Dispelling the Dispelling of Myths
This is an old thread, but I was in the mood today to make a few personal observations of my own.
let's recap the myths here:
If a myth is defined only as an either/or proposition, it's a faulty premise to build a case on; there are shades of grey when talking about the totality of anyone's life.
1) B was not a tough guy.
Well, I'd say he was pretty tough. Is there any doubt that Bukowski decked his father after the father tried to rub Buk's nose in his own vomit?"”after enduring brutal beatings from his sadistic father for over ten years? (The Schroeder tapes.)
Any doubt the B had his share of bar fights over the years"”"was a pretty good duker""”and had the shit kicked out of him, but won of few of his own?
Any doubts that B sometimes carried a knife (his "steel") because he understood a thing or two about violence? (
Hostage reading.)
Any doubts that he sometimes resorted to physical violence when he was frustrated or upset? (With Linda on the Schroader tapes.)
Does this mean that every scene of violence he describes in a story, or autobiographic novel, had to have occurred at all or be exactly true to literal reality? Of course not"”and I don't expect it to be. Does it mean that he didn't have a soft side as well? Of course not. Does the tough side of his nature have to be exclusive of his soft, sentimental side? Of course not. But some critics feel that both sides cannot be true within the same man"”and that's where they make their critical mistake; and I see the problem as not the man himself, but their perception of the man; both sides of the nature can be true with the same person. So again, one must be careful trying to dispel a "myth" based upon a faulty premise. And this is why a "diss" approach is of very little interest to me, and ends up trying to reduce a man of genius down to the ordinary mediocrity of most writers.
2) He was not completely on the bum during the 10 year drunk.
So, if he wrote and submitted a few pieces here and there"”that makes him a full-time committed writer within this 10 year period? Of course not. His main focus"”and I have no reason to doubt his own assessment"”was primarily on life experiences... So what was he supposed to say?"”"I was on the lamb for 10 years, but I sometimes took a short stab at it and submitted to 'this' specific publication, and 'that' specific publication, on such and such a date, and was rejected, discouraged, bored, hopeless, without having any confidence and still not feeling ready." If he saw this overall period as one of non-writing, I have no reason to doubt his overall assessment. He was hardly front page news with any kind of a major literary work or success, other than the two published works in
Story and
Portfolio. Whatever writings he submitted were on a very low-key and understated basis, and he was not trying to attract major attention to himself, at a time when he felt unprepared for wider attention. He said so himself, and why make a major myth or deal out of it? A complete non-issue for me.
3) He did write a few poems and short-stories during the same 10 year drunk.
Though he may have tested the literary market every now and then, probably out of curiosity, he did not view this as a significant writing period for himself OVERALL, for reasons he mentioned time and time again. This was hardly a major deception on his part. Another non-myth to dispel.
4) Bukowski didn't quit the PO bravely
His letter, asking that the PO reinstate him after his earlier resignation, showed a man in fear of poverty and one who was obviously genuflecting before people he probably despised but needed. He felt that they still held the financially power of life or death over his head, according to how he viewed his life at that time, especially because of his health challenges of the mid-50s and his probable need of medical insurance, and the need of some kind of economic security. (Haven't we all done this?"”I know I have.) So he played their game and kissed their asses. Nevertheless, this is no negation of the other facets of his character when he was living in his own element... Again, here's another situation when, according to conventional wisdom or literary criticism, opposite sides of his character have to be mutually exclusive of each other. Bad trip, man!
5) Did he marry two or three times?
If it felt like a marriage, what does the exact legal status matter?"”especially according to FBI, who wouldn't understand a man of Bukowski's unconventional temperament, even if they were paid to. So"”more deliberate deception by Bukowski? Of course not. He evaluated his relationships according to his own subjective standards.
6) The 4-F episode. Was it real?
