Father Luke
Founding member
Younger Bukowski vs. Older Bukowski
- Thread starter vodka
- Start date
Hell yes, mjp, read Pulp again. I was nearly reviled by it back in '94, having read Ham on Rye just a year or two before, but it really does grow on you. It's got that same sardonic humor you find elsewhere, just delivered in a different way.
Truly, Buk knew that he was dying when writing this. It comes across in a very strange way though. Keep that in mind, and read it again. Look at it in a fresh way. Methinks you won't be disappointed.
Truly, Buk knew that he was dying when writing this. It comes across in a very strange way though. Keep that in mind, and read it again. Look at it in a fresh way. Methinks you won't be disappointed.
Pulp was written in the spirit of a cheesy Mickey Spillane, only with a horny Buk touch. But, there are layers there. I wouldn't say that it's bad though; those were your words. Just different. At the end of the day, it ranks up there.
Petey
RIP
Totally agree with that - it is a great novel with many many funny dialogues!
Father Luke
Founding member
I like my vodka chilled.
Let me know what you think of Pulp, if you read it.
It's among the last things he ever wrote. . . ;)
i Love 'Pulp'.
for all the reasons mentioned here:
how the near death shows up in it, not only in the persona of Lady Death, but in the general mood of the whole thing.
the funny dialogues ("Nick, what is that big thing sticking out there as you talk to me?" - "oh, that! That's my gut!") and situations ("sorry baby, but I seem to get into these negative dialogues with almost every bartender I meet.") are hillarious. and his phrasing ("I found myself back at my apartment.").
the reason, why a lot of people don't like it is, it's not a Chinaski-novel, not autobiographic (Not?) and has lots of very fictional stuff in it (the aliens). but its dramaturgy is very elaborated in the best sense. and i like his sense of namedropping.
and what novelist Ever had the guts to write a chapter like no 10 in 'Pulp'?
and how he finds just the right words to descripe the 'tristesse'! ("the rain had stopped but the pain was still there. Also, there was now a chill in the air and everything smelled like wet farts.")
for all the reasons mentioned here:
how the near death shows up in it, not only in the persona of Lady Death, but in the general mood of the whole thing.
the funny dialogues ("Nick, what is that big thing sticking out there as you talk to me?" - "oh, that! That's my gut!") and situations ("sorry baby, but I seem to get into these negative dialogues with almost every bartender I meet.") are hillarious. and his phrasing ("I found myself back at my apartment.").
the reason, why a lot of people don't like it is, it's not a Chinaski-novel, not autobiographic (Not?) and has lots of very fictional stuff in it (the aliens). but its dramaturgy is very elaborated in the best sense. and i like his sense of namedropping.
and what novelist Ever had the guts to write a chapter like no 10 in 'Pulp'?
and how he finds just the right words to descripe the 'tristesse'! ("the rain had stopped but the pain was still there. Also, there was now a chill in the air and everything smelled like wet farts.")
This is an interesting issue. Many people prefer an artist's early work because it is "uncontaminated" by success. Although that might be actually accurate, it also smacks of snobbery. What do you think?
Bukowski was not the first writer to be greeted in this manner:"I'm a great fan of yours but I kind of prefer your early work...."
Bukowski was not the first writer to be greeted in this manner:"I'm a great fan of yours but I kind of prefer your early work...."
sure, in some way, his later work Was 'contaminated' by success, but I'd go with him, when he stated:
his success came so late in life, that he was immune to the problems, this can bring to an artist.
I think I can recall at least 5 or 8 passages in later interviews or poems or novels, where he states, that some former fans try to claim, he's writing shit now, but he refuses to give in to them and still has the Will to write, what HE thinks is necessary at the moment and (something like) 'these suckers will have to judge me by the quality of my work, as always'.
-- and I think it is a wonderful example of courage to start writing (e.g.) about his now different living-conditions from the late 70s on, even if it may sound unpopular to older fans, who only see the IMAGE but not the MAN.
He could have gone on writing stuff, he knows, the crowd admires. (Like, in painting, Magritte has done.) But he refused to.
I LOVE his earlier poems (say till 'Mockingbird') a LOT, and I dislike a lot about some older poems. But I'll always lift my head in front of him for having the guts, to be NOT 'contaminated by success' - ever.
(aaah, sorry: that was more than 2 cent. but since the currency is fading ...)
cirerita
Founding member
Well, I just a read a 1962 review of Longshot Pomes... -in the National Guardian- and the poems are qualified as "anti-lyrical" and "story-poems".
