December 7th, 2008 / 5:08 pm
Random
Justin Taylor
Random
Ounce of Pound: Special Sunday Edition
Do you in any way distinguish between writers whom you ‘like’ and those whom you ‘respect’?
Why, and how?
– ABC of Reading, p. 81
The ones I respect have penises. The ones I like have vaginas.
The ones I respect have penises. The ones I like have vaginas.
i just finished part i in abc of reading and was thinking about this question too.
to ask the dunce questions:
what does like mean?
what does respect mean?
i just finished part i in abc of reading and was thinking about this question too.
to ask the dunce questions:
what does like mean?
what does respect mean?
I think respect is defined as appreciation of certain aspects of a writer’s abilities.
i think like is defined as enjoyment.
I like bukowski but do not respect his work.
i respect e.e. cummings but do not like his work.
I think respect is defined as appreciation of certain aspects of a writer’s abilities.
i think like is defined as enjoyment.
I like bukowski but do not respect his work.
i respect e.e. cummings but do not like his work.
it’s like i respect what james wood calls the shaker school of fiction like kent haruf and lee martin but they’re boring as shit and i can’t take reading them for very long.
but goddamn do i like reading the people kent haruf and lee martin would disallow from literature if they could like david foster wallace and milan kundera and nick hornby even.
give me a goddamn interesting sentence for chrissakes!
Ryan- hard to say, exactly. Maybe a working definition of respect would be- “hits many of the same triggers as work you ‘like,’ but fails to produce feelings of pleasure.” Or, put another way- respecting work you dislike recognizes its formal or intellectual or creative or other values, which you as an astute critic and observer of the culture are able to recognize even though that particular set of skills does not interest or please you.
I tried to pick examples that typically evoke that kind of reaction in people. Lydia Davis: I find her work cold and bloodless and uninteresting, but I can see what people see in her. She’s very smart, and her prose is crisper than crisp.
Cormac McCarthy: my favorite writing teacher who is also one of my good friends literally hisses and spits when I bring up McC. he thinks Blood Meridian is pretentious, pointless, and about the furthest thing from anything he’d want to read. Does he respect McC anyway? I don’t want to speak for him, but I know he’s too smart not to understand the sheer volume of energy, effort and talent that went into creating something as sweeping and majestic and dreadful as BM. Me? I love BM.
it’s like i respect what james wood calls the shaker school of fiction like kent haruf and lee martin but they’re boring as shit and i can’t take reading them for very long.
but goddamn do i like reading the people kent haruf and lee martin would disallow from literature if they could like david foster wallace and milan kundera and nick hornby even.
give me a goddamn interesting sentence for chrissakes!
Ryan- hard to say, exactly. Maybe a working definition of respect would be- “hits many of the same triggers as work you ‘like,’ but fails to produce feelings of pleasure.” Or, put another way- respecting work you dislike recognizes its formal or intellectual or creative or other values, which you as an astute critic and observer of the culture are able to recognize even though that particular set of skills does not interest or please you.
I tried to pick examples that typically evoke that kind of reaction in people. Lydia Davis: I find her work cold and bloodless and uninteresting, but I can see what people see in her. She’s very smart, and her prose is crisper than crisp.
Cormac McCarthy: my favorite writing teacher who is also one of my good friends literally hisses and spits when I bring up McC. he thinks Blood Meridian is pretentious, pointless, and about the furthest thing from anything he’d want to read. Does he respect McC anyway? I don’t want to speak for him, but I know he’s too smart not to understand the sheer volume of energy, effort and talent that went into creating something as sweeping and majestic and dreadful as BM. Me? I love BM.
man this is hard – most of my books are still at my parents house, so im having hard time ‘looking back’ on stuff ive read
man this is hard – most of my books are still at my parents house, so im having hard time ‘looking back’ on stuff ive read
ok, here’s one
respect nightwood by djuna barnes (though i wouldnt mind reading it again)
like to the lighthouse by virginia woolf
ok, here’s one
respect nightwood by djuna barnes (though i wouldnt mind reading it again)
like to the lighthouse by virginia woolf
Yes, I’m with you on Nightwood. I would describe my enjoyment of it as moderate and my respect for it as immense.
Virginia Woolf is one of the brightest stars in my sky.
THE WAVES
THE WAVES
THE WAVES
Yes, I’m with you on Nightwood. I would describe my enjoyment of it as moderate and my respect for it as immense.
Virginia Woolf is one of the brightest stars in my sky.
THE WAVES
THE WAVES
THE WAVES
“The freedom of birds is an insult to me. I’d have them all in cages.”
The Judge from BM
“The freedom of birds is an insult to me. I’d have them all in cages.”
The Judge from BM
gian: now we’re talkin
gian: now we’re talkin
i respect the english romantic poets, but i cant stand to read the shit
jereme:
i agree with buks poetry, what about the novels? you dont like ‘women’
i respect the english romantic poets, but i cant stand to read the shit
jereme:
i agree with buks poetry, what about the novels? you dont like ‘women’
jereme:
i realize now, you said you did like him… why no respect. im not disagreeing im just wondering why you wouldnt respect him as their creator?
also, i like joe wnederoth’s letters to wendy’s but i dont like anything else he’s written and im not sure how i feel about him as a human being.
jereme:
i realize now, you said you did like him… why no respect. im not disagreeing im just wondering why you wouldnt respect him as their creator?
also, i like joe wnederoth’s letters to wendy’s but i dont like anything else he’s written and im not sure how i feel about him as a human being.
barry- i really liked Wenderoth’s last poetry collection, No Real Light, and other stuff of his I’ve seen around. but then i bought that essay collection (something something John Ashcroft something something) and it just floored me how much i couldnt stand it. i havent read the Letters. everybody says that’s the thing to check out, but i think i’m still not over hating the essays yet.
barry- i really liked Wenderoth’s last poetry collection, No Real Light, and other stuff of his I’ve seen around. but then i bought that essay collection (something something John Ashcroft something something) and it just floored me how much i couldnt stand it. i havent read the Letters. everybody says that’s the thing to check out, but i think i’m still not over hating the essays yet.
barry,
i love buk. he is the one writer i feel somewhat of a connection to without feeling fully connected.
most other people kind of bore me. it is so much ego stroking. essays and pound are like this. it is ejaculation.
i do and don’t respect buk. i mean i respect pound. he was a smart motherfucker. his writing is boring though. he had no grasp on reality. his writing feels to me like he is trying to alienate people so he can sit back and go ‘fuck i am so smart’.
on the other hand buk was well read but his writing was more about his perspective. i don’t see him caring much for literary endeavors the way pound envisioned it.
hence no respect.
i guess it comes down to buk could have been better i think.
i love women by the way. i like all of his poetry books/novels i’ve read. i’ve read 100% of his poetry books and about 25% of his novels.
i understand why people very intelligent writer types would not get him. it is hard to comprehend the nuances of the gutter when viewing from a skyscraper your entire existence.
barry,
i love buk. he is the one writer i feel somewhat of a connection to without feeling fully connected.
most other people kind of bore me. it is so much ego stroking. essays and pound are like this. it is ejaculation.
i do and don’t respect buk. i mean i respect pound. he was a smart motherfucker. his writing is boring though. he had no grasp on reality. his writing feels to me like he is trying to alienate people so he can sit back and go ‘fuck i am so smart’.
on the other hand buk was well read but his writing was more about his perspective. i don’t see him caring much for literary endeavors the way pound envisioned it.
hence no respect.
i guess it comes down to buk could have been better i think.
i love women by the way. i like all of his poetry books/novels i’ve read. i’ve read 100% of his poetry books and about 25% of his novels.
i understand why people very intelligent writer types would not get him. it is hard to comprehend the nuances of the gutter when viewing from a skyscraper your entire existence.
justin:
i read wendys first before i read ashcroft. i agree, ashcroft blows ass. i havent read the new collection yet but i will based on your recommendation. but im telling you. wendy’s is fucking amazing. here is the audio download of him reading. its killer:
http://archive.salon.com/audio/poetry/2002/11/26/wenderoth/
listen to them. he sounds smug. and in some places his tone reminds me of david foster wallace. but if you listen you will not regret it.
jereme:
thats a very interesting take on “respect” so you are saying that in order to respect a writer they have to display some sort of respect for their predescessors. is that what you mean? i agree and disagree.
justin:
i read wendys first before i read ashcroft. i agree, ashcroft blows ass. i havent read the new collection yet but i will based on your recommendation. but im telling you. wendy’s is fucking amazing. here is the audio download of him reading. its killer:
http://archive.salon.com/audio/poetry/2002/11/26/wenderoth/
listen to them. he sounds smug. and in some places his tone reminds me of david foster wallace. but if you listen you will not regret it.
jereme:
thats a very interesting take on “respect” so you are saying that in order to respect a writer they have to display some sort of respect for their predescessors. is that what you mean? i agree and disagree.
I respected and liked Nightwood but that was because I was very young and liked “difficult” language and modernism and now I can’t say that I do. So now, I would say that I just respect her.
I gave a paper once on Woolf how Orlando was a book about her writing process that was very poorly received. It was at a Virginia Woolf Conference at Bard and it was my first and last attempt at academia- bartending, man. That’s f or me. Also, Woolf? Liked and respected her- now- I don’t know. I honestly think she’d probably fall into the “i can’t read this again ever’ and so then that would be respect and not like. But I did like her. We change, though.
I like and respect Buk. Very much. His novels. I don’t know anything about his poetry, really. Would I want to be married to him? Uh, no. I think I’ d rather be married to him than Philip Roth. Hell, I’d rather be married to Richard Yates than Roth.
I’m with Justin on Lydia Davis. There was many many writers who I know are talented and smart and interesting. But that doens’t mean I like them.
Pittsburgh is beating Dallas so I am happy especically after the giants and the jets lost.
I respected and liked Nightwood but that was because I was very young and liked “difficult” language and modernism and now I can’t say that I do. So now, I would say that I just respect her.
I gave a paper once on Woolf how Orlando was a book about her writing process that was very poorly received. It was at a Virginia Woolf Conference at Bard and it was my first and last attempt at academia- bartending, man. That’s f or me. Also, Woolf? Liked and respected her- now- I don’t know. I honestly think she’d probably fall into the “i can’t read this again ever’ and so then that would be respect and not like. But I did like her. We change, though.
I like and respect Buk. Very much. His novels. I don’t know anything about his poetry, really. Would I want to be married to him? Uh, no. I think I’ d rather be married to him than Philip Roth. Hell, I’d rather be married to Richard Yates than Roth.
I’m with Justin on Lydia Davis. There was many many writers who I know are talented and smart and interesting. But that doens’t mean I like them.
Pittsburgh is beating Dallas so I am happy especically after the giants and the jets lost.
PITTSBURGH!!!
PITTSBURGH!!!
Yeah, and your philly won- wah. Eli- I had to go comfort him for a few hours there, that’s the only good thing about them losing.
not there was, there are- but you all know I’m not that retardo
Yeah, and your philly won- wah. Eli- I had to go comfort him for a few hours there, that’s the only good thing about them losing.
not there was, there are- but you all know I’m not that retardo
I had a tough time with Orlando. The big 3 for me with Woolf are- To the Lighthouse, Mrs Dalloway, and The Waves. I guess those are sort of S.O.P. choices (at least the first two) but I’m okay with that. I think she’s much more readable than most of the other Modernists, at least once you get down with the the rhythm of her thought. Beyond those, I’ve read some of the essays, but haven’t explored as much as I’d like to. One day…
I had a tough time with Orlando. The big 3 for me with Woolf are- To the Lighthouse, Mrs Dalloway, and The Waves. I guess those are sort of S.O.P. choices (at least the first two) but I’m okay with that. I think she’s much more readable than most of the other Modernists, at least once you get down with the the rhythm of her thought. Beyond those, I’ve read some of the essays, but haven’t explored as much as I’d like to. One day…
i dont like the eagles too much. or the giants really. hope you had fun with eli.
i dont like the eagles too much. or the giants really. hope you had fun with eli.
I read tons of woolf and loved her. really. I guess she just isn’t someone I’m thinking of revisiting. But that could change, too. Her essays are great- she was smart. I liked Orlando very much- I thought it was fun subversive of howr it was really about her writing process. but that went over like a brick at bard.
maybe mrs. dalloway was her best. Gosh, it’s been so long. I did not at all want to read Cumminghams book about that, or see the mvoie with Nicole and her prosthetic nose. But i did see him do this performance piece at bowery once….some funraiser, back when i left my house more often.
the eli thing was a lie, barry. i like the giants very much. barry, i feel i can’t flirt with you and jereme anymore and it makes me a bit sad. sigh.
I read tons of woolf and loved her. really. I guess she just isn’t someone I’m thinking of revisiting. But that could change, too. Her essays are great- she was smart. I liked Orlando very much- I thought it was fun subversive of howr it was really about her writing process. but that went over like a brick at bard.
maybe mrs. dalloway was her best. Gosh, it’s been so long. I did not at all want to read Cumminghams book about that, or see the mvoie with Nicole and her prosthetic nose. But i did see him do this performance piece at bowery once….some funraiser, back when i left my house more often.
the eli thing was a lie, barry. i like the giants very much. barry, i feel i can’t flirt with you and jereme anymore and it makes me a bit sad. sigh.
