The campaign to save Bukowski's De Longpre bungalow
- Thread starter esotouric
- Start date
yeh, just wanted to make sure first that I'm guessing right.
on this special topic, I'd consider having a second look at the story 'Night Streets of Madness' (I think it was that one), where he refers (in short) to his friend Neeli Cherry being Jewish and his friend John Thomas being a Nazi. He says something like, he didn't care for the politics, but liked both of these persons.
I would not expect Thomas, (as cirerita indicated,) to think Buk was a Nazi. Though I sure can imagine them sending Nazi-songs to each other - Buk would have had a great laugh with that. He wouldn't take it serious at all. So it might be a bad joke, but still is a joke. It doesn't make him a Nazi. It doesn't mean anything at all.
and one more thing on Pleasants:
he obviously has a complex due to his own Jewish descent! ("For me, being part Jewish had been a problem. [...] most of the neighborhood kids I grew up with [...] did not know Jews and didn't like them. [were they all Nazis?] [...] my feelings about being part Jewish are always with me." (p.47)
So - would anyone expect an impartial view from this person on this subject?
cirerita, do you mean his Father?
Funny coincidence is, James Ellroy, as a youth used to expound Nazi Slogans and Propaganda. I think it is a common triat of people who feel passionate - opposition to the Common Lot, to kids or young adults who are 'outsiders' or 'horribly introverted'. They seek to emulate that which the Majority is terrified by. Nazism was clearly a Great choice for people who waned to RILE up the petty liberals and convervatives. Mock nazism in youths gave them the EXTREMNITY that 'suburban doclity' soo lacked.
Bukowski also read Nieztche. Now, N was no Nazi. But what they shared in common, was an OVER turning of MORALITY. They embraced a certain 'endurance' of Cruelty. They wanted Man to be hard, pliable, open to extremes, open to the perverse, the dark, the need to dominate and be dominated.
Bukowski certainly understood and openly admitted
that the the inhabitants of the world,
were for better or worse:
repressed little fucking nazis.
who couldn't come to terms with
their own shadow.
and therefore could never
over come
their ERRORS,
and their cruelty!
Funny coincidence is, James Ellroy, as a youth used to expound Nazi Slogans and Propaganda. I think it is a common triat of people who feel passionate - opposition to the Common Lot, to kids or young adults who are 'outsiders' or 'horribly introverted'. They seek to emulate that which the Majority is terrified by. Nazism was clearly a Great choice for people who waned to RILE up the petty liberals and convervatives. Mock nazism in youths gave them the EXTREMNITY that 'suburban doclity' soo lacked.
Bukowski also read Nieztche. Now, N was no Nazi. But what they shared in common, was an OVER turning of MORALITY. They embraced a certain 'endurance' of Cruelty. They wanted Man to be hard, pliable, open to extremes, open to the perverse, the dark, the need to dominate and be dominated.
Bukowski certainly understood and openly admitted
that the the inhabitants of the world,
were for better or worse:
repressed little fucking nazis.
who couldn't come to terms with
their own shadow.
and therefore could never
over come
their ERRORS,
and their cruelty!
Gerard K H Love
Appreciate your friends
Olaf does good! I think I agree. Thank you
combat primer (excerpts)
they called Céline a Nazi
they called Pound a fascist
they called Hamsun a Nazi and a fascist.
they put Dostoevsky in front of a firing
squad
and they shot Lorca
[...]
and you want to be a
writer?
[...]
all right, go ahead
do it
but when they sandbag you
from the blind side
don't come to me with your
regrets.
now I'm going to smoke a cigarette
in the bathtub
and then I'm going to
sleep.
_____________
Appears in what matters most is how well you walk through the fire
they called Céline a Nazi
they called Pound a fascist
they called Hamsun a Nazi and a fascist.
they put Dostoevsky in front of a firing
squad
and they shot Lorca
[...]
and you want to be a
writer?
[...]
all right, go ahead
do it
but when they sandbag you
from the blind side
don't come to me with your
regrets.
now I'm going to smoke a cigarette
in the bathtub
and then I'm going to
sleep.
