Dispelling Bukowski's myths

[cirerita]

This is a place for interchanging information, opinions, ramblings, etc, right? Ok, I need you to help me out on this one, guys. When I started gathering material for the diss. I overlooked this topic -basically because in a diss. you're not allowed to waste your time on the life of the author you're studying, you're supposed to analyze his/her work- , but a year ago or so I thought it could be useful, not as a main topic, but as a supporting topic.

So please rack your brains and come up with anything at all which helps to dispel any Bukowski myth. It doesn't matter if you heard it through the grapevine or you were told by Linda or Martin, or you read it someplace, or you watched it in a movie, or you just know it but you can't remember how did you get that info, or you have an intuition regarding a given myth, etc. Whatever you come up with will do.

Only one thing, though. If you do remember the source, please put it here. And if you don't, just say so.

Ok, let's get to the core of the true Bukowski! I know you love him, some of you maybe even think he's a God of sorts, but sometimes you have to be critical of your idols. And the time has come now. So please fire!

 

[cirerita]

I'll mention the most obvious ones to start with:

1) B was not a tough guy. That was just an image, his public persona. In fact, he was quite "normal" and "Puritan".

Read this:
"You know, I am a romantic fellow, I'm very sentimental. I am a softie. [...] Oh, I'm soft, I'm sentimental. All my women all say, "Oh, you write this hard stuff but you're soft, you're all marshmallow inside', and they're right" [from Chénetier, Marc, "Charles Bukowski: An Interview." Northwest Review vol. XVI, no. 3 (1977): 22.]

Or this:
-"But, no, I'm not actually very tough. What have some of my women called me? A creampuff. I'm a creampuff. I'm anything but what I pretend to be," from Camuto, Robert, "Charles Bukowski: The Skid Row Poet Who Drives a BMW." Boulevards 2, no. 8 (August 1980): 35.

Or this:
"It's a little over-exaggerated -that I'm a tough guy, and I jump in and out of bed with ladies, and all that. [...] I used to do that to an extent, but generally they're over-exaggerated. [...] It's a little hyped up. [...] I think there's an unfair opinion of me -but I don't care, because it helps sell the books, you know. It's an exaggerated idea of what I am. It makes me more sensational that I am, more of a bastard that I am. [...] This false image all helps sales," from the F. Pivano book, pp. 26-27.

Or this:
"Most of his critics and fans who met Charles Bukowski in person reported irritatingly normal experiences [when expecting outbursts of madness]," from Freyermuth S., Gundolf, "That's It." A Final Visit With Charles Bukowski. Xlibris Corporation: 2000, p. 41

Or this:
"He isn't tough. He isn't brutal. That's the myth, the façade. He's a gentle man and he can be very charming when he wants to. However, he loves to shock people who wear masks [...] It's a myth he has purposefully and cleverly created", from Sherman, Jory, Bukowski: Friendship, Fame & Bestial Myth. Blue Horse Publications, Georgia, 1981, pp. 20-21.

 

[cirerita]

2) He was not completely on the bum during the 10 year drunk.

Sounes shows us a picture circa 1947 where you can see B. wearing a suit, living with his parents. He comes up with the theory that those on the bum years were not as skid-row or over-the-edge as B depicted them.

Of course, in the interviews B said otherwise, especially when he explains the infamous Atlanta episode -B. was mad at Cherkovski 'cos he didn't include this in the first edition of his biography.

 

[cirerita]

3) He did write a few poems and short-stories during the same 10 year drunk.

Most critics and studies say otherwise, though. But B himself did say in a few interviews that he wrote a few "desultory" pieces during that period. Probably he wasn't happy with the quality of the stuff written during those years, but he wrote them!

 

[cirerita]

4) Bukowski didn't quit the PO bravely -as stated elsewhere. They were about to fire him for absenteeism and he did have some savings; see Sounes, pp. 101-102.

Most people would say B was very brave to quit the P.O. and start a full-time writing career with the monthly $100 check from Martin. But it seems that B had considerable savings in the bank and he was about to be fired anyway, so Sounes concludes it wasn't a brave move after all.

 

[cirerita]

5) Did he marry two or three times?

According to the FBI files available on this site, he did marry to Jane, but that's the only source saying so that I've ever seen.

 

[cirerita]

6) The 4-F episode.

Was it real? Did he really pass the shrink test by saying "no, yes, no"?

This story is told in many books and interviews. For example, see Pivano, pp. 33-34, or Audrey Malone's bio, p. 28.

 

[Brother Schenker]

saw something on the internet about 8 years ago...someone claiming that Buk got some of his stories from some dude named "Red" who supposedly really did live the life of a railroad bum...

3) He did write a few poems and short-stories during the same 10 year drunk.