I’m having trouble pulling apart like/respect. Can’t think of an example.
I’m having trouble pulling apart like/respect. Can’t think of an example.
I’m having touble attaching like/respect to people I’ve never met.
I’m having touble attaching like/respect to people I’ve never met.
barry,
i just reread my comment and i cannot believe you were able to interpret it. i am working at the cigar shop and was doing 3 things at once. i need to stop doing that when i comment.
yes and no to your question.
i mean buk ‘respected’ some of his predecessors. well more idolized i think. his ripoff of fante is obvious.
my opinion of buk is that he wrote to alleviate the agony of his mind. he was not really concerned about literary style or form. he wrote and wrote and wrote. i am very happy he did that.
i also think he could have done much more with his work. i value him for the emotions i feel when reading his writing. i like him.
i value pound or cummings or eliot for their adherence to a certain aesthetic. i don’t feel they cared about evoking emotion and were more concerned with being ‘literary’. i respect them but don’t like their work. it is boring and tired and self ejaculatory.
they were writing to write. buk was writing to live inside his head.
i feel this way about a lot of writers though. i could list off independent writers i feel fall into this category but i am trying to not be negative, CAREBEAR HUGS 4 LYFE
i am retardo. we all know this.
cool retardo though. i will get massive handjobs one day for my writing. the others will get literary accolades.
i think my reward is better.
retard strength and care bear hugs.
i am loopy from cigars. i think i smoked 12 or 13 today.
i can not taste my mouth.
barry,
i just reread my comment and i cannot believe you were able to interpret it. i am working at the cigar shop and was doing 3 things at once. i need to stop doing that when i comment.
yes and no to your question.
i mean buk ‘respected’ some of his predecessors. well more idolized i think. his ripoff of fante is obvious.
my opinion of buk is that he wrote to alleviate the agony of his mind. he was not really concerned about literary style or form. he wrote and wrote and wrote. i am very happy he did that.
i also think he could have done much more with his work. i value him for the emotions i feel when reading his writing. i like him.
i value pound or cummings or eliot for their adherence to a certain aesthetic. i don’t feel they cared about evoking emotion and were more concerned with being ‘literary’. i respect them but don’t like their work. it is boring and tired and self ejaculatory.
they were writing to write. buk was writing to live inside his head.
i feel this way about a lot of writers though. i could list off independent writers i feel fall into this category but i am trying to not be negative, CAREBEAR HUGS 4 LYFE
i am retardo. we all know this.
cool retardo though. i will get massive handjobs one day for my writing. the others will get literary accolades.
i think my reward is better.
retard strength and care bear hugs.
i am loopy from cigars. i think i smoked 12 or 13 today.
i can not taste my mouth.
go bears!
go bears!
A definite yes for me on this. Lots of older poets and older novelists who I respect and can admire from a technical standpoint… but I don’t necessarily enjoy their work much while reading it.
I’m not sure if it goes the other way though. If I like someone’s work, I probably respect it. I don’t find myself liking or enjoying writing (or for that matter films or music) I think is bad.
A definite yes for me on this. Lots of older poets and older novelists who I respect and can admire from a technical standpoint… but I don’t necessarily enjoy their work much while reading it.
I’m not sure if it goes the other way though. If I like someone’s work, I probably respect it. I don’t find myself liking or enjoying writing (or for that matter films or music) I think is bad.
Jereme- that is the smartest thing I’ve read about Buk ever. You now don’t get to call yourself retardo. Sorry. Bears? Are you from Chitown?
I agree with Lincoln that if I like work, than I will respect it, but the other way around, how we are defining things here, doesn’t always go. I do think that to be able to respect work you don’t enjoy is a good thing.
Also, one can learn to enjoy works that initially are difficult and not enjoyable. And then- like a floodgate- suddenly- you can enjoy something new. Neat feeling. I had that for a long time with modernism. But, I tired of it. Talk to me in five years. I could change again, regarding enjoyment/like. But my respect is still there.
Jereme- that is the smartest thing I’ve read about Buk ever. You now don’t get to call yourself retardo. Sorry. Bears? Are you from Chitown?
I agree with Lincoln that if I like work, than I will respect it, but the other way around, how we are defining things here, doesn’t always go. I do think that to be able to respect work you don’t enjoy is a good thing.
Also, one can learn to enjoy works that initially are difficult and not enjoyable. And then- like a floodgate- suddenly- you can enjoy something new. Neat feeling. I had that for a long time with modernism. But, I tired of it. Talk to me in five years. I could change again, regarding enjoyment/like. But my respect is still there.
jereme:
i think we are splitting hairs with definitions. you feel all those emotions about bukowski. you “value” him, you enjoy his work, you like how he makes you feel… come on brotha, just go on and say it. you respect the guy.
pr:
hahahhaha
obviously you werent with eli.
i agree. sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. my sigh is deeper. it means more.
did you guys listen to the wendys thing yet?
jereme:
i think we are splitting hairs with definitions. you feel all those emotions about bukowski. you “value” him, you enjoy his work, you like how he makes you feel… come on brotha, just go on and say it. you respect the guy.
pr:
hahahhaha
obviously you werent with eli.
i agree. sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. my sigh is deeper. it means more.
did you guys listen to the wendys thing yet?
what do you mean obviously i wasn’t with eli? i coulda been…right? life is strange.
my sigh is as deep as yours, barry. soo deep.
i will listen to wendys tomorrow on coffee. not tonite while watching redskins and baltimore playing, overseeing a massive homework assignment and so on. right now, i sort of want to fuck around cause i don’t care that much about either team. i guess i want baltimore to win. and they are. Listening to poetry that you and Justin know- morning thing.
what do you mean obviously i wasn’t with eli? i coulda been…right? life is strange.
my sigh is as deep as yours, barry. soo deep.
i will listen to wendys tomorrow on coffee. not tonite while watching redskins and baltimore playing, overseeing a massive homework assignment and so on. right now, i sort of want to fuck around cause i don’t care that much about either team. i guess i want baltimore to win. and they are. Listening to poetry that you and Justin know- morning thing.
i dont want baltimore cause they are in the same division as pitt.
whats wrong with you tonight pr? are you ok? you seem extremely irritated about something. whats up?
i dont want baltimore cause they are in the same division as pitt.
whats wrong with you tonight pr? are you ok? you seem extremely irritated about something. whats up?
jereme:
12 fucking cigars… retardo
jereme:
12 fucking cigars… retardo
barry- you know how you said its cold in michigan? its so cold here- snow all over the yard upstate. I like it, but its also a big change. and i gotta go visit the fam in a few weeks, always hard. i love you.
i like baltimore a lot more than the redskins. the redskins? errrr. almost as much as i hate dallas. but yeah, under the weather and this homework thing? barf. huge assignment and he lost his index cards and just found them…
eli and peyton….football. (now here i would go on a big fantasy silly shit if i were in better spirits….)hey. read Hero of the underground if you want a great football book. so good.
i love that jereme smoked too many cigars. i do too much of many things. i’m worried i might need hip replacement if i don’t cool it.
i just went and clicked on your link to the poetry. two things- barryman. and random as the cards “how are we doing” from a restaurant. love it.
pr bg…..
i think re: respect and like what about huge disillusionment about authors we love? what about crazy obsessions with authors and then we find out too much about them and then it kills us and then we can never read their work again? (or so we think?) this happened to me with jena rhys. but i got over it. i like, though, the idea of really falling in love with a writer, in a stupid childish way, and then we learn more about them, and we get our hearts broken. and then what? I got over some of those.But man, it’s intense, right? to love and then to know, and then to not feel the same way anymore?
barry- you know how you said its cold in michigan? its so cold here- snow all over the yard upstate. I like it, but its also a big change. and i gotta go visit the fam in a few weeks, always hard. i love you.
i like baltimore a lot more than the redskins. the redskins? errrr. almost as much as i hate dallas. but yeah, under the weather and this homework thing? barf. huge assignment and he lost his index cards and just found them…
eli and peyton….football. (now here i would go on a big fantasy silly shit if i were in better spirits….)hey. read Hero of the underground if you want a great football book. so good.
i love that jereme smoked too many cigars. i do too much of many things. i’m worried i might need hip replacement if i don’t cool it.
i just went and clicked on your link to the poetry. two things- barryman. and random as the cards “how are we doing” from a restaurant. love it.
pr bg…..
i think re: respect and like what about huge disillusionment about authors we love? what about crazy obsessions with authors and then we find out too much about them and then it kills us and then we can never read their work again? (or so we think?) this happened to me with jena rhys. but i got over it. i like, though, the idea of really falling in love with a writer, in a stupid childish way, and then we learn more about them, and we get our hearts broken. and then what? I got over some of those.But man, it’s intense, right? to love and then to know, and then to not feel the same way anymore?
barry,
i did not dislike you before, so don’t take this as a veiled insult. i like dogzplot and so i already liked you that way. but anyways.
because you like the steelers, i like you better today than i did yesterday.
but re: the steelers/cowboys game: what a finish. i have been feeling so much better about everybody in the world since they won. except bukowski who i will never care for. maybe if i learned he was a steelers fan…
barry,
i did not dislike you before, so don’t take this as a veiled insult. i like dogzplot and so i already liked you that way. but anyways.
because you like the steelers, i like you better today than i did yesterday.
but re: the steelers/cowboys game: what a finish. i have been feeling so much better about everybody in the world since they won. except bukowski who i will never care for. maybe if i learned he was a steelers fan…
pr,
have you seen the movie ‘the ringer’? i’m the retard who keeps flexing every time a girl comes in the room.
fuck yes.
i like how your views and my views are lovers in the moonlight.
i like what you said about obsessions with writers. it is very true.
you are special like bubbaliicious watermel gum.
barry,
i donl’t know. i think a lot of people dismiss buk. i’ve read a lot of authors simply because he wrote about them in his poetry. the guy was well read more than most writers. i think he could have done better if he tried. i think that is where i don’t respect him.
did i tell you bukowski is my god? i think it is okay I don’t fully respect him.
i’m bottoming out at 14 cigars. i have no filter.
everything is in excess with me.
we are all dying but i am dying slightly more rapidly than the rest of you.
pr,
have you seen the movie ‘the ringer’? i’m the retard who keeps flexing every time a girl comes in the room.
fuck yes.
i like how your views and my views are lovers in the moonlight.
i like what you said about obsessions with writers. it is very true.
you are special like bubbaliicious watermel gum.
barry,
i donl’t know. i think a lot of people dismiss buk. i’ve read a lot of authors simply because he wrote about them in his poetry. the guy was well read more than most writers. i think he could have done better if he tried. i think that is where i don’t respect him.
did i tell you bukowski is my god? i think it is okay I don’t fully respect him.
i’m bottoming out at 14 cigars. i have no filter.
everything is in excess with me.
we are all dying but i am dying slightly more rapidly than the rest of you.
pr,
no i am not from chicago. you know that is the first question every one asks when i tell them i am a bears fan?
i played football in oregon. oregon has no team. they suck like stale top ramen.
i liked their sassy and they have a long history of mean motherfucking asshole linebackers. it fall into my ideology and i adopted them.
pr,
no i am not from chicago. you know that is the first question every one asks when i tell them i am a bears fan?
i played football in oregon. oregon has no team. they suck like stale top ramen.
i liked their sassy and they have a long history of mean motherfucking asshole linebackers. it fall into my ideology and i adopted them.
“i understand why people very intelligent writer types would not get [Bukowski]. it is hard to comprehend the nuances of the gutter when viewing from a skyscraper your entire existence.”
I’m going to go right ahead and step in this bear trap. From my experience of knowing and growing up around people who work in the post office (or places like post offices) and who drink a lot and don’t do much else and have kind of shit lives, much of Bukowksi’s work inspires a kind of exasperation. It doesn’t seem honest. I know that’s a weird thing to say, since he’s valued most, probably, for some kind of vague hardknock Authenticity or Tell It Like It Is Fuck Your Shit Up Man Honesty, but he really seems mostly pretentious to me. He doesn’t get at the small, the quiet, the funny, or the weird among these so-called “gutter people.” Not like McCarthy does in Suttree, or Erskine Caldwell does. Eileen Myles, for some reason, I’m thinking of, even though I know she liked Bukowski.
Even “gutter people” seems wrong to me, too, since all the “gutter people” I know spend more time on buses or in AM-PM or getting high than they actually spent yelling and splashing in the gutter. I guess what bothers me is that Honesty gets translated into Who Can Bitch The Loudest/Who Can Romanticize Their Bullshit the Loudest, and that seems to short circuit the validity of all these other people who don’t have very loud interest in their own sadness or aimlessness or “fucked up shit.” Just because they’re quiet and sullen and boring doesn’t demean their experiences or make them unworthy of record.
