ions
New Member
This is some pretty dumb shit right here.
-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
The Most Whack Writers
- Thread starter eyez0nme
- Start date
This is some pretty dumb shit right here.
Ronny
Well-Known Member
It would be nice to hear a little about why people didn't like what they read, For instance I don't care for William Faulkner much, I've tried 2 of his books the Sound And the Fury and As I Lay Dying. Both books have a lot of good hype, many like Faulkner. I think it's just too complex, I am a lazy reader I want everything to unfold nice and easy and niether of these books do that. I had a lot of help from members here to sort out the details but in the end I decided I didn't want to work that hard to get through a book.
I am puzzled by why anyone would want to but I assume that many like to be challenged or it just isn't that hard for them but now when I hear the name Faulkner I look like
I am puzzled by why anyone would want to but I assume that many like to be challenged or it just isn't that hard for them but now when I hear the name Faulkner I look like
Gem
kickbox
I am puzzled by why anyone would want to but I assume that many like to be challenged or it just isn't that hard for them but now when I hear the name Faulkner I look like
Not so much a liking for challenges, it's more a fondness for punishment I think. I adored As I lay Dying, because the story was so simple, but the characters so complex. It made me work, I had to sit up and concentrate and the only way to make sense of anything was to analyse everything. Both Light in August and The Sound & the Fury were much harder reads, but I read all three of these books almost one after the other which I think helped. It meant that I was familiar with his style and found it easier to know how to go about dissecting everything to understand what on earth was going on.
I can't believe that Dickens made it onto this thread. He was a master at his craft, he created some of the most enduring characters in literature, and reading his work gives me such a strong feeling and sense of the time that he lived. I read Dickens and I can literally see, smell and feel Victorian England.
Ronny
Well-Known Member
I've liked all the Dickens' books that I have read too.
And I don't think my dislike of Faulkner is in any way a negative reflection of his writing style, just on my reading style Did that make any sense? I can see that he is a good writer but just not one suited to my tastes.
And I don't think my dislike of Faulkner is in any way a negative reflection of his writing style, just on my reading style
Did that make any sense? I can see that he is a good writer but just not one suited to my tastes.
Gem
kickbox
And I don't think my dislike of Faulkner is in any way a negative reflection of his writing style, just on my reading style
Yes, you do make sense, always
. I do agree that Faulkner, although impressive, isn't very reader friendly.
SFG75
Well-Known Member
How is this the case? How is any attention given undeserved?
What makes it boring? The dialogue? Is it a matter of character development? How about the narrative?
I see a lot of posts listing authors people don't like, very few like ions actually post why they don't like a given author. It's refreshing to read a well reasoned argument as to why an author is deserving or undeserving of having the title of "wack"
Great post ions, keep it up bro.
namedujour
New Member
The only Charles Bukowski I ever read was Ham and Cheese? or Ham on Rye? (memorable...?) and I hated it.
The best I could say was that I liked his stark writing style. But his character development was really poor, the main character was unsympathetic, and I couldn't figure out what the point of the book was.
I posted a three-star review on Amazon, knowing it would be slammed with Unhelpful votes (it was about 50/50).
At first I thought: Is it a guy thing? Do guys like Charles Bukowski? Was he a guy's guy or something? Are the people who like him guys?
Then I saw from you're profile that you're female, so it totally throws off my theory, and I have to ask, Why? This is a serious question. Because the book struck me as one of those male anti-Chick-Lit-type books, where the main character smells bad, just wants to get laid, is always drunk and constantly picks fights.
What was Bukowski teaching the reader? What was I to have gained from his insight? Of what value was this little peek into the mind of a misogynist?
Just wondering.
namedujour
New Member
So, then tell me. Does he address your inner misogynist? What is it about him that you like? It can't be the development of his female characters (whom he addresses as "snatches" and "c**ts"). Is he living out your bar brawling fantasies? I'm serious. His appeal absolutely mystifies me.
Kenny Shovel
Active Member
I’ve got a few Bukowski books on my shelves and I’m sure I’ll add more over the years to come. I like his work, but with a few qualifications.
The sparse prose is a big draw for me; it’s the writing style that chimes best with my taste. The subject matter is also a plus, and this seems to be the attraction that is puzzling you. I can understand that.
For me it’s an element of the Victorian freak show I guess. Perhaps there’s also a faint whiff of what could have been? I’ve known a number of people who had similar living conditions/jobs as Bukowski and I’ve worked with some hard-line alcoholics in my time. Not quite down there with Bukowski’s characters, but doing a good impression. So perhaps I can see some truth in what he writes. An uncomfortable truth of cause, but then there is so much writing that is antiseptic.
