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.