M
Mather
I can't get that link to work Ponder...
Steve Richmond / Mr. Viced Honest
- Thread starter mickogrady
- Start date
I too own a copy of Stovepiper.I have a question:is that pecilled-looking drawing on the first couple pages the Stovepiper logo?
The link doesn't work, I forgot the L
Works: http://www.eatmytangerine.com/dwang.html
The drawing you find back on the page before the endpaper of the book.
It seems to be a logo. Joseph Solman is the artist.
STOVEPIPER booktwo was in the planning but never made it.
Daily was so kind to send us STOVEPIPER booktwo material
to use for buk scene.
And voila, 2 unpublished poems of Linda King appeared in the first issue.
Works: http://www.eatmytangerine.com/dwang.html
The drawing you find back on the page before the endpaper of the book.
It seems to be a logo. Joseph Solman is the artist.
STOVEPIPER booktwo was in the planning but never made it.
Daily was so kind to send us STOVEPIPER booktwo material
to use for buk scene.
And voila, 2 unpublished poems of Linda King appeared in the first issue.
I would tend to agree that the gagaku becomes annoying after the second example. Richmond is well-represented in Wormwood Review and that would tend to lend some creedence, but not in my eyes.
But, he did do the FUCK HATE thing with Buk, and I will always admire that; one of the best things ever put into print. So he gets a pass, albeit awkwardly, from me. Kinda like hitting a grand slam in a world series game 7, down 5-2, ninth inning with two out and two strikes, but being a lifetime .219 hitter.
But, he did do the FUCK HATE thing with Buk, and I will always admire that; one of the best things ever put into print. So he gets a pass, albeit awkwardly, from me. Kinda like hitting a grand slam in a world series game 7, down 5-2, ninth inning with two out and two strikes, but being a lifetime .219 hitter.
July 15 (just before taking a book of Bukowski with me to my favourite bar, where I hope to served a pint or two by my favourite bartender)
I, for one, understand the thought about not liking the word 'gagaku'. It does not roll off the tongue easily and everyone is to be forgiven for wondering what it means. However, I note that Mike Daily's article on Steve Richmond in "Buk Scene 1" had a short comment by Gerald Locklin that helps: " ... [Richmond's] trademark gagaku: spontaneous lyricism under the influence of Asian music." (page 54) This explains to me why I cannot follow the flow of them ... one would have to hear the music, relate to it and somehow get into the flow ... for me, it ain't going to happen, most of the time ...
I suspect that, especially for readers like me, Richmond's most accessible work is "Spinning Off Bukowski" ... I recall reading it with some pleasure, far too long ago ... cheers! DaP
I, for one, understand the thought about not liking the word 'gagaku'. It does not roll off the tongue easily and everyone is to be forgiven for wondering what it means. However, I note that Mike Daily's article on Steve Richmond in "Buk Scene 1" had a short comment by Gerald Locklin that helps: " ... [Richmond's] trademark gagaku: spontaneous lyricism under the influence of Asian music." (page 54) This explains to me why I cannot follow the flow of them ... one would have to hear the music, relate to it and somehow get into the flow ... for me, it ain't going to happen, most of the time ...
I suspect that, especially for readers like me, Richmond's most accessible work is "Spinning Off Bukowski" ... I recall reading it with some pleasure, far too long ago ... cheers! DaP
Rekrab
Usually wrong.
mjp: your point of view on Richmond is as valid as mine or anyone else's. It doesn't work for you. It has always worked for me. I never felt he was trying to imitate Bukowski. He seems to be in an entirely different place. He does idolize, honor, obsess on, envy Bukowski. But the poetry functions in a way that Buk's doesn't. A different form of lyricism. The drugs are tragic, a waste of a brilliant mind and huge talent. His subject matter, autobiographical content is not the draw for me. It's the words, how they come together. I am always surprised. I love Richmond's writing in spite of the drugs and the redundant bullshit and all that. The guy is off by himself, all alone in America. He is unexpected. You couldn't make up a Steve Richmond as a fictional character. And if you were just starting off as a poet and had high literary ambitions, you'd never think of becoming Steve Richmond. I still don't understand how he happened, where it came from. He's way high in my book, at the top just below Bukowski. But that's only my take. Like I said, your perspective is just as valid.
Black Swan
Abord the Yorikke!
you have to be in the mood for Richmond,
It works for me most of the time.
Yes, there are quite a few poems that can appear like repetitions to some but still, under the numerous Gagaku titles, appear some little gems. Reading from Earth Rose, I think that his sense of description is accurate,
or is it acute?. I like his colorful observations on little creatures such as bugs, birds, animals, whatever surrounds him. I find him genuine and personal.
