the nitty gritty

[rowens]

A lot of us like Charles Bukowski. But, why? I'm sure Leanne doesn't get it. But that's only because I remember her saying so. I don't get, what's his name, the British guy, that rhymed a lot, Larkin. . . . Is Bukowski the only one who didn't give a shit and wrote anyway? He obviously gave a shit, I read his letters and biographies. I latch hold of, I latch hold. And he gave a shit, he was sensitive about his reputation. . . . So what do you think? Even if you write better than him, you might still be a mediocre writer. So what is his fire? Women, too are welcomed to announce or denounce, or ignore the question.

---

I read James Dickey, his criticism, talks about a strange new simplicity. And I read Henri Cole, and that seems rather simplistic. And I go back to John Berryman, and Elizabeth Bishop said that she couldn't really understand him, but, in the future he'll probably be all the rage. . . . But, you know, that really means nothing. It's good to read, but we're all living in a different world. I think Berryman is more relevant. More than Confessional stuff.

---

I can mix Berryman and English translations of Rilke together. In with American Thanksgiving. And then read and mix Celan and Frost in around Christmas and New Year's. And Bukowski is just as well. It depends on, what? Bukowski wrote some great prose. And you can't deny it.

---

I have an idea called Ignorance. You just have to write, can't wait around and read everything. I don't mean ignorance. I mean Ignorance. The knowing that you can't know or read everything. And in the end, making shit up is what creation is anyway.

---

I don't know everything. . . . But at least I know something. And I say it real sexy. And at least it means something.

[vagabond]

not sexy to my taste. but thanks for the invitation for women to take part.
i agree on the ignorance part, being probably much more ignorant in the poetry field than you are. and i don´t mean "Ignorant", sadly.
human creation is always based on something you experience (seeing/reading, hearing, smelling, trying to find some way to understand what´s going on).
no one lives in a vacuum. we are not gods, so it seems we rely on our surroundings to create sth out of it.

[rowens]

I think women have a very special place in a man's life. I suspect men have a very special place in a woman's life. Do you think Shakespeare got it wrong? I know Bukowski got it wrong, but that was part of my argument against him, though I agree with him.

---

The Big Names. Whether it be Poets or Critics. We can just ignore that. Or we can get influenced. Bukowski seemed to slide in through the cracks. Sometimes it seems he's a role model for those who can't write. And then, some, I suppose, waste time knowing how to write. For us who aren't winners, he seems to own the copyright on being a loser. Not to sound bittier, if only because Bukowski has copyright on that too.

[vagabond]

I think women have a very special place in a man's life. I suspect men have a very special place in a woman's life.

of course they do (except if one is homosexual). is there a connection of this fact to what i wrote above?

---

The Big Names. Whether it be Poets or Critics. We can just ignore that.

big names make it easier to be found. that´s all. shouldn´t be ignored any more or less than all the other stuff that is written or said when we happen to stumble across it.
part of all that is remembered, and the reason for that lies usually not in the Big Name alone.

[rowens]

I can't spend all day in explanation. I speak from my biased male point of view. That's the only connection to what you said. It's my only connection to anything. It's my Ignorance. I'm not anything but my ignorant self, and I hope that comes through in my writing.

[Leanne]

I don't share anything with Bukowski except the vague semblance of a language. His vernacular is not mine, his experiences do not mesh in any way with mine, and I do not share his cultural history. I am not American. I know Americans love him. He is very American.

Perhaps in the same vein, Larkin is very British. I know his tone, I know his sarcasm, I share his disdain for the overly sentimental - Larkin is where I grew up, not in place but in attitude.

Therefore, while I may appreciate Bukowski as an artist, I both appreciate and love Larkin. You may say "well, you just haven't read as much Bukowski", and this would be true: Larkin lives on my bookshelf, and I've read almost every word he ever wrote. But I do not want to read more Bukowski. His style is not one I crave. I want the metric complexities, the puns, the classy but calculated insults, the glorious interplay of sounds in every line. Poetry is subjective, and we're allowed to appreciate one over another.

I do not like the confessionals either - in fact I despise them as a collective. Again, their experiences are not mine. Their world is not mine. I do not care for self pity, or extreme introspection, or the abominable cult of the I. Yet I appreciate their art. Individually, they present great talent and ability to manipulate the word to manipulate the emotions. I just don't want to immerse myself in their world.

I genuinely can't believe, though, that we have to defend why we do and don't like some poetry. If someone doesn't like Byron, I shrug and move on to the cake. I don't spend half an hour extolling the virtues of Childe Harold and mapping out his pilgrimage in mashed potato.

[rowens]

That makes perfect sense, Leanne. But I don't see where Bukowski has any talent above what most Americans do. Yet, he, of all people, somehow does, and that is a great accomplishment. But he did. Like I said, I've read his letters and biographies. He hides it so well. THAT is his art.

