What makes Bukowski so unique?

[reasonknot]

buks style came from alot of reading and the gift of retaining information.
the retained info allowed him a foundation to work with or against.
also, his style was honed through the discipline to get the word down on
a daily basis.sort of like practice makes perfect.

shane has spoken

 

[Brother Schenker]

What I've been wondering all along is: where does his style come from?

Are you trying to stir up trouble like a troll?:D
His motherfucken style came from his motherfucken self!!!"?$%^!!!!
It came from his personality, mind, imagination, memories, preferences.
It came from him, dig?
Factory installed---stock.
It was a default style---no airs or graces or affectations. No attempts or immitations.


Where the hell do you think it could've possible come from? A can? A tree? A dog? A bicycle? A creative writing class? A poetry workshop? A box of crackerjacks?

You keep glossing over the persona thang and therefore gloss over the answer to your question.

If you're merely asking about the physical look/style of how the words are laid down and how the chapters are relatively short, then I would say: Out of all the various books I skimmed or redd by authors mentioned by Bukowski, none of them came closer to Buk's style than John Fante. Next in line, but not too close, would be Hemingway. After him, maybe Catullus.

Just my two cents. Not better or worse than anyone else's. Just spot on. And, come to think of it, much better than everyone else's. Yea...that's right. What are you gonna do about it? :cool:

 

[poptop]

Here's a quote lifted directly from John William Corrington concerning Bukowskis relase of 'It Catches My Heart in it's Hands': (his style is a ) 'language devoid of affection, devices, and mannerisms that have taken over academic verse.' (his style is) 'the spoken voice nailed to paper.'

-nicely put, I'd say........

Excellent.

 

[cirerita]

ok, bro', let's say you're right -of course, you ain't ;)- then why B would always say that the poem was writing him, that his fingers were typing the poems as if he were in a "trance" and not being conscious -not even stylistically- of the words being typed?

 

[poptop]

maybe I should re-type here my earlier question:

I'm not trying to define his style. What I've been wondering all along is: where does his style come from?

Dear Cirerita,

Please don't take any of the following discussion personally. I may joke around and be challenging on this newsgroup, but I'm here to get to know everyone and stay on good terms.

Variation #2

Answering such a standard literary question?which is what it is, and it can lead to false conclusions?is like trying to express the inexpressible or like trying to explain the sea to the fish who live in it. It cannot effectively be done, imo; only experienced.

It seems to me that you are trying to define his style by looking for some concrete reasons, methods or techniques you think are probably behind it (from "where does his style come from?"). You're looking for reasons behind his persona that he doesn't consciously have, imo. It wasn't a mask or persona; what you saw was essentially what you got. That is extremely rare among writers who last and why there are so few of them. (I consider Henry Miller and Anais Nin, her diaries, among them...but for me, Hemingway, no.)

His "style" comes from deliberately not having a style. It's not about incorporating any kind of an outside influence, but about avoiding them and allowing what's left to express itself naturally from deep within this wellspring of feeling, organically through the simple line, devoid of any extraneous pressure, influence or affectation.

This usually comes after reading a hell of a lot of other writers and finding out what you don't like about them, the literary tricks they're using, or what they're not saying that needs to be said. So you shed influences or find that you were never deeply influenced by them in the first place, in what I feel was the case with Mr. B.

What's then left over becomes yours?or is you?and the "style" is not consciously performed or prefabricated; instead it's the product of the natural creative act of self-discovery. It's pure expression without the conscious mind standing in the way and blocking the source of inspiration. His style was the absence of style?or so it seems to me?and this is why his writing "style" is unmistakably identifiable as his. But just try to do it and it ain't so easy! And yet, he was still able to express complex emotions and complex thoughts, but they were organic and they came naturally out of the feelings of the moment. He didn't shape what came to him by use of what writers normally view as a style; he just got out of the way of it and put it directly down on paper like the champ he was. This is what I meant by stating that his life and work met on an equal plane. That is hardly an ordinary accomplishment, and let's not reduce this man's stature by comparing him to how most writers consciously try to develop their style through imitation, literary slight-of-hand, and contrived personas that are not a true reflection of their outer life or inner emotions. It's possible you underestimate how profound it is for the inner and outer life of this man, or any man or woman, to come together in such powerful creative harmony. It's a miracle.

