Michael Long
|
Michael Long is a student at PCC. He is currently taking mostly writing and music classes because he is both a musician and a writer who would like to work in the arts.
|
Reading Bukowski Like Ted Kooser
In the essay below, Long explores Bukowski's Pulp through Ted Kooser's Poetry Home Repair Manual, using Kooser's ideas about poetry to explore Bukowski's style and impact.
Over the course of this poetry class I read Charles Bukowski's Los Angeles based book titled Pulp. I really liked the book a lot and I thought the book had some very interesting ties to Ted Kooser's book The Poetry Home Repair Manual. Obviously I tieed them together because I was reading them at the same time but I really thought that they had some really interesting parallels and juxtapositions if you were to compare the two books.
One of the coolest things about Buikowski's book that I really liked is how he blatantly dedicates his book to bad writing on the first page of his book. I suppose this is where his genius shines because I loved the book and thought it was written very well. I suppose it could have possibly been his insecurities dedicating the book to "bad writing" but he didn't really seem like the insecure type. Another theory that I have is that possibly he's talking about his subject matter that he writes about and how it parallels his everyday life of alcohol, gambling and women. I thought it was a very interesting juxtaposition to what Kooser is doing by wiriting a poetry book to help people become better writers and better poets. Obviously I don't believe that Bukowski would write a book like this to discourage people from swriting well and I don't believe he sets out to write anything bad, I think that once again that's where Bukowski's genius lies and that he's actually so good at writing and better poets. Obviously I don't believe that Bukowski would write a book like this discourage people from writing well and I don't believe he sets out to write anything bad. I think that once again that's where Bukowski's genius lies and that he's actually so good at writing that he can "break the rules" so to speak and write a book in the style and the obsessions of the pulp fiction genre. I think that Bukowski was such a fan of the genre he wrote this to showcase all of the stereotypes of the genre. Bukowski did not plan this novel out very well before he wrote it and he frequently wrote the main character "Nicky Belane" into corners he could not get out of, also a lot of people also agree that this novel was Bukowski's way of coming to terms with his mortality for it was the last novel he wrote before his death.
Thought Weeks says revision is drudgery, I don't agree. you can learn to love tinkering with drafts of poems until a warm hand from somewher above you reaches down, unscrews the top of your head, and drops in a solution that blows your ears off. Sure there are plenty of days when nothing good happens, days when every word you write seems silly and shallow, when your revisions seem to be dragging your poems in the wrong direction; but you need to be there writing and waiting, as a hunter might say, for that our when at last the ducks come flying in. To say it more simply, int he words of a painter friend, you just need to "show up for work." --Ted Kooser
I think it's quite clear through these passages from Kooser that Bukowski is not the only one who engages in, suffers from and enjoys "bad writing." It's clear to me after reading these authors that although they have some different philosophies on how to live in life, they have a lot of connection in their writing when it comes to the ups and downs of it and the idea of a work ethic.
I kept the drinking glasses pressed to the wall and kep listening. I head the shower water running. Poor Bass, he had been right. But everybody was right, and wrong, and upside down. But what did it really matter who screwed who? It was finally all so Drab. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Well, people got attached. Once you cut the umbilical cord they attached to other things. Sight, sound, sex, money, mirages, mothers, masturbation, murder and Monday morning hangovers. --Charles Bukowski
I believe that what Bukowski feels is bad writing is the subject matter as to what is being written. It is very possible that Kooser (althought this is not poetry and I'm making some assumptions here) may not have liked this writing at all. He may possibly think the subject matter is a bit too raw and unemotional, possibly even offensive. But I feel that there are actually two sides to every coin and that this writing is very excellent to me and I feel that if you've lived a life like Bukowski's there's definitely some truth in these words. I believe there is some brilliance in the passage, like a poet or a musician, Bukowski has an idea of what he's going for and executes it perfectly in a very short passage. His flow in his dialogue here is second to none and would absolutely stand out when it comes to analyzing work because of the originality and essence of the way he chooses his words and how he blends them together. I feel like I'm watching Picasso paint when I read Bukowski.
One of the coolest things about Buikowski's book that I really liked is how he blatantly dedicates his book to bad writing on the first page of his book. I suppose this is where his genius shines because I loved the book and thought it was written very well. I suppose it could have possibly been his insecurities dedicating the book to "bad writing" but he didn't really seem like the insecure type. Another theory that I have is that possibly he's talking about his subject matter that he writes about and how it parallels his everyday life of alcohol, gambling and women. I thought it was a very interesting juxtaposition to what Kooser is doing by wiriting a poetry book to help people become better writers and better poets. Obviously I don't believe that Bukowski would write a book like this to discourage people from swriting well and I don't believe he sets out to write anything bad, I think that once again that's where Bukowski's genius lies and that he's actually so good at writing and better poets. Obviously I don't believe that Bukowski would write a book like this discourage people from writing well and I don't believe he sets out to write anything bad. I think that once again that's where Bukowski's genius lies and that he's actually so good at writing that he can "break the rules" so to speak and write a book in the style and the obsessions of the pulp fiction genre. I think that Bukowski was such a fan of the genre he wrote this to showcase all of the stereotypes of the genre. Bukowski did not plan this novel out very well before he wrote it and he frequently wrote the main character "Nicky Belane" into corners he could not get out of, also a lot of people also agree that this novel was Bukowski's way of coming to terms with his mortality for it was the last novel he wrote before his death.
Thought Weeks says revision is drudgery, I don't agree. you can learn to love tinkering with drafts of poems until a warm hand from somewher above you reaches down, unscrews the top of your head, and drops in a solution that blows your ears off. Sure there are plenty of days when nothing good happens, days when every word you write seems silly and shallow, when your revisions seem to be dragging your poems in the wrong direction; but you need to be there writing and waiting, as a hunter might say, for that our when at last the ducks come flying in. To say it more simply, int he words of a painter friend, you just need to "show up for work." --Ted Kooser
I think it's quite clear through these passages from Kooser that Bukowski is not the only one who engages in, suffers from and enjoys "bad writing." It's clear to me after reading these authors that although they have some different philosophies on how to live in life, they have a lot of connection in their writing when it comes to the ups and downs of it and the idea of a work ethic.
I kept the drinking glasses pressed to the wall and kep listening. I head the shower water running. Poor Bass, he had been right. But everybody was right, and wrong, and upside down. But what did it really matter who screwed who? It was finally all so Drab. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Well, people got attached. Once you cut the umbilical cord they attached to other things. Sight, sound, sex, money, mirages, mothers, masturbation, murder and Monday morning hangovers. --Charles Bukowski
I believe that what Bukowski feels is bad writing is the subject matter as to what is being written. It is very possible that Kooser (althought this is not poetry and I'm making some assumptions here) may not have liked this writing at all. He may possibly think the subject matter is a bit too raw and unemotional, possibly even offensive. But I feel that there are actually two sides to every coin and that this writing is very excellent to me and I feel that if you've lived a life like Bukowski's there's definitely some truth in these words. I believe there is some brilliance in the passage, like a poet or a musician, Bukowski has an idea of what he's going for and executes it perfectly in a very short passage. His flow in his dialogue here is second to none and would absolutely stand out when it comes to analyzing work because of the originality and essence of the way he chooses his words and how he blends them together. I feel like I'm watching Picasso paint when I read Bukowski.