7 ms·

You don't get it, do you? This asswipe, Martin. He fucked up Bukowski's poems. With his mincing, middle-class stink. Oh, it's not a dirty poem anymore, it's a

You don't get it, do you? This asswipe, Martin. He fucked up Bukowski's poems. With his mincing, middle-class stink. Oh, it's not a dirty poem anymore, it's a vulgar one. By the time he's done, it sounds like Bukowski went to Vassar. Now you? You're going to mince around like this too? But Michael Phillips -- he respects Bukowski. He knows how to write. He uses the right goddamn word in the right goddamn place. Like: "castrating". Because Martin took the balls from his poems. "shitty". Because he shat all over them. "unmolested". Because it's like he diddles kids. That's the same thing you're doing. You're trying to castrate Phillips. And you know what that is? Rape.

FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
To be honest though, while I don't like what Martin did to the poems, and while he should never have taken those liberties with them, I sort of get what he was trying to do with the example Phillips gave. By changing "ancient" to "medieval" and "dirty" to "vulgar", he's trying to invoke the switch from Church Latin to the vulgate. I mean, there's the organ music in the background, the red wine like the blood of Christ. And then he's saying, "Look at Charles Bukowski, he writes in the language of the common people". He then reinforces "no vulgarity" later. An addition about "clean[ing] up my act" is also there, to go with the "cleaning the shit stains" (now also explicitly "cleaning"). Which is about devulgarifying the poems. To go along with all this he makes the poem about why he writes "like" that, not just "why he writes". To make clear that it's about why the poems are vulgar specifically, not why the poems exist at all. And then he emphasizes that Bukowski is pleased with the result (he puts "pleased" in twice). So there's a logic to it. It's a little pedantic and a little pretentious. And it changes the meaning of the poem. And it does some of the very devulgarification it's talking about. But it's not totally dumb.
djmips 5y ago
Give me a break. Can't he have an opinion? I guess you're raping the OP.
ambrozk 5y ago
But what about all the ghosts who're reading this who might have also been victims of tragic sexual abuse?

FooBarBizBazz 5y ago

To be honest though, while I don't like what Martin did to the poems, and while he should never have taken those liberties with them, I sort of get what he was trying to do with the example Phillips gave. By changing "ancient" to "medieval" and "dirty" to "vulgar", he's trying to invoke the switch from Church Latin to the vulgate. I mean, there's the organ music in the background, the red wine like the blood of Christ. And then he's saying, "Look at Charles Bukowski, he writes in the language of the common people". He then reinforces "no vulgarity" later. An addition about "clean[ing] up my act" is also there, to go with the "cleaning the shit stains" (now also explicitly "cleaning"). Which is about devulgarifying the poems. To go along with all this he makes the poem about why he writes "like" that, not just "why he writes". To make clear that it's about why the poems are vulgar specifically, not why the poems exist at all. And then he emphasizes that Bukowski is pleased with the result (he puts "pleased" in twice). So there's a logic to it. It's a little pedantic and a little pretentious. And it changes the meaning of the poem. And it does some of the very devulgarification it's talking about. But it's not totally dumb.

djmips 5y ago

Give me a break. Can't he have an opinion? I guess you're raping the OP.

ambrozk 5y ago

But what about all the ghosts who're reading this who might have also been victims of tragic sexual abuse?