Yes He Was A Beat Writer!

A Supermaket In California
Thanks, Penelope, for posting this... I found to my suprise, that I enjoyed it... brings Whitman forward to contemporary times, an immortal. Then, hmm..."what America did you have when Charon quit poling his ferry..." ... makes one wonder..."poling his ferry" indeed ... and Ginsberg uses the recurrence of Whitman's name as an effective unifying principle to hold it all nicely together...I give him credit for sitting down and writing this thing... I liked what he did here, the bastard... the feeling of the venerable and the new "”makes one feel.

....wasn't On the Road and Post Office written in a few weeks?....

I just happened to stumble across a note yesterday that Kerouac wrote his masterpiece on one long roll of I believe teletype paper, so he could keep the flow of it going without the paper changes, in three weeks"”about the same, as most readers know, that it took B. to polish off P.O. Despite it all, I also believe that Bukowski will continue to be lumped in with the Beats...for marketing reasons. My quess is that Bukowski probably outsells the authors of the Beat combined, and so those interested in the B. will be lured to Beat literature... and hair-splitting aside, I have no problem with that if it lures the reader to find out more about Kerouac and On the Road"”the man helped liberate America during the deadening 1950s, along with Elvis! I grew up during the 50s, and the "Leave It To Beaver" sickness in the culture was far worse than anyone can imagine who didn't pass through this surfacely sane, inwardly twisted time. Robert Crumb talks about these horrors well in "Crumb." Without MAD magazine as a teenager, I would have gone completely bonkers in L.A. Even then I caught on that nothing was as it appeared to be. . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You know, Poptop, I want to say that I heard he wrote it all at one time while high on like heroin or something so he didn't leave the typewriter, although that may just be urban legend.

EDIT: I also read somewhere (wish I could remember, maybe a foreword) that their writings were published something like 10 years after the actual incidents they described (which made the Beats seem like hippies considering their lifestyle and that people were becoming "free" about the same time that the books were published). That, if true, leads me to believe that they didn't do much for the 50s outside of themselves, but I wasn't nearly alive then so I'll defer to someone who did.
 
i have to add something to that, i've read that kerouac wrote and re-wrote 'on the road' a number of times over many years, though i also heard that he wrote it all in 'one sitting', high on alcohol amphetamine and coffein, ha ha. maybe he wrote in between and even when he was 'on the road', before getting it all down in those three weeks. dont know really
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Moderator
Founding member
Next year is the 50th anniversary of On The Road and they're publishing the original manuscript without edits. Real names and all the naughty bits will be left in.
 
"Whatever Happened To Kerouac?"

You know, Poptop, I want to say that I heard he wrote it all at one time while high on like heroin or something so he didn't leave the typewriter, although that may just be urban legend.

I remember reading (somewhere) that he'd do marathon writing sessions using stimulants of some kind, uppers and the like, and go on for hours, true of On The Road and consequently the use of teletype paper rolls, or whatever, to keep himself rolling on for hours upon hours. The results can great"”for awhile, and Kerouac got away with it for some time. But that can be bad for a writer. Henry Miller talked about the time he wrote 45 pages in one sitting and it just about killed him keeping his inspiration channel open for that long. After that, he learned his lesson and said that he never let himself get to the end of his energy reserves again, because it takes too long to replenish them. For some reason, I think Keroauc was unable to do that himself, and he ended up with only enough energy left to drink himself into oblivion. I'm not sure why, but I feel bad about that; that he might have had so much more to say once he got off the roller-coaster ride of inspiration where the inspiration is controlling you, instead of the other way around like Bukowski did it. Bukowski broke it down into parts and simply showed up every day, and was able to write from a fresh source. Only Pulp seemed to show signs of fatigue, but he was in ill-health, mostly.