You can also detect his desperate search for love among the ruins
and horrors of his daily life.
I am positive about his work and appreciate it for its uniqueness.
It works for me most of the time.
Yes, there are quite a few poems that can appear like repetitions to some but still, under the numerous Gagaku titles, appear some little gems. Reading from Earth Rose, I think that his sense of description is accurate,
or is it acute?. I like his colorful observations on little creatures such as bugs, birds, animals, whatever surrounds him. I find him genuine and personal.
You can also detect his desperate search for love among the ruins
and horrors of his daily life.
I am positive about his work and appreciate it for its uniqueness.
cirerita
Founding member
Nice to read "old" posts about B.& R.:
https://bukowskiforum.com/showthread.php?t=1038
https://bukowskiforum.com/showthread.php?t=1038
Rekrab
Usually wrong.
I think Richmond has much to say, and says it well. But obviously, it doesn't work for everyone. I'm trying to figure out why it falls flat for so many. Are they put off by the bio -- a rich kid, never had to work really, falling into the easy trap of drugs, all that? Are they just annoyed at who the guy is? Or is it in the words themselves, a connection is not being made for some reason? I don't know...
mjp
Founding member
No.
That didn't help. Too many drugs make you boring. And if you tend toward being boring without them, they bury you.
Why yes! The words themselves are overwhelmingly lazy navel gazing bullshit. Since you asked. ;)
When I look at Bukowski's most lazy work, I can usually find at least one line that goes POW, a Bukowski line that no one else could write. Richmond, on the other hand, has written hundreds (thousands?) of poems anyone on earth could have written.
Is that due to drugs? Delusion? Who cares? It is what it is, and what it is leaves me flat. Maybe if I had read him in the 60's or 70's I would have a soft spot for him and accept the mountain of mediocrity he's produced in the past 30 years. But I didn't, so I can't.
Rekrab
Usually wrong.
I agree Bukowski is a much harder working writer, aims much higher, hits the mark over and over and over again. Richmond does toss off poems, sluffs them off. He doesn't work at it. I guess where we differ is that I don't find it boring and you do. It's easy, and it works for me but not for you. Not sure why that is. Not that it matters.
And you might be onto something about having first read him in the 60s. He fits into my worldview. But he was interesting to me from day one, so it's not just nostalgia.
And you might be onto something about having first read him in the 60s. He fits into my worldview. But he was interesting to me from day one, so it's not just nostalgia.
Rekrab
Usually wrong.
mjp: I gave this more thought as I labored under a broiling sun and I think the reason Richmond's poetry works for me is that he never holds back; he always says what's on his mind. That is -- surprisingly -- incredibly uncommon among poets. There are armies of talented poets who work hard at creating technically well-crafted poetry but they never reveal anything of significance about their inner self/mind. Richmond always "spills the beans" as he put it. There is a transparency to his work. His work is very narrow compared to Bukowski...he only has a few areas he writes about, but -- it seems to me -- he is very honest in what he does write. Now you still may feel like it is a bunch of dull bullshit, and I wouldn't argue that. But you gotta admit he is hardly ever coy and pretty much tells you what he thinks/feels, even if it's embarrassing. Aside from this, I detect a lyricism that is very odd and unamerican...maybe he read the French poets in college -- but that's neither here nor there.
Richmond's stuff is more of a miss than a hit with me.
However, with that being said, he's undeniably different from the majority of poets out there. That is true.
There's no witty one-liners, punchlines, zingers, or clever metaphorical fluff, littered anywhere in his writing. Random and aimless. For that, he gets a gold star, in my book.
Just a stark and laconic voice, devoid of comedy and pretense, writing in a painfully 'matter of fact' way.
I personally don't find his entire oeuvre lyrically accessible, or engaging at all, but I don't think he wrote much of it to be.
Much of his stuff, seems like, were just simple ruminations about anything around him, whether it was about a ladybug crawling up his arm, or the mattress in the corner of his room. His poems read more or less like thoughts than they did anything else, quickly tossed out, with no apology.
I've tried, tirelessly to get into his writing, but I just...can't.
Anyway, I have a little collection of his signed stuff I'm thinking about selling here in the near future, if anyone is interested.
However, with that being said, he's undeniably different from the majority of poets out there. That is true.
There's no witty one-liners, punchlines, zingers, or clever metaphorical fluff, littered anywhere in his writing. Random and aimless. For that, he gets a gold star, in my book.
Just a stark and laconic voice, devoid of comedy and pretense, writing in a painfully 'matter of fact' way.
I personally don't find his entire oeuvre lyrically accessible, or engaging at all, but I don't think he wrote much of it to be.