And I know, I know, that in relation to other swaths of poetry, Bukowski is probably the biggest way to get poetry saying at all “hey, wait a minute, what about these people,” but I dunno. Sitting on my bedroom floor is this book of poems called SEE ROCK CITY by someone named Philip Pierson, whom I’d never heard of when I bought the book and whom I have never heard anyone talk about. It came out in 1978 and some of the poems seems to be among “Bukowski people” in a way I feel is way more endearing and honest than any of Bukowksi’s stuff. And he’s just some guy, this Philip Pierson. What I’m saying is that sometimes I feel like Lyle Lovett does a better job at being what people say Bukowski is than Bukowski does. Raymond Carver, for all his cliches, seems way more honest to me. And so on.
What I’m saying is that this kind of stuff does bother me, in terms of whom Literature chooses to ignore or whatever. And rather than Bukowksi being some Outlaw David taking it to the ass of some ivory Literature, it seems just like Literature to fetishize this slob dude Bukowksi (the image, the construction, the actual dude wasn’t so much like this, as I understand it) as representative of all the “poor slobs” who do some vague “work with their hands.” And, in doing so, does remove room for nuance–if we’re talking about nuance–from a whole set of people.
As if people could even be sorted into “sets,” but whatever. Bukowksi becoming the poet “of” this-or-that seems to me to be a trick of marketing a cheap and false reverse-romanticism, not some victory of exposing “what it’s really like down there, yo.” Just because my friends in Oroville weren’t yelling about “dead cow worlds” and asking women in bars for head doesn’t mean we didn’t grow up poor or that we’re not sad and fucked; just because the sadness has some shade to it doesn’t mean it’s snobby or affected; just because my family had cockroaches on our kitchen floor doesn’t mean we flaunted them as “Perfection in the Star Turd” by default and it doesn’t mean that how we got rid of those cockroaches isn’t interesting, which is sometimes what it seems like when Bukowksi and his imitators drown out all the other people in the bar.
jesus fuck i am misspelling more than usual.
i am so tirrrrrrrred
“i understand why people very intelligent writer types would not get [Bukowski]. it is hard to comprehend the nuances of the gutter when viewing from a skyscraper your entire existence.”
I’m going to go right ahead and step in this bear trap. From my experience of knowing and growing up around people who work in the post office (or places like post offices) and who drink a lot and don’t do much else and have kind of shit lives, much of Bukowksi’s work inspires a kind of exasperation. It doesn’t seem honest. I know that’s a weird thing to say, since he’s valued most, probably, for some kind of vague hardknock Authenticity or Tell It Like It Is Fuck Your Shit Up Man Honesty, but he really seems mostly pretentious to me. He doesn’t get at the small, the quiet, the funny, or the weird among these so-called “gutter people.” Not like McCarthy does in Suttree, or Erskine Caldwell does. Eileen Myles, for some reason, I’m thinking of, even though I know she liked Bukowski.
Even “gutter people” seems wrong to me, too, since all the “gutter people” I know spend more time on buses or in AM-PM or getting high than they actually spent yelling and splashing in the gutter. I guess what bothers me is that Honesty gets translated into Who Can Bitch The Loudest/Who Can Romanticize Their Bullshit the Loudest, and that seems to short circuit the validity of all these other people who don’t have very loud interest in their own sadness or aimlessness or “fucked up shit.” Just because they’re quiet and sullen and boring doesn’t demean their experiences or make them unworthy of record.
And I know, I know, that in relation to other swaths of poetry, Bukowski is probably the biggest way to get poetry saying at all “hey, wait a minute, what about these people,” but I dunno. Sitting on my bedroom floor is this book of poems called SEE ROCK CITY by someone named Philip Pierson, whom I’d never heard of when I bought the book and whom I have never heard anyone talk about. It came out in 1978 and some of the poems seems to be among “Bukowski people” in a way I feel is way more endearing and honest than any of Bukowksi’s stuff. And he’s just some guy, this Philip Pierson. What I’m saying is that sometimes I feel like Lyle Lovett does a better job at being what people say Bukowski is than Bukowski does. Raymond Carver, for all his cliches, seems way more honest to me. And so on.
What I’m saying is that this kind of stuff does bother me, in terms of whom Literature chooses to ignore or whatever. And rather than Bukowksi being some Outlaw David taking it to the ass of some ivory Literature, it seems just like Literature to fetishize this slob dude Bukowksi (the image, the construction, the actual dude wasn’t so much like this, as I understand it) as representative of all the “poor slobs” who do some vague “work with their hands.” And, in doing so, does remove room for nuance–if we’re talking about nuance–from a whole set of people.
As if people could even be sorted into “sets,” but whatever. Bukowksi becoming the poet “of” this-or-that seems to me to be a trick of marketing a cheap and false reverse-romanticism, not some victory of exposing “what it’s really like down there, yo.” Just because my friends in Oroville weren’t yelling about “dead cow worlds” and asking women in bars for head doesn’t mean we didn’t grow up poor or that we’re not sad and fucked; just because the sadness has some shade to it doesn’t mean it’s snobby or affected; just because my family had cockroaches on our kitchen floor doesn’t mean we flaunted them as “Perfection in the Star Turd” by default and it doesn’t mean that how we got rid of those cockroaches isn’t interesting, which is sometimes what it seems like when Bukowksi and his imitators drown out all the other people in the bar.
jesus fuck i am misspelling more than usual.
i am so tirrrrrrrred
some typos in that comment, my apologies… last sentence of the 2nd-to-last graph should be “And, in doing so, removes room for nuance–if we’re talking about nuance–from a whole set of people. “
some typos in that comment, my apologies… last sentence of the 2nd-to-last graph should be “And, in doing so, removes room for nuance–if we’re talking about nuance–from a whole set of people. “
mike,
i take it you are addressing me? i am not sure. you did not address me. i am addressing you.
i liked what you wrote. you are assuming popular opinion. i did not say any of what you criticized..
i will try to make my opinion lucid.
i could give two pennies about ‘hard scrabble’ people or the ‘working man’. i have worked in desolate factoriess and i have worked in clean fashioned corporate offices. i prefer to work under the man made lights of a cubicle than a warehouse.
i was speaking metaphorically. the issue is that these literary writer types dismiss bukowski because he writes about getting head and bar drinking and every day bullshit existence. they completely dismiss him. it is pretentious and true.
‘you don’t have to be alone to feel real loneliness’ i believe is the quote from him.
where in that line do you find criticism? i am not an idiot. i know he is self-aggrandizing. he is qualifying his life. i get it. i am not a proponent of that life.
i do not go around writing about how cool it was to be a drug addict, or homeless or the score of other bullshit things i’ve done in my life.
his perspective on loneliness and self destruction and meaninglessness are succinct to me. the issue is the ego conglomerate act like his stuff isn’t what it is.
it is beautiful and honest. who cares if he wrote about drinking and getting head.
you think the other side doesn’t do the same? what do you think all of these essays about style and form are? they are nothing more than ego puffing. look at how smart i am. look how i can manipulate big words into big sentences that have no value other than to make me look ‘smart’.
i guess gchat logs and mango juice poetry is better?
i hope your starbucks tastes awesome up in that skyscraper.
it tastes slightly better in the gutter because it is the gutter and starbucks is rare.
mike,
i take it you are addressing me? i am not sure. you did not address me. i am addressing you.
i liked what you wrote. you are assuming popular opinion. i did not say any of what you criticized..
i will try to make my opinion lucid.
i could give two pennies about ‘hard scrabble’ people or the ‘working man’. i have worked in desolate factoriess and i have worked in clean fashioned corporate offices. i prefer to work under the man made lights of a cubicle than a warehouse.
i was speaking metaphorically. the issue is that these literary writer types dismiss bukowski because he writes about getting head and bar drinking and every day bullshit existence. they completely dismiss him. it is pretentious and true.
‘you don’t have to be alone to feel real loneliness’ i believe is the quote from him.
where in that line do you find criticism? i am not an idiot. i know he is self-aggrandizing. he is qualifying his life. i get it. i am not a proponent of that life.
i do not go around writing about how cool it was to be a drug addict, or homeless or the score of other bullshit things i’ve done in my life.
his perspective on loneliness and self destruction and meaninglessness are succinct to me. the issue is the ego conglomerate act like his stuff isn’t what it is.
it is beautiful and honest. who cares if he wrote about drinking and getting head.
you think the other side doesn’t do the same? what do you think all of these essays about style and form are? they are nothing more than ego puffing. look at how smart i am. look how i can manipulate big words into big sentences that have no value other than to make me look ‘smart’.
i guess gchat logs and mango juice poetry is better?
i hope your starbucks tastes awesome up in that skyscraper.
it tastes slightly better in the gutter because it is the gutter and starbucks is rare.
Mike, I think that comment nails something about Bukowski that’s always slightly bothered me. His is the same fate of all writer’s whose personal eccentricities overwhelm any work they produce. Success in the marketplace but for all the wrong reasons. And for him in particular because all he wrote about, all he could write about apparently, was himself. His perception of the world is interesting and kind of heartbreaking or something, but yeah, I could never ‘identify’ with his work. It’s more like I liked his stuff as a kind of curiosity of this one crazy guy’s way of thinking.
I’ll always think Women was a good novel, my favorite of his early four. It ended with more kindness and normalcy than I’d seen in his work, it shed a light on something I could identify with, and it was like he had to write all the demons out in order to find it, but it felt ‘kind’ at the end for once and I was moved by it. So, honesty, writer for the people, deserving of endless accolades, eh. But he wrote good novel.
Mike, I think that comment nails something about Bukowski that’s always slightly bothered me. His is the same fate of all writer’s whose personal eccentricities overwhelm any work they produce. Success in the marketplace but for all the wrong reasons. And for him in particular because all he wrote about, all he could write about apparently, was himself. His perception of the world is interesting and kind of heartbreaking or something, but yeah, I could never ‘identify’ with his work. It’s more like I liked his stuff as a kind of curiosity of this one crazy guy’s way of thinking.
I’ll always think Women was a good novel, my favorite of his early four. It ended with more kindness and normalcy than I’d seen in his work, it shed a light on something I could identify with, and it was like he had to write all the demons out in order to find it, but it felt ‘kind’ at the end for once and I was moved by it. So, honesty, writer for the people, deserving of endless accolades, eh. But he wrote good novel.
i hate this place
i hate this place
mike:
i can only speak for myself, of course, but i dont like bukowski because he’s authentic or real or tell it like it is or any of that. he always reminded me of a sort of blowhard drunk old man talking shit, telling stories as he wished they happened isntead of how they actually happened. i think bukowski is full of shit and everyone knows he’s full of shit and thats why he’s so endearing to me. a drunk olf man talking about how much great pussy he gets, its sad, it makes me very fond of him. i read bukowski knowing he’s full of shit, telling ridiculous tales expecting people to believe them. thats whats so sad to me. lonely people do that. maybe i aint making sense.
mike:
i can only speak for myself, of course, but i dont like bukowski because he’s authentic or real or tell it like it is or any of that. he always reminded me of a sort of blowhard drunk old man talking shit, telling stories as he wished they happened isntead of how they actually happened. i think bukowski is full of shit and everyone knows he’s full of shit and thats why he’s so endearing to me. a drunk olf man talking about how much great pussy he gets, its sad, it makes me very fond of him. i read bukowski knowing he’s full of shit, telling ridiculous tales expecting people to believe them. thats whats so sad to me. lonely people do that. maybe i aint making sense.
Wow, Mike, I like your problems with this discussion and I want to respond it it in a way that hopefully is pertinent andf not you know-off topic. Most people- working class postworkers. bankers, mfas, whatever- don’t have a lasting stay in lit. it is –arbitertray? sorry bout my spelling. but i am trying to relate to your idea here. one thing i had to get over is the idea that craziness has anything to do with creatvity. and so does, honestly, “being in touch with the regular people”. that said, historically, writing was something that working class people didn’t do. buk was one of the people who broke that. and before him, henry miller. before him, others. but in the history of the written work, writing was confined to the educated, wealthy class. (and yeah, ray carver in there, i love his work.)
this is just history. but all the breakwaway from that history is not only politcal, it’s also something that has changed the landscape of literature.
now, my son is studying steinbeck. that was rad shit back then. winesburg ohio? i reread that recently, have you? there now is a history of many writers who write from the working class. i think dickens started it, but one could argue that it started before then. I’m not thinking straight to think of earlier peeps who did.it. But Buk gave a wonderful legit to writing for writers who write in a common person language.
I’m waiting for people to remind me of the many others from other generations who broke that barrier befoer him I know they are out therr. I admit my ignorance beforehand.
.
Wow, Mike, I like your problems with this discussion and I want to respond it it in a way that hopefully is pertinent andf not you know-off topic. Most people- working class postworkers. bankers, mfas, whatever- don’t have a lasting stay in lit. it is –arbitertray? sorry bout my spelling. but i am trying to relate to your idea here. one thing i had to get over is the idea that craziness has anything to do with creatvity. and so does, honestly, “being in touch with the regular people”. that said, historically, writing was something that working class people didn’t do. buk was one of the people who broke that. and before him, henry miller. before him, others. but in the history of the written work, writing was confined to the educated, wealthy class. (and yeah, ray carver in there, i love his work.)
this is just history. but all the breakwaway from that history is not only politcal, it’s also something that has changed the landscape of literature.
now, my son is studying steinbeck. that was rad shit back then. winesburg ohio? i reread that recently, have you? there now is a history of many writers who write from the working class. i think dickens started it, but one could argue that it started before then. I’m not thinking straight to think of earlier peeps who did.it. But Buk gave a wonderful legit to writing for writers who write in a common person language.
