The campaign to save Bukowski's De Longpre bungalow
- Thread starter esotouric
- Start date
ROC
It is what it is
I don't intend to read his latest chapbook, so maybe you could elaborate?
Either way, Pleasants is sounding like a bigger and bigger cock-head every day.
There... no he can sue me!
How the fuck can a jew living in this time label any contemporary a nazi anyway?
With what Israel dishes out to the Palestinians, it's just ridiculous.
cirerita
Founding member
I think I found the column which apparently enraged Rexroth:
https://bukowskiforum.com/showthread.php?t=2789
https://bukowskiforum.com/showthread.php?t=2789
No one's saying it's "sacred" (well at least not me), but it is relevant to the history of our city.
Hindinwood,
Well, alright, it is part of the city of LA. And I would be the first one to erect a monument to Hank somewhere there. But what about Raymond Chandler ? Does he not get a mention ?
The Irish writers residences were knocked down you know. I tried to find Sean O'Caseys and it was just a garage. James Joyce's place on Eccles Street is no longer there. You should see where Karl Marx is remembered.
Los Angeles has a long and memorable history & Hank is only a small part of it.
Well, alright, it is part of the city of LA. And I would be the first one to erect a monument to Hank somewhere there. But what about Raymond Chandler ? Does he not get a mention ?
The Irish writers residences were knocked down you know. I tried to find Sean O'Caseys and it was just a garage. James Joyce's place on Eccles Street is no longer there. You should see where Karl Marx is remembered.
Los Angeles has a long and memorable history & Hank is only a small part of it.
Chandler (and Fante) strongly deserved to be remembered in some part of the city's built history. If you know of a building that is significant to either of their work and still standing (but with demolition looming) let me know.
I'm not trying to be snarky, but the "what about _____" arguement doesn't really make much sense to me, because what about it? Go for it!
As for James Joyce, it would be really wonderful to actually see a location prominately featured in his novels/stories, don't you think??
I'm not trying to be snarky, but the "what about _____" arguement doesn't really make much sense to me, because what about it? Go for it!
As for James Joyce, it would be really wonderful to actually see a location prominately featured in his novels/stories, don't you think??
mjp
Founding member
Wow, Pleasants is out of his fucking mind.
Thanks for that though, because now I can see where he got the "Nazi" Label, seeing that he feels free to accuse Bukowski of "homicide" and "manslaughter" based on Rexroth's statement. It's his own exaggeration and invention.
"All this I got on tape!" He's got it on tape! Well there's your proof of homicide, right there. It's on tape.
"Okay John said, "A," and Jane said, "B." I have it on tape! Of course "A" plus "B" equal "Z," so therefore, "Z" is the truth as it was told to me!" There's the Pleasants logic laid out in all its glory.
Someone should inform the New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet that reading a story can kill you. They really ought to look into that.
What a sad clown that Pleasants is. What an angry, pink little gnome.
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
Hintinwood,
I think that if you are sucessful in saving the building, but erroneously saddle Bukowski as a Nazi to the poem that it is mentioned in every mainstream article from this point on, you will have won the battle and lost the war.
The people that you are up against could care less about the truth. They are using this Nazi issue to make money. It will probably work. If they say it enough times and loud enough it becomes true.
I would hate to see the place saved only to have mainstream Americans (and people outside the US, for that matter) think that Bukwoski was a Nazi.
Again, I say to tear the place down... Build a Starbucks.
Bill
I think that if you are sucessful in saving the building, but erroneously saddle Bukowski as a Nazi to the poem that it is mentioned in every mainstream article from this point on, you will have won the battle and lost the war.
The people that you are up against could care less about the truth. They are using this Nazi issue to make money. It will probably work. If they say it enough times and loud enough it becomes true.
I would hate to see the place saved only to have mainstream Americans (and people outside the US, for that matter) think that Bukwoski was a Nazi.
Again, I say to tear the place down... Build a Starbucks.
Bill
cirerita
Founding member
more on Patchen:
https://bukowskiforum.com/showthread.php?t=2793
and you don't want to miss the latest on Bukowski by Pleasants... almost 40 years ago!
https://bukowskiforum.com/showthread.php?t=2794
https://bukowskiforum.com/showthread.php?t=2793
and you don't want to miss the latest on Bukowski by Pleasants... almost 40 years ago!
https://bukowskiforum.com/showthread.php?t=2794
c, I love your scanner...
Black Swan
Abord the Yorikke!
I agree with you Bill, to let it go is the right thing to do, to much resistance.
When money talks, that 's all you get to hear. Let her sell the damn thing and let's preserve Bukowski's true nature. An abrasive son of a beehive...but a very good man.
I see where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree. At this point the allegations have already been made and we can't go back in time. Luckily they're very VERY easy to refute, and that lady is doing a bang up job of making herself sound crazy as it is.
To not address the situation, and just say "okay nevermind, we don't want to landmark this building anymore" and quietly just go away - well you might as well be confirming what they're saying.