Sincerely, Poptop

 

[reasonknot]

style oh style

ask the water dripping from a faucet while
the phone rings

 

[cirerita]

dear poptop,

don't worry about joking, that's just fine. otherwise, this would be way tooo boring...

anyway, your explanation as to where his sytle comes from may be right or not -subjective stuff is hardly right or wrong anyway- but you're dead wrong as to my approach to this question. you probably have forgotten the very first post where I said these are the questions I made to all the people I interviewed in the US while doing my research into B.'s poetry. When you make a question you obviously are somehow pinpointing where you want to go, but you don't usually answer the question, do you? So when I'm asking where does B.'s style come from I'm NOT excluding how important is his persona or his being or his brain or his heart or his dick in the creation of the morning line. I'm not looking for reasons nor for techniques. You may think I'm looking for that, but that's not the case. I just want to hear you out on this issue, that's all. If you think there's no technique at all, fine. If you think there's no reason, fine. If you think there are a million reasons, fine as well. I was just making a question and saying what B said regarding his own style. As far as I know, I haven't said what I think about this, have I? ;)

anyway, just a final note. when you make a broad question such as "Where do you think B.'s style comes from?", you may get answers such as Brother's one: "It comes from Bukowski himself, you moron" ;) or you may get a lot of different answers: "his discipline," "his readings," "alcohol," "sex", "all that", "none of that," etc. but if you make very specific questions such as: "do you think B.'s style is the outcome of his readings", then you're narrowing everything down.

when I was in the US I learnt it's much better to make broad questions because people tend to ramble on and on, but you usually get a lot of interesting info. Specific questions are normally used for very specific situations. so there :D

 

[cirerita]

this might be a little bit biased ;)

style is the answer to everything --
a fresh way to approach a dull or a
dangerous thing.
to do a dull thing with style
is preferable to doing a dangerous thing
without it.

to do a dangerous thing with style
is what I call Art.

bullfighting can be an Art.
boxing can be an Art.
loving can be an Art.
opening a can of sardines can be an Art.

not many have style
not many can keep style

I have seen dogs with more style than men
although not many dogs have style,
cats have it with
abundance.

when Hemingway put his brains to the wall
with a shotgun
that was style.

or sometimes people give you style:
Joan of Arc had style
John the Baptist
Christ
Socrates
Caesar,
Garcia Lorca.

I've met men in jail with style
I've met more men in jail with style
than men out of jail.

style is the difference.
a way of doing,
a way of being done.

6 heron standing quietly in a pool of water
or you walking out of the bathroom naked
without seeing
me.

 

[Erik]

when I was in the US I learnt it's much better to make broad questions because people tend to ramble on and on, but you usually get a lot of interesting info. Specific questions are normally used for very specific situations. so there :D

Well you've certainly proved your point there - with the results of this thread, thats for sure! :)

My take: Bukowski's style comes from his intellectual strength. He was damn intelligent, and this allowed him to to harness an enormous amount of simmering anger, vulnerable sensitivity and acute awareness, channeling it away from madness and self destruction, and into something creative (with an occasional lapse into bitch-slapping etc.). Thats where his talent with the word comes in. All artists get their style from whatever blend of intelligence and sensitivity they have. They find a style (and an art form) that fits their own special blend. Bad poets have to much (or none) of one or the other - intelligence or sensitivity - or not enough talent with the word.

 

[mjp]

despite everything mjp
your words are quite ugly...

Pointing out that most poetry is unreadable tripe and derivative bullshit? I don't think I'm alone in that outlook. If it's an ugly outlook, well, reality is ugly sometimes. Try not to let it get you down, kid.

Trying to define what it was that made Bukowski unique is like trying to catch lightning in a bottle. It is what it is, and no one else did, or can do, the same thing. That makes it unique.

But you are unique too, just like the rest of us. We are all very unique and special.




No, I'm not drunk, I'm at work. But if work isn't the one place where you should be drunk, I don't know what is.

Or something.

Too many late nights lately. Need sleep. Carry on.

 

[Short Bus]

Well heres two more cents to the trough.
For me (and thats all that counts) I think the style comes from his speech pattern and his sense of timing. Many poems seem to have that "gotcha" line at the end. The type of quip you you hear at a bar from the guy at the end stool who shouldn't be listening to your conversation. Buk seemed to like, relish these "Gotcha wise guy moments whether it was in school at work or even on the page.
Heck I'm convinced that Pulp was written poorly by design. I'm convinced it was Buks final "gotcha". See I can put out drivel and you will soak this stuff up.

For me (still all that matters) I find Buk gotcha moments and Zen Aha moments produce the same epiphany. Heck I never thought about that, like that, before.