Most critics and studies say otherwise, though. But B himself did say in a few interviews that he wrote a few "desultory" pieces during that period. Probably he wasn't happy with the quality of the stuff written during those years, but he wrote them!

why the hell would they question this when the answer lies in the Roominghouse Madrigals (forgive spelling)?????

 

[cirerita]

brother,
the "problem" with the Roominghouse lies in the title since it's really misleading. It says 1946-1966, but the earliest poem in the book dates from 1950. And there's another from 1951 and that's about it. The supposed 10 year drunk covers the 1945-1955 period.

In many essays, articles and even biographies it's usually said B didn't write anything at all during that period. I guess they didn't bother to read the Madrigals.

On the other hand, without the database compiled by mjp or the Dorbin book -hard to find in itself- it's virtually impossible to know the original date of a given poem, so it's partially understandable that some people think B didn't write anything at all during those 10 years.

edit: I take that back, there's a poem dating from 1946. ok, there are 3 poems dating before 1956, but that's all.

 

[SamDusky]

Ok, let's get to the core of the true Bukowski! I know you love him, some of you maybe even think he's a God of sorts,...!

Excellent topic, Cirerita.
You might not be as far-fetched with your statement as you think. I met a person who ascribed to Buk the title of Vaishnava saint in the Hindu sense of the word saying that he was following a long-standing yogic tradition of taking on the persona of a modern poet-drunk to bring light to the hopeless masses. From the Gita, "Whenever the Spiritual understanding (dharma) wanes and ethics become weak, I incarnate to guide humankind back to the truth." (Bhagavad-Gita 4:7) So maybe he maybe he should br canonized as the patron St. of poets, drunks and the workingman (who knows).

My personal opinion is, for all the crap he went through in his life, he really wrote some incredible superlatives (I know, it goes without saying). He may well end up in 50 years getting his due and being considered to best writer of the 20th cent. (Didn't he anticipate this somewhere by comparing himself to Van Gogh or the like? Can't remember the source.)

Sam Dusky

 

[Jason]

Buk had a friend named Shalom "Brooklyn Red" Stodolsky, that ran Baroque Books in Hollywood. Red ran a great book store. He and his book store appear in PULP, and the poem RED...

 

[mjp]

edit: I take that back, there's a poem dating from 1946. ok, there are 3 poems dating before 1956, but that's all.

- He also mentioned an unknown "story and poem" published between 44 and 46 - so it's safe to say that he was writing, and not only writing, but submitting the writing to magazines. He wasn't well known, so it would have been more difficult to get published, so I think we can assume he was submitting, but being rejected. Also, he did not start writing as prolifically as he eventually would until the mid-late 60's. He has talked about Crucifix in a Deathhand being his entire output for the better part of a year. I personally don't think he ever completely gave up writing. Though he didn't start writing poetry consistently until the mid 50's.

- I'm pretty sure the 4-F status is verified in the FBI files, but it's been a while since I read them. As for the story of the doctor inviting him to the party, I always assumed that was just a story to make the routine 4F classification more interesting.

- Claiming he was married to Jane proved to be controversial...Sounes chewed me out in an email telling me that no one he talked to ever reported the marriage, and saying I should remove that from the site. But like I said in my intro to the FBI files, I think it's true, because, "Telling the landlord of a rooming house that you are married so you can share a room is one thing, lying to the FBI is quite another." And since we're on the subject of Bukowski not being quite as brave as he might have liked us to believe - would he lie to the FBI? I think not.

One other thing I might add to your list is the fact that Bukowski downplayed his two years at Los Angeles City College, often saying he, "took a few classes." True, he didn't graduate, but two years of college is more than a few classes.

 

[cirerita]

mjp,

yes, I know he did write stuff during that period -probably more than we can imagine-, but the "myth" says he didn't write anything at all: he was on the bum, gathering experiences.

since he didn't keep carbons back then, those poems and short-stories from the late 40's and early 50's are probably lost forevermore.

I don't understand Sounes reaction. I don't care whether all the people he ever interviewed didn't mention that. They probably didn't know it. As a matter of fact, if it's true Bukowski and Jane married, then Bukowski lied about this. Maybe he hid this fact for some reason unknown to us.

To what extent do you think those FBI files are reliable? Couldn't they be wrong?

yes, he always downplayed those college years -actually, a year and a half. It's as if he didn't want to acknowledge he belonged to an institution -the university - he would despise so much later on.

That would be a minor myth, though. Not because it's not important, but because it's seldom mentioned.

 

[Charlie]

One myth, perhaps the greatest, is that of his drinking. It almost seemed impossible the amount he drank.