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
God, I hope that you are right....
I hope that you are right, but also know that once you are branded as something as repulsive as this the truth will not matter. I fear that you will save the place only to have it on the "Neo-Nazi bus tour" next year. I am not implyting that esotouric will run it, but someone will. Being in Hollywood, there will be a draw to the famous and the infamous. They do have tours of Nicole Simpson's condo still, right?
Again, I hope that you are right, but also know that your main focus is on preserving the physical place, where there are many of us on the forum that would light the match ourselves if it meant preserving his reputation and his place in literature.
Bill
I hope that you are right, but also know that once you are branded as something as repulsive as this the truth will not matter. I fear that you will save the place only to have it on the "Neo-Nazi bus tour" next year. I am not implyting that esotouric will run it, but someone will. Being in Hollywood, there will be a draw to the famous and the infamous. They do have tours of Nicole Simpson's condo still, right?
Again, I hope that you are right, but also know that your main focus is on preserving the physical place, where there are many of us on the forum that would light the match ourselves if it meant preserving his reputation and his place in literature.
Bill
mjp
Founding member
That is a naive outlook, I'm afraid. You are talking about taking a million dollars out of someone's pocket. If you think they will be easily stopped you may be in for a surprise.
They will hammer the bogus Nazi angle into the ground and the longer this goes on the worse the end result will be. Take away the Nazi angle and they will come up with a half a dozen other ways to attempt to discredit Bukowski. Next he will be a wife-beater, then - oh, there are so many possibilities for anyone who wants to portray him in a negative light. They just went for the trump card first.
As Bill and others have pointed out, it doesn't matter if you refute the claim. The claim itself is damaging. If you accuse someone of being a Nazi or a pedophile, it doesn't matter what comes next. The stink of that accusation hangs on you forever.
bukowski cried when he saw some Nazis on the street!?! wtf
Unfortunately I am in a big lack of time these weeks, but maybe I could flip through my own annotations I made inside Pleasants book and look for some arguments you could use.
What's your deadline?
The presentation is this Thursday, so Wednesday night...
- concerning their relationship I use to refer to something Linda King has said some years ago.
She said: "I would not believe ANYTHING that any of these two says about the other." - and she knew Buk AND Pleasants back in the times when they were 'friends' as well as after the split up.
- Pleasants' inaccuracy with facts shows all over his book.
one example: In his foreword, on page xii, he states he and Buk "were close for more than twenty years, from 1965 to 1985 [...] During all those years we never argued, we never fought and we never attacked each other in print." So everything was fine till '85? Well, only a few pages later, he starts with a large story, dated back in the late 70s that sounds way different. (from "I felt my guard immediately go up, as it always did when Bukowski was involved." - p.19 through his, Pleasants', foolish acting in that scene, till his bitter feelings towards Buk at the end (p.28) - it all shows their so called never-arguing-never-fighting before 85 is a hoax.)
another example: on page 69 Pleasants talks about Buks admiration of Richmond's poetry-book 'Hitler painted Roses' (for which Buk also wrote the foreword). It's true: Buk liked the book and the title. But what has that to do with Nazism? How can Pleasants claim Hitler to be Buks "mentor" (p.69) only because he liked a provoking title of a book that had nothing to do with Hitler at all? That's a shortcut-deduction that lacks even the slightest piece of brain.
one more: Pleasants claims Buk was afraid of the FBI and thus threw away all his propaganda-material and started wandering around (p. 131f). Well, we do know about an FBI-incident concerning his draft, and luckily we know the circumstances: If Buk had really been on elopement from the FBI, why was he only one time late in giving his new address to the authorities? why didn't he appear in the FBI-files of that time more often that this one time, if he was such an active member of the German Bund and/or the American-First-commitee? Why wasn't he under regular watch by the detectives (at least after his FBI-incident)? - I can only see ONE reason: he was not of interest to the FBI, he was NO active Nazi, he was just a bum trying to get along cheap.
When the FBI started it's REAL investigation on him, in 1968, it was due to possible Communist-connections. What does this tell us?
- the main problem with Pleasants book is: it's Not ALL a lie, not ALL made up. He happily intermixes hard facts, pure oppinions (correct ones as well as random and arbitrary ones) and simple lies in such a natural way, that readers could easily get confused. This perfidy of style makes it a dangerous book. (yes, I said Perfidy, yes I said Dangerous!)
I'd cope with this fact by pointing out the problematic relationship between these two and would insist, that the lawyer (or whoever) who uses Pleasants as a source gives at least ONE additional source to proof these claims. (They will find not one!)
You could also play the race-card back by stating, because it IS such a serious subject, how unfair it is to come up with such big accusations without ANY evidence of truth behind them. Such behaviour is at least irresponsible!
so much for today.
Love.
p.s.:
you could make it way shorter by quoting mjp:
that sums it up.
Why only the initials, John Thomas?