 

[Olaf]

Pointing out that most poetry is unreadable tripe and derivative bullshit? I don't think I'm alone in that outlook. If it's an ugly outlook, well, reality is ugly sometimes. Try not to let it get you down, kid.

Trying to define what it was that made Bukowski unique is like trying to catch lightning in a bottle. It is what it is, and no one else did, or can do, the same thing. That makes it unique.

But you are unique too, just like the rest of us. We are all very unique and special.




No, I'm not drunk, I'm at work. But if work isn't the one place where you should be drunk, I don't know what is.

Or something.

Too many late nights lately. Need sleep. Carry on.

Your words are ugly - this is nothing to do with poetry.

And I'm not your kid, Daddy!

----

Bukowski has such a down to earth feel
a tone at once close and yet harsh
wise and foolish and clear

----

i think a lot more people have STYLE
that Bukowski might ever concede
one staple mark of Bukowski
was that he always liked to disagree
at least in his writing-

a writer i know wrote this about bukowski
and many other well known folk,
it's a kind of mock response:

Charles Bukowski agrees in a rare moment?
It is a mixed blessing at best, to discover, after years of jaded, melancholic apathy, hedonistic sloth and opiate-driven escapism, that there are after all, many things of interest in this world from which one can derive lasting meaning and purpose.

 

[Brother Schenker]

Your words are ugly - this is nothing to do with poetry.

And I'm not your kid, Daddy!

Uh-oh....

 

[bright]

getting carried away here a little bit...


...
A rose is a rose is a rose.

 

[chronic]

Your words are ugly

There are no ugly words... just ugly people.

Bukowski has such a down to earth feel
a tone at once close and yet harsh
wise and foolish and clear

----

i think a lot more people have STYLE
that Bukowski might ever concede
one staple mark of Bukowski
was that he always liked to disagree
at least in his writing-
and blahblahblah

No offense, but the way you format your comments (as if they were poems[???]) smacks of pretense. When you're having a conversation in a pub do you find yourself suddenly breaking into prose?

But hey... at least you don't try to make it rhyme.

 

[Olaf]

No pretense, no poem...just some comment....

i'll shut up for now.
i'm making a fool of myself.

 

[bongobill]

i like your post format
it's easy to read
it has good flow
anybody thinking you're pretending
to be anyone other than yourself
is being silly


and i ain't no poet
nor do i pretend to be

 

[HenryChinaski]

He turns anything into something worthy of observation.

thats all there is to it.

 

[ALCIDE]

Didn't have the time to read all the posts but I am interested cause I will probably focus on this point in my scholar paper that I'm about to write about Buk, that is what do you find in Bukowski that you don't find at others? To me this is simple. A few years ago when a wino-pal of mine introduced Buk to me he told me "Dude, this guy makes OUR life interesting!!!" And indeed, Buk appealed to us because we felt a close bond between his literature and our own mortal existence, which was basically wino-ing at that time(and still is,in a way). In every Buk's story, there was a character, an event, or an absence of events that we really were experiencing anytime,anywhere.
So Buk wasn't our favorite writer, he was our damn favorite hero-buddy.

 

[Olaf]

It would be silly to forget that Bukowski wrote with a bit of tradition behind him, from Walt Whitman e.e. cummings, as he says he was 'of them'.

 

[slimedog]

I'd just to say that when I was a young, working class boy Bukowski seemed like he was writing for me. It was great to have someone writing how you felt or lived and many people who have no interest in literature or poetry can relate to him. My wife, who is 44 and grew up in Guatamala, and has a very different sensibilty than me just finished her first Bukowski book, "Post Office," she liked it which even surprised myself. She's now reading "South of No North" and is not interested in literature.

I'd say his biggest strength was his courage to be honest, to show himself in embarrassing or poor lights, and that kind of honesty is not plentiful in life. To be a young person and have your fill of the lies from parents, teachers, politicans, clergy to meet up with Bukowski can be a breathe of fresh air.

 

[the only good poet]

my theory is b's style is the outcome of his inability for sustained reflection. his achievement is in doing it "inspite of...,"

 

[jabble]

I read none of that. I'm too drunk. And I need to piss.

What makes Bukowski so unique is you keep it to yourself

 

[HenryChinaski]

jabble is a fucking dumbass. put him to bed for good mjp

 

[SamDusky]

I agree with the sentiment, but you have to give him (I'm assuming 'he'; if 'he's' a girl, I want to know) points for a no-style style.