I’m waiting for people to remind me of the many others from other generations who broke that barrier befoer him I know they are out therr. I admit my ignorance beforehand.
.
darby:
i agree with you and i agree that is a good reason for people not to be interested in his work, but i think there are lots of people who enjoy nepotism as an aesthtic. i think thats what the conversation is. can you respect/admire/like someone without actually caring for their aesthetic?
and i like your point earlier about how can you like people you’ve never met, and i agree, but im talking about their body of work as a represntation of themselves with which to judge.
ben:
thats ok, i before our pittsburgh bond i wasnt as fond of you either.
you think they’ll take baltimore next week?
darby:
i agree with you and i agree that is a good reason for people not to be interested in his work, but i think there are lots of people who enjoy nepotism as an aesthtic. i think thats what the conversation is. can you respect/admire/like someone without actually caring for their aesthetic?
and i like your point earlier about how can you like people you’ve never met, and i agree, but im talking about their body of work as a represntation of themselves with which to judge.
ben:
thats ok, i before our pittsburgh bond i wasnt as fond of you either.
you think they’ll take baltimore next week?
pr,
carrot top broke the barrier
barry,
i am on the same page with you. let’s hold hands and pretend we are not alone in our minds.
pr,
carrot top broke the barrier
barry,
i am on the same page with you. let’s hold hands and pretend we are not alone in our minds.
pr:
chaucer did that way back when. its just when we read the old english now we think its high language because we dont know what the fuck it means, but at the time i think it was very common, folksy. i might be wrong, but i dont think so.
pr:
chaucer did that way back when. its just when we read the old english now we think its high language because we dont know what the fuck it means, but at the time i think it was very common, folksy. i might be wrong, but i dont think so.
wasn’t it pound that said do not criticize a writer but criticize his writing?
how is that possible if you need to meet the person in concrete reality to judge them?
irony
wasn’t it pound that said do not criticize a writer but criticize his writing?
how is that possible if you need to meet the person in concrete reality to judge them?
irony
jereme:
ive been holding your hand… when did you let go
jereme:
ive been holding your hand… when did you let go
i saw something shiny and forgot.
i have a crow’s brain.
i saw something shiny and forgot.
i have a crow’s brain.
bg- chaucer- yes-
pussy obsession-
you all are right. i just like what Buk did to the american landschape of lit.
chaucer was so saucy and BAD….
but so were others…buk did good with american lit- he did good by lit in general i think-
bg- chaucer- yes-
pussy obsession-
you all are right. i just like what Buk did to the american landschape of lit.
chaucer was so saucy and BAD….
but so were others…buk did good with american lit- he did good by lit in general i think-
american lit… id make an argument for mark twain.
american lit… id make an argument for mark twain.
whitman, debatedly?
whitman, debatedly?
i would say yes to whitman, but im not sure how commonplace his written language was. it sounds more literary.
but then again, are we talking about that. i dont know.
are we talking about content or language or both or neither?
i would say yes to whitman, but im not sure how commonplace his written language was. it sounds more literary.
but then again, are we talking about that. i dont know.
are we talking about content or language or both or neither?
mark twain. my father. the only american writer he thinks is worth a dime. jesus. barry. still love me? barry, you and my dad/ ah, fuck.
i can’t pretend to know the history of all american lit- chaucer is english so there- but Buk did great things for american lit. to me. he really opened it up. he let people from a different class write. Not only him. Fante. I know, I know.
OK. I gotta think. who else. Give me a momenty.
Hi barry….
mark twain. my father. the only american writer he thinks is worth a dime. jesus. barry. still love me? barry, you and my dad/ ah, fuck.
i can’t pretend to know the history of all american lit- chaucer is english so there- but Buk did great things for american lit. to me. he really opened it up. he let people from a different class write. Not only him. Fante. I know, I know.
OK. I gotta think. who else. Give me a momenty.
Hi barry….
I honestly don’t like the question much. It’s worded strangely to me, or something. It forces you to be too judgemental I think. That or the question just falls apart semantically. I don’t like judging author’s personal characters I guess. This goes along with something pr was saying, it’s very easy to build false impressions of writers’ personalities then when you meet them it’s like wtf. I don’t think I’ve ever met an author in reality before so I have nothing to work with.
I honestly don’t like the question much. It’s worded strangely to me, or something. It forces you to be too judgemental I think. That or the question just falls apart semantically. I don’t like judging author’s personal characters I guess. This goes along with something pr was saying, it’s very easy to build false impressions of writers’ personalities then when you meet them it’s like wtf. I don’t think I’ve ever met an author in reality before so I have nothing to work with.
ezra pound was very judgmental
ezra pound was very judgmental
darby:
i agree with your point, absolutetly but i think we are talking about two different things and you’re right, its probably because my words arent making sense is why it isnt coming across right.
im not talking about a writers personal character and i dont think jereme was either. im talking about liking / respecting a body of work. can you respect it even if you dont like it. i respect the english romantics, but i dont like their work. thats what i mean.
pr:
“barry. still love me?”
i said infinity didnt i?
darby:
i agree with your point, absolutetly but i think we are talking about two different things and you’re right, its probably because my words arent making sense is why it isnt coming across right.
im not talking about a writers personal character and i dont think jereme was either. im talking about liking / respecting a body of work. can you respect it even if you dont like it. i respect the english romantics, but i dont like their work. thats what i mean.
pr:
“barry. still love me?”
i said infinity didnt i?
barry and i are cut from the same bull sperm
we should form a band and call us loqacious b
Yep, it was addressed to you, Jereme, though only addressing that paragraph I quoted, as I don’t really have strong feelings or disagreement about anything else you wrote on Bukowski.
Just to get it out of the way: “mango juice poetry,” “gchat logs,” “starbucks,” and “skyscraper” are all strawman characterizations of me (ask my friends what I think about Starbucks) and deliberately ignore all of the little bit of biographical detail I brought up in the comment. No doubt these people you’re villainizing exist, I’ve snarled about them myself, and it’s kind of funny to imagine all of those things existing at once in one person (“There he was, the mango skyscraper Starbucks g-chatter”), but it ain’t me. To be fair, I thought maybe all of your rebutal would sound like that, so it’s nice that it doesn’t.
***
“the issue is that these literary writer types dismiss bukowski because he writes about getting head and bar drinking and every day bullshit existence. they completely dismiss him. it is pretentious and true.”
That is certainly true of some dismissals. Not mine, though. For me, it’s a reduction of “everyday bullshit existence” to say that such bullshit is all about “head and bar drinking” or that “loneliness and self destruction and meaninglessness ” are only found in those things. There are laundromats, strip mall Dominos, etc. It seems dishonest, then, to talk “only” about what we’re calling the “bar and head” stuff.
***
“you think the other side doesn’t do the same? what do you think all of these essays about style and form are? they are nothing more than ego puffing. look at how smart i am. look how i can manipulate big words into big sentences that have no value other than to make me look ’smart’.”
Sure, there’s plenty of ego. No argument there. Pound, Olson, most of them. There are a few things that seem “eh.” 1) That “all” of those essays are about “nothing more” than ego puffing. Frank O’Hara’s “Personism” is a “poetic manifesto” about “style and form” and it’s really funny and sarcastic and self-critical. Even in the essays that are mostly ego puffing, there is, I think, a major desire to try to figure out how things work, a really intense desire to puzzle through all the muck of this and set things down that seem Right and True, however fallible those notions are or will prove to be.
In other words: you read things, they hit the sweet, you read other things, they annoy the shit out of you, you try to write things that hit the sweet and you get frustrated doing it and you want to record how to hit the sweet, coral this aim into instructions and manifestos, and you do it out loud because you’re a kind of person who thinks best out loud, and so you do that, and you sound really over the top doing it, but it feels good, you get that out, you can move on to the actual writing then.
I think there is honest feeling in the manifestos besides just ego puffery. I do not think 100% of the reason manifestos get written is solely to hear yourself talk–they get written also because you care about certain notions and you want to get as close in words to your care as you can.
Ditto for “big words” and “big sentences.” Sometimes people use them to sound smart, sure. But:
Sometimes a big word is a more accurate word. Sometimes it’s a more entertaining word. Sometimes a long sentence is a more accurate representation of how the thought goes. You can write big words and big sentences for the sake of their particular effects, not just the vague side effect of “sounding smart.” If you really care about what each word or sentence structure is going to do, their histories and connotations, then you’re going to be really careful picking and you’re going to use everything you can. You’re not thinking about “sounding smart” at all–you’re thinking about getting close as possible to “right.”
I mean, you can go the other way: some of Bukowski’s “short sentences” and “shocking words” read like he’s just trying to “look tough.” His brand of “loneliness” and “self-destruction” and so on seem like as much of an act as any bloated sophist’s.
But hey: I don’t want Bukowski’s poetry to disappear off the face of the earth. I don’t wish he would go away. I just read much of his poetry and think “wait, that is wrong and dishonest” and it makes me want to write things that aren’t wrong or dishonest. Then when people say “the reason so-and-so doesn’t like Bukowski is because this,” I feel (not often, thank God, or I’d be at this all the time) the need to say: “No, there are other reasons not to like Bukowski, for the record, and here are a few: etc.”
***
“‘you don’t have to be alone to feel real loneliness” is a fine line. It feels to me, maybe, a little melodramatic or over the top, but then again I am not a big fan of feelings. Feelings are very uncomfortable to me, and more subtle, maybe, than that line allows for. That line is really blunt, and in its bluntness doesn’t seem to allow for nuances of loneliness, say the way Frank O’Hara’s poem “For Grace After a Party” does. Also I think I wrote a song when I was ten years old that went “I’m here in a crowd of strangers / But somehow I feel all alone.” Which makes me sound snarky, but I’m not trying to be. My reaction to that line is “Yes, I have realized that feeling before. Do you have anything new to tell me about feelings?” Which I think is a fair reaction and is certainly not a defensive dismissal or anything.
barry and i are cut from the same bull sperm
we should form a band and call us loqacious b
Yep, it was addressed to you, Jereme, though only addressing that paragraph I quoted, as I don’t really have strong feelings or disagreement about anything else you wrote on Bukowski.
Just to get it out of the way: “mango juice poetry,” “gchat logs,” “starbucks,” and “skyscraper” are all strawman characterizations of me (ask my friends what I think about Starbucks) and deliberately ignore all of the little bit of biographical detail I brought up in the comment. No doubt these people you’re villainizing exist, I’ve snarled about them myself, and it’s kind of funny to imagine all of those things existing at once in one person (“There he was, the mango skyscraper Starbucks g-chatter”), but it ain’t me. To be fair, I thought maybe all of your rebutal would sound like that, so it’s nice that it doesn’t.
***
“the issue is that these literary writer types dismiss bukowski because he writes about getting head and bar drinking and every day bullshit existence. they completely dismiss him. it is pretentious and true.”
That is certainly true of some dismissals. Not mine, though. For me, it’s a reduction of “everyday bullshit existence” to say that such bullshit is all about “head and bar drinking” or that “loneliness and self destruction and meaninglessness ” are only found in those things. There are laundromats, strip mall Dominos, etc. It seems dishonest, then, to talk “only” about what we’re calling the “bar and head” stuff.
***
“you think the other side doesn’t do the same? what do you think all of these essays about style and form are? they are nothing more than ego puffing. look at how smart i am. look how i can manipulate big words into big sentences that have no value other than to make me look ’smart’.”
Sure, there’s plenty of ego. No argument there. Pound, Olson, most of them. There are a few things that seem “eh.” 1) That “all” of those essays are about “nothing more” than ego puffing. Frank O’Hara’s “Personism” is a “poetic manifesto” about “style and form” and it’s really funny and sarcastic and self-critical. Even in the essays that are mostly ego puffing, there is, I think, a major desire to try to figure out how things work, a really intense desire to puzzle through all the muck of this and set things down that seem Right and True, however fallible those notions are or will prove to be.
In other words: you read things, they hit the sweet, you read other things, they annoy the shit out of you, you try to write things that hit the sweet and you get frustrated doing it and you want to record how to hit the sweet, coral this aim into instructions and manifestos, and you do it out loud because you’re a kind of person who thinks best out loud, and so you do that, and you sound really over the top doing it, but it feels good, you get that out, you can move on to the actual writing then.
I think there is honest feeling in the manifestos besides just ego puffery. I do not think 100% of the reason manifestos get written is solely to hear yourself talk–they get written also because you care about certain notions and you want to get as close in words to your care as you can.
Ditto for “big words” and “big sentences.” Sometimes people use them to sound smart, sure. But:
Sometimes a big word is a more accurate word. Sometimes it’s a more entertaining word. Sometimes a long sentence is a more accurate representation of how the thought goes. You can write big words and big sentences for the sake of their particular effects, not just the vague side effect of “sounding smart.” If you really care about what each word or sentence structure is going to do, their histories and connotations, then you’re going to be really careful picking and you’re going to use everything you can. You’re not thinking about “sounding smart” at all–you’re thinking about getting close as possible to “right.”