I guess I like his stuff for the same reason I like translated fiction. He writes about a world that I don’t, or rarely, experience and as I’m not really interested in reading about things I could experience myself, that suits me fine. I’d rather make my own mistakes and draw my own conclusions, than stick my nose in a book and live vicariously though that. But with Bukowski’s world, I’m happy for him to do the work on the ground.
I suspect the vast majority of his readership is male. However I understand he’s quite popular in France, including a substantial female following. Then again, that might have been a self-created myth, as I seem to remember him writing about what were basically poetry groupies in some of his stories. I’d take that with a large pinch of salt.
There are however, weaknesses in his writing. You’ve mentioned poor character development, and I’d go along with that to an extent. That’s probably why I find his novels the least interesting part of his output. I’d much rather read his short stories, or poems.
A lot of his work also has the feeling of repeating itself. He’s basically re-telling the same stories, in the same setting. Part of that is not really his fault. From what I can gather from his biography, in one sense he wasn’t someone with a wide range of life experience. He lived for many years in a small world of people not really going anywhere, and this seems to be what he wants to record. So if you’re looking for stories where people go on a voyage of self-discovery he’s not your man. The closest you’ll get are characters trying, and failing, to pull themselves out of the mire.
As for Bukowshki’s misogyny, well I don’t really see him having a particular liking for other men either, he pretty much despises everyone including himself. Of course misanthropy is often the shield that a misogynist hides behind, but in Bukowski’s case, I’m prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Whether I’m feeding my own, inner misogynist is debatable I suppose. I don’t think my upbringing has pushed me down that particular path, but who knows? Perhaps it’s all bubbling under and one day reading Bukowski will push me over the edge and I’ll take out the entire women’s golf section with a sand wedge. It seems unlikely though. I can’t stand golf.
The sparse prose is a big draw for me; it’s the writing style that chimes best with my taste. The subject matter is also a plus, and this seems to be the attraction that is puzzling you. I can understand that.
For me it’s an element of the Victorian freak show I guess. Perhaps there’s also a faint whiff of what could have been? I’ve known a number of people who had similar living conditions/jobs as Bukowski and I’ve worked with some hard-line alcoholics in my time. Not quite down there with Bukowski’s characters, but doing a good impression. So perhaps I can see some truth in what he writes. An uncomfortable truth of cause, but then there is so much writing that is antiseptic.
I guess I like his stuff for the same reason I like translated fiction. He writes about a world that I don’t, or rarely, experience and as I’m not really interested in reading about things I could experience myself, that suits me fine. I’d rather make my own mistakes and draw my own conclusions, than stick my nose in a book and live vicariously though that. But with Bukowski’s world, I’m happy for him to do the work on the ground.
I suspect the vast majority of his readership is male. However I understand he’s quite popular in France, including a substantial female following. Then again, that might have been a self-created myth, as I seem to remember him writing about what were basically poetry groupies in some of his stories. I’d take that with a large pinch of salt.
There are however, weaknesses in his writing. You’ve mentioned poor character development, and I’d go along with that to an extent. That’s probably why I find his novels the least interesting part of his output. I’d much rather read his short stories, or poems.
A lot of his work also has the feeling of repeating itself. He’s basically re-telling the same stories, in the same setting. Part of that is not really his fault. From what I can gather from his biography, in one sense he wasn’t someone with a wide range of life experience. He lived for many years in a small world of people not really going anywhere, and this seems to be what he wants to record. So if you’re looking for stories where people go on a voyage of self-discovery he’s not your man. The closest you’ll get are characters trying, and failing, to pull themselves out of the mire.
As for Bukowshki’s misogyny, well I don’t really see him having a particular liking for other men either, he pretty much despises everyone including himself. Of course misanthropy is often the shield that a misogynist hides behind, but in Bukowski’s case, I’m prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Whether I’m feeding my own, inner misogynist is debatable I suppose. I don’t think my upbringing has pushed me down that particular path, but who knows? Perhaps it’s all bubbling under and one day reading Bukowski will push me over the edge and I’ll take out the entire women’s golf section with a sand wedge. It seems unlikely though. I can’t stand golf.
