Talk:Charles Bukowski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charles Bukowski article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] In Popular Culture

The In Popular Culture section needs to be cleaned up, perhaps by chronological order of references within each subsection or perhaps alphabetical order. Right now it reads like a trivia section, which as I understand, is discouraged. VarunRajendran 02:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medical checkup

"One of his poems describes his enjoyment of having a medical checkup at which he found that his drinking had had no perceptible effect on his health."

When did Bukowski write this poem? Unless I am mistaken, he was admitted to an L.A. hospital in 1955 on account of a bleeding, alcohol-induced ulcer which almost killed him. Was the poem written before this time, or was Bukowski not being autobiographical in the poem mentioned? --Teeks 20:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This was a later period poem, late 80's or early 90's. If I can find the poem I'll list it here (kind of a needle in a haystack, considering the thousands of published poems). There are dozens of later poems regarding doctor visits, as he wrote up until a few months before his death. Smog.net

[edit] Bukowski is Lebowski

i would prefer to have proof about that. maybe the Coen brothers didn't want to show that they wrote this film about the author for economic reasons. but they left the ending -owski to wink the eye at the public. the character is the same. some personal characteristics are the same. dude as hank. did time in university but failed. the dude drinks and plays bowling bets as hank played with the horses. same air same philosophy. people arround hank are usually almost insane and have obsessions, like the friend of dude with Vietnam. dude is the same as Bukowski in his youth and as he appears in "barfly". i'm surprised that no one noticed it..--Arberor 14:24, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

--The Dude is an easygoing hippie who smokes joints and just wants his rug back, man. I don't think he characterizes the extreme depression and mania of Bukowski. Slight homage, perhaps. SAME character as Bukowski/Chinaski, I think not.

hmm...I'm not surprised that no one made the connection, because there isn't one. Pot smoking? Bowling? "Dude"? If that's an homage it's a tenuous one. The only connection is drinking, and if you're going to base a connection on that, Bukowski must have been the inspiration for hundreds of movies. Smog.net

Bukowski mentions smoking pot in some of his poems and stories, but you're right. He certainly wasn't a hippy who like to bowl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.28.67 (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Dude is a character based off of a friend of the Coen brothers, Jeff Dowds (may have the last name wrong.) In fact, it mentions this in the Wikipedia article for The Big Lebowski.

Besides that I don't see Bukowski being a big fan of hippies, stoners etc.

The Dude was based on independent film promoter Jeff Dowd (aka Jeff "The Dude" Dowd), who helped the Coen brothers secure distribution for their first feature, Blood Simple. (1984). Like his fictional counterpart, Dowd was a member of the Seattle Seven and takes a casual approach to grooming and dress. (IMDB)
Alcoholism is one of Bukowski's prominent idiosynracies, but is not his claim to fame (how notable is alcoholism alone?). Bukowski's most notable characteristic? his writing, its style and impact, and thus also his fervent, mad devotion to writing, through a harrowing number of decades (alcoholism included HERE). The Dude, missing this most key element, is no reflection of Bukowski. Homer Simpson is a bit closer than Lebowski, but don't quote me, it's a weak link. MotherFunctor 01:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen any reference to Lebowski being based on Bukowski in any way, although I have seen the references to Jeff Dowd. Rray 16:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Mountain Poets?

Why is Black Mountain Poets listed under "See also"? Bukowski had no relation to the BMP and didn't use their goofy contractions in his work... Smog.net

[edit] Forty is too few

Whoever changed the number of books written from 50 to 40 - that number is way too low. I count well over 50, and this is only counting the primary publications, and only books with more than one story or poem (Black Sparrow issued books at the end of each year containing one story or anywhere from one to six or seven poems). Yes, it's a lot. But it's not an inflated number (Krumhansl's "A Descriptive Bibliography of the Primary Publications of Charles Bukowski" lists over 70 books), so let it stand. Smog.net 00:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. An anonymous user changed, so I wouldn't worry too much about changing it back.--Alabamaboy 00:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section doesn't fit

Is it just me or is the Trivia section pointless? Is a list of bands who have quoted or sampled Bukowski really relevant to someone looking for information on the writer?

Well it shows how broad his influences in pop culture are, so I think it is pretty relevant. Besides, it's trivia.Osprey39 03:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I guess I missed the trivia sections in the encyclopedias I've seen over the years. ;) Mentioning a writer's name in a pop song is not an indication of the writer's influence. It's a name check in a song. It's pointless and unecessary to list those things here. But what do I know. Smog.net 15:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Smognet. I'm glad some good editing has been done here. Too many celebrities that are "hip" have pages that read like Fan websites. They are all adulation and no criticism. This is now a bit better than many other sites like it, though. However, I'm sure