I know, according to Ham on Rye, he started drinking at age 11 when he discovered barrels in his friend's basement. I know later in life, he drank three (I think German) white wines a night, and he quit beer (this is in one of his poems, I think possibly from Burning in Water.)

I know there is a interview somewhere, where someone mentions Bukowski "nursing" a beer. And also, I think it might have even been you cir, mentioned that he acted like he was taking big gulps of booze, just to entice or amaze the audience, but in fact he hadn't drank much at all.

I don't doubt he was an alcoholic, of course, but was he really drinking as much as he claimed?

 

[mjp]

I don't understand Sounes reaction. I don't care whether all the people he ever interviewed didn't mention that. They probably didn't know it. As a matter of fact, if it's true Bukowski and Jane married, then Bukowski lied about this. Maybe he hid this fact for some reason unknown to us.

To what extent do you think those FBI files are reliable? Couldn't they be wrong?

The FBI files are as reliable as the people the FBI got the information from. ;) Though the arrest records, etc., I would presume to be very reliable. The FBI paid (and pays) tens of thousands of people to go around knocking on doors and checking mundane things like that.

But again, it seems unlikely to me that Bukowski would claim to be married to Jane if it weren't true. I just don't see the advantage to telling a federal agency (law enforcement, the post office or the FBI) that he was married if he wasn't.

Now, why he never mentioned it - ever - is another question altogether.

Though he didn't exactly talk about his marriage to Barbara very much either...

 

[cirerita]

I think Linda may be the only one who knows the truth... if Bukowski ever felt like telling her the truth, that is.

another myth dispelled: B revised more than he usually claimed. That can be easily seen in the manuscripts he handed to Martin. See here: https://bukowskiforum.com/threads/i...tertainment-1975-poem-with-many-revisions.84/

Of course, if compared to many other writers, B didn't revise at all, but he liked to give the impression he hardly revised, which is kind of untrue.

 

[mjp]

Bukowski admitted to reworking poems in letters (and would send a letter to an editor if he discovered an error after submitting manuscripts), but in interviews, yeah, he usually played up the type-em-up-and-mail-em-out myth.

To me, the subject of Martin's "editing" is more interesting. Some of the things he changed -- so odd, so unnecessary.

One of the things Martin was upset with was a page I had up here for a while that detailed many of those changes. I think that's one of the reasons he was irritated about the manuscripts being on the site. Because now comparisons can be made.

 

[cirerita]

and would send a letter to an editor if he discovered an error after submitting manuscripts

such as here: https://bukowskiforum.com/showthread.php?t=94

 

[hoochmonkey9]

some of you maybe even think he's a God of sorts

I used to be this way, years ago...
When I first was getting published in small magazines I would put things like "has recently started writing after a ten year break" in my contributers bio, and while technically true, the only reason I put it in there was because of Buk.
Although I always saw and realized his faults, I was definately idolizing him. The faults were part of my romantic image of what a writer should be. We'll forgive him for pissing in the fireplace, cuz, shit, he can turn a phrase.
I'm older and a tiny, tiny bit wiser now.

 

[cirerita]

I think most of us have been through a very similar process. Actually, B. was never my FIRST idol, he was probably the third or fourth one. But all my idols had similar features somehow. When I first had to think a topic for my diss. -I hadn't chosen B. by then- I came up with this idea of linking cinema, music and poetry, trying to find the similarities between Stanley Kubrick, Neil Young and Charles Bukowski. And, believe me, there are more similarities than you would think of. But I was told that was way too ambitious so I had to discard that topic and I finally chose B over the others for reasons too long to be explained here -not because I thought B was the best of them.

The fact that time give us a more distanced, objective viewpoint of our idols is essential for a diss. In a diss. you have to be critical of the author studied, you just can't spend 300 pages licking his ass. You won't get a good grade that way.

 

[mjp]

I think age gives us the "distanced, objective viewpoint." As you get older, you respect more, idolize less.

 

[Erik]

I was older when I discovered Buk. 25? 26? Something like that. The "myth" never grabbed me. The myth says he writes about drinking and fucking. How many poems are about that? Plenty of poems go against the myth. Take "kaakkaa and other immolations" from The days run.... There's incredible tenderness for his kid there, or what about the one he wrote about her birth?

If you read just one book of poems the myth quickly crumbles. Thing is, the myth says more about the society around BUK, than it does about him. Critics are constantly looking for extremes and mysteries in art. Why is this? It has something to do with modernism, the world has turned complex, jumbled, accelerated, restless. Putting modern, cringing feelings into words was new and interesting for a while, but now we need to get on with it. Stop whining about it.

The most extreme thing in Buk's poetry is the sheer crystal clearness of his thought. His simmering wildness comes from his sensitivity, which his father beat into him, I guess, but his feelings are tapped, controlled and given form by his strength of intellect.

