Younger Bukowski vs. Older Bukowski (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter vodka
- Start date
This is an interesting issue. Many people prefer an artist's early work because it is "uncontaminated" by success. Although that might be actually accurate, it also smacks of snobbery. What do you think?
Bukowski was not the first writer to be greeted in this manner:"I'm a great fan of yours but I kind of prefer your early work...."
Bukowski was not the first writer to be greeted in this manner:"I'm a great fan of yours but I kind of prefer your early work...."
sure, in some way, his later work Was 'contaminated' by success, but I'd go with him, when he stated:
his success came so late in life, that he was immune to the problems, this can bring to an artist.
I think I can recall at least 5 or 8 passages in later interviews or poems or novels, where he states, that some former fans try to claim, he's writing shit now, but he refuses to give in to them and still has the Will to write, what HE thinks is necessary at the moment and (something like) 'these suckers will have to judge me by the quality of my work, as always'.
-- and I think it is a wonderful example of courage to start writing (e.g.) about his now different living-conditions from the late 70s on, even if it may sound unpopular to older fans, who only see the IMAGE but not the MAN.
He could have gone on writing stuff, he knows, the crowd admires. (Like, in painting, Magritte has done.) But he refused to.
I LOVE his earlier poems (say till 'Mockingbird') a LOT, and I dislike a lot about some older poems. But I'll always lift my head in front of him for having the guts, to be NOT 'contaminated by success' - ever.
(aaah, sorry: that was more than 2 cent. but since the currency is fading ...)
cirerita
Founding member
Well, I just a read a 1962 review of Longshot Pomes... -in the National Guardian- and the poems are qualified as "anti-lyrical" and "story-poems".
In a 1963 review of Run With the Hunted -in the Literary Times- the poems are seen as "prosey" and "straightforward".
So much for the early material as being lyrical, surreal, obscure, blah blah blah
In a 1963 review of Run With the Hunted -in the Literary Times- the poems are seen as "prosey" and "straightforward".
So much for the early material as being lyrical, surreal, obscure, blah blah blah
vodka
Miss Take
alright. okay. so i got this book back i loaned to gigi. and i remember we were debating on here whether anything was held for posthumous publication.
the one i am looking at is titled 'New Poems Book 1'. published in 2003 by Virgin Books.
in the page just before the table of contents it reads, 'These poems are part of an archive of unpublished work that Charles Bukowski left to be published after his death.'
the back page reads, 'Charles Bukowski was one of America's best-known writers and one of its most influential and imitated poets. Although he published over 45 books of poetry, hundreds of his poems were kept by him and his publisher for posthumous publication. This is the first collection of these unique poems, which Bukowski considered to be among his best work.'
so yah, mjp you may know something i don't about this. but apparently some poems were held back by both him and his publisher.
Father Luke, excellent use of emoticon up there.
how about you read Pulp aloud to me and then we'll discuss it together.
the one i am looking at is titled 'New Poems Book 1'. published in 2003 by Virgin Books.
in the page just before the table of contents it reads, 'These poems are part of an archive of unpublished work that Charles Bukowski left to be published after his death.'
the back page reads, 'Charles Bukowski was one of America's best-known writers and one of its most influential and imitated poets. Although he published over 45 books of poetry, hundreds of his poems were kept by him and his publisher for posthumous publication. This is the first collection of these unique poems, which Bukowski considered to be among his best work.'
so yah, mjp you may know something i don't about this. but apparently some poems were held back by both him and his publisher.
Father Luke said:
Father Luke, excellent use of emoticon up there.
how about you read Pulp aloud to me and then we'll discuss it together.
mjp
Founding member
Well, it's not me saying it, it was Bukowski's practice. He sent everything to Martin, and he did not mark, notate, stipulate or otherwise "set aside" anything specifically for posthumous release. If Bukowski had his way a new book would have come out every 6 months and there would have been no posthumous collections.
You can choose to believe that or you can believe some copy writer at Virgin who probably reads one Danielle Steel novel a year (when she's "on holiday" on some freezing cold, rocky, god-forsaken, windswept British "beach").