EDIT: I also read somewhere (wish I could remember, maybe a foreword) that their writings were published something like 10 years after the actual incidents they described (which made the Beats seem like hippies considering their lifestyle and that people were becoming "free" about the same time that the books were published). That, if true, leads me to believe that they didn't do much for the 50s outside of themselves, but I wasn't nearly alive then so I'll defer to someone who did.

You may be right about the time of their experiences. If I remember correctly, the events happened in the late 40s. Then I believe On the Road was finally written in a three week period in 1952 and eventually published in 1957. Then all the fame came for Kerouac, the glamour boy!, such as reading from On The Road on the Steve Allen show, etc.; and then the writing of Dharma Bums, which is almost as good. Then after those two works I think he'd peaked and the rest of his life tapered off from there.

For those who are interested, check out the dvd, "What Ever Happened to Kerouac?" It's superb on Kerouac and the Beats, and you get to see K. on the William F. Buckley show discussing politics and the hippy movement. And of course it looked like Keroauc had had a few bar shots before going on the air.

I think I miss that that son-of-a-gun wasn't around longer"”a great writer, he was a sweet man with a gentle wisdom. Unfortunately, I believe that he thought he'd failed to get his point across in his writings, and that destroyed him. But not to me. OTR came at a perfect time in my early 20s, and it poptopped me opened, like a can opener, in a good way"”to the spirit of adventure, to the fabulous joyride of life, including women, sex, letting go, philosophy, spiritual exaltation... you name it. I'm grateful.

Poptop
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mjp

Founding member
the "Beats"

some keep trying to connect me with
the "Beats"
but I was almost unpublished in the
1950s
and
even then
I very much
distrusted their vanity and
all that
public posturing.

and when I met a few of them
later in life
I realized that most of my original
feelings for
them
hadn't
changed.

some of my friends accepted that;
others thought that I
should change my
opinion.

my opinion remains the
same: writing is done
one person
at a time
one place
at a time

and all the gatherings
of
the
flock
have very little
to do with
anything.

any one of them
could have made
a decent living as a
bill collector or a
used car
salesman

and they still
could
make an honest living
instead of bitching about
changes of fashion and
the ways of fate.

but instead
from the sad university
lecterns
and in the poetry halls
these hucksters of the
despoiled word

are still clamoring for
handouts,
still talking the same
dumb
shit.


Come On In! - 2006
 

number6horse

okyoutwopixiesoutyougo
I don't consider Bukowski a Beat, but when people question that assertion, I need a handy bullet-point style outline to set their asses straight.

I usually go with:

1) He used simple, declarative language. The Beats did not.

2) He didn't care about "bringing poetry to The People", as if that would cure society's ills. The Beats did.

3) He looked at life's ugliness, did not flinch, and maintained almost a journalist's neutrality. The Beats could really be a bunch of screaming drama queens sometimes.

Anyone have other points to add ? I have two parties and the Lollapalooza Fest to attend this week.
At some point during any or all three events, a drunken debate about arts/poetry is going to ensue.
And I know some "Buk-was-a-Beat" freak will try me. Gimme some ammo, please...
 
He wasn't pretentious or preachy.

But you may have covered that in your other bullet points.

One exception you might hear about is, and I'm paraphrasing here, is "So you want to be a writer." The average reader finds this extremely pretentious or perhaps, condescending. The difference being that Buk was legitimate in everything he wrote in that. To me, he earned everything he ever wrote.
 

number6horse

okyoutwopixiesoutyougo
OK - that's good. I could see some people claiming "pretentiousness" or something in isolated sections of his poems... gotta prepare for those
 

Gerard K H Love

Appreciate your friends
Ammo for a drunken debate about arts/poetry

1) He used simple, declarative language. The Beats did not.

2) He didn't care about "bringing poetry to The People", as if that would cure society's ills. The Beats did.

3) He looked at life's ugliness, did not flinch, and maintained almost a journalist's neutrality. The Beats could really be a bunch of screaming drama queens sometimes.

4) He wasn't pretentious or preachy.