---

And. . . . I read a lot of John Berryman. He is classed with Plath and Sexton and Lowell. If I spelled them right. I don't see Berryman as a Confessional. . . . And. I, like I said somewhere before, some people don't have a regular relationship with their ego. And I think that some of these people, their poetry is as close to an alligned peronality as they get. I don't think S. Plath was a great poet. But I do appreciate her trying to make art out of her chaos. She wouldn't've killed herself, huh?

---

Now . . . I wonder, Leanne. What, if anything, does Bukowski have? Why do freaks like me and billy enjoy reading this hack?

[rowens]

And also, the world we're living in . . . is it still ok to write stories about raping women, raping children? I don't have a problem with it, because I know it's fiction. But, Leanne, I don't think Americans like Bukowski. We're not supposed to LIKE him.

---

And before somebody gets bent all out of shape, I was simply referring to the fact that Bukowski writes such stories.

[Tiger the Lion]

And also, the world we're living in . . . is it still ok to write stories about raping women, raping children? I don't have a problem with it, because I know it's fiction. But, Leanne, I don't think Americans like Bukowski. We're not supposed to LIKE him.

---

And before somebody gets bent all out of shape, I was simply referring to the fact that Bukowski writes such stories.

I think fiction needs to operate outside of politics or morality in order to exist with any meaning. Having said that, I think it also has the responsibility to carry a poignancy that precludes any accusation of depravity or intent to "shock" without some greater intended value or insight.

[rowens]

I don't know about other people, but I have a lot of horrible thoughts in my head. Horrible feelings. I don't really see why someone like Plath gets such a hard wrap. She must've known the score, otherwise she wouldn't've killed herself. I don't think she killed herself just to get attention. Maybe she killed herself because her poetry was so bad. . . . But then again, if you actually read her, other than her most famous poems, she really doesn't write about herself a lot.

---

Or is it bad rap? What's the proper terminology?

---

And, yeah, I know she wrote about herself in The Bell Jar. But I'm talking about her poetry. And as for Bukowski. We got other American poets. Frost, for instance. But who's more influencial? I'd say Bukowski. But my question is, why?

---

And then there's Plath's husband, who was also a poet, if we don't forget. And I've tried to read his stuff. I used to check his collected poems out of the library every few years. Thinking it would grow on me, but it never did. It just seems flat. Do any of you here think that has more to do with the precedented hype of his famous wife, or the merit of his poetry? Because S. Plath can be rather flat too. Not physically, . . . though I'm sure by now . . . , but poetically. Not figuratively, but poemly.

---

This is the problem with drinking at 6 in the morning. Around noon, you think you're just going to have an innocent fart. And you end up shitting yourself. . . . And that's not figurative, either. Or is it? . . .

[billy]

leanne hit it on the head, i relate more to buk than to larkin though i do enjoy clever wit over in your face stuff. that aside, i relate to buk because of my life journey. the drinking the shouting, the swearing. the crack; not the wife beating and slovenliness but a large amount of what buk is like relates to me. i was a heavy drinker, a brawler, a peer of the underside of society. people are different and will follow and enjoy more the poets that relate to them. now beside buck, i really love some of the sickly stuff,

She walks in beauty, like the night.
Of cloudless climes and starry skies;....

i love Cristina Rossetti though i'm only aware of a few of her poems. Sara Teasedale is another poet i love, her poem "there will come soft rains' among a lot of others, stir something in me. The big thing for me is this, i only learned of these poets and more when i started this site. i do struggle to remember names and the poems that belong to them but while being here i've read thousands of poems i found many new boxes to open. i also found many i dislike. Maya Angelou, not too keen on emily dickenson either. .

basically what makes us like one poet over another is us; our experiences, our hopes and loves. We make them what they are to us.

That makes perfect sense, Leanne. But I don't see where Bukowski has any talent above what most Americans do. Yet, he, of all people, somehow does, and that is a great accomplishment. But he did. Like I said, I've read his letters and biographies. He hides it so well. THAT is his art.

---

And. . . . I read a lot of John Berryman. He is classed with Plath and Sexton and Lowell. If I spelled them right. I don't see Berryman as a Confessional. . . . And. I, like I said somewhere before, some people don't have a regular relationship with their ego. And I think that some of these people, their poetry is as close to an alligned peronality as they get. I don't think S. Plath was a great poet. But I do appreciate her trying to make art out of her chaos. She wouldn't've killed herself, huh?

---

Now . . . I wonder, Leanne. What, if anything, does Bukowski have? Why do freaks like me and billy enjoy reading this hack?

[rowens]

For me, making jokes and art out of the horrible things in life is the only way I know how to deal with these things. So I read those who seem to need to do the same. But then again I read almost everything I can get my hands on. You're going to find something horrible in everything.

And I say 'You're' in general. Maybe it's because I live in a smalltown, but I often feel that I have to explain everything I say, or else people will kill me.

[billy]

if you have to explain it them maybe it would be easier saying it in a different way. jokes in themselves are often irreverent so you should be fairly funny