Alright, end of debate. Let's get to other topics as well ;)
PULP is spectacular!
- Thread starter beerbelly666
- Start date
Alright, end of debate. Let's get to other topics as well ;)
Sorry, but what is it that you are debating?
Our friend beerbelly666 claims that Pulp is one of Bukowski's best works and is a well crafted novel. You say it would be the last thing you'd take from your Bukowski shelf. So do you agree with beerbelly666 or not?
mjp thinks Pulp sucks. He can do that. So what.
I don't hate it myself, but I do think its Bukowski's worst novel. I can do that can't I?
Bukowski enjoyed writing it sometimes - but sometimes it was a struggle. Not least because he was very very ill. Sometimes he was just blocked. Sometimes he accidentally deleted large chunks of it as he learnt how to use his Mac. After struggling with it for over 2 years Bukowski must have been tired of it.
But he had wanted to rewrite it. Sadly that would never happen. He knew the manuscript that Martin had was not ready. But he was unable to do anymore work on Pulp.
It was always going to be published after Bukowski was gone. Only Martin could rework the rough manuscript into the book that beerbelly666 so enjoyed. Bukowski simply was unable to do work.
So what does that mean to the text of the book? Is it 95% Bukowski? 88%? We will never know.
But I don't think Pulp is 100% Bukowski. The book is disappointing. At best.
But I don't hate it. Maybe I will one day.
Our friend beerbelly666 claims that Pulp is one of Bukowski's best works and is a well crafted novel. You say it would be the last thing you'd take from your Bukowski shelf. So do you agree with beerbelly666 or not?
mjp thinks Pulp sucks. He can do that. So what.
I don't hate it myself, but I do think its Bukowski's worst novel. I can do that can't I?
Bukowski enjoyed writing it sometimes - but sometimes it was a struggle. Not least because he was very very ill. Sometimes he was just blocked. Sometimes he accidentally deleted large chunks of it as he learnt how to use his Mac. After struggling with it for over 2 years Bukowski must have been tired of it.
But he had wanted to rewrite it. Sadly that would never happen. He knew the manuscript that Martin had was not ready. But he was unable to do anymore work on Pulp.
It was always going to be published after Bukowski was gone. Only Martin could rework the rough manuscript into the book that beerbelly666 so enjoyed. Bukowski simply was unable to do work.
So what does that mean to the text of the book? Is it 95% Bukowski? 88%? We will never know.
But I don't think Pulp is 100% Bukowski. The book is disappointing. At best.
But I don't hate it. Maybe I will one day.
If you really want to know, read all my previous posts again so I don't have to repeat myself. I already did. Actually I was debating over the fact that it is not an "ugly, amateurish mess," as mjp put it. Now you can convert that to percentages. Being the last thing that I'd read from Buk does not mean automatically that I value it as mjp does (5%?). Is every god damn opinion got to be only black or white or what? It is still much more entertaining than other writer's works I appreciate. For instance I also love Mailer or HST but in my humble opinion they did hell of a lot more boring stuff than Buk's Pulp. Is that makes me a hero worshipper?
On the other hand I do think it's 100% Buk. If 150 pages were ready by November, 1992 that doesn't mean in my view that John was needed to rework the whole thing by early 1994 - only Buk certainly needed more time to get his stuff together so it can be more cohesive and thorough and that time went missing forever. From his correspondence it comes down clearly that he wrote the novel in a linear way, not parts and later copy paste them because in that case John's hand would have come handy but this was not happening. I think you overjudge Martin's work in this sense regarding the book. But if there are other things I need to know please enlighten me. So in this sense I think it is indeed Bukowski than Buk-Martin as you suggest. Oh, and we are talking about the guy who wrote Post Office in three weeks.
On the other hand I do think it's 100% Buk. If 150 pages were ready by November, 1992 that doesn't mean in my view that John was needed to rework the whole thing by early 1994 - only Buk certainly needed more time to get his stuff together so it can be more cohesive and thorough and that time went missing forever. From his correspondence it comes down clearly that he wrote the novel in a linear way, not parts and later copy paste them because in that case John's hand would have come handy but this was not happening. I think you overjudge Martin's work in this sense regarding the book. But if there are other things I need to know please enlighten me. So in this sense I think it is indeed Bukowski than Buk-Martin as you suggest. Oh, and we are talking about the guy who wrote Post Office in three weeks.
mjp
Founding member
You are 100% incorrect about that.
Enlightenment is on the way, but you will have to be patient. Enlightenment is worth waiting for, right?
I guess it ain't worth waiting... :wb:
stop. everyone. or I'll hack your facebook accounts again and tell everyone about that dream you had where you violated the Magi and then sprouted wings and flew to Scarsdale to dedicate your life to mime and the Pan flute.
...to measure any kind of literary work by percentages is more than I am capable of but I guess more than 3500 posts certainly qualifies you for that. Really, no pun intended. But if I just try to value those sentences which I previously quoted from Pulp, clearly they overpass those remarks that were made about the novel in this thread.
Now seriously, I'm not an expert on all Buk matters but strictly in the case of Pulp, can anyone bring some proof of John Martin's misconduct, or to what level he changed the original manuscripts? Cause even though Buk couldn't finish it, it is still makes it 100% Buk in my eyes. John rewrote sentences...?
Now seriously, I'm not an expert on all Buk matters but strictly in the case of Pulp, can anyone bring some proof of John Martin's misconduct, or to what level he changed the original manuscripts? Cause even though Buk couldn't finish it, it is still makes it 100% Buk in my eyes. John rewrote sentences...?
I'm not scoring the work, just suggesting that the work is not 100% as written by the author whose name is on the cover.
Yes, I'm the quiet one. You know, the worst kind. Do you know what a pun is, or how you intend one should that be your intention?
Really?
What give you that idea? Are you psychic?
Can you read the forth line down please?
Just lose that question mark and we're golden.
Proof for the last and to what extent? Do you guys saw orig. manuscripts of Pulp?
I'm beginning to think that Buda and Beerbelly are the same person.