*use these bullet points wisely and sparingly or risk sounding pretentious.
 
1) He used simple, declarative language. The Beats did not.

The Beats simplified and liberated poetry. Made it more accessible by freeing it from the claws of academia and the restraints of metre. (and just like Bukowski they were anti-academia).
I see it as a continuation in american poetry. The increasing use of everyday speech and language. Simplified: Whitman started it, Carlos Williams continued in the early 1900s, Ginsberg took it up again in the fifties and Bukowski finished it in the 1980s.

For that matter Bukowski still isn't a beat.
 
5) Te Beats felt compfy about clinging together and rubbing each others balls. Bukowski was a loner by nature.
 
I think you could find a poem that shares Beat sensibilities, but an isolated incident does not a Beat make.
Like that time I wore lipstick. One time. I swear.
I kid, I wear lipstick all the time.
But back to the point, and away from the bad humour, Buk maybe sounded like a Beat on occassion (parts of Howl could've been written by him, I swear) he was not.
As far as the Beat Generation goes, there were only a few true Beats, anyway. Kerouac, Ginsberg, Neal Cassady, and a couple others I can't think of right now. The truest Beats probably never wrote a fucking thing. If the rest only followed their lead. The rest were sycophants and opportunists and posers. The same as any movement.

And there you have it.

The Beats weren't so much a writting style as they were a cultural movement. As with any cultural movement one could simple dissociate themselves from it. If you were a rock band during the 90's you could have easily been labeled Grunge. But Grunge was a movement rather than anything new in music. What is Grunge? Punk meets hard rock. Nothing new, just a movement by folks (like so many before them) who believed they were onto something groundbreaking. We're special and are going to reject conventional behavior, norms and change the world. Fuck, how many times have we heard that? Buk was none of that. He was your average joe who enjoyed a beer and loved to write.

Buk said it himself, he wasn't Beat. Thus the definitive mouth on the matter has spoken. End of.

Just because a couple of pointy headed college professors claim he was doesn't mean a god damn thing. If I took as truth everything my professor told me I'd either be outside a local methadone clinic ranting about the social injustice of waiting in line for drugs or taking out a loan to open up a pig farm outside of Mecca. Most professors live in a perpetual world of absolution. As someone already stated in this thread, they absolutely love to label and put things in a box. It helps them sleep (whilst dreaming of tenure) at night.
 

jordan

lothario speedwagon
this will be an insufferably long post, so just skip it if you don't feel like devoting 5-10 minutes to my thoughts on this issue...

i didn't reread the entire thread, so maybe i've said this before... but i think that the question of whether or not bukowski was a beat is interesting, beyond the "no" answer that seems pretty clear. in my opinion, english language literature wasn't truly democratized until the beats started writing. what i mean by this is that all of the literary movements in english/american literature before the beat generation still trafficked in stilted, metaphorical, and often abstract language. if you look at modernism in french literature - especially celine - the subjectivity that is basically modernism's hallmark resulted in language that was brought down to the level of the individuals who actually spoke it. zola's naturalism started this trend by including "actual speech" in his novels, and celine blew the doors off the literary establishment by writing an entire book (and then an entire series of books) written exclusively in conversational language, with no literary pretensions whatsoever. other french modernists, like andre gide, didn't do this so much with language, but in their attempts to look at the everday workings of society as a whole (rather than just the outsized romantic flailings that you see documented in books by balzac, flaubert, etc), these authors brought the idea of the "literary" down to the level of the commoner - "the counterfeiters" by gide is a great example of this. but, when you look at modernism in english language literature, you don't see the same thing - you see people wrestling with literary and classical tropes in tortured, mind-bending language. joyce's ulysses is the opposite of gide's counterfeiters, since it takes the everyday struggle of its everyday protagonist and raises it up to the level of the archetypical hero - thus bloom becomes the 'modern' hero, casting his influence over the literary landscape for half a century or more. it peppers in scatology, sex, popular discourse, and stream of consciousness (that hallmark of beat writing), but in a way that no one but the most patient can actually sit down and read. continuing on with other modernists like ts eliot and ezra pound, you get to a point where it's borderline unreadable unless you're intimately familiar with the classical source material that they are playing off of. and then, as a final nail in the coffin, you see the excessive subjectivity of modernism create a real anxiety among many of the high modernists (pound and eliot, primarily), to the point that they start defending fascism or other extreme right-wing ideologies in order to create some order over the literary tropes ("the individual," "the hero," etc.) that they have spent so many years subjectivizing.