_____________
Appears in what matters most is how well you walk through the fire
Last edited by a moderator:
M
MULLINAX
How much are we talking about here? What's the property worth?
M
MULLINAX
If the property becomes a NATIONAL HISTORIC BUKOWSKI TOOK A CRAP AND PUKED HERE site what would the owners get? Zilch?
What I mean is this: Would LA City Council take over the site (eminent domain or something) and give the present immigrant owners cash?
Would said cash be less than 1.3 million bucks?
Could the mighty civic titans of LA stiff the present owners and just take over the property, as used to be done in (GASP!) communist countries?
What I mean is this: Would LA City Council take over the site (eminent domain or something) and give the present immigrant owners cash?
Would said cash be less than 1.3 million bucks?
Could the mighty civic titans of LA stiff the present owners and just take over the property, as used to be done in (GASP!) communist countries?
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
MULLINAX said:
Under Emminent Domain, any city would still have to pay the owners market rate. Of course, that is always where the fight is. If they are asking twice what it is worth and can actually get that, then that amount really is the market rate.
Still, the Supreme Court, after getting their big money, big business friendly majority raled about a year ago that Emminent Domain can be used to take property that is to be used solely by a corporation. Under the old rules, the land could only be forcably taken to build a road, government building, or such. Under new Bush Supreme Court rules, your house could be forcably sold to Starbucks because they want to open a store exactly where your house stands and you are being a pain in the ass by not leaving when they told you to.
Of course, they would still have to go through the state or town councils, which are not quick to do this. It is being tried in PA (it was fought and the occupants won) and DE (at this point, the owners lost, but it is now in court).
That is the long legal answer for a guy who has no law degree.
Bill
Though Nietzsche (spelling!) was abused by the Nazis, esp due to his sister's work, he himself Never had agreed with their point of view.
He was always shouting out AGAINST the German Reich (which was the 2nd at his times, not the 3rd Reich of the Nazis, but also very right-winged). He said things like : "As far as Germany reaches, it kills culture." He longed for, and called himself, a "good European". He had NOTHING of a Nationalist.
Concerning the growing anti-semitism of his time (his sister Eilsabeth was married with one anti-semite), he even called himself: "An Anti-Anti-semite"! And he split up with his publisher, because he was going on the anit-semite-train.
On his anti-moral and toughness: (this is of course just a shortened surface-thing) - the first came mostly from his hate against christianity (in special) and the oppinion of the major majority (in general); the second came mostly from his big illness during the late 1870s, which almost killed him - he had DECIDED to survive by being hard and just refusing to die and giving up his pessimistic (Schopenhauerian) and romantic (Wagnerian) viewpoints. (sure another reason for his split-up with Wagner was him, Wagner, becoming "German" - as Nietzsche put it and becoming "a Christian" - and here the circle closes, right?)
So booooooring:
Here's a suggestion: If you, like me, think the false accusations against Buk are absurd, ignorant, and downright cowardly, then stop fueling this thread.
Its OK if Hindenwood keeps us posted on the progress of the thing, but why not put it in a thread with a different title? Just putting the N-word in the title seems to be playing up to their intentions. Why not rename it to: "Cheap slanderism" or "False accusations from scumbag lawyers" or some such.
Just stirring up the muddy water and getting riled up won't do any good. It might even do some damage.
So here's a suggestion: the best way to refute this cheap slanderism is to ignore it. Or even better: start other threads about themes that obviously show the slanderism is false.
And please rename this thread!
Here's a suggestion: If you, like me, think the false accusations against Buk are absurd, ignorant, and downright cowardly, then stop fueling this thread.
Its OK if Hindenwood keeps us posted on the progress of the thing, but why not put it in a thread with a different title? Just putting the N-word in the title seems to be playing up to their intentions. Why not rename it to: "Cheap slanderism" or "False accusations from scumbag lawyers" or some such.
Just stirring up the muddy water and getting riled up won't do any good. It might even do some damage.
