mjp
Founding member
Women, and blogs and relevance
- Thread starter mjp
- Start date
i'm not mocking a negative review, i'm mocking the "insightful" quote about him.
do you think that's a fair description of bukowski?
mjp
Founding member
You're right.
I look forward to his television reviews. I can't wait to read his take on What's Happening!!, Taxi, The Incredible Hulk, Dallas, Mork & Mindy and The Blues Brothers first appearance on Saturday Night Live.
Ooh! Maybe he'll do some music reviews too! The KISS solo albums, Dire Straits, Who Are You, the first Van Halen album...
I look forward to his television reviews. I can't wait to read his take on What's Happening!!, Taxi, The Incredible Hulk, Dallas, Mork & Mindy and The Blues Brothers first appearance on Saturday Night Live.
Ooh! Maybe he'll do some music reviews too! The KISS solo albums, Dire Straits, Who Are You, the first Van Halen album...
of course you won't, miss perfect. no need to overstate the obvious.
Last edited by a moderator:
nervas
more crickets than friends
Wow, I take that review personally. I would like to punch the reviewer in the face. That is, of course if it's a dude, because if it's a woman, well then I'd invite her out for a drink, so that when she left you know, I could watch her walk away while her jeans cradled her ass.
Bukfan
"The law is wrong; I am right"
I think this comment was unintentionally funny:
Posted by Anna van Gelderen on March 14, 2010 at 2:50 pm
I saw the movie Barfly when it came out and was instantly put off Charles Bukowski and all his books (none of which I have ever read). I quite like your review and am pleased to see my prejudice confirmed here ;-)
- Yes, it's always nice to get one's prejudices confirmed, especially when you have'nt read any of the books you're prejudiced against. :D
Posted by Anna van Gelderen on March 14, 2010 at 2:50 pm
I saw the movie Barfly when it came out and was instantly put off Charles Bukowski and all his books (none of which I have ever read). I quite like your review and am pleased to see my prejudice confirmed here ;-)
- Yes, it's always nice to get one's prejudices confirmed, especially when you have'nt read any of the books you're prejudiced against. :D
Last edited by a moderator:
I find it amusing when people write such one-sided negative reviews. I mean if you didn't like it, fair enough just leave it. forget it. move on...it clearly wasn't for you. Instead some people seem to get a righteous kick out of picking it apart to see why they didn't like it, and then telling the whole world their opinion; as if it has any real significance! Waste of emotional energy in my opinion:confused:
mjp
Founding member
I don't know, being really angry about something is often an inspiration to write about it for me. I guess I just don't get the point of writing a review of a 30 year old book. But if you hate Bukowski I suppose you have to go back a way to find your ammunition.
God damn that Ayn Rand! Atlas Shrugged? I shrugged! Give me a break. Her writing leaves me cold, and the movies made from her books are awful. Avoid her at all costs!
What's the point?
God damn that Ayn Rand! Atlas Shrugged? I shrugged! Give me a break. Her writing leaves me cold, and the movies made from her books are awful. Avoid her at all costs!
What's the point?
Yeah of course, but only if it is exercised with skill and wit. This reviewer takes her self too seriously - like she is some kind of moral compass. Sounds dull as hell.
One thing I don't understand is why the reviewer deliberately chooses the "milder" examples to make her point. The quotes she used were perfectly reasonable thoughts! Anyway, if you're aim is to put people off reading Buk/Women, well there are much better examples to use anyway!
One thing I don't understand is why the reviewer deliberately chooses the "milder" examples to make her point. The quotes she used were perfectly reasonable thoughts! Anyway, if you're aim is to put people off reading Buk/Women, well there are much better examples to use anyway!
Tony comes across like he wanted to make a late pc-statement (is anyone still using the term? me, okay) and picked up Bukowski to dismiss the sexist, macho filth he would have found elsewhere better, for his cause. Anyway, it's more of a benefitting self-portrait: Look at me, women. I, the important Tony would never call you c**ts.
Let us pray one day we are pure like Tony is.
Let us pray one day we are pure like Tony is.
Gerard K H Love
Appreciate your friends
Did you think maybe it took Tony 30 years to read the book?
mjp
Founding member
We have a winner!
This was my favorite part of the review-I could be wrong but is the reviewer Tony Danza?
Last edited by a moderator:
LickTheStar
Sad Flower in the Sand
I don't really find it that strange that people write reviews of older books, movies, or music. In fact, I've done it quite often over the years because I've been incredibly tardy to the party on many, many excellent things (not always because of how young I am, either).
But at the same time... to judge one's body of literary work by a single book... well that's tough to do. And I would also say that I think if you read Women and all you get out of it are how much of a sexist pig Chinaski is, then you're missing at least half of the book... By the end, no one gets away good, man or woman.
On a similar note, to say that a man must be a great loved to have abused women go back to them shows me that this guy has basically never known a single woman in an bad relationship. I can't count how many girls I knew in college who kept going back and fucking (also, why does Tony avoid words like fucking for tedious ones like "get together" and the like? BORing) some douchebag that she swore she'd leave next week...
Some of them even married those douchebags... Poor things.
But at the same time... to judge one's body of literary work by a single book... well that's tough to do. And I would also say that I think if you read Women and all you get out of it are how much of a sexist pig Chinaski is, then you're missing at least half of the book... By the end, no one gets away good, man or woman.
On a similar note, to say that a man must be a great loved to have abused women go back to them shows me that this guy has basically never known a single woman in an bad relationship. I can't count how many girls I knew in college who kept going back and fucking (also, why does Tony avoid words like fucking for tedious ones like "get together" and the like? BORing) some douchebag that she swore she'd leave next week...
Some of them even married those douchebags... Poor things.
mjp
Founding member
Movies and records are powdered and painted and re-released (and re-re-released ad nauseum), which gives a new perspective, or introduces them to a new audience. Books are different. How far back do you go? Do we need reviews of Mark Twain books?
mjp
Founding member
The point is Bukowski and Twain are long dead, and "reviewing" their books takes a review away from a new book, by, oh, say, a living, breathing writer who needs the exposure.
There's that.
Does the world need a new "review" of Women? That's a rhetorical question. The answer is; no, the world does not. Just because someone "discovered" Bukowski yesterday, or has always had a Bukowski chip on their shoulder and needs a "review" to air it is not a valid reason to review a book.
It doesn't matter anyway. Look at the comments under that "review." A bunch of imbeciles who never read Bukowski have now had their prejudices confirmed. So what does that accomplish? That's also a rhetorical question.
---
Well, at least "Father" Luke has posted a link to this thread in the comments of the review. So the six people who actually read that blog can come here and snicker at the low-lifes. It's cute that he still cares. I don't know how he finds the time, what with managing that literary juggernaut of a forum he presides over. You would think he has his hands full typing "cunt" and "LOL" 400 times a day. Selfless; that's the only word to describe it.
There's that.
Does the world need a new "review" of Women? That's a rhetorical question. The answer is; no, the world does not. Just because someone "discovered" Bukowski yesterday, or has always had a Bukowski chip on their shoulder and needs a "review" to air it is not a valid reason to review a book.
It doesn't matter anyway. Look at the comments under that "review." A bunch of imbeciles who never read Bukowski have now had their prejudices confirmed. So what does that accomplish? That's also a rhetorical question.
---
Well, at least "Father" Luke has posted a link to this thread in the comments of the review. So the six people who actually read that blog can come here and snicker at the low-lifes. It's cute that he still cares. I don't know how he finds the time, what with managing that literary juggernaut of a forum he presides over. You would think he has his hands full typing "cunt" and "LOL" 400 times a day. Selfless; that's the only word to describe it.