so, while the french modernism wrested literature from the academy in both language and content (and of course i'm limiting myself to the mainstream literary modernism, and not related movements like surrealism), english-language modernism did the opposite, trying to solidify literature's relation to the academy - either by reinterpreting classical ideas, or by absorbing non-literary ideas into its sphere. while there are examples of english language literature that shrugged off academic pretension pre-beat generation (most notably henry miller's work), the romantic, spiritual flourishes in miller's work are exactly why later writers like bukowski did not consider themselves of the same school as miller. so then the beat generation comes along, riding keroac's insufferable stream of consciousness train, and at long last there is an american literary movement that is expressly subjective, relatable, and not tethered to anything currently in vogue in the literary establishment. this democratizing force is - for many people within the literary establishment - what distinguishes the beat generation. it's not just the subject matter, but also the physical idea that literature is so mutable (for example, the cutups of bryon gysin and william s burroughs) - it's not something to be slaved over for 7 years like ulysses or something that should consume one's entire life, like pound's cantos - it can be spewed out of a typewriter while on a drinking binge on a single scroll, or cut up and reassembled by different people (a la naked lunch) - OR, as we mosey back toward Bukowski, written by a drunk moving from roominghouse to roominghouse. so, even though bukowski's aims were so antithetical to others in the beat generation, it's also not as if the beat generation produced one homogenous body of work, either (it's three flagship texts - on the road, naked lunch, and howl - are all pretty different from each other). so if you look at the beat generation as the midcentury movement that de-academified literature, bukowski does seem to fit hand-in-glove, even if he was older than the rest of them, and even if he didn't participate one iota in their self-congratulatory bullshit or their buddhism (except, i suppose, at the request of linda, although that's not really related at all to the beats).

so, it more depends on how you see the beat generation than how you see bukowski. celine always said he wasn't a writer, that he was a doctor. but we know him as a writer. bukowski said he wasn't a beat, and i personally don't see him as one, because - to me - calling someone a beat implies a social relationship and engagement that bukowski wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. but, saying that he was part of the beat generation because he represented a style of writing - and also an attitude about writing - that the beats certainly helped usher in is not wildly off base.

thanks for reading,
poptop
 

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
Thanks, poptop! Glad to see you back. - Seriously, you made some valid points, Jordan!
 
Some excellent thoughts on this thread. I've come to Bukowski recently as a fan of the Beats. From the perspective of readers, I think there is quite a bit of common ground i.e. people who like Kerouac will usually like Bukowski. Maybe it's less going the other way.

But I never considered Bukowski a beat writer. There is a difference in the underlying assumptions or life philosophy. Kerouac et al wanted to touch heaven, and become angel headed hipsters. Buddhism and a quasi-hippie peaceful engagement with the world is a strong thread through a lot of beat writing, except Burroughs. You don't see this attitude at all in Bukowski.

Bukowski acknowledged the egoistic side to the human spirit even when he would write touchingly about loss or love. As I read them, the Beats wanted to transcend the mundane and the everyday. Ginsberg wrote about everything being holy. Very pantheistic, very spiritual, as a forerunner to the sixties hippie movement. Bukowski might have agreed with it at some intellectual level but I doubt he ever would have written about it. It just wasn't interesting to him. What was interesting was the human struggle to find love and happiness in a hostile world that made those rewards so rare and therefore so special.