I mean, you can go the other way: some of Bukowski’s “short sentences” and “shocking words” read like he’s just trying to “look tough.” His brand of “loneliness” and “self-destruction” and so on seem like as much of an act as any bloated sophist’s.
But hey: I don’t want Bukowski’s poetry to disappear off the face of the earth. I don’t wish he would go away. I just read much of his poetry and think “wait, that is wrong and dishonest” and it makes me want to write things that aren’t wrong or dishonest. Then when people say “the reason so-and-so doesn’t like Bukowski is because this,” I feel (not often, thank God, or I’d be at this all the time) the need to say: “No, there are other reasons not to like Bukowski, for the record, and here are a few: etc.”
***
“‘you don’t have to be alone to feel real loneliness” is a fine line. It feels to me, maybe, a little melodramatic or over the top, but then again I am not a big fan of feelings. Feelings are very uncomfortable to me, and more subtle, maybe, than that line allows for. That line is really blunt, and in its bluntness doesn’t seem to allow for nuances of loneliness, say the way Frank O’Hara’s poem “For Grace After a Party” does. Also I think I wrote a song when I was ten years old that went “I’m here in a crowd of strangers / But somehow I feel all alone.” Which makes me sound snarky, but I’m not trying to be. My reaction to that line is “Yes, I have realized that feeling before. Do you have anything new to tell me about feelings?” Which I think is a fair reaction and is certainly not a defensive dismissal or anything.
Darby,
the real discussion has to do with like and respect, or enjoyment and respect. i would love to see another thing about love and disiilusionment.(sp). To me, to love a writer and than fall out of love with a writer, is something else. I think what I know about you Darby!- you dont have that folly. But i do. and did, espcially. and that i love that human weakness. i love the falling in love and the brokenheartendness tthat comes after.
Darby,
the real discussion has to do with like and respect, or enjoyment and respect. i would love to see another thing about love and disiilusionment.(sp). To me, to love a writer and than fall out of love with a writer, is something else. I think what I know about you Darby!- you dont have that folly. But i do. and did, espcially. and that i love that human weakness. i love the falling in love and the brokenheartendness tthat comes after.
i never understood the point of falling in love
i never understood the point of falling in love
Wow, lots of comments went up while I was writing mine. I feel like I need to write faster or something.
Barry,
That’s an interesting take and a really fair one. I guess part of the reason you like him is part of the reason why I like his more bewildered later stuff.
Pr,
I agree that Bukowksi becoming popular did “open the door” for a lot of stuff. Most of it bugs me because it’s imitative of Bukowski, but not all of it: I really like Eileen Myles and even folks like Donald Ray Pollock, Tom Waits, etc. I guess I’d feel annoyed to think that Bukowski “allowed” Tom Waits, but I can see how it’s true.
Wow, lots of comments went up while I was writing mine. I feel like I need to write faster or something.
Barry,
That’s an interesting take and a really fair one. I guess part of the reason you like him is part of the reason why I like his more bewildered later stuff.
Pr,
I agree that Bukowksi becoming popular did “open the door” for a lot of stuff. Most of it bugs me because it’s imitative of Bukowski, but not all of it: I really like Eileen Myles and even folks like Donald Ray Pollock, Tom Waits, etc. I guess I’d feel annoyed to think that Bukowski “allowed” Tom Waits, but I can see how it’s true.
Right, I get that that’s how we’re interpreting the question, I just can’t get over that the question isn’t worded that way to me.
Removing the author from the equation, I can not like but respect certain works I think. Your english romantics example I probably agree with. I guess any literature that acts as a foundation of literature after it often falls in that category.
You might have to exclude work that isn’t contemporary or recent though, because work, like Whitman’s, written in like 1850 doesn’t apply to this generation. They can’t ‘like’ it in the same way I think we are talking about. It’s almost like all that’s left is to respect it. You’d have to go back in time to the time of english romantics and be raised on it and then say whether you like it or not.
So, absent a time machine, I guess I have a hard time distinguishing between like/respect, looking over my shoulder at my bookcase now. Maybe Pynchon’s work. I’ll probably never finish against the day, or if I do it won’t be because I like it in the same sense I like ice cream. but I’ll always be glad he wrote it.
In the opposite extreme, liking something but not respecting it, have you ever admitted to yourself a britney spears tune was kind of catchy.
Right, I get that that’s how we’re interpreting the question, I just can’t get over that the question isn’t worded that way to me.
Removing the author from the equation, I can not like but respect certain works I think. Your english romantics example I probably agree with. I guess any literature that acts as a foundation of literature after it often falls in that category.
You might have to exclude work that isn’t contemporary or recent though, because work, like Whitman’s, written in like 1850 doesn’t apply to this generation. They can’t ‘like’ it in the same way I think we are talking about. It’s almost like all that’s left is to respect it. You’d have to go back in time to the time of english romantics and be raised on it and then say whether you like it or not.
So, absent a time machine, I guess I have a hard time distinguishing between like/respect, looking over my shoulder at my bookcase now. Maybe Pynchon’s work. I’ll probably never finish against the day, or if I do it won’t be because I like it in the same sense I like ice cream. but I’ll always be glad he wrote it.
In the opposite extreme, liking something but not respecting it, have you ever admitted to yourself a britney spears tune was kind of catchy.
pr:
look at someone like mike gold who wrote ‘jews without money’ during the depression. there’s actually a whole 1930’s proletarian lit. movement and lots of workers writers clubs and things like that that went on, so the historical ‘breakthrough’ of the common man as writer happens well before bukowski. to me, he is a mixture of the worst of the beats’ sloppiness and macho posturing without the heart or sense of adventure. i know and like and respect a lot of bukowski fans, but i really can’t get into his work.
i think mike said all of this better and before me, so i will just say that i agree and that bukowski seems to be fetishizing poverty/hard living and he’s vulgar rather than honest in his gleeful luridness.
barry: i hope we can beat baltimore but it’ll be tough unless the offense gets going a little. also, who would have thought that sepulveda’s injury would be so costly? mitch berger can’t kick it 40 yds. i swear, we’d be undefeated if we had an even marginal punter. also also- hines ward=hall of fame? i think so, if he stays healthy another year or two. i love hines ward equally as much as i love perec.
And yeah, I’ve been thinking this whole time about “damn, I totally derailed the respect/like topic,” so I’m sorry about that. I guess I made it about dislike and disrespect, ha.
“Negative Mike.”
“He shit in the swimming pool.”
“I know.”
“We all know.”
pr:
look at someone like mike gold who wrote ‘jews without money’ during the depression. there’s actually a whole 1930’s proletarian lit. movement and lots of workers writers clubs and things like that that went on, so the historical ‘breakthrough’ of the common man as writer happens well before bukowski. to me, he is a mixture of the worst of the beats’ sloppiness and macho posturing without the heart or sense of adventure. i know and like and respect a lot of bukowski fans, but i really can’t get into his work.
i think mike said all of this better and before me, so i will just say that i agree and that bukowski seems to be fetishizing poverty/hard living and he’s vulgar rather than honest in his gleeful luridness.
barry: i hope we can beat baltimore but it’ll be tough unless the offense gets going a little. also, who would have thought that sepulveda’s injury would be so costly? mitch berger can’t kick it 40 yds. i swear, we’d be undefeated if we had an even marginal punter. also also- hines ward=hall of fame? i think so, if he stays healthy another year or two. i love hines ward equally as much as i love perec.
And yeah, I’ve been thinking this whole time about “damn, I totally derailed the respect/like topic,” so I’m sorry about that. I guess I made it about dislike and disrespect, ha.
“Negative Mike.”
“He shit in the swimming pool.”
“I know.”
“We all know.”
Yeah, Ben, completely agreed. Especially on the history of “common man lit” and the illusion of Bukowski as an “originator” of that. But that’s all semantic and hair splitting pretty quickly: nothing original, etc. Buk’s really popular in this cultural moment and probably has moved people to write about things they wouldn’t think otherwise of writing, so I’m happy to recognize that.
Does anyone realize that I wouldn’t care at all about my own Bukowski opinion which I’ve heard in my head seven million times if the 49ers didn’t suck so bad? Exactly. Exactly.
Yeah, Ben, completely agreed. Especially on the history of “common man lit” and the illusion of Bukowski as an “originator” of that. But that’s all semantic and hair splitting pretty quickly: nothing original, etc. Buk’s really popular in this cultural moment and probably has moved people to write about things they wouldn’t think otherwise of writing, so I’m happy to recognize that.
Does anyone realize that I wouldn’t care at all about my own Bukowski opinion which I’ve heard in my head seven million times if the 49ers didn’t suck so bad? Exactly. Exactly.
darby:
“You might have to exclude work that isn’t contemporary or recent though,”
yes indeed
“You’d have to go back in time to the time of english romantics and be raised on it and then say whether you like it or not.”
hmmmmm. i dont know. i really really like twains entire body of work. its not just respect for him as a figure in american lit. i really like the stuff and enjoy reading it.
but yeah. for the most part i think you’re dead on.
ben:
i dont know. i think pitt is the kind of team that can pull out wins even if they score in the low twenties. (im thinking of the ravens super bowl win where there defense just dominated and one of the games they won and only scored 9 points) i agree, all their losses were heartbreakers. especially indy. we shoulda had that.
darby:
“You might have to exclude work that isn’t contemporary or recent though,”
yes indeed
“You’d have to go back in time to the time of english romantics and be raised on it and then say whether you like it or not.”
hmmmmm. i dont know. i really really like twains entire body of work. its not just respect for him as a figure in american lit. i really like the stuff and enjoy reading it.
but yeah. for the most part i think you’re dead on.
ben:
i dont know. i think pitt is the kind of team that can pull out wins even if they score in the low twenties. (im thinking of the ravens super bowl win where there defense just dominated and one of the games they won and only scored 9 points) i agree, all their losses were heartbreakers. especially indy. we shoulda had that.
“he’s vulgar rather than honest in his gleeful luridness.”
my take on buk is that everyone laready knows this going on. i read him as a lonely drunk old man who is obviously talking shit. sounding absurd. my all time absurd ridiculous moment is when he walks into the bar, calls his girl a whore, backhands her off the stool, calls everyone in the bar out for a fight, then walks out. like he’s fucking billy the kid. i mean shit, its ridiculous, but i know it and thats why i love it.
“he’s vulgar rather than honest in his gleeful luridness.”
my take on buk is that everyone laready knows this going on. i read him as a lonely drunk old man who is obviously talking shit. sounding absurd. my all time absurd ridiculous moment is when he walks into the bar, calls his girl a whore, backhands her off the stool, calls everyone in the bar out for a fight, then walks out. like he’s fucking billy the kid. i mean shit, its ridiculous, but i know it and thats why i love it.
ward will make the hall. but he’s not a first year of eligibility guy
ward will make the hall. but he’s not a first year of eligibility guy
some else is pretending to be- wierd-
unless the can win another super bowl before he retires
some else is pretending to be- wierd-
unless the can win another super bowl before he retires
pr:
you are not okay today. im worried
pr:
you are not okay today. im worried
and the scene where he kills the guy at the race track. drops him from the bleachers. i mean really. who takes that literally
and the scene where he kills the guy at the race track. drops him from the bleachers. i mean really. who takes that literally
Chaucer, yes. Pound is fucking mad for Chaucer. Like everyone else who read Canterbury Tales in high school, all I remember of it is the part where the woman sticks her ass out the window and the suitor on the ladder thinks he’s getting a kiss, and after he kisses it is shocked to find out his paramour has a beard. Dear Medeival Dude and Also High School Me, it’s only shocking the first few times. After that, you sort of get used to the way it tastes, and figure out the right way to put your mouth on it. Etc.
Also, pr- Winesburg, Ohio is amazing. I’ve tried to read his other stuff (stories and poems) and I can’t get down with it, but Winesburg is just exactly what it is supposed to be.
What about Maggie, A Girl of the Streets, by Stephen Crane? Every time the no-good bartender says “Hully Gee, Maggie” I just lose it.
I’m with Mike that as far as Buk goes, he represents a sort of hyper-aestheticized version of what it “means” to be “working class.” Burroughs did something similar for junkies, much to the detriment of young impressionable would-be junkies everywhere. Dennis Cooper has written about this.
I might point the curious reader at “The Light of the World,” a short story by Hemingway. Also, pretty much all of Carver, which i don’t think is nearly so “cliche” as some people have intimated here. You’ve all read “A Small Good Thing” forty-five times, but have you read “Feathers” ?
Also- ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING BY GRACE PALEY YOU CHAUVANIST SOBs.
But aren’t the best depictions of class–and of anything–usually to be found in work that doesn’t view the depiction as an end in itself? You want some good fucking poor people, you ask your Southern Writers: Flannery O’Connor; Larry Brown (try the title story of “Big Bad Love,” a book which also happens to contain a long and fairly touching tribute to Bukowski); motherfuckin’ BARRY HANNAH, PATRON SAINT OF EVERYTHING RIGHT IN THE WORLD.