Much of his stuff, seems like, were just simple ruminations about anything around him, whether it was about a ladybug crawling up his arm, or the mattress in the corner of his room. His poems read more or less like thoughts than they did anything else, quickly tossed out, with no apology.
I've tried, tirelessly to get into his writing, but I just...can't.
Anyway, I have a little collection of his signed stuff I'm thinking about selling here in the near future, if anyone is interested.
I'm sure mjp will be all over that! ;)
M
Mather
Dan Nielson told me this years ago in a letter: "Good poetry is an insane person trying to act sane, bad poetry is a sane person trying to act insane." I don't know if this was something he'd heard before but I had never heard it put quite that way and I've always liked it. I was reading your great manuscripts section and came upon the poem "My Lucky Friend" and I thought this is the difference between Bukowski and Richmond right here. Richmond would never simply allow himself to stop and enjoy a taco and a coffee, because it simply isn't "mad" enough. But Bukowski can even make such a simple thing like stopping for a taco and a coffee seem interesting and meaningful, which in this poem shows that Bukowski was well aware of how exaggerrated Richmond's "madness" was. Bukowski is much more of a human being than Richmond, he wants to be a human being, while Richmond doesn't seem to care about anything but appearing CRAZY, which often times is just dull. Richmond just doesn't speak to/from the heart. While he is definitely "different", he is still fairly superficial in my mind.
M
Mather
I thought the purpose of this forum was to compare/contrast Buk with pretty much everything...Besides, without Buk, we would not be talking about Richmond at all...
Gerard K H Love
Appreciate your friends
I think Mather makes a very valid point. Which compliments Bukowski and gives an interesting way to look at poetry and poets. Good job on that.
M
Mather
Thanks Gerard, I've got my eye on you...
M
Mather
Not comparing Buk's poetry to Richmond's, but Richmond's to Buk's. Why else are we here?
mjp
Founding member
I am not comparing Richmond to Bukowski, per se, but to good poetry, for what it's worth.
But again, I'm sure pretty much everything I've read from him is influenced by heroin, and no good art ever came from heroin. None. Go ahead and list all your great heroin writers here - I know you all will - they are all shit.
Saying a writer on heroin is great or has insight is like saying a retarded person's writing is great or has insight. It might very well be different, and have insight into their own addled worlds, but I don't care about their worlds.
It's easy for a retarded person or junkie to be in a different world. I prefer some imagination. Since we're talking about Serafini in the other thread, there's a good example. Just as fucking mental as something a junkie or an idiot savant might come up with, but without the cheap and easy path to it.
And before you come down on my for using "retard" or "idiot savant," some of my best friends are retards! So screw you! Hi Ananda!
Well, nail on the head, brother. You find his inner self to be compelling, and I find it to be pathetic.
But again, I'm sure pretty much everything I've read from him is influenced by heroin, and no good art ever came from heroin. None. Go ahead and list all your great heroin writers here - I know you all will - they are all shit.
Saying a writer on heroin is great or has insight is like saying a retarded person's writing is great or has insight. It might very well be different, and have insight into their own addled worlds, but I don't care about their worlds.
It's easy for a retarded person or junkie to be in a different world. I prefer some imagination. Since we're talking about Serafini in the other thread, there's a good example. Just as fucking mental as something a junkie or an idiot savant might come up with, but without the cheap and easy path to it.
And before you come down on my for using "retard" or "idiot savant," some of my best friends are retards! So screw you! Hi Ananda!
Gerard K H Love
Appreciate your friends
Poe was into opium, but maybe not while he was writing. I could see how a heroin addict would be motivated to create in order to get money for more heroin yet writing is not such a sure thing.
We can all agree that heroin is a strong mind altering substance. With that, lets also remember that alcohol is also a very strong mind altering substance. For some, it is as strong if not stronger than the grips of heroin --where the effects of both can destroy lives, motivate one to create great art, both, or my personal favorite...neither.
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
I write while high on Jesus. I usually shoot him up between my toes.
bill
bill
Bill, I particularly enjoyed your poem jesus can't wear sandals anymore because they don't hide the trackmarks.
harrowing.
harrowing.
One John Lennon had a heroin phase. Early-mid '69; best as I can tell. Well documented in Cold Turkey from the Live Peace in Toronto album from 9/13/69. Granted, not his most prolific or famous period, but I wouldn't describe his songwriting during this period as shit.
Apparently, he dealt with it again in the early-mid 70s. Not much music going on after Elephant's Memory in '72, so maybe that would have been shit. But I would never use the name John Lennon and shit in the same...millenium.
Well, I just did, didn't I? Well, I wouldn't do it again!