Shade
New Member
namedujour said:
I think this is an astonishing comment. To call Ham on Rye "one of those male anti-Chick-Lit type books" is like calling Crime and Punishment "one of those police procedural novels." Henry Chinaski is an often repellent character but still containing glimmers of sympathy. The book is bleak and frequently horrible but what it sings with is honesty, truth and openness. The following comment, by a review of Patrick McCabe's new novel Winterwood, could also apply to Bukowski:
One might say the same of Richard Yates, whose books are full of misery, low motives and unpleasantless, but which light up the room with their beauty and honesty.
namedujour said:
"Teaching the reader"? When did you acquire this taste for luxuries? It's 120 years since Mark Twain warned us that
And Nabokov also eschewed the idea that books are supposed to 'teach' us things. Having said that, for me Ham on Rye enabled me for the first time to understand what alcoholism is really like, such as in this paragraph:
And I would agree with Kenny that Bukowski/Chinaski wasn't a misogynist but a misanthropist. The bottom line is that he may have been a nasty old drunk, but the guy could write. And that's ultimately what matters.
namedujour
New Member
Mark Twain was a humorist. You're saying that literature should be shallow and meaningless because a humorist told you so?
And then you go on to describe how Bukowski made you understand alcoholics, which completely overturns your initial statement. Bukowski did teach you something? Or he did not?
As for feeling "curiously uplifted" (so men find him curiously uplifting...hmmm) I wasn't. I was merely bewildered over Bukowski's point in manufacturing futility - and that was what it was. Chinaski's life wasn't intrinsically futile, and his problems weren't insurmountable. Nobody would think, "poor Chinaski never got a break" because Bukowski didn't describe a terrible life, just a weak and hateful person who started fist fights and called women "c**ts."
In my Amazon review, I compared him to a guy who drives his car into a light pole and says, "So there!"
Bukowski had a talent for writing - I never denied that - and selling futility and despair. I didn't find him uplifting. If he had a greater talent for character development, perhaps I could have gotten into Chinaski's head and understood his point of view a little more. Instead, Bukowski presented me with a smelly, nasty drunk for no good reason.
If you all say it was to merely understand alcoholics, then fine. That's an honorable lesson.
But what do alcoholics understand from reading Ham on Rye? Is there anything beyond that to glean? You say there doesn't have to be. I say there must be before any author deserves to be considered "great."
And then you go on to describe how Bukowski made you understand alcoholics, which completely overturns your initial statement. Bukowski did teach you something? Or he did not?
As for feeling "curiously uplifted" (so men find him curiously uplifting...hmmm) I wasn't. I was merely bewildered over Bukowski's point in manufacturing futility - and that was what it was. Chinaski's life wasn't intrinsically futile, and his problems weren't insurmountable. Nobody would think, "poor Chinaski never got a break" because Bukowski didn't describe a terrible life, just a weak and hateful person who started fist fights and called women "c**ts."
In my Amazon review, I compared him to a guy who drives his car into a light pole and says, "So there!"
Bukowski had a talent for writing - I never denied that - and selling futility and despair. I didn't find him uplifting. If he had a greater talent for character development, perhaps I could have gotten into Chinaski's head and understood his point of view a little more. Instead, Bukowski presented me with a smelly, nasty drunk for no good reason.
If you all say it was to merely understand alcoholics, then fine. That's an honorable lesson.
But what do alcoholics understand from reading Ham on Rye? Is there anything beyond that to glean? You say there doesn't have to be. I say there must be before any author deserves to be considered "great."
namedujour
New Member
About that poem. That is a great poem. In fact, it was Bukowski's poetry (and the movie Barfly, which is one of my all-time favorites) that prompted me to buy his book.
Do you not feel that this poem more effectively creates a setting, and reveals more about the people involved than his entire novel? I got pulled into the poem, and his point of view. I never, ever did with Ham on Rye.
Bukowski wasn't a novelist. He was a poet, and in my opinion should have stuck to that. Except poetry doesn't pay, and he needed booze money. That, perhaps, was his inspiration.
Do you not feel that this poem more effectively creates a setting, and reveals more about the people involved than his entire novel? I got pulled into the poem, and his point of view. I never, ever did with Ham on Rye.
Bukowski wasn't a novelist. He was a poet, and in my opinion should have stuck to that. Except poetry doesn't pay, and he needed booze money. That, perhaps, was his inspiration.
ions
New Member
Sometimes there is unpleasentness in life for no good reason. Sometimes that is in itself the story.
namedujour
New Member
But on the basis of offering us unpleasantness for no good reason, is a writer "great"?
We should start a "For No Good Reason" thread, and examine writers who write well, but who present us with empty unpleasantness that is neither uplifting nor educational, and which evokes a "recoil" reaction. Then we should all decide which of them is great.
