.

The only things Buk had in common with the Beats were the facts that he and they as individuals were born around the same time and wrote around the same time. That's it. The comparisons end there.

I have donned my flame proof suit; I'm zipped up and awaiting the onslaught.
Have at it, young whipper snapper.:cool:
 
cirerita said:
then I'm damned fucking fool :D

B was no Beat, no matter how hard you try to make him fit into the description of what a Beat is supposed to be according to you.

B was older than most Beats and he was closer in attitude -not in writing- to the Modernists than to any contemporary Beat.

Rejecting society's impositions, rules, norms, etc, doesn't make a Beat out of you. It makes an "outsider" out of you, in any case. Some outsiders can be considered Beats, some can't. B is one of them.

At least that's my take.

^ THIS MAN RIGHT HERE, IS NO DAMNED FOOL WHEN IT COMES TO BUK.

now Brandon G, tell us why you really think Bukowski was a beat.
and btw, you wouldnt have made this thread just to kick up a fuss would you?
it is a good argument but one that I think you won't win.

Bukowski was no beat and he'd turn over in his grave if he read the first post in this thread.

*quietly waits to hear MJPs take on things*
 
Eh, I don't know if the original poster was trolling, but he's certainly barking up the wrong tree. As Brother Schenker pointed out, Bukowski said he wasn't part of that tribe of knuckleheads and didn't want to be identified that way, so there's no argument here.

Some people need everything to fit into a box, and it confuses and angers them when something or someone doesn't.
 
lol well just so everybody knows...

its crystal clear. btw...i think he says something about him not being a beat writer in the Laughing With The Gods interview.

I shall post an exerpt when I find the time.
 
OKAY HERE WE GO...SRAIGHT FROM BUKOWSKI'S MOUTH

an exerpt from
Laughing With The Gods
An Interview W/ Charles Bukowski By Fernanda Pivano
pg. 81

Bukowski: Shit, I don't even know what expressionist means. You see, I'm not very good with words. I've also been called a beat writer, which I know I'm not.

Pivano: No, you have nothing to do with that. I've never dreamed to say "beat".

Bukowski: I don't know what the hell they're talking about, what they're trying to do.

Wolberg: Beaten, maybe.

Bukowski: Yeah, I'm a beaten writer.



LOL discussion closed. I rest my case. Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, Henry Charles Bukowski Junior was NOT A BEAT WRITER.
 
Hear! Hear!
Case Closed!
Mr Henry Chinaski,
We find your client,
OUR MAN,
Not guilty of this ensuing thread's accusation.

You may now (attempt to) rest easy.....
Unitll the next trial-> we'll keep your # handy :>
 
lol we all knew it anyways. but maybe Brandon G will put his baby to bed and rest easy from this thorn in his side.

sorry Brandon. we're still friends <3
 
B also fucked corpses. Or did I just believe everything I read, or watched in a flick yesterday. Good job Brandon, you don't know shit about the MAN you read about. Theres no reason for you to have any say in this matter. Did you hear from bukowskis mouth that he's not a beat! Throw all your books away, go back to the library tomorrow and check out the how to be gay handbook.I hear Tom cruiz is hot! That shits all true. We only have opinions to piss up other peoples asses. And damn does it feel good!
 
I like what Lame Duck says because it never makes sense. She agrees and disagrees at the same time, which I find to be a rare and admirable quality.
 