The impact of his lines comes from the combination of the two - sensitivity & clear-cut thought. This is what makes Buk a great writer.

Buk's strength of mind, (together with the numbing effect of alcohol), kept him sane.

The only use of the myth is as an eye-catcher. It catches ppls attention. Thats OK with me, as it certainly was for Buk. But I wouldn't spend time on it in a doctorate (or whatever you call it). just mention it and head straight for the jugular words...

By the way: I did my dissertation (or watever it is...) on Buk too. Hooked him up with Bakhtin and carnivalism, so in a way I focused on some of the humor in his lines... Had good fun with "We've got to communicate", which is a sort of verbal blow-job, don't you think?;)

 

[Charlie]

I think I'm still in the process of idolizing him. Although, its not complete naivety. But, for good or bad, I find that I respect Bukowski more than 99% of the people I've known.

 

[mjp]

The myth says he writes about drinking and fucking. How many poems are about that? If you read just one book of poems the myth quickly crumbles.

Exactly.

 

[cirerita]

erik,

nicely expressed. I was also tempted to do the Bakhtin/Derrida thingy -that is, analyze B through the eye of literary criticism, but I found it extremely analytical and kind of boring, so I gave up that idea. Though the carnival context sounds really "innaresting"

and yes, you're right, I wouldn't write the diss. on tearing B's myths apart. That could be useful for a bio. But having some myths dispelled helps to elaborate on OTHER topics.

I'd like to read your paper on B, it could be useful for my diss. I've already read plenty of dissertations and doctoral thesis on B, but any extra input is always good.

send me a p.m. if that's ok by you.

The myth says he writes about drinking and fucking. How many poems are about that? If you read just one book of poems the myth quickly crumbles.

exactly exactly :D But there are a lot of poems about both drinking and fucking, though. Lots. And shitting, too. But that's part of the B canon, and that's the part that calls people's attention, as you said.

B already explained that a few times when accused of being a male chauvinist. He said that happened because feminists only read part of his work -from Women, Love Is a Dog...- and missed the other. So feminists could prove their point because they hadn't read all B stuff.

But we have read it so it's easier for us to dispell those myths and kind of find the true Bukowski.

 

[Erik]

I'd like to read your paper on B, it could be useful for my diss. I've already read plenty of dissertations and doctoral thesis on B, but any extra input is always good.

send me a p.m. if that's ok by you.

Only one problem - its written in Norwegian.
Though it looks like Norway IS turning into the 51st american state, the official language is still "norsk". As long as it lasts... :rolleyes:

And on being a male chauvenist: how about this quote from the 1972-interview!:

What do you feel about the Women?s Liberation movement? Do their grievances affect you at all?

They got some damned good points, you know. We have pushed them around pretty much. They have been like a secondary race. Of course, there are some man-haters in there who don?t really want to liberate themselves, they just want to say things against men. Leaving them out, I think the Women?s Lib is a good legitimate movement. I like what they say. They?ve taught me things, that I do expect more. I?m all for the Women?s Lib, though I don?t belong to them.

I think I'm still in the process of idolizing him. Although, its not complete naivety. But, for good or bad, I find that I respect Bukowski more than 99% of the people I've known.

Could that be because you didn't actually "know" Bukowski?
I find that most ppl don't even "know" themselves! :)

 

[cirerita]

too bad I can't read norsk!

I didn't know Norway was becoming another U.S. state? How come they're losing their independency? :D

 

[Erik]

too bad I can't read norsk!

I didn't know Norway was becoming another U.S. state? how come?

Its a kind of joke over here. Economic & cultural (TV) colonialism!

I moved here, from California, in 72. No shopping malls, 1 TV channel & 1 radio channel with no commercials or American sitcoms, no baseball caps, no traffic, no crime, clean water, no poverty.
Ppl didn't lock their doors or cars.
A quite, if rather boring, place.

Today the situation is well on its way to becoming the opposite - except for the boring part. The oil-boom has its drawbacks it seems.

PS: Bush's top political henchman, Karl Rove, is of Norwegian descent...:p

 

[cirerita]

don't get me started on the Bush thing!!!!

Let's stick to B and his many myths.

By the way, I remembered another myth: B liked to play this image of the uncultured, unread man, oftenly misspelling and mispronoucing authors' name on purpose.

But we know that's not true. I bet B read more books than many of us here.

 

[mjp]

Bush's top political henchman, Karl Rove, is of Norwegian descent.

Well, Rove/satan aside, I grew up in Minnesota, and as you may know, there is no shortage of Norwegians up there. The rural Minnesota of the 60's sounds a lot like your Norway of the 70's and 80's - unlocked doors, quiet. Very few places like that remain.