Feel free to correct my sense of Buk's work -- I only know a tiny slice of it so far. Is there a set of spiritual or religious assumptions behind Bukowski's work? I know he was raised Catholic but I don't think he took it very seriously.
 
I came to Buk's work through Kerouac. As much as I liked Jack's stuff, he was too far up in the clouds. Bukowski reminded me there were still boots trudging through the best and worst life has to offer. I still read Jack occasionally, but Buk is who resonates the most with me.
 
At least I can say now, that THIS book

duvalbukowskibeats2.jpg


has some nice picture of Bukowski.



And I know this, because I've just gotten it and it will be available in the bukowski-shop next week and I'm not feeling bad at all to advertise this shameless.
 
At no time did Charles Bukowski consider himself a "Beat."

to solve this mystery, I've added this scientific article from JULIE LEWIS about whether Buk was a Beat or not. it's from page 30 of "Encyclopedia of Beat Literature", edited by Kurt Hemmer, Facts On File, Inc. 2007, 132 West 31st Street, New York, NY 10001 ISBN 0-8160-4297-7

Bukowski, Charles (1920-1994)
At no time did Charles Bukowski consider himself a "Beat." Even though he shared publications, readings, and the occasional social gathering with prominent Beat figures, he set himself apart from his literary contemporaries. As he told the editor of Paris Metro in 1978, "I'm not interested in this bohemian, Greenwich Village, Parisian bullshit. Algiers, Tangier, that's all romantic claptrap."

Yet we can still find parallels between his work and that of jack kerouac and allen ginsberg in their use of autobiographical fiction as a tool for exposing and examining reality. They differ in that Bukowski's view of reality can seem bleak and dark next to the optimistic Kerouac's. While the Beats were communal and spiritual (often embracing Eastern religions and philosophies), Bukowski was solitary and, at times, aspiritual. While many Beats embraced illegal drug use, Bukowski denounced it, preferring alcohol. Yet the Beats seemed to be often on Bukowski's mind in his writings. He was aware that they had achieved a literary fame that he felt he rightly deserved. Yet, in the end, Bukowski is arguably even more popular than some of his Beat peers.

Born Heinrich Karl Bukowski on August 16, 1920, in Andernach, Germany, Bukowski's parents later changed his name to Henry Bukowski when they moved to Los Angeles, California. Aside from a few jaunts out East, Los Angeles was where Bukowski lived most of his life and the place that became the setting for much of his work. His childhood was extremely unpleasant, ranging from violent beatings administered by his father to painful and ugly boils that developed on his face and left lifelong scars. These events served as material for his fourth book, Ham on Rye (1982), which chronicles his youth. Direct and vivid scenes describe trips to the hospital where young Bukowski endured needles injected into his boils to draw the pus from them. This scarring, along with his prominent nose and paunch belly, assembled to create a rather unattractive man. The awkward, self-conscious Bukowski found a blissful escape in alcohol that remained a constant companion to him for almost the rest of his life.

John Martin began Black Sparrow Press to publish Bukowski in the 1960s, and Black Sparrow can be called the house that Bukowski built (the press also published many Beat authors). In the December 1976 issue of Hustler, Bukowski stated that 93 percent of what he wrote was autobiographical.

Much of his poetry and short stories deal with the monotony of everyday life, excessive drinking, playing the horses, and sexually charged (although at times clumsy) encounters with women. Throughout the drudgery he imbues his stories with humor and sharp insights into human interactions.