Essentially most of you are saying that Buk was not a beat because he was not a bad writer. Listen to yourselves for christ's sake. I know that the term existed before a band of drunkards, but as with many words time morphed it into a whole new meaning. Maybe I am wrong, but hear me out. Alright, so maybe he was not a part of the beat generation, but I still say he was a beat writer. Most of those assholes who sold out, traveled to say that they traveled, and wrote like shit, where not really expressing themselves, they where trying to be something, which is not what the new definition of a beat really is. Buk would come out in every word that he wrote, one can feel the man in his words. This new way of truly exposing yourself is what a beat is. Most modern writers are beats too. The moment a person writes that he used to cry because he was so scared that he would go to hell for eating his sisters toe nail clippings, he is a beat writer(its not that you just tell about yourself, it's more than that). Those cigarette smoking fakes where not. What made Kerouac a beat writer was not his life style at all, but the way his love and saddness would stream out of every page. I know that not every person who can truly express themselves with words is a beat writer, its just a broad generalization that Buk, and probably some of you fit into. By the way this is not just the stupid opinion of some damned kid, I used to be with most of you guys until about three of my professors argued otherwise. Maybe Im right, maybe Im wrong, but it is just my thought on it, and my friends I do not think that you are really damned fools for disagreeing with me. Hell some of you made good points that may just shut me up when I put some more thought into what you said (isn't that the point of a good forum anyway). But still I say that he was a beat writer. I cannot help but be offended by what some of you said at any rate, I have been around to much to be one of those who has to put things into categories, it's really just my honest opinion about Buk being a beat writer that's all.
 
Lame Duck said:
you don't know shit about the MAN you read about. There's no reason for you to have any say in this matter.
Here is the problem with Literature and folks today. I cannot quote him on it because I lost the source, but Buk said something to the affect of how a person should not know to much about the author because they forget about the work. I know that Salinger and Celine said something similar to the affect as well. Salinger said that If a person knows that an author was mentally ill, and some one else asks them about a book that author wrote, they will not remember the book but they will be able to tell you that the author was crazy. Not to say that all of you are like this, but what does it matter if I am right or wrong? Buk was a tired old writer, not a god.
 
Brandon g said:
Essentially most of you are saying that Buk was not a beat because he was not a bad writer.
I didn't see anyone suggest that. Mainly I saw people saying he wasn't a "beat" because he said he wasn't, or if you want the more Matrix reason, because there were no "beats."
I used to be with most of you guys until about three of my professors argued otherwise.
Those are the people I was talking about who run around in circles sobbing and pissing their pants if they can't put something into a category, box or description that fits snugly into their dusty mausoleum of IMPORTANT THOUGHT. Not you.
 
Bradong, it's ok if you think he's a beat writer, you're not the only one, that's for sure. I think Fox called him a "surrealist" in his early days and got away with it! Labels are out there to be used by those who want to use them, that's all. If you think that B fits into the beat label and you have your own reasonings to prove as much -at least to yourself- that's just fine.

But, Christ, look at the funny part of the story. B says he's not a Beat writer but a "beaten" writer. I think that might sum it up.

As to professors, that's just normal, they NEED labels very badly. Many of them -and believe me, I know pretty well A LOT of them- live in their precious ivory towers and don't give a goddamned shit about the real world. They have their theories and they try to fit everything into those theories, no matter how absurd they sound sometimes.

I remember when B was given the Outsider of the Year award and he said something like: "Man, I'm not an Outsider because I'm pretty much Outside of everything".

B hated labels -even "positive" ones- and he said so from very early on. Read the letters or the interviews. Read the interview conducted by John Thomas, that one will give you a lot of insight into this whole labelling issue.
 
cirerita said:
B hated labels -even "positive" ones- and he said so from very early on.

CORRECTOMUNDO...
but either way you look at it...this argument could go on forever...and lets face it, there are just certain other things that are of higher signifigance.

think what you want...but I think this whole argument is getting a bit misconstrued. no matter how hard smart people fight to keep Buk from being stereotyped into a certain group, there will always be those ppl out there (along with all your profs..) who have to name, take, date, and take inventory on everything so that it fits nicely into their grand scheme of things.

but you just ask anybody who knows anything about Buk if he would ever want to be categorized into a group and the hard truth of the matter is,
he stands out from everyone.
 
bran...
don't corner any poet - its bad form - bukowski gave the 'bow finger' to the fucking world - he did it in such a way as to be 'bukowski' - i don't wish to be him or any poet but his style is a set of shoulders upon which i may stand - because of him our voices carry...

riverrat
 
Brandon g said:
By the way this is not just the stupid opinion of some damned kid, I used to be with most of you guys until about three of my professors argued otherwise.