So here's a suggestion: the best way to refute this cheap slanderism is to ignore it. Or even better: start other threads about themes that obviously show the slanderism is false.
And please rename this thread!
Johannes
Founding member
And Nietzsche, by the way, refers to himself in many parts of his work (very proudly, that is) of being an offspring from some kind of Polish aristocracy, if I remember it right.
Which wasn't true at all (as we know today) but kind of closes the circle to B. in a funny way.
Which wasn't true at all (as we know today) but kind of closes the circle to B. in a funny way.
Last edited by a moderator:
true, and usually I do so.
Only in THIS case there was a reason to talk:
our man needed food for his argumentation at the hearing. That's why I contributed. So I'll stop now anyway ,-)
CNN site covers DeLongpre story
The momentum builds for this horseshit.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/books/11/29/bukowski.house.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
The momentum builds for this horseshit.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/books/11/29/bukowski.house.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
mjp
Founding member
We renamed the thread, good idea.
Unfortunately there is plenty to find out there, searching for the words; 'Bukowski' and 'Nazi' together. Father Luke made a good point in a conversation we had about this behind the scenes, and that was that he would rather have someone searching for 'Bukowski' and 'Nazi' together find this thread than some article that just makes or reports the accusation with no counterpoint.
The whole thing is unfortunate, but the genie is out of the bottle on this one, so pretending the accusation isn't out there won't do us any good. Refuting it probably won't do any good either (you can see that even posters in this forum believe Pleasants' story without question because, hey, it's on the internet!), but if we here are the only ones who attempt to point out the idiocy of Pleasants' poison pen diatribe, then we're doing something positive.
Well, this was inevitable, wasn't it. The story spreading to larger media outlets.
well, fuck.
Well, the motion went through.
I know feelings are very mixed about the nomination, but I think everyone would be happy to know that the Nazi angle was pretty much universally scoffed at, and the commission blatently stated that they didn't believe it. A writer from the AP was there, so hopefully that will make it's way back out to the national media and put this to rest. Don't forget that Garcetti, the LA Conservancy, and the LA Times Editorial Board are all backing it.
Thank you so much to the people on this forum who engaged in such an intelligent discussion about this. The quotes and ideas you brought up were very helpful to my presentation (which was the anti-Nazi segment).
-Lauren
Emminent domain would not enter this scenario. Today at the meeting one of the commissioners tried to explain to the owner's lawyer that the designation could actually make the property more attractive due to the historic association, and various tax easements, but he kept interrupting. The commissioner also pointed out that the structures are very adaptable to renovation, and that the property would really be worth less if the buildings were torn down and some other structure was squeezed in there. Oh yeah, he's an architect...
I know feelings are very mixed about the nomination, but I think everyone would be happy to know that the Nazi angle was pretty much universally scoffed at, and the commission blatently stated that they didn't believe it. A writer from the AP was there, so hopefully that will make it's way back out to the national media and put this to rest. Don't forget that Garcetti, the LA Conservancy, and the LA Times Editorial Board are all backing it.
Thank you so much to the people on this forum who engaged in such an intelligent discussion about this. The quotes and ideas you brought up were very helpful to my presentation (which was the anti-Nazi segment).
-Lauren
Emminent domain would not enter this scenario. Today at the meeting one of the commissioners tried to explain to the owner's lawyer that the designation could actually make the property more attractive due to the historic association, and various tax easements, but he kept interrupting. The commissioner also pointed out that the structures are very adaptable to renovation, and that the property would really be worth less if the buildings were torn down and some other structure was squeezed in there. Oh yeah, he's an architect...
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
Hintinwood,
See? This is what I warned you about. Your goal is to preserve LA's cultural heritage, seemingly without regard to the damage this it can do to a persons lasting reputation. This measure of theirs will work. They will win and the place will be turned into a Starbucks and because of all of this hubbub, Bukowski's name will be forever associated with Naziism because of one man's story and your inability to back out of a battle that you cannot win.