Chaucer, yes. Pound is fucking mad for Chaucer. Like everyone else who read Canterbury Tales in high school, all I remember of it is the part where the woman sticks her ass out the window and the suitor on the ladder thinks he’s getting a kiss, and after he kisses it is shocked to find out his paramour has a beard. Dear Medeival Dude and Also High School Me, it’s only shocking the first few times. After that, you sort of get used to the way it tastes, and figure out the right way to put your mouth on it. Etc.
Also, pr- Winesburg, Ohio is amazing. I’ve tried to read his other stuff (stories and poems) and I can’t get down with it, but Winesburg is just exactly what it is supposed to be.
What about Maggie, A Girl of the Streets, by Stephen Crane? Every time the no-good bartender says “Hully Gee, Maggie” I just lose it.
I’m with Mike that as far as Buk goes, he represents a sort of hyper-aestheticized version of what it “means” to be “working class.” Burroughs did something similar for junkies, much to the detriment of young impressionable would-be junkies everywhere. Dennis Cooper has written about this.
I might point the curious reader at “The Light of the World,” a short story by Hemingway. Also, pretty much all of Carver, which i don’t think is nearly so “cliche” as some people have intimated here. You’ve all read “A Small Good Thing” forty-five times, but have you read “Feathers” ?
Also- ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING BY GRACE PALEY YOU CHAUVANIST SOBs.
But aren’t the best depictions of class–and of anything–usually to be found in work that doesn’t view the depiction as an end in itself? You want some good fucking poor people, you ask your Southern Writers: Flannery O’Connor; Larry Brown (try the title story of “Big Bad Love,” a book which also happens to contain a long and fairly touching tribute to Bukowski); motherfuckin’ BARRY HANNAH, PATRON SAINT OF EVERYTHING RIGHT IN THE WORLD.
justin:
i like the comparison to burroughs.
but i still say you guys take buk wrong, but thats the last time i’ll say it.
heather on neill’s LULLABIES FOR LITTLE CRIMINALS.
it is set in poor montreal. the main character is a 13 year old girl named baby. and her twenty something dad who’s a heroin addict. it broke my heart in half on every page. every sentence.
heather o’ neill
justin:
i like the comparison to burroughs.
but i still say you guys take buk wrong, but thats the last time i’ll say it.
heather on neill’s LULLABIES FOR LITTLE CRIMINALS.
it is set in poor montreal. the main character is a 13 year old girl named baby. and her twenty something dad who’s a heroin addict. it broke my heart in half on every page. every sentence.
heather o’ neill
let’s hope this is the year for sb #2… it’s plausible.
as for liking and respecting- i think for some reason (maybe because i am more caught up in thinking about it and caring about lit.) i am more likely to like but not respect things like movies or tv shows.
for example that hbo show ‘true blood’— i like it but i don’t respect it. i don’t think it’s actually that good, but it’s pretty fun. my housemate got way into it and i like talking to him about it more than i like the show itself. but i like and respect anna paquin because she was also in ‘she’s all that’, which happens to be the best movie ever. to the point though, i think maybe it’s easier to like/disrespect mass culture things because you can enjoy getting caught up in the general discourse without feeling all that moved by the actual song/movie/whatever. i might also be completely wrong. whenever i try to think in such generalities, i am doubtful of my conclusions.
let’s hope this is the year for sb #2… it’s plausible.
as for liking and respecting- i think for some reason (maybe because i am more caught up in thinking about it and caring about lit.) i am more likely to like but not respect things like movies or tv shows.
for example that hbo show ‘true blood’— i like it but i don’t respect it. i don’t think it’s actually that good, but it’s pretty fun. my housemate got way into it and i like talking to him about it more than i like the show itself. but i like and respect anna paquin because she was also in ‘she’s all that’, which happens to be the best movie ever. to the point though, i think maybe it’s easier to like/disrespect mass culture things because you can enjoy getting caught up in the general discourse without feeling all that moved by the actual song/movie/whatever. i might also be completely wrong. whenever i try to think in such generalities, i am doubtful of my conclusions.
Hahaha, other Tales are good too. I like the Franklin’s Tale. But yeah: I “like” to read synopses better than the Old English.
I have read all the Carver I’ve ever found and really like it all. I’m just lately trying out what it feels like to talk shit about Carver because it feels healthy and exciting.
Hahaha, other Tales are good too. I like the Franklin’s Tale. But yeah: I “like” to read synopses better than the Old English.
I have read all the Carver I’ve ever found and really like it all. I’m just lately trying out what it feels like to talk shit about Carver because it feels healthy and exciting.
ben:
you are right. i was thinking about that earlier too. music, tv, film, yes.
come playoff time, if we win the divsion, we’re looking at… denver? indy? then baltimore, then tenessee. i think we can get it done come playoff time. if everyone is healthy
ben:
you are right. i was thinking about that earlier too. music, tv, film, yes.
come playoff time, if we win the divsion, we’re looking at… denver? indy? then baltimore, then tenessee. i think we can get it done come playoff time. if everyone is healthy
Barry, your perspective on Buk I’d never really heard before but it makes total sense in an “oh, duh, why didn’t I realize that” kind of way.
I really dug THE MEAT AND SPIRIT PLAN by Selah Saterstrom.
i like the one tale, the millers tale, i think. where they go off to find the gold then get greedy and all kill each other.
Barry, your perspective on Buk I’d never really heard before but it makes total sense in an “oh, duh, why didn’t I realize that” kind of way.
I really dug THE MEAT AND SPIRIT PLAN by Selah Saterstrom.
i like the one tale, the millers tale, i think. where they go off to find the gold then get greedy and all kill each other.
mike,
“Yep, it was addressed to you, Jereme, though only addressing that paragraph I quoted, as I don’t really have strong feelings or disagreement about anything else you wrote on Bukowski.”
feel free to address me directly. no need to be passive aggressive.
“Just to get it out of the way: “mango juice poetry,” “gchat logs,” “starbucks,” and “skyscraper” are all strawman characterizations of me (ask my friends what I think about Starbucks) and deliberately ignore all of the little bit of biographical detail I brought up in the comment. No doubt these people you’re villainizing exist, I’ve snarled about them myself, and it’s kind of funny to imagine all of those things existing at once in one person (”There he was, the mango skyscraper Starbucks g-chatter”), but it ain’t me. To be fair, I thought maybe all of your rebutal would sound like that, so it’s nice that it doesn’t.”
No offense mike, but i have never read any of your work nor was most of what i wrote directed towards you. i was using generalizations. you are right. straw man activity abounds. i do it on purpose to incite a true reaction. if i throw rocks enough i’ll get a genuine response. a raw response. not some political correct this is how i kind of feel response.
i am tired of tacit tiptoeing. stop shaking my hand when you want to flip the middle finger up high and pretty. starbucks tastes like shit. i hope we both agree.
“That is certainly true of some dismissals. Not mine, though. For me, it’s a reduction of “everyday bullshit existence” to say that such bullshit is all about “head and bar drinking” or that “loneliness and self destruction and meaninglessness ” are only found in those things. There are laundromats, strip mall Dominos, etc. It seems dishonest, then, to talk “only” about what we’re calling the “bar and head” stuff.”
if your focus is ‘head and bar drinking’ only head and bar drinking will be found.
buk wrote about fucking grocery stores, old ladies, digging holes, eating chinese food etc. i guess you didn’t read those poems. I think this is the main reason why a lot of people dismiss him. they are focusing on an idea already formed in their head.
“Sure, there’s plenty of ego. No argument there. Pound, Olson, most of them. There are a few things that seem “eh.” 1) That “all” of those essays are about “nothing more” than ego puffing. Frank O’Hara’s “Personism” is a “poetic manifesto” about “style and form” and it’s really funny and sarcastic and self-critical. Even in the essays that are mostly ego puffing, there is, I think, a major desire to try to figure out how things work, a really intense desire to puzzle through all the muck of this and set things down that seem Right and True, however fallible those notions are or will prove to be.
In other words: you read things, they hit the sweet, you read other things, they annoy the shit out of you, you try to write things that hit the sweet and you get frustrated doing it and you want to record how to hit the sweet, coral this aim into instructions and manifestos, and you do it out loud because you’re a kind of person who thinks best out loud, and so you do that, and you sound really over the top doing it, but it feels good, you get that out, you can move on to the actual writing then.
I think there is honest feeling in the manifestos besides just ego puffery. I do not think 100% of the reason manifestos get written is solely to hear yourself talk–they get written also because you care about certain notions and you want to get as close in words to your care as you can.”
there are no altruistic goals. i have no issue with thinking things out on paper. why publish them? only motivation i can fathom is ego. look at me. this is my idea. i am smart.
“Sometimes a big word is a more accurate word. Sometimes it’s a more entertaining word. Sometimes a long sentence is a more accurate representation of how the thought goes. You can write big words and big sentences for the sake of their particular effects, not just the vague side effect of “sounding smart.” If you really care about what each word or sentence structure is going to do, their histories and connotations, then you’re going to be really careful picking and you’re going to use everything you can. You’re not thinking about “sounding smart” at all–you’re thinking about getting close as possible to “right.””
i have no issue with big words or big sentences when used properly. it is rare in an essay. dfw is a great example (thank you blake for introducing his work to me) of big sentence/words feeling right.
the rest of the writers are no dfw
we can start the ‘when using big words/sentences alienate the reader’ kind of talk talk. i would rather not though. tao’s blog words it better than any attempt of mine.
” I mean, you can go the other way: some of Bukowski’s “short sentences” and “shocking words” read like he’s just trying to “look tough.” His brand of “loneliness” and “self-destruction” and so on seem like as much of an act as any bloated sophist’s.”
we concur
“But hey: I don’t want Bukowski’s poetry to disappear off the face of the earth. I don’t wish he would go away. I just read much of his poetry and think “wait, that is wrong and dishonest” and it makes me want to write things that aren’t wrong or dishonest. Then when people say “the reason so-and-so doesn’t like Bukowski is because this,” I feel (not often, thank God, or I’d be at this all the time) the need to say: “No, there are other reasons not to like Bukowski, for the record, and here are a few: etc.””
right. okay. i see. i feel the same way when people dismiss him.
““‘you don’t have to be alone to feel real loneliness” is a fine line. It feels to me, maybe, a little melodramatic or over the top, but then again I am not a big fan of feelings. Feelings are very uncomfortable to me, and more subtle, maybe, than that line allows for. That line is really blunt, and in its bluntness doesn’t seem to allow for nuances of loneliness, say the way Frank O’Hara’s poem “For Grace After a Party” does. Also I think I wrote a song when I was ten years old that went “I’m here in a crowd of strangers / But somehow I feel all alone.” Which makes me sound snarky, but I’m not trying to be. My reaction to that line is “Yes, I have realized that feeling before. Do you have anything new to tell me about feelings?” Which I think is a fair reaction and is certainly not a defensive dismissal or anything.”
your line did not stir my emotions. it was unsure. bukowski’s line immediately brought back memories of being alone within my mind.
they are key phrases to bring out emotion. i don’t think i can make you understand this concept if you do not understand emotions.
telling me something new about feelings is ‘telling’. i want a writer to show.
thank you for taking the time to write this mike. i value your opinion.
let’s call a spade a spade. is that okay?
honestly you would not have responded to anything i wrote if I hadn’t tried to be ‘aggressive’ and use ‘straw man tactics’. you would have dismissed me.
i got what i wanted. your opinion. thanks.
mike,
“Yep, it was addressed to you, Jereme, though only addressing that paragraph I quoted, as I don’t really have strong feelings or disagreement about anything else you wrote on Bukowski.”
feel free to address me directly. no need to be passive aggressive.
“Just to get it out of the way: “mango juice poetry,” “gchat logs,” “starbucks,” and “skyscraper” are all strawman characterizations of me (ask my friends what I think about Starbucks) and deliberately ignore all of the little bit of biographical detail I brought up in the comment. No doubt these people you’re villainizing exist, I’ve snarled about them myself, and it’s kind of funny to imagine all of those things existing at once in one person (”There he was, the mango skyscraper Starbucks g-chatter”), but it ain’t me. To be fair, I thought maybe all of your rebutal would sound like that, so it’s nice that it doesn’t.”
No offense mike, but i have never read any of your work nor was most of what i wrote directed towards you. i was using generalizations. you are right. straw man activity abounds. i do it on purpose to incite a true reaction. if i throw rocks enough i’ll get a genuine response. a raw response. not some political correct this is how i kind of feel response.
i am tired of tacit tiptoeing. stop shaking my hand when you want to flip the middle finger up high and pretty. starbucks tastes like shit. i hope we both agree.
“That is certainly true of some dismissals. Not mine, though. For me, it’s a reduction of “everyday bullshit existence” to say that such bullshit is all about “head and bar drinking” or that “loneliness and self destruction and meaninglessness ” are only found in those things. There are laundromats, strip mall Dominos, etc. It seems dishonest, then, to talk “only” about what we’re calling the “bar and head” stuff.”
if your focus is ‘head and bar drinking’ only head and bar drinking will be found.
buk wrote about fucking grocery stores, old ladies, digging holes, eating chinese food etc. i guess you didn’t read those poems. I think this is the main reason why a lot of people dismiss him. they are focusing on an idea already formed in their head.