Brandon,

I lived on Grand Canal in Venice, CA from 1965-69 and knew beat poets like Stuart Perkoff, Eden Ahbez and a host of others; but Buk was not making the scene there in a very public way (I wish he had; it would have been great to see him). But, you haven?t given us your profs? argument as to just why they consider Buk a beat. Was there any other reasoning they put forth other than the points you mentioned in passing? Do they have any strong issues; or is it just a case of needing to catagorize? You?ve hit a hot button; can you (or they) defend it?

SD
 
lets be honest, what makes a professors word any more signifigant than somebody that actually has studied Bukowski as a religion?

and I use the term religion loosely but yes, there are Bukowski nuts out there that consider his books thier bible, so to speak. I think I'd take the word of a Bukowskian over any smug professor any day.

I don't mean to sound condescending but come on Brandon, think about what you're arguing.

GET REAL.
 
frist off, let me say that this is an interesting post. for me, buk is not a beat writer for the simple reason that he wasn't part of that movement. end of story. however, i suppose an argument can be made that his style was that of a beat. but i don't really see this. if anything, bukowski was anti-beat. instead of striving for some kind of mystical experience (which seemed to be a common thread in all of the beats) buk just tried to make the best of his lot. he sensed that all that metaphysical striving was pointless. he knew that this was all there ever was or ever could be. so he drank, and went to the track and fucked women. as for the origins of the word beat, i'm no expert, but i know that jack kerouac tried to define the term in one of his books (on the road?) and suggested that it came from the term beatitude. anyways, if the "pros" want to call him a beat writer or an impressionist or a turnip let them. does it really matter? for a label does not change the nature of a thing.
 
Calling Bukowski a "Beat" writer seems like revisionism to me. I never heard that label until late in the game, and then it was said by people too young to have witnessed the Beats firsthand. He was never part of that scene, socially or spiritually. When he lived and wrote had nothing to do with it. Good Beats (Kerouac, Corso), bad beats (thousands of guys in berets) -- none of them have much in common with Buk, really. He was on a different planet than all of them. I think to call Buk a Beat now is to misunderstand the term Beat as it was used during the 1950s. It's a 1980s take on him, and on the Beats. Just my opinion, I could be full of shit.

David
 
David...of course you're right! ...but it's interesting to hear all the pro's and con's all the same...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hell yeah. And after reading through both arguments, I have to say that Buk was a beat school dropout. How about that - a droput of the dropout scene. Readings at City Lights were what he had in common with Ginsberg, McClure, and not much more. I would say that beyond the surface co-incidences of birth, he was more of his own man than part of a larger scene.
 
I think that calling Buk a beat writer is incorrect as it would seem to place him in a fairly closed time period and style etc. But I would be happy calling him a "writer"; I mean, that would do for me.

:)
 
Hey,I,m new here.I,m a new buk fan too.I read Tales of Ordinary Madness a few years back,then forgot him.I have my own copy of said book now,re read and enjoyed even more.Pulp was cool and Factotum.
I aint an authority on Buk so to speak,but,I picked up from what I,ve read that he certainly didnt want to be considered a beat writer. I personally think he was but because of the moronic adulation of fans towards the great beat writers,surely buk wouldnt want all that.Also I think,although his stories are pretty degenerate,the writer himself comes across as a modest man who never wanted to "sell out" by making it big or getting literary recognition,fame and money.Having read some of the ass licking and serious nerdiness of others on the forum,I feel buk would turn in his grave if he could read some of it.Yea he was one of the most "realist" writers I've evr come across.Surely he would not want folks payin top dollar for menus from one of his wifes cafes?buk memorabilia?The point I,m tryin to make is,although he rocked ,I think he never thought his writing skills were that special.What was special was the gritty realism in the stories which you know aint a million miles away from the truth.I think Irvine Welsh certainly copied his style.Has anyone read Alexie Sayle novels.They aint much like bukowski but they seem to appeal to the same readership.They have gritty realism but also an intellectual decadence you rarely get in this kind stuff.Check out "Overtaken" and "Weeping Women Hotel". Ok sorry back to buk.His name sounds Polish. Is his Family Jewish exiles from the holocaust possibly.He does slag jews off slightly in his writings but Im sure he berates himself enough anyway. Every bookstore in Ireland I ask for buk,the owners have all heard of him alright. That for me was quite a shock.Its pretty conservative here in Belfast, believe me. ok dudes more later