He didn't keep the draft board aware of his current address and whereabouts, and then the FBI took notice of him, like they no doubt did with anyone else of draft age during WW2. So, deliberate draft-dogging? I don't think Bukowski was that stupid"”nor was he particularly balanced or sober or politically savvy during this rabid, patriotic, rah-rah period in US history. But deliberately running away from the draft board?"”No. He was just running away... from everything"”another non-issue for the critics to try to make something of. If one reads enough Bukowski, one can see that he would be easily capable of getting in trouble this way out of...indifference.
7) Bukowski downplayed his two years at Los Angeles City College, often saying he, "took a few classes." [mjp]
Does anyone really feel that this period had major impact on his life? It probably helped bring out his art ability more than his writing. But that these years contributed to his writing success? I doubt it, unless it was in teaching him about the conventions of academia to avoid (though academia is not all bad) and what
not to do. So, another major myth to bust?"”a complete non-issue again. I feel it would be better not to write a diss at all then to include such weak, non-essential arguments and so-called myths. It's not that Bukowski didn't exaggerate for creative reasons; it's just that he looked like a man who simply a law unto himself.
8) One myth, perhaps the greatest, is that of his drinking. It almost seemed impossible the amount he drank. [Charlie]
Some people have an industrial-strength liver, and if they're in enough emotional or physical pain, they can consume ungodly amounts of alcohol and still refuse to die. I have no doubts in my mind that Bukowski could consume a bottle of hard liquor in two hours, like he said he could, and then follow it up with two six-packs. Did he do this every fucking day? Of course not. But here was a man with extraordinary creative sensitivity, in extraordinary emotional and sometimes physical pain. His father beat him, as the brutal sadistic jake of a father he was, between the time Bukowski was 6 and 16. I have no reason to doubt that, even at the age of 11, Bukowski could have easily been exposed to alcohol and taken to it as the soul savior it was. Why in God's name would he make this up just to make a good story, after he was already famous with his previous novels? So he could brag and boast that he started drinking at 11? Sorry, but I don't buy it.
If readers are so bloody worry about being fooled by this man"”or any other writer"”how can they possibly enjoy reading him? I find this quite a bit on this newsgroup: people so worried about being deceived, taken for ride, or fooled"”rather than just going along for one of the great literary rides in a lifetime. Sometimes these so-called myths are something we have so we can grow into them, and I don't go for their being "stripped" away without understanding their purpose first.
Along these same lines, I remember coming across a review of the music of Debussy, and the reviewer was crowing in praise because the pianist had "burned the mist" off Debussy"”yeah, the ethereal mist that Debussy had taken a life-time to learn and put there to begin with, and was part of its magic... I feel the same way about burning off the "myths" of Bukowski. If you focus on burning it off, rather than creating your own myth to live up to, you may have missed the point.
9) B revised more than he usually claimed.
Sure! But the point is,
most of his works came out flowing like a Niagra, and in need of very few revisions. Whether he sometimes struggled with some of them greatly, as all great artists do, is again a non-issue. Struggling was not his predominate way of writing, and that's what counts"”not the scattering of exceptions to the rule when compared to his endless lava-like flow of consummate productivity.
10) B liked to play this image of the uncultured, unread man, oftenly misspelling and mispronouncing authors' name on purpose.
It should be evident from his own words (on the Poems & Insults CD) that he felt his audience expected this of him, or saw him mostly this way. But he also offered his serious poems to show that he wasn't just a "beer-drinking machine."
I would also say that, as a self-educated man, he would sometimes mispronounce words because he didn't know any better. Every noticed how be pronounced library as "liberry"? His errors seem mostly unconscious to me, rather than another Machiavellian deception to deliberately throw the academics into a tailspin and play down to his readers.
Perhaps I feel strongly about such efforts of academic "de-mythification" because my own years of academia left a lingering bad taste in my mouth: it was only after I dropped out out formal education that I discovered the joy of reading and learning, and began to live"”not that I would necessarily recommend this choice to others.
Best wishes to all.
Poptop