“Sure, there’s plenty of ego. No argument there. Pound, Olson, most of them. There are a few things that seem “eh.” 1) That “all” of those essays are about “nothing more” than ego puffing. Frank O’Hara’s “Personism” is a “poetic manifesto” about “style and form” and it’s really funny and sarcastic and self-critical. Even in the essays that are mostly ego puffing, there is, I think, a major desire to try to figure out how things work, a really intense desire to puzzle through all the muck of this and set things down that seem Right and True, however fallible those notions are or will prove to be.
In other words: you read things, they hit the sweet, you read other things, they annoy the shit out of you, you try to write things that hit the sweet and you get frustrated doing it and you want to record how to hit the sweet, coral this aim into instructions and manifestos, and you do it out loud because you’re a kind of person who thinks best out loud, and so you do that, and you sound really over the top doing it, but it feels good, you get that out, you can move on to the actual writing then.
I think there is honest feeling in the manifestos besides just ego puffery. I do not think 100% of the reason manifestos get written is solely to hear yourself talk–they get written also because you care about certain notions and you want to get as close in words to your care as you can.”
there are no altruistic goals. i have no issue with thinking things out on paper. why publish them? only motivation i can fathom is ego. look at me. this is my idea. i am smart.
“Sometimes a big word is a more accurate word. Sometimes it’s a more entertaining word. Sometimes a long sentence is a more accurate representation of how the thought goes. You can write big words and big sentences for the sake of their particular effects, not just the vague side effect of “sounding smart.” If you really care about what each word or sentence structure is going to do, their histories and connotations, then you’re going to be really careful picking and you’re going to use everything you can. You’re not thinking about “sounding smart” at all–you’re thinking about getting close as possible to “right.””
i have no issue with big words or big sentences when used properly. it is rare in an essay. dfw is a great example (thank you blake for introducing his work to me) of big sentence/words feeling right.
the rest of the writers are no dfw
we can start the ‘when using big words/sentences alienate the reader’ kind of talk talk. i would rather not though. tao’s blog words it better than any attempt of mine.
” I mean, you can go the other way: some of Bukowski’s “short sentences” and “shocking words” read like he’s just trying to “look tough.” His brand of “loneliness” and “self-destruction” and so on seem like as much of an act as any bloated sophist’s.”
we concur
“But hey: I don’t want Bukowski’s poetry to disappear off the face of the earth. I don’t wish he would go away. I just read much of his poetry and think “wait, that is wrong and dishonest” and it makes me want to write things that aren’t wrong or dishonest. Then when people say “the reason so-and-so doesn’t like Bukowski is because this,” I feel (not often, thank God, or I’d be at this all the time) the need to say: “No, there are other reasons not to like Bukowski, for the record, and here are a few: etc.””
right. okay. i see. i feel the same way when people dismiss him.
““‘you don’t have to be alone to feel real loneliness” is a fine line. It feels to me, maybe, a little melodramatic or over the top, but then again I am not a big fan of feelings. Feelings are very uncomfortable to me, and more subtle, maybe, than that line allows for. That line is really blunt, and in its bluntness doesn’t seem to allow for nuances of loneliness, say the way Frank O’Hara’s poem “For Grace After a Party” does. Also I think I wrote a song when I was ten years old that went “I’m here in a crowd of strangers / But somehow I feel all alone.” Which makes me sound snarky, but I’m not trying to be. My reaction to that line is “Yes, I have realized that feeling before. Do you have anything new to tell me about feelings?” Which I think is a fair reaction and is certainly not a defensive dismissal or anything.”
your line did not stir my emotions. it was unsure. bukowski’s line immediately brought back memories of being alone within my mind.
they are key phrases to bring out emotion. i don’t think i can make you understand this concept if you do not understand emotions.
telling me something new about feelings is ‘telling’. i want a writer to show.
thank you for taking the time to write this mike. i value your opinion.
let’s call a spade a spade. is that okay?
honestly you would not have responded to anything i wrote if I hadn’t tried to be ‘aggressive’ and use ‘straw man tactics’. you would have dismissed me.
i got what i wanted. your opinion. thanks.
mike:
yeah i mean some of the stuff he says is so fucking ridiculous and foolish. that one story where he was on that rich guys yacht and fucked all three of those girls in the same bed one after the other…. come on now. ha.
have you ever seen factotum, on film, with matt dillon. i think they fucked that up badly. did buk no justice.
mike:
yeah i mean some of the stuff he says is so fucking ridiculous and foolish. that one story where he was on that rich guys yacht and fucked all three of those girls in the same bed one after the other…. come on now. ha.
have you ever seen factotum, on film, with matt dillon. i think they fucked that up badly. did buk no justice.
i think i am alienated from this conversation. i don’t know.
every one is talking about ‘-ists’ and ‘periods’ and ‘originators’.
i just pick up books, read them, dwell on them and decide if i like them or not.
you people are down in the weeds fretting over meaningless technical shit. who cares if he was an innovator. i don’t even understand the concept of innovator. wtf is an innovator.
writing is supposed to be personal. you write for yourself. you publish the words. now the words belong to the public. each person reads the words. the words are theirs. they are personal. the entire process is personal.
i think this is my major issue with this argue/debate session (i’m arguing/you’re debating).
jesus christ there is a show on mtv called ‘bromance’
wtf does any of this matter
i think i am alienated from this conversation. i don’t know.
every one is talking about ‘-ists’ and ‘periods’ and ‘originators’.
i just pick up books, read them, dwell on them and decide if i like them or not.
you people are down in the weeds fretting over meaningless technical shit. who cares if he was an innovator. i don’t even understand the concept of innovator. wtf is an innovator.
writing is supposed to be personal. you write for yourself. you publish the words. now the words belong to the public. each person reads the words. the words are theirs. they are personal. the entire process is personal.
i think this is my major issue with this argue/debate session (i’m arguing/you’re debating).
jesus christ there is a show on mtv called ‘bromance’
wtf does any of this matter
“i just pick up books, read them, dwell on them and decide if i like them or not.”
amen.
i can go to sleep now….
“i just pick up books, read them, dwell on them and decide if i like them or not.”
amen.
i can go to sleep now….
if steelers win division, we’ll get a bye and at least one home game. this probably requires beating ravens or titans and the browns. the afc east and west leaders are not going to catch us. only baltimore can.
also jereme:
“there are no altruistic goals. i have no issue with thinking things out on paper. why publish them? only motivation i can fathom is ego. look at me. this is my idea. i am smart.”
you are publicly posting your ideas about literature. are you doing this to feel smart or because it is a way of engaging your ideas with those of other people and getting then to see their reactions and maybe then modifying your ideas or clarifying your ideas in relation? it seems to me that writing an essay about form or whatever is part of that same process and for a lot of people, carefully composing their arguments in essay form allows them to make the points they want to make in the best possible way and in ways that can allow a kind of conversation that can’t be had as well through regular spoken debate or though rapid-response forums like this one.
if steelers win division, we’ll get a bye and at least one home game. this probably requires beating ravens or titans and the browns. the afc east and west leaders are not going to catch us. only baltimore can.
also jereme:
“there are no altruistic goals. i have no issue with thinking things out on paper. why publish them? only motivation i can fathom is ego. look at me. this is my idea. i am smart.”
you are publicly posting your ideas about literature. are you doing this to feel smart or because it is a way of engaging your ideas with those of other people and getting then to see their reactions and maybe then modifying your ideas or clarifying your ideas in relation? it seems to me that writing an essay about form or whatever is part of that same process and for a lot of people, carefully composing their arguments in essay form allows them to make the points they want to make in the best possible way and in ways that can allow a kind of conversation that can’t be had as well through regular spoken debate or though rapid-response forums like this one.
ben,
i can understand what you are conveying. i don’t know if i agree with it or not.
i am motivated by ego. i have tried to drop my ego. it is difficult.
my motivation is not to convey my ideas. i do not care if people agree with me or accept me.
i am more interested in trying to get some one to question their values/ideas.
really, it is obvious i’m out of my league. i’m playing dodge ball while you guys are playing scrabble.
maybe if i hit some one in the face with the red rubber ball they will think ‘hey dodge ball looks different. i thought scrabble was the only game to play. what’s this stick on the ground. why does that man have a whistle. fuck scrabble’
probably not
ben,
i can understand what you are conveying. i don’t know if i agree with it or not.
i am motivated by ego. i have tried to drop my ego. it is difficult.
my motivation is not to convey my ideas. i do not care if people agree with me or accept me.
i am more interested in trying to get some one to question their values/ideas.
really, it is obvious i’m out of my league. i’m playing dodge ball while you guys are playing scrabble.
maybe if i hit some one in the face with the red rubber ball they will think ‘hey dodge ball looks different. i thought scrabble was the only game to play. what’s this stick on the ground. why does that man have a whistle. fuck scrabble’
probably not
Okay, seriously though, how many Bukowski stories or poems take place someone other than a race track or a bar? I’m guessing 5.
Okay, seriously though, how many Bukowski stories or poems take place someone other than a race track or a bar? I’m guessing 5.
lincoln,
how many of his poetry books have you read?
i’ve read them all. there are a lot of bar/race track poems.
there are plenty of others. probably the ones about being in an apartment room outweigh both the bar/track poems combined.
lincoln,
how many of his poetry books have you read?
i’ve read them all. there are a lot of bar/race track poems.
there are plenty of others. probably the ones about being in an apartment room outweigh both the bar/track poems combined.
what about a synthesis of scrabble and dodgeball? like that russion sport of chess boxing where you box a round then play a move over and over until someone is either knocked out or checkmated.
what about a synthesis of scrabble and dodgeball? like that russion sport of chess boxing where you box a round then play a move over and over until someone is either knocked out or checkmated.
ben gets it
ben gets it
I’m just joshing around jereme.
Although I haven’t read Bukowski in a few years, I don’t have a problem with him. I agree with some of the criticism here and I agree with some of your praise.
What does bother me about Bukowski, that I didn’t notice mentioned, is this: The man seemed to have no quality control. Reading his work (including his own comments on his writing habits) it seems he sat down every night and banged out poems and stories with little to no editing. Certainly this can produce good work now and then, as it does with Bukowski, but it also produces a lot of blah writing that a writer should have the decency to edit into something better or hide away.
writing is rewriting and all that.
I’m just joshing around jereme.
Although I haven’t read Bukowski in a few years, I don’t have a problem with him. I agree with some of the criticism here and I agree with some of your praise.
What does bother me about Bukowski, that I didn’t notice mentioned, is this: The man seemed to have no quality control. Reading his work (including his own comments on his writing habits) it seems he sat down every night and banged out poems and stories with little to no editing. Certainly this can produce good work now and then, as it does with Bukowski, but it also produces a lot of blah writing that a writer should have the decency to edit into something better or hide away.
writing is rewriting and all that.
lincoln,
i think i already addressed this motivation above.
i know you are just joshing. that was me not being aggressive. see i am aggressive when i try not to be. i am screwed.
regardless, many people bitch that he only wrote about bars/tracks.
lincoln,
i think i already addressed this motivation above.
i know you are just joshing. that was me not being aggressive. see i am aggressive when i try not to be. i am screwed.
regardless, many people bitch that he only wrote about bars/tracks.
Well, you have to admit he does have a lot of bar and track poems. Yes, he certainly writes about other things too, but given that he has one billion poems in print you’d expect at least a few of them to deal with other subjects.
Well, you have to admit he does have a lot of bar and track poems. Yes, he certainly writes about other things too, but given that he has one billion poems in print you’d expect at least a few of them to deal with other subjects.
Jereme,
Not being passive aggressive–quoted your paragraph and responded to the ideas in it. Pretty simple stuff. Ditto on my assuming that your “you” was addressing me when the comment started out “mike.” Heh.
Unfortunately, I’ve got no interest in flipping people off while trying to have a discussion about something. Anger doesn’t really equal conviction for me.
There might be a few altruistic goals in the world; there might be a few writers besides DFW who have also put together long sentences and big words in an interesting way. As for why talk about this stuff, I talk about it because I care about it. And care about figuring things. Not figuring them “out,” maybe, but through.
Sorry to hear that the line I wrote when I was ten and feeling bummed about a Fourth of July party didn’t stir your emotions. Tho the point wasn’t stirring/not stirring, it was why I reacted to the Buk line with a feeling of “okay, you don’t have to be alone to feel lonely, roger, what else you got.”
I “understand” emotions about as well as most of us, I think, which is not well at all. Which speaks to my liking stuff that doesn’t pretend toward understanding, I guess. And I also used the word “feelings” because I think feelings and emotions are very different things, which might be another reason I like the Frank O’Hara poem better than the Bukowski line.
Yes, I feel this has been an interesting discussion about Bukowski, and I’m happy to have had it.
And no offense taken on the work-not-read thing. I haven’t read any of your work either. There’s some stuff I’ve written linked at http://mike.noojournal.com, which includes a funny line drawing by my friend of what I’d look like if I were John Stamos on meth. If you’d like any of it, you’d probably like the first two on this page: http://laminationcolony.com/myoung.html or maybe what’s on this page: http://elimae.com/2008/January/Kitten.html.
Barry,
Yeah, it looked like a stinker. Didn’t see it, tho. I was thinking about standing in line before it opened with my GUD LUK BUK! fan-shirt on, but then I realized etc.