He was a total drop out of all drop outs.I think Ginsberg and the other boys were way more into acid etc,whereas buk seems to be more a total drunk,gambler who would take pot or whatever dropped on his lap for free.Was it not the drug use of the beat crew which led them to their quest for metaphysical meaning in life?Buk seems to me for instance that he could have fitted in very nicely in the pub with my old man and b ok.ginsberg?no way.He seems to me that he s got this ordinary man who everyman could relate to.He hated the fact that druggies had to hang out with other druggies?I loved that anything seemed to be ok in his company
 
dirtbird23 said:
Hey,I,m new here.I,m a new buk fan too.I read Tales of Ordinary Madness a few years back,then forgot him.I have my own copy of said book now,re read and enjoyed even more.Pulp was cool and Factotum.
I aint an authority on Buk so to speak,but,I picked up from what I,ve read that he certainly didnt want to be considered a beat writer. I personally think he was but because of the moronic adulation of fans towards the great beat writers,surely buk wouldnt want all that.Also I think,although his stories are pretty degenerate,the writer himself comes across as a modest man who never wanted to "sell out" by making it big or getting literary recognition,fame and money.Having read some of the ass licking and serious nerdiness of others on the forum,I feel buk would turn in his grave if he could read some of it.Yea he was one of the most "realist" writers I've evr come across.Surely he would not want folks payin top dollar for menus from one of his wifes cafes?buk memorabilia?The point I,m tryin to make is,although he rocked ,I think he never thought his writing skills were that special.What was special was the gritty realism in the stories which you know aint a million miles away from the truth.I think Irvine Welsh certainly copied his style.Has anyone read Alexie Sayle novels.They aint much like bukowski but they seem to appeal to the same readership.They have gritty realism but also an intellectual decadence you rarely get in this kind stuff.Check out "Overtaken" and "Weeping Women Hotel". Ok sorry back to buk.His name sounds Polish. Is his Family Jewish exiles from the holocaust possibly.He does slag jews off slightly in his writings but Im sure he berates himself enough anyway. Every bookstore in Ireland I ask for buk,the owners have all heard of him alright. That for me was quite a shock.Its pretty conservative here in Belfast, believe me. ok dudes more later

if you have read his later poems, you'll notice he enjoyed his relative wealth (BMW, gold card, valet parking, etc.). i think he might have enjoyed the idea of this forum, he just wouldn't want to meet us...
 
hoochmonkey9 said:
if you have read his later poems, you'll notice he enjoyed his relative wealth (BMW, gold card, valet parking, etc.).

And that's why I love getting his manuscripts from his printer, not the old typewriter....
Because he loved the computer so much...

Sure, the manuscripts pounded out on the typewriter are cool too,...
But he was soooo happy with his computer skills :>
 
dirtbird23 said:
The point I,m tryin to make is,although he rocked ,I think he never thought his writing skills were that special.

I think that one of the underlying themes that I've noticed throughout what I have read of his work is that he knows that his writing is good, he knows that he was special. Half of the time is his just describing how good he is because he does not worry about form but instead he lets it drip from his veins. I think that it is very obvious that he knew that his writing was special and important and that he did not have to write for his fans but he did have to write in order to survive.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top