His first novel, Post Office (1971), tells the story of Henry Chinaski, who (like Bukowski) spent 12 years working for the post office. His prose style is like his poetry in that it is sparse and powerful, the humor cynical and smart. In Women (1978), Bukowski lightly fictionalizes his numerous love affairs, from young female fans who would send him pictures and fly out to meet him to his turbulent relationship with the sculptress Linda King ("Lydia"). After having lost his virginity late in life and only having sex sporadically until the age of 50, Bukowski took advantage of his small celebrity status and the opportunities it afforded him to meet women. These real-life romances (filled with heated drama more often than not) provided wonderful material for his work. To pay the bills, Bukowski wrote pornographic stories for adult magazines and provocative pieces for the independent paper Open City and later the LA Times. These stories were collected and published by Essex House as Notes of a Dirty Old Man, which was reissued by lawrence ferlinghetti's City Lights Books. It contains Bukowski's account of meeting neal cassady and the classic hair-raising car ride with Cassady behind the wheel just a few weeks before Cassady died in Mexico. Notes of a Dirty Old Man was not the only collection of short stories to be published by City Lights. In 1972 they published erections, ejaculations and general tales of ordinary madness. Being a large book, it was later reissued in 1983 as two shorter collections, Tales of Ordinary Madness and The Most Beautiful Woman in Town.

In addition to his connection to City Lights, Bukowski's poems appear alongside two Beat authors, harold norse and Philip Lamantia in Penguin Modern Poets"”13 (1969). It was at Harold Norse's request that Bukowski be included in the anthology. The two of them developed a friendship. Other Beat encounters include a benefit poetry reading where he appeared with Allen Ginsberg, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, and gary snyder. That evening, as he had done many times in the past, Bukowski drank himself into a belligerent state and insulted Ginsberg, claiming that he had not written anything "worth a shit" after "howl" and "kaddish." It was typical drunken Bukowski behavior as insecurity and too much booze combined as a catalyst for lashing out at others. He became notorious for insulting the audience at his poetry readings. Of course, his reputation of volatility enticed fans as they waited in long lines to see the "drunk Bukowski show."

The climax of his popularity came when the film Barfly was released. Bukowski wrote that the screenplay that was based on his life and work. Directed by Barbet Schroeder, and starring Mickey Rourke and Faye Dunaway, Barfly was only a moderate success, but it remains what mainstream America knows best about Bukowski. The making of the film served as material for Bukowski's fifth novel, Hollywood (1989). This book takes a funny, critical look at the entertainment industry from the blue collar, outsider- turned-insider perspective. Charles Bukowski died on March 9, 1994, after a prolonged battle with cancer. Bukowski biographer Howard Sounes wrote of his body of work, "there is an uncompromising personal philosophy running through: a rejection of drudgery and imposed rules, of mendacity and pretentiousness; an acceptance that human lives are often wretched and that people are frequently cruel to one another, but that life can also be beautiful, sexy, and funny." Factotum, a movie based on Bukowski's novel, directed by Brent Hamer and starring Matt Dillon, was released in 2005.

Bibliography
Brewer, Gay. Charles Bukowski. New York: Twayne, 1997.
Cherkovski, Neeli. Hank. New York: Random House, 1991.
Duval, Jean-Francois. Bukowski and the Beats. Northville,
Mich.: Sun Dog Press, 2002.
Harrison, Russell. Against the American Dream: Essays on
Charles Bukowski. Santa Rosa, Calif.: Black Sparrow Press, 1994.
Sounes, Howard. Locked in the Arms of a Crazy Life.
New York: Grove Press, 1998.
 
Bukowski reminded me there were still boots trudging through the best and worst life has to offer.

well said. the beats to me were caught up in the automobile and the microphone - movin fast and/or politickin. bukowski wasn't doing either. he moved around some for a while there for sure but his writing had a slowness to it that i never picked up on in the beats. very big difference. could be related to his listening more to orchestral music, and less to jazz? someone mentioned that the beats were jazzy. music we listen to probably does seem into our art i would say. and i don't think these debates are merely academic because they impact the whole way the people engage and share the work!

that said, people around here know lots more than me about both bukowski and lit history so just my 2 cents.

peace,
mike
 
Top