Jereme,
Not being passive aggressive–quoted your paragraph and responded to the ideas in it. Pretty simple stuff. Ditto on my assuming that your “you” was addressing me when the comment started out “mike.” Heh.
Unfortunately, I’ve got no interest in flipping people off while trying to have a discussion about something. Anger doesn’t really equal conviction for me.
There might be a few altruistic goals in the world; there might be a few writers besides DFW who have also put together long sentences and big words in an interesting way. As for why talk about this stuff, I talk about it because I care about it. And care about figuring things. Not figuring them “out,” maybe, but through.
Sorry to hear that the line I wrote when I was ten and feeling bummed about a Fourth of July party didn’t stir your emotions. Tho the point wasn’t stirring/not stirring, it was why I reacted to the Buk line with a feeling of “okay, you don’t have to be alone to feel lonely, roger, what else you got.”
I “understand” emotions about as well as most of us, I think, which is not well at all. Which speaks to my liking stuff that doesn’t pretend toward understanding, I guess. And I also used the word “feelings” because I think feelings and emotions are very different things, which might be another reason I like the Frank O’Hara poem better than the Bukowski line.
Yes, I feel this has been an interesting discussion about Bukowski, and I’m happy to have had it.
And no offense taken on the work-not-read thing. I haven’t read any of your work either. There’s some stuff I’ve written linked at mike.noojournal.com, which includes a funny line drawing by my friend of what I’d look like if I were John Stamos on meth. If you’d like any of it, you’d probably like the first two on this page: laminationcolony.com/myoung.html or maybe what’s on this page: elimae.com/2008/January/Kitten.html.
Barry,
Yeah, it looked like a stinker. Didn’t see it, tho. I was thinking about standing in line before it opened with my GUD LUK BUK! fan-shirt on, but then I realized etc.
Jereme,
Not being passive aggressive–quoted your paragraph and responded to the ideas in it. Pretty simple stuff. Ditto on my assuming that your “you” was addressing me when the comment started out “mike.” Heh.
Unfortunately, I’ve got no interest in flipping people off while trying to have a discussion about something. Anger doesn’t really equal conviction for me.
There might be a few altruistic goals in the world; there might be a few writers besides DFW who have also put together long sentences and big words in an interesting way. As for why talk about this stuff, I talk about it because I care about it. And care about figuring things. Not figuring them “out,” maybe, but through.
Sorry to hear that the line I wrote when I was ten and feeling bummed about a Fourth of July party didn’t stir your emotions. Tho the point wasn’t stirring/not stirring, it was why I reacted to the Buk line with a feeling of “okay, you don’t have to be alone to feel lonely, roger, what else you got.”
I “understand” emotions about as well as most of us, I think, which is not well at all. Which speaks to my liking stuff that doesn’t pretend toward understanding, I guess. And I also used the word “feelings” because I think feelings and emotions are very different things, which might be another reason I like the Frank O’Hara poem better than the Bukowski line.
Yes, I feel this has been an interesting discussion about Bukowski, and I’m happy to have had it.
And no offense taken on the work-not-read thing. I haven’t read any of your work either. There’s some stuff I’ve written linked at http://mike.noojournal.com, which includes a funny line drawing by my friend of what I’d look like if I were John Stamos on meth. If you’d like any of it, you’d probably like the first two on this page: http://laminationcolony.com/myoung.html or maybe what’s on this page: http://elimae.com/2008/January/Kitten.html.
Barry,
Yeah, it looked like a stinker. Didn’t see it, tho. I was thinking about standing in line before it opened with my GUD LUK BUK! fan-shirt on, but then I realized etc.
Jereme,
Not being passive aggressive–quoted your paragraph and responded to the ideas in it. Pretty simple stuff. Ditto on my assuming that your “you” was addressing me when the comment started out “mike.” Heh.
Unfortunately, I’ve got no interest in flipping people off while trying to have a discussion about something. Anger doesn’t really equal conviction for me.
There might be a few altruistic goals in the world; there might be a few writers besides DFW who have also put together long sentences and big words in an interesting way. As for why talk about this stuff, I talk about it because I care about it. And care about figuring things. Not figuring them “out,” maybe, but through.
Sorry to hear that the line I wrote when I was ten and feeling bummed about a Fourth of July party didn’t stir your emotions. Tho the point wasn’t stirring/not stirring, it was why I reacted to the Buk line with a feeling of “okay, you don’t have to be alone to feel lonely, roger, what else you got.”
I “understand” emotions about as well as most of us, I think, which is not well at all. Which speaks to my liking stuff that doesn’t pretend toward understanding, I guess. And I also used the word “feelings” because I think feelings and emotions are very different things, which might be another reason I like the Frank O’Hara poem better than the Bukowski line.
Yes, I feel this has been an interesting discussion about Bukowski, and I’m happy to have had it.
And no offense taken on the work-not-read thing. I haven’t read any of your work either. There’s some stuff I’ve written linked at mike.noojournal.com, which includes a funny line drawing by my friend of what I’d look like if I were John Stamos on meth. If you’d like any of it, you’d probably like the first two on this page: laminationcolony.com/myoung.html or maybe what’s on this page: elimae.com/2008/January/Kitten.html.
Barry,
Yeah, it looked like a stinker. Didn’t see it, tho. I was thinking about standing in line before it opened with my GUD LUK BUK! fan-shirt on, but then I realized etc.
but like I said, I can get down with his stuff now and then.
but like I said, I can get down with his stuff now and then.
If I were revising that last comment, I’d cut the first paragraph because that kind of stuff is what everybody hates about internet commenting.
My roommate’s-voice-in-my-head just said “If I were revising that comment because of what everybody hates about commenting, I’d cut the whole thing.”
If I were revising that last comment, I’d cut the first paragraph because that kind of stuff is what everybody hates about internet commenting.
My roommate’s-voice-in-my-head just said “If I were revising that comment because of what everybody hates about commenting, I’d cut the whole thing.”
mike,
i didn’t think you were trying to stir emotion in me with your line. i was not being mean. i was using it as an illustration of why i like buk’s poesy compared to other word groupings.
you are reading my writing now. this is about it. i have a blog where i do the same.
i am curious to hear your definition of feelings/emotions. physical versus abstract? i don’t know. i am tired and will read it tomorrow if you care to explain.
if not, enjoy the sunrise from your skyscraper office.
Revising my comment, I mean, obviously.
mike,
i didn’t think you were trying to stir emotion in me with your line. i was not being mean. i was using it as an illustration of why i like buk’s poesy compared to other word groupings.
you are reading my writing now. this is about it. i have a blog where i do the same.
i am curious to hear your definition of feelings/emotions. physical versus abstract? i don’t know. i am tired and will read it tomorrow if you care to explain.
if not, enjoy the sunrise from your skyscraper office.
Revising my comment, I mean, obviously.
people are getting very pretentious with their comments here
BLAKE, SAVE US ALL
post 100
justin welcome to the club
people are getting very pretentious with their comments here
BLAKE, SAVE US ALL
post 100
justin welcome to the club
blake would say
baby goider stir fry or something
i want to put my fingers in blakes insides and feel the space unfelt.
blake would say
baby goider stir fry or something
i want to put my fingers in blakes insides and feel the space unfelt.
blake would own all of your faces
jereme,
Yeah, I have to go to bed, and I’d definitely want to take more than a green comment space to talk about feelings versus emotions, but I am happy to try to write something if you’re interested, because I do think that I use the words very particularly and get strangely uppity about them. Maybe I will just email you if you’re interested rather than using a whole blog or anything.
It’s funny about the sunrise because I live next to a funeral home. There’s a door marked FLOWERS that’s always lit.
blake would own all of your faces
jereme,
Yeah, I have to go to bed, and I’d definitely want to take more than a green comment space to talk about feelings versus emotions, but I am happy to try to write something if you’re interested, because I do think that I use the words very particularly and get strangely uppity about them. Maybe I will just email you if you’re interested rather than using a whole blog or anything.
It’s funny about the sunrise because I live next to a funeral home. There’s a door marked FLOWERS that’s always lit.
GREEN IS THE NEW PRETENTIOUS
GREEN IS THE NEW PRETENTIOUS
“There’s a door marked FLOWERS that’s always lit.”
now that is a great line.
yes email me.
“There’s a door marked FLOWERS that’s always lit.”
now that is a great line.
yes email me.
Gena, commenting is pretentious by definition. So fucked.
Gena, commenting is pretentious by definition. So fucked.
yes commenting is pretentious
i am fucked, oh no
yes commenting is pretentious
i am fucked, oh no
wikipedia says:
Blake Butler (22 October 1924-1981?) was a British actor best known for his regular role as Mr. Wainright during the first three series of Last of the Summer Wine between 1973 and 1976 . In addition, Butler made guest appearances on such programmes as Dad’s Army and Bless This House.
sorry gena. he is dead and probably wouldn’t have cared about this anyways.
wikipedia says:
Blake Butler (22 October 1924-1981?) was a British actor best known for his regular role as Mr. Wainright during the first three series of Last of the Summer Wine between 1973 and 1976 . In addition, Butler made guest appearances on such programmes as Dad’s Army and Bless This House.
sorry gena. he is dead and probably wouldn’t have cared about this anyways.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BLAKEEEEEEEEEEE
hahahha
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BLAKEEEEEEEEEEE
hahahha
ben:
of course. if we won the division we get the bye. i was too tired to make sense before. but for that to happen we’ll have to beat baltimore next week. if they beat us they will likely wn the division and we will have three games instead of two. i hope that doesnt happen.
you think cleveland will make the playoffs? i think tiyans in the south, broncos in the west, ravens/steelers in the north, other one will get the wildcard, and the east is a toss up, im not sold on patriots, dolphins, or jets, but none of them will get the wild card, the last spot will go to indy.
so we may get a bye and play denver and tennessee
or get the wild card and play indy, baltimore, and tennessee
either way its doable, we can beat all of those teams. none of them are better than pitt.
ben:
of course. if we won the division we get the bye. i was too tired to make sense before. but for that to happen we’ll have to beat baltimore next week. if they beat us they will likely wn the division and we will have three games instead of two. i hope that doesnt happen.
you think cleveland will make the playoffs? i think tiyans in the south, broncos in the west, ravens/steelers in the north, other one will get the wildcard, and the east is a toss up, im not sold on patriots, dolphins, or jets, but none of them will get the wild card, the last spot will go to indy.
so we may get a bye and play denver and tennessee
or get the wild card and play indy, baltimore, and tennessee
either way its doable, we can beat all of those teams. none of them are better than pitt.
ben:
i think the nfc playoff is interesting
giants win the east, cardinals in the west. tampa bay and carolina are in the same boat as us, one will make the wild card and one will win the division. and who cares who wins the north, probably minnesota. wild card will go to tampa/carolina and either atlanta or dallas.
out of all those teams, i think only tampa can beat giants. maybe. big maybe. dallas, since its a conference rival and they may step up, but im not optimistic. tomy romo cant get it done. but then again, thats what everyone said about peyton manning until the year he stepped up and got it done. and for me thats the difference. in the absence of a dominant team. indy’s playoff experience, their defenses ability to shut opponents down in the playoffs. peytons ability to step up when he has to. if indy gets out of the first round (which will mean beating baltimore/pitt or tennesse/denver)
super bowl:
new york giants 21
indianapolis 17
ben:
i think the nfc playoff is interesting
giants win the east, cardinals in the west. tampa bay and carolina are in the same boat as us, one will make the wild card and one will win the division. and who cares who wins the north, probably minnesota. wild card will go to tampa/carolina and either atlanta or dallas.
out of all those teams, i think only tampa can beat giants. maybe. big maybe. dallas, since its a conference rival and they may step up, but im not optimistic. tomy romo cant get it done. but then again, thats what everyone said about peyton manning until the year he stepped up and got it done. and for me thats the difference. in the absence of a dominant team. indy’s playoff experience, their defenses ability to shut opponents down in the playoffs. peytons ability to step up when he has to. if indy gets out of the first round (which will mean beating baltimore/pitt or tennesse/denver)
super bowl:
new york giants 21
indianapolis 17
again im an idiot. tenn and pitt/balt will have bye. i meant it would mean indy had to beat denver or weak afc east opponent. very easy for them to do. the teams i listed would be second round of course.
again im an idiot. tenn and pitt/balt will have bye. i meant it would mean indy had to beat denver or weak afc east opponent. very easy for them to do. the teams i listed would be second round of course.
ha thanks gena. i would have commented by now but i refuse to think about bukowski for longer than it takes to wipe my ass during any given week.
time’s up…
ha thanks gena. i would have commented by now but i refuse to think about bukowski for longer than it takes to wipe my ass during any given week.
time’s up…
I LOVE all you people. Buk, chaucer, football! Jesus. Heaven.
I LOVE all you people. Buk, chaucer, football! Jesus. Heaven.
i wouldn’t expect blake to understand bukowski.
blake is a parasol and buk a knife.
aesthetic vs survival
you’re a dick head blake. that is what bukowski would say
i wouldn’t expect blake to understand bukowski.
blake is a parasol and buk a knife.
aesthetic vs survival
you’re a dick head blake. that is what bukowski would say