4 ms·

honestly this is such a bad take and it really annoys me. it's okay if it doesn't come easily! some of the best works of art took ages to conceptualize and real

by acdw 4y ago

honestly this is such a bad take and it really annoys me. it's okay if it doesn't come easily! some of the best works of art took ages to conceptualize and realize, and the fact bukowski thinks that's antithesis to art shows in his sloppy and unconsidered writing.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 4y ago
>the fact bukowski thinks that's antithesis to art shows in his sloppy and unconsidered writing. Sloppy and unconsidered is the whole point. The same way a punk song (1977-era not Green Day era) is not meant to sound like a classical concerto.
- j0hnyl 4y ago
  Funny, I don't find his writing sloppy and unconsidered at all. His sense of style is so clearly defined, that I think I can come across a poem or story of his that I hadn't read before and recognize it as his work.
  - acdw 4y ago
    Maybe I should read more Bukowski. Have you any recommendations?
    - j0hnyl 4y ago
      I think a good introduction to his prose is Post Office, it's an easy read. If you like that, then you can move on to his other novels like Ham On Rye, which feels more real and dark, especially when he talks about his childhood. My favorite poetry collection is "Burning in water, drowning in flame", but most of the poems are thematically and stylistically aligned. He also wrote a ton of short stories, mostly dark and crass. They are all quite short, so literally take your pick with those. I like the novels above the other stuff personally.
      - acdw 4y ago
        thank you!
- acdw 4y ago
  I mean there is no art there. There is art, there is angst, in OG punk songs, and the music helps. There is no art in Bukowski's poems. His line breaks are all over the place, he's cynical and bitter, and ... that's it. That's all there is to his writing. There's no nuance, no feeling, no nothing. At least punk songs have some kind of emotional resonance, or at the very least a good hook, you know? I guess what I'm saying is that every Bukowski poem I've read reads like one I wrote in seventh grade.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >I mean there is no art there. There is art, there is angst, in OG punk songs, and the music helps. There is no art in Bukowski's poems. To quote art critic J. Lebowski, that is, like, your opinion, man. Both laymen and a number of literature figures and literary critics have appraised Bukowski's work. So there's that, it's not like it's some guilty pleasure or something only undiscerning crude fans appreciate... >At least punk songs have some kind of emotional resonance, or at the very least a good hook, you know? There's all kinds of emotional resonance in Bukowski's work. And I'm not great fan of him either, in fact don't even have a single book (while I have of tons of others poets of the era). Just a random pick: the flesh covers the bone and they put a mind in there and sometimes a soul, and the women break vases against the walls and the men drink too much and nobody finds the one but keep looking crawling in and out of beds. flesh covers the bone and the flesh searches for more than flesh >I guess what I'm saying is that every Bukowski poem I've read reads like one I wrote in seventh grade. Then you either overestimate your sevent grade poems, or you wrote great poems in sevent grade and should have done something with them... But, I think the more plausible idea, is that you have a different sensibility and find them beneath you, but more from a moral and/or formulaic judgement and a prejudice about how a proper poem should be... To make an easy analogy, that could be the same way a "rawk" fan can't understand electronic music, and thinks it's all rubbish, even it's Aphex Twin and not Skrillex.
    - acdw 4y ago
      okay ya got me! i've read one posthumous book by bukowski and heard that one modest mouse song ... i should obviously read more because the random pick you gave is, indeed, pretty good. thanks for changing my mind :)

by acdw 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

coldtea 4y ago

>the fact bukowski thinks that's antithesis to art shows in his sloppy and unconsidered writing. Sloppy and unconsidered is the whole point. The same way a punk song (1977-era not Green Day era) is not meant to sound like a classical concerto.

j0hnyl 4y ago
Funny, I don't find his writing sloppy and unconsidered at all. His sense of style is so clearly defined, that I think I can come across a poem or story of his that I hadn't read before and recognize it as his work.
- acdw 4y ago
  Maybe I should read more Bukowski. Have you any recommendations?
  - j0hnyl 4y ago
    I think a good introduction to his prose is Post Office, it's an easy read. If you like that, then you can move on to his other novels like Ham On Rye, which feels more real and dark, especially when he talks about his childhood. My favorite poetry collection is "Burning in water, drowning in flame", but most of the poems are thematically and stylistically aligned. He also wrote a ton of short stories, mostly dark and crass. They are all quite short, so literally take your pick with those. I like the novels above the other stuff personally.
    - acdw 4y ago
      thank you!
acdw 4y ago
I mean there is no art there. There is art, there is angst, in OG punk songs, and the music helps. There is no art in Bukowski's poems. His line breaks are all over the place, he's cynical and bitter, and ... that's it. That's all there is to his writing. There's no nuance, no feeling, no nothing. At least punk songs have some kind of emotional resonance, or at the very least a good hook, you know? I guess what I'm saying is that every Bukowski poem I've read reads like one I wrote in seventh grade.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >I mean there is no art there. There is art, there is angst, in OG punk songs, and the music helps. There is no art in Bukowski's poems. To quote art critic J. Lebowski, that is, like, your opinion, man. Both laymen and a number of literature figures and literary critics have appraised Bukowski's work. So there's that, it's not like it's some guilty pleasure or something only undiscerning crude fans appreciate... >At least punk songs have some kind of emotional resonance, or at the very least a good hook, you know? There's all kinds of emotional resonance in Bukowski's work. And I'm not great fan of him either, in fact don't even have a single book (while I have of tons of others poets of the era). Just a random pick: the flesh covers the bone and they put a mind in there and sometimes a soul, and the women break vases against the walls and the men drink too much and nobody finds the one but keep looking crawling in and out of beds. flesh covers the bone and the flesh searches for more than flesh >I guess what I'm saying is that every Bukowski poem I've read reads like one I wrote in seventh grade. Then you either overestimate your sevent grade poems, or you wrote great poems in sevent grade and should have done something with them... But, I think the more plausible idea, is that you have a different sensibility and find them beneath you, but more from a moral and/or formulaic judgement and a prejudice about how a proper poem should be... To make an easy analogy, that could be the same way a "rawk" fan can't understand electronic music, and thinks it's all rubbish, even it's Aphex Twin and not Skrillex.
  - acdw 4y ago
    okay ya got me! i've read one posthumous book by bukowski and heard that one modest mouse song ... i should obviously read more because the random pick you gave is, indeed, pretty good. thanks for changing my mind :)