I know that it is not true, but the masses will not know and you will do serious damage to a man's reputation that you say you appreciate. Don't believe me? In ten years do me a favor and visit the Starbucks. Order a Latte and open your laptop and Google search Bukowski and see how nearly every major story about Bukowski will mention that he was rumored to be a Nazi.
Bill
See? This is what I warned you about. Your goal is to preserve LA's cultural heritage, seemingly without regard to the damage this it can do to a persons lasting reputation. This measure of theirs will work. They will win and the place will be turned into a Starbucks and because of all of this hubbub, Bukowski's name will be forever associated with Naziism because of one man's story and your inability to back out of a battle that you cannot win.
I know that it is not true, but the masses will not know and you will do serious damage to a man's reputation that you say you appreciate. Don't believe me? In ten years do me a favor and visit the Starbucks. Order a Latte and open your laptop and Google search Bukowski and see how nearly every major story about Bukowski will mention that he was rumored to be a Nazi.
Bill
Bill,
I strongly disagree with you, and I find your attitude defeatist.
The motion went through today, and the commission practically laughed that lawyer out of the room. Before he even spoke I had already discredited Pleasants thoroughly, and since that was all he had it was unconvincing to say the least. The president made it abundantly clear that she didn't believe a word of the Nazi angle. A reporter from the AP, the LA Weekly, and KNX was there, ensuring that the verdict will be out on the allegations.
"Your goal is to preserve LA's cultural heritage, seemingly without regard to the damage this it can do to a persons lasting reputation."
Bukowski doesn't have the greatest reputation as it is, but anyone with half a brain can see that this is nonsense.
I think ultimately Bukowski's words speak for themselves, as they did today.
-Lauren
I strongly disagree with you, and I find your attitude defeatist.
The motion went through today, and the commission practically laughed that lawyer out of the room. Before he even spoke I had already discredited Pleasants thoroughly, and since that was all he had it was unconvincing to say the least. The president made it abundantly clear that she didn't believe a word of the Nazi angle. A reporter from the AP, the LA Weekly, and KNX was there, ensuring that the verdict will be out on the allegations.
"Your goal is to preserve LA's cultural heritage, seemingly without regard to the damage this it can do to a persons lasting reputation."
Bukowski doesn't have the greatest reputation as it is, but anyone with half a brain can see that this is nonsense.
I think ultimately Bukowski's words speak for themselves, as they did today.
-Lauren
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
And yet CNN picked up the story and ran with the NAZI angle? Frankly I'm most surprised that someone from LA wold not know that the truth does not matter. Whatever sells papers is the angle that they will take. The NAZI angle will always come up. The fact that the 8 person commission "scoffed at it" will not kill this story that now be believed by many, many people.
Did anyone hear about Richard Gere and the gerbil? If he had evidence that proved it 100%, it would still live on forever. The truth does not matter. The good story is all that is important.
Bill
What does this mean?
I hope you don't speak like you write or poor Buk is doomed.
Excuse me, I'm at work right now.
Reporters from the LA Weekly, The Associated Press, and KNX Radio attended the hearing today. Having observed the proceedings, they will report back to their respective media outlets as to the outcome and content of the meeting.
And in case you missed it, the motion went through.
Reporters from the LA Weekly, The Associated Press, and KNX Radio attended the hearing today. Having observed the proceedings, they will report back to their respective media outlets as to the outcome and content of the meeting.
And in case you missed it, the motion went through.
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
Lauren,
My attitude is not defeatest. I just know what I know. That being said, I would LOVE to be wrong on this and would love to have to eat crow in front of everyone if I am wrong. Sadly, I don't think that I am. Let's see how AP, La Times & KNX cover it. So far CNN has played the NAZI angle. Will the others?
Bill
mjp
Founding member
Yeah, aren't they married now? I heard the Dalai Lama performed the ceremony and Lionel Richie serenaded the newlyweds afterward. It was on CNN. I just can't find the link at the moment.
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
A.D. Winans just sent me this. Seems that the AP picked up the story and ran it (The CNN.com article was actually from the AP, which means that many, many, many news organizations will run the story verbatim.) Tomorrow this story will be big news.
