Younger Bukowski vs. Older Bukowski

Discussion in 'Books, magazines, publications' started by vodka, May 9, 2008.

  1. vodka

    vodka Miss Take SAMCRO

    so you admit that i'm right about everything ever then.
  2. Yeah. Thanks for never lying to me.

  3. vodka

    vodka Miss Take SAMCRO

    alright well i guess you're not going to stop with that until we actually do it.

    so let's get 'er done and over with.

    then you can fix me something to eat.

    and don't forget to feed the cats before you come back to bed.
  4. So.

    The younger Bukowski, then?
  5. vodka

    vodka Miss Take SAMCRO

    if you keep this up i will start making references to your mother.
  6. 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.
  7. 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...
  8. vodka

    vodka Miss Take SAMCRO

    so what you're saying then is that he did intentionally hold things back for posthumous publication.
  9. vodka,

    I think you don't get it: B couldn't care less either way. He just wrote the poems and then forgot them.
  10. vodka

    vodka Miss Take SAMCRO


    i'm joking.

    i'm not that much of a dolt mischa.
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Can you imagine what a disaster that meeting would have been?
  15. If i remember right the german Bukowski society contaced the Sartre society to ckeck this out and the result was negative.

    @Roni please confirm.
  16. not as far as i know. maybe Falko did back in the old days.

    Long first-hand info on the Genet/Satre-claim:

    'Reach for the Sun', p.99f:
    Letter to Jeff Weddle.
    January 26, 1988

    Don't miss it!
  17. Editor X - great stuff.
    Danke roni.
  18. 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!
  19. vodka

    vodka Miss Take SAMCRO

    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. ;)
  20. 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.
  21. vodka - close the curtains, dear.
  22. That's one huge mistake, believe me... unless you have a very powerful third eye of sorts. All biographers and most critics -including R. Harrison- have drawn conclusions using stories/poems they believed to be from the 80's/90's when they actually were from the 60's and 70's. Hence, their conclusions are bullshit. I think to recall -but I'm not sure- that Jim Harrison tried to prove a point by saying that "sun coming down" [Pleasures of the Damned] was the perfect example of a late poem. But Bukowski wrote it in 1957 or maybe earlier. He talked A LOT about death in the early days, but most people associate the death poems with the late stuff.


Share This Page