People who perpetuate this myth are asking you to believe that Bukowski purposely withheld from publication some of his best work and stipulated that it only be widely disseminated after he was dead.
Does that really make any sense?
You can choose to believe that or you can believe some copy writer at Virgin who probably reads one Danielle Steel novel a year (when she's "on holiday" on some freezing cold, rocky, god-forsaken, windswept British "beach").
People who perpetuate this myth are asking you to believe that Bukowski purposely withheld from publication some of his best work and stipulated that it only be widely disseminated after he was dead.
Does that really make any sense?
vodka
Miss Take
well your post is why i directed that toward you, mjp. i figured if anyone here would know it would be you.
all i'm going by is what it said there. i could not claim to know if it's true or not.
is that legal though? to say something like that when it's not true? couldn't virgin get the fuck sued out of them?
all i'm going by is what it said there. i could not claim to know if it's true or not.
is that legal though? to say something like that when it's not true? couldn't virgin get the fuck sued out of them?
Gerard K H Love
Appreciate your friends
Why?
Is it me or was your avatar smiling a little more earlier?
Is it showing how you really feel?
Is it me or was your avatar smiling a little more earlier?
Is it showing how you really feel?
Gerard K H Love
Appreciate your friends
Yeah, but we got the time. I'm drinking vodka with orange juice.
:):):cool:
:):):cool:
And I'm drinking rain and wine. :D
I don't have Book 1, but I have Book 2 and Book 3. Book 2 is taken from Sifting Throught the Madness... and Book 3 is from The Flash of Lightning.... Both Virgin books include the same text that you quote here. And both BSP books I've mentioned include the same text.
Now, I would interpret the statement as follows:
'These poems are part of an archive of unpublished work that Charles Bukowski left behind and we are publishing them after his death.'
In other words, Buk probably once said something like this to John Martin: "Hey John, all the crap you don't like, you can publish after I'm dead. There should be a few bucks in that."
Although people have argued otherwise, it may be possible that Buk earmarked them for posthumous publication, but there hasn't been any hand-written evidence of this to my knowledge.
Father Luke
Founding member
Father Luke
Founding member
Yeah. Thanks for never lying to me.
Father Luke
Founding member
So.
The younger Bukowski, then?
The younger Bukowski, then?
Note: not even Sartre nor Genet did!
That IS the case and Buk was aware that there are all these hold-back poems for later use.
i'm too lazy to flip through the letters now, but think i have quoted that elsewhere here. he said something like 'John has enough poems from me that he'll be able to publish a book every year for at least 5 years' (Not verbatim). And he said things like that more than once.
mjp
Founding member
Right.
The point being that he didn't pull one out of the typewriter or computer printer and say, "Oh, heavens to Betsy! This is a fine one! Let me affix one of these gold stars to it and send it to Mr. Martin immediately! I do not want this great poem published until long after I am dead!"
Makes no sense, does it? No it doesn't, because it didn't happen. That's all I'm saying. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Of course no one may be arguing any more that that is the case, so I probably just typed that for nothing. Then again, I suppose you could say that about 37% of this stuff...
The point being that he didn't pull one out of the typewriter or computer printer and say, "Oh, heavens to Betsy! This is a fine one! Let me affix one of these gold stars to it and send it to Mr. Martin immediately! I do not want this great poem published until long after I am dead!"
Makes no sense, does it? No it doesn't, because it didn't happen. That's all I'm saying. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Of course no one may be arguing any more that that is the case, so I probably just typed that for nothing. Then again, I suppose you could say that about 37% of this stuff...
Genet/Sartre
I think from what I've read that it's likely the Genet quote was fabricated, but it appears that Sartre really liked Buk and wanted to meet him when he came to Paris but Buk said no and then regretted it later when he began to read more of Sartre's work. Do any of you know more about the Genet/Sartre deal?
I think from what I've read that it's likely the Genet quote was fabricated, but it appears that Sartre really liked Buk and wanted to meet him when he came to Paris but Buk said no and then regretted it later when he began to read more of Sartre's work. Do any of you know more about the Genet/Sartre deal?
cirerita
Founding member
Uncle Howard couldn't track down the original quote where Genet/Sartre claimed that B. was the best living American poet. I found a reference to this infamous quote in a 1964 or 1965 article on B., but I'm almost sure it was fabricated when It Catches was being put together by the Webbs.
