[coldtea]

>the fact bukowski thinks that's antithesis to art shows in his sloppy and unconsidered writing.

Sloppy and unconsidered is the whole point. The same way a punk song (1977-era not Green Day era) is not meant to sound like a classical concerto.

[acdw]

I mean there is no art there. There is art, there is angst, in OG punk songs, and the music helps. There is no art in Bukowski's poems. His line breaks are all over the place, he's cynical and bitter, and ... that's it. That's all there is to his writing. There's no nuance, no feeling, no nothing.

At least punk songs have some kind of emotional resonance, or at the very least a good hook, you know?

I guess what I'm saying is that every Bukowski poem I've read reads like one I wrote in seventh grade.

[coldtea]

>I mean there is no art there. There is art, there is angst, in OG punk songs, and the music helps. There is no art in Bukowski's poems.

To quote art critic J. Lebowski, that is, like, your opinion, man.

Both laymen and a number of literature figures and literary critics have appraised Bukowski's work.

So there's that, it's not like it's some guilty pleasure or something only undiscerning crude fans appreciate...

>At least punk songs have some kind of emotional resonance, or at the very least a good hook, you know?

There's all kinds of emotional resonance in Bukowski's work. And I'm not great fan of him either, in fact don't even have a single book (while I have of tons of others poets of the era).

Just a random pick:

  the flesh covers the bone
  and they put a mind
  in there and
  sometimes a soul,
  and the women break
  vases against the walls
  and the men drink too
  much
  and nobody finds the one
  but keep
  looking
  crawling in and out
  of beds.
  flesh covers
  the bone and the
  flesh searches
  for more than
  flesh

>I guess what I'm saying is that every Bukowski poem I've read reads like one I wrote in seventh grade.

Then you either overestimate your sevent grade poems, or you wrote great poems in sevent grade and should have done something with them...

But, I think the more plausible idea, is that you have a different sensibility and find them beneath you, but more from a moral and/or formulaic judgement and a prejudice about how a proper poem should be...

To make an easy analogy, that could be the same way a "rawk" fan can't understand electronic music, and thinks it's all rubbish, even it's Aphex Twin and not Skrillex.

[acdw]

okay ya got me! i've read one posthumous book by bukowski and heard that one modest mouse song ... i should obviously read more because the random pick you gave is, indeed, pretty good.

thanks for changing my mind :)

[j0hnyl]

Funny, I don't find his writing sloppy and unconsidered at all. His sense of style is so clearly defined, that I think I can come across a poem or story of his that I hadn't read before and recognize it as his work.

[acdw]

Maybe I should read more Bukowski. Have you any recommendations?

[j0hnyl]

I think a good introduction to his prose is Post Office, it's an easy read. If you like that, then you can move on to his other novels like Ham On Rye, which feels more real and dark, especially when he talks about his childhood.

My favorite poetry collection is "Burning in water, drowning in flame", but most of the poems are thematically and stylistically aligned.

He also wrote a ton of short stories, mostly dark and crass. They are all quite short, so literally take your pick with those.

I like the novels above the other stuff personally.

[acdw]

thank you!