In a 1963 review of Run With the Hunted -in the Literary Times- the poems are seen as "prosey" and "straightforward".
So much for the early material as being lyrical, surreal, obscure, blah blah blah
In a 1963 review of Run With the Hunted -in the Literary Times- the poems are seen as "prosey" and "straightforward".
So much for the early material as being lyrical, surreal, obscure, blah blah blah
vodka
Miss Take
alright. okay. so i got this book back i loaned to gigi. and i remember we were debating on here whether anything was held for posthumous publication.
the one i am looking at is titled 'New Poems Book 1'. published in 2003 by Virgin Books.
in the page just before the table of contents it reads, 'These poems are part of an archive of unpublished work that Charles Bukowski left to be published after his death.'
the back page reads, 'Charles Bukowski was one of America's best-known writers and one of its most influential and imitated poets. Although he published over 45 books of poetry, hundreds of his poems were kept by him and his publisher for posthumous publication. This is the first collection of these unique poems, which Bukowski considered to be among his best work.'
so yah, mjp you may know something i don't about this. but apparently some poems were held back by both him and his publisher.
Father Luke, excellent use of emoticon up there.
how about you read Pulp aloud to me and then we'll discuss it together.
the one i am looking at is titled 'New Poems Book 1'. published in 2003 by Virgin Books.
in the page just before the table of contents it reads, 'These poems are part of an archive of unpublished work that Charles Bukowski left to be published after his death.'
the back page reads, 'Charles Bukowski was one of America's best-known writers and one of its most influential and imitated poets. Although he published over 45 books of poetry, hundreds of his poems were kept by him and his publisher for posthumous publication. This is the first collection of these unique poems, which Bukowski considered to be among his best work.'
so yah, mjp you may know something i don't about this. but apparently some poems were held back by both him and his publisher.
Father Luke said:
Father Luke, excellent use of emoticon up there.
how about you read Pulp aloud to me and then we'll discuss it together.
mjp
Founding member
Well, it's not me saying it, it was Bukowski's practice. He sent everything to Martin, and he did not mark, notate, stipulate or otherwise "set aside" anything specifically for posthumous release. If Bukowski had his way a new book would have come out every 6 months and there would have been no posthumous collections.
You can choose to believe that or you can believe some copy writer at Virgin who probably reads one Danielle Steel novel a year (when she's "on holiday" on some freezing cold, rocky, god-forsaken, windswept British "beach").
People who perpetuate this myth are asking you to believe that Bukowski purposely withheld from publication some of his best work and stipulated that it only be widely disseminated after he was dead.
Does that really make any sense?
You can choose to believe that or you can believe some copy writer at Virgin who probably reads one Danielle Steel novel a year (when she's "on holiday" on some freezing cold, rocky, god-forsaken, windswept British "beach").
People who perpetuate this myth are asking you to believe that Bukowski purposely withheld from publication some of his best work and stipulated that it only be widely disseminated after he was dead.
Does that really make any sense?
vodka
Miss Take
well your post is why i directed that toward you, mjp. i figured if anyone here would know it would be you.
all i'm going by is what it said there. i could not claim to know if it's true or not.
is that legal though? to say something like that when it's not true? couldn't virgin get the fuck sued out of them?
all i'm going by is what it said there. i could not claim to know if it's true or not.
is that legal though? to say something like that when it's not true? couldn't virgin get the fuck sued out of them?
Gerard K H Love
Appreciate your friends
Why?
Is it me or was your avatar smiling a little more earlier?
Is it showing how you really feel?
Is it me or was your avatar smiling a little more earlier?
Is it showing how you really feel?
Gerard K H Love
Appreciate your friends
Yeah, but we got the time. I'm drinking vodka with orange juice.
:):):cool:
:):):cool:
And I'm drinking rain and wine. :D
I don't have Book 1, but I have Book 2 and Book 3. Book 2 is taken from Sifting Throught the Madness... and Book 3 is from The Flash of Lightning.... Both Virgin books include the same text that you quote here. And both BSP books I've mentioned include the same text.
Now, I would interpret the statement as follows:
'These poems are part of an archive of unpublished work that Charles Bukowski left behind and we are publishing them after his death.'
In other words, Buk probably once said something like this to John Martin: "Hey John, all the crap you don't like, you can publish after I'm dead. There should be a few bucks in that."
Although people have argued otherwise, it may be possible that Buk earmarked them for posthumous publication, but there hasn't been any hand-written evidence of this to my knowledge.
Father Luke
Founding member