Right, but later apparently Sartre must have read/discovered Buk since he wanted to meet Bukowski when Buk came to Paris. I just wonder about this since it is confirmed I think in the Pivano interview and as I said Buk read Sartre and then later regretted not meeting him. I wonder if it is in any of the recent Sartre biographies.
Father Luke
Founding member
Editor X - great stuff.
Danke roni.
Danke roni.
Hi Jen,
Since this is an open question to all, I prefer either or all periods of his with favorites in each one. I would miss out on a great deal if I had to exclude his early works for his later ones, or vice versa. It's this incredible expanse of his 70 plus years that makes his writing career unique and he was willing to share it in words until his peaceful end. This means one could be 70 himself and perhaps get a certain special something out of it. (If I live that long I'll let you know.) ;)
His writings over the entire range of his life are like reading one long unfolding string of words because he appears to have the same kind of aware presence in his early writings as in his later ones. (In Born into This he recounts his essay on Herbert Hoover that he wrote in elementary school as if he had written it yesterday - and that's what I mean about this continuing presence in everything... He seemed to forget nothing and recall everything at will and that may have been at the core of his genius... that aware presence... He's the same... but he evolves... as the years drop off like autumn leaves.)
Whether something was published posthumously or not is a non-issue for me and the poems are relatively easy to identify but not always. In Last Night of the Earth Poems, it seems obvious that in some of them he's in his maturity as a writer whether the poems were published in his lifetime or not - as apparent by his relaxed, expansive style (for want of a better word) - and he's obviously looking back to his early years... sometimes way back. Without mentioning titles (the book isn't in front of me), he'll write that he's looking back to the age of 11, or he'll make some reference to "being older." There are numerous examples of such poems, here and in other volumes, and he's telling the reader directly or in so many words what epic of life he's in and that he's obviously older. In his earlier poems he appears more in the heat of the moment and the anguish or joy of it in present time... Burning in Water, Drowning in Flame is one of my all-time favorites of this period of evolving or becoming... So how does one choose one period over the other when it seems like he's always being himself and completely at one with his muse? I feel no need to decide.
Nice having you around, Jen.
Sincerely, Poptop
You may not have sinned!
vodka
Miss Take
still haven't read it.
i think one of the things i enjoy about his later works is listening to his voice as he reflects on himself and the way he lived his life and even the way he wrote when he was younger. i think there's something to be said for a writer having such stamina, and at the same time never jumping the shark.
sweet jesus, all i can say is at least i remembered to call him father luke.
forgive my sassy ass, Father Luke. ;)
i think one of the things i enjoy about his later works is listening to his voice as he reflects on himself and the way he lived his life and even the way he wrote when he was younger. i think there's something to be said for a writer having such stamina, and at the same time never jumping the shark.
sweet jesus, all i can say is at least i remembered to call him father luke.
forgive my sassy ass, Father Luke. ;)
Hi,
Some find Pulp one of Bukowski's lesser efforts - that's why some of the posters kid about it as I did. I'm glad I read it but I haven't felt drawn to it again. I may give it another try later and see if I enjoy it more. It lacks a certain vitality for me perhaps because he was ill when he wrote it. With so many posthumous publications, I never felt that Pulp was his last book - a satisfying optical illusion.
I go along with you about listening to Bukowski reflect upon himself... I enjoy it because everyone will go through that self-reflection if they live long enough. And what you say about stamina is another good point.
Fun to watch you and father luke go round and round.
Best to you.
Some find Pulp one of Bukowski's lesser efforts - that's why some of the posters kid about it as I did. I'm glad I read it but I haven't felt drawn to it again. I may give it another try later and see if I enjoy it more. It lacks a certain vitality for me perhaps because he was ill when he wrote it. With so many posthumous publications, I never felt that Pulp was his last book - a satisfying optical illusion.
I go along with you about listening to Bukowski reflect upon himself... I enjoy it because everyone will go through that self-reflection if they live long enough. And what you say about stamina is another good point.
Fun to watch you and father luke go round and round.
Best to you.