I thought that they were at that meeting where the allegations were "scoffed at". will they run a retraction tomorrow? I think not, instead this very same article will appear in no less than 50 newspapers...
Bill
> http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/11909411.html
>
> L.A. move to recognize poet's home opposed
>
> Charles Bukowski lived at east Hollywood bungalow, writing "the great
> books that really started him on his career," a supporter says. Co-owner
> of property says he was a Nazi sympathizer. He later lived in San Pedro.
>
> By Jacob Adelman
>
> The Associated Press
>
> Hard-drinking, foul-mouthed writer Charles Bukowski once described himself
> as a guy who wouldn't walk away from a brawl.
>
> Now it's up to fans of the gutter poet to take up the fight to have his
> bungalow turned into a civic monument over the objections of the
> property's owners, who claim he was a Nazi sympathizer.
>
> Backers say the east Hollywood abode deserves recognition and the
> restoration that would go with it because it's where Bukowski banged out
> stories and poems that transformed him from a working stiff with a
> literary streak into an internationally celebrated author.
>
> "The great books that really started him on his career - that all happened
> on De Longpre," said Neeli Cherkovski, author of "Bukowski: A Life" and a
> friend of the writer. "It was where Charles Bukowski became the voice of
> Los Angeles."
>
> But the owners, who tried to sell the bungalow court as tear-down for $1.3
> million, are poised to fight the proposal before a city commission today
> based on allegations that Bukowski had Nazi leanings.
>
> Co-owner Victoria Gureyeva refused to discuss the issue on her lawyer's
> advice, but previously said she would enlist local Jewish activists in her
> campaign against landmarking.
>
> "This man loved Hitler," Gureyeva, who is Jewish, told the alternative
> newspaper LA Weekly. "This is my house, not Bukowski's. I will never allow
> the city of Los Angeles to turn it into a monument for this man."
>
> The city's preservationist community is lining up behind the proposal,
> although some were bemused that a man known best for boozy excesses might
> have the place he once lived given the same landmark designation as City
> Hall and the Hollywood sign.
>
> Bukowski, who later lived in San Pedro and died of leukemia in 1994 at 73,
> has a cultish following around the world and the esteem of critics and
> fellow literati.
>
> Sean Penn, Tom Waits and Bono have professed their admiration for the
> writer. The movies "Barfly" and "Factotum" were based on his books and his
> papers join manuscripts and rare volumes from Shakespeare and Chaucer at
> the Huntington Library in San Marino.
>
> But he is as well-known for his image as a down-at-the-heels drunk and for
> pronouncements like, "Sometimes you just have to pee in the sink."
>
> The impulse to make Bukowski's home a monument comes from a feeling that
> he was a more accurate chronicler of the city than other writers, said
> David Fine, author of "Imagining Los Angeles: A City in Fiction."
>
> Raymond Chandler, Aldous Huxley, Nathanael West and F. Scott Fitzgerald
> are far brighter literary lights, along with others who came here to toil
> as screenwriters. But they tended to portray an apocalyptic landscape of
> crime noir and empty celebrity. Bukowski grew up here and saw it from a
> less cynical, more authentic down-to-earth vantage.
>
>
>
I thought that they were at that meeting where the allegations were "scoffed at". will they run a retraction tomorrow? I think not, instead this very same article will appear in no less than 50 newspapers...
Bill
> http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/11909411.html
>
> L.A. move to recognize poet's home opposed
>
> Charles Bukowski lived at east Hollywood bungalow, writing "the great
> books that really started him on his career," a supporter says. Co-owner
> of property says he was a Nazi sympathizer. He later lived in San Pedro.
>
> By Jacob Adelman
>
> The Associated Press
>
> Hard-drinking, foul-mouthed writer Charles Bukowski once described himself
> as a guy who wouldn't walk away from a brawl.
>
> Now it's up to fans of the gutter poet to take up the fight to have his
> bungalow turned into a civic monument over the objections of the
> property's owners, who claim he was a Nazi sympathizer.