One note on the movie Barfly, which was a semi-autobiographical snapshot of Charles Bukowski's life. It had the same bleakness and futility as Ham on Rye. But it had something more that his book didn't convey. Let me make it clear that I am NOT rejecting Charles Bukowski's voice; just Ham on Rye, which may be representational of his mediocrity in the realm of novel writing. (I'm just suggesting.)
Watching Barfly was like watching an accident. I couldn't look away, even though it turned my stomach. I was appalled. But something about the film was good - even excellent - I just couldn't put my finger on it.
So I watched it again. Without the element of shock and disgust (I already knew what was coming), I discovered the movie was actually wildly funny. During the second go-around I found myself laughing out loud at the absurdities that surrounded him, and the garish, Felini-esque characters.
I watched it a third time, and saw something entirely different. The third time the movie was a sweet (if debauched) romance with a happy ending. Our hero gets the girl, lives the life he wants, and wins the fight at the end of the movie. All hail our hero.
Based on this and some of his poems, I presumed Bukowski wrote novels equally multi-layered. But Ham on Rye was not. It was pht pht spit it out, in my opinion. What saved it was the writing.
But good writing does not a great writer make. It needs to go a little deeper, and the writing needs to open your eyes, teach you, or change you in some way. Bukowski could probably do that in a heartbeat with his poetry, but not with his prose. That's my opinion.
We should start a "For No Good Reason" thread, and examine writers who write well, but who present us with empty unpleasantness that is neither uplifting nor educational, and which evokes a "recoil" reaction. Then we should all decide which of them is great.
One note on the movie Barfly, which was a semi-autobiographical snapshot of Charles Bukowski's life. It had the same bleakness and futility as Ham on Rye. But it had something more that his book didn't convey. Let me make it clear that I am NOT rejecting Charles Bukowski's voice; just Ham on Rye, which may be representational of his mediocrity in the realm of novel writing. (I'm just suggesting.)
Watching Barfly was like watching an accident. I couldn't look away, even though it turned my stomach. I was appalled. But something about the film was good - even excellent - I just couldn't put my finger on it.
So I watched it again. Without the element of shock and disgust (I already knew what was coming), I discovered the movie was actually wildly funny. During the second go-around I found myself laughing out loud at the absurdities that surrounded him, and the garish, Felini-esque characters.
I watched it a third time, and saw something entirely different. The third time the movie was a sweet (if debauched) romance with a happy ending. Our hero gets the girl, lives the life he wants, and wins the fight at the end of the movie. All hail our hero.
Based on this and some of his poems, I presumed Bukowski wrote novels equally multi-layered. But Ham on Rye was not. It was pht pht spit it out, in my opinion. What saved it was the writing.
But good writing does not a great writer make. It needs to go a little deeper, and the writing needs to open your eyes, teach you, or change you in some way. Bukowski could probably do that in a heartbeat with his poetry, but not with his prose. That's my opinion.
Kenny Shovel
Active Member
So you didn't like 'Ham on Rye' then?
ions
New Member
I'm at a disadvantage here. I've only picked up Ham on Rye and Women and just read through random scenes. One of the benefits of working in a book store. But it still leaves me without the whole. I don't know if I agree or disagree with you. I do know that the scenes I read were honest although raw. Snapshots of men in base, but not uncommon, moments. I suspect that you are offended by certain words and the derogatory way in which women are represented in the book. I haven't seen Barfly so I don't know how much of that material is covered there and my assumption could be wrong.
Found on Wikipedia:
That sounds like a reason to write.
There's a lot of writers out there with no real message. Just a plot. And sometimes barely that. I don't think Bukowski falls into that category.
Found on Wikipedia:
That sounds like a reason to write.
There's a lot of writers out there with no real message. Just a plot. And sometimes barely that. I don't think Bukowski falls into that category.
I've read a great deal of Bukowski over the years (say 90% of his prose and 50% of his poetry), and wouldn't claim that he is a great writer. Or, at least, would say that his writing is very uneven. But, as I have said in other threads, when Bukowksi was on his game, he was capable of genius.
For what it's worth, back in my salad days I knew several women who were big fans of his writing.
If I may presume to speak for all of us (that is, the old gang), I would say that ultimately Bukowski's appeal lay in the fact that he could find art (which is not necessarily to say beauty) and meaning (which is not to say a meaning) in his particular sort of anti-heroic life.
For what it's worth, back in my salad days I knew several women who were big fans of his writing.
If I may presume to speak for all of us (that is, the old gang), I would say that ultimately Bukowski's appeal lay in the fact that he could find art (which is not necessarily to say beauty) and meaning (which is not to say a meaning) in his particular sort of anti-heroic life.