SD

 

[Bobby D]

This is a good thread, congratulations. But I don't guess anyone here's gonna have the answer to where Buk's style comes from, how could we presume to know that, when Bukowski doesn't know himself...read the books, the interviews, watch the videos...the 'simplicity' we all talk about is really just a directness of language, clearness in thought and structure, but his subject matter covers the same 'complex' issues that have always been covered by every writer: love, life, death, beauty, hope, rejection, and on and on.

In Ham on Rye, Buk is already observing the world "differently" than most as a toddler...under the dinner table, intrigued by the legs of the table, legs of the people, the quality of the sunlight on the carpet, the voices...we've all had those kind of experiences, but not too many of us realize that there's not much more to life than this...this may be all there is, it may not be so grand, it may be full of unimagineable cruelty and hate, and the greatest moment of your life may be sitting under that table watching dust particles float in the light.

It is said there are only really three (interesting) themes in writing: man against man, man against nature and man against himself. If you want to enjoy Buk's 'simplicity' sit down and type 10 or 20 or 100 of his poems verbatim...you will come to see how differently he thinks than you do and realize that his style comes from the same place your style (or lack of style :-) ) comes from. He sees and describes the 'epic' struggles of life in the everyday...and that's right where most of us experience it...so we relate. Hemmingway, for example, will describe these exact same struggles in grand settings like battlefields and exotic foreign countries, in immense struggles against giant fish in vast oceans, etc...but most of us have seen/experienced more life and death in a spider web than on a safari...and Buk reminds us of this constantly.

My 2 cents worth...thanks for the forum...Bobby D

 

[reasonknot]

being prolific,like picasso
but,in the word
could qualify as a 'gift from god'
but also there ia a saying
'god helps those whom help themselves'
so there is his discipline

answer: 24 post later
BOTH

 

[poptop]

Thoughts and Ruminations

Bukowski was of no school of writing...if anything...he was the firts 'well known writer' (in hindsight) to make, 'everyday-writing' stand on its feet.

My own view is that Henry Miller, in Tropic of Cancer, was the one mostly likely to have made "everyday writing" truly stand alone?and he did this at least 30 years ahead of Bukowski; and this famous autobiographical novel could not be legally published in the US until 1961, though other influential works, such as excerpts from Black Spring, were able to get past the censors before then.

Hemingway, Miller, and Bukowski showed the atomic power the English language could have when released from the shackles of stultifying literary forms and the writing conventions in vogue at that time. Even though Bukowski never took to, nor appreciated, Miller's work, I feel that Miller indirectly paved the way for the acceptance of Bukowski's freedom of language from the legal standpoint, when potential consorship became a non-issue in the 1960s. (Such as using the "F" word and "C" word.) While Miller took language beyond its puritanical, tight-assed restrictions on sexual content, Bukowski further pushed the boundaries of language and imagery in such graphic stories as "The Fiend" and "The Murder of Ramon Vasquez." (The latter story is perhaps the darkest I've ever read, because Bukowski goes so far into the mind and brutality of the murderers.) So I give the nod to both of them, but with Miller paving the way.

But even before Miller, Hemingway was stripping language down to the bedrock and dumping the piling up of adjective upon adjective that had also been diluting the power of language.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter anymore now that society has been irrevocably changed, or has caught up, but I still find it an interesting situation to think about; Bukowski came along after Miller had pushed the boundaries of language to the point where anything goes. And Bukowski went. And how.

Here are three giants who forever changed the way writers wrote and spoke, and they made the reader feel capable of perhaps creating too. That was a great gift, for there was no longer the huge divide between the writer and his audience. Instead, rather than to contrive their stories through artifical literary contrivances, the three of them demystified language through directness and simplicity, and made it accessible to all. Just my take on it.

Poptop

 

[grayxray]

Bukfan you are wrong. There is no such thing as the common man. There is no such thing as average. We are all different. In the entire universe I bet there is only one of you. You are unique and nobody can ever make another of you. Buks brilliance is the he understood this very well and he had life experience to back it up.:)

In other words, "There is no average, there is only different"

 

[Bukfan]

When I say "the common man", I am of course generalizing. You know what I mean, The "ordinary" man as opposed to the "academics". It goes without saying that everybody is unique. - Even me :)

Buk quote:
"I'm a very common simple man. I do have genius, but with a very low common denominator. I'm simple, I'm not profound. My genius stems from an interest in whores, working men, streetcar drivers - lonely beaten-down people. And those are the people I'd like to see reading my stuff, and I don't want to see too many learned comments, too much criticism, or too much praise get between me and them"

from "Sunlight here I am", page 166.