>
> Backers say the east Hollywood abode deserves recognition and the
> restoration that would go with it because it's where Bukowski banged out
> stories and poems that transformed him from a working stiff with a
> literary streak into an internationally celebrated author.
>
> "The great books that really started him on his career - that all happened
> on De Longpre," said Neeli Cherkovski, author of "Bukowski: A Life" and a
> friend of the writer. "It was where Charles Bukowski became the voice of
> Los Angeles."
>
> But the owners, who tried to sell the bungalow court as tear-down for $1.3
> million, are poised to fight the proposal before a city commission today
> based on allegations that Bukowski had Nazi leanings.
>
> Co-owner Victoria Gureyeva refused to discuss the issue on her lawyer's
> advice, but previously said she would enlist local Jewish activists in her
> campaign against landmarking.
>
> "This man loved Hitler," Gureyeva, who is Jewish, told the alternative
> newspaper LA Weekly. "This is my house, not Bukowski's. I will never allow
> the city of Los Angeles to turn it into a monument for this man."
>
> The city's preservationist community is lining up behind the proposal,
> although some were bemused that a man known best for boozy excesses might
> have the place he once lived given the same landmark designation as City
> Hall and the Hollywood sign.
>
> Bukowski, who later lived in San Pedro and died of leukemia in 1994 at 73,
> has a cultish following around the world and the esteem of critics and
> fellow literati.
>
> Sean Penn, Tom Waits and Bono have professed their admiration for the
> writer. The movies "Barfly" and "Factotum" were based on his books and his
> papers join manuscripts and rare volumes from Shakespeare and Chaucer at
> the Huntington Library in San Marino.
>
> But he is as well-known for his image as a down-at-the-heels drunk and for
> pronouncements like, "Sometimes you just have to pee in the sink."
>
> The impulse to make Bukowski's home a monument comes from a feeling that
> he was a more accurate chronicler of the city than other writers, said
> David Fine, author of "Imagining Los Angeles: A City in Fiction."
>
> Raymond Chandler, Aldous Huxley, Nathanael West and F. Scott Fitzgerald
> are far brighter literary lights, along with others who came here to toil
> as screenwriters. But they tended to portray an apocalyptic landscape of
> crime noir and empty celebrity. Bukowski grew up here and saw it from a
> less cynical, more authentic down-to-earth vantage.
>
>
>
The CNN story is dated today at 9:22 AM EST, and so far, all the other stories (from other outlets) I've seen are dated yesterday evening. The daily News appears to have pulled their story, as the webpage is not found. Let's see what happens in the next several hours.
And Bill, I take your point. The falsehood that turns heads is always bigger than the clarification of truth. Probably because the clarification, if any, always seems to appear on page 47 of a roll of toilet paper.
Edited to add: I called it a clarification rather than a retraction, because, technically, the story itself was not inaccurate, just the allegations behind why it became a story.
And Bill, I take your point. The falsehood that turns heads is always bigger than the clarification of truth. Probably because the clarification, if any, always seems to appear on page 47 of a roll of toilet paper.
Edited to add: I called it a clarification rather than a retraction, because, technically, the story itself was not inaccurate, just the allegations behind why it became a story.
Look, I see what you're saying, I really do, but all it ever says is that the owners (who obviously have their own motives) are accusing him of being a Nazi. It doesn't site a single other source, or attempt to authenticate the claim in any other way.
The hearing was today, and this story went out either last night or earlier today, so I'm sure there will be a follow-up. However there can't be a retraction because the author is just stating the owner's position. Frankly, including the "second Hitler" quote makes the woman sound a bit mad already.
If nothing else, think of it this way. Maybe people all over the country who read this will wonder who this guy is to stir up all this controversy, and they'll start reading his work. I know I would...
The hearing was today, and this story went out either last night or earlier today, so I'm sure there will be a follow-up. However there can't be a retraction because the author is just stating the owner's position. Frankly, including the "second Hitler" quote makes the woman sound a bit mad already.
If nothing else, think of it this way. Maybe people all over the country who read this will wonder who this guy is to stir up all this controversy, and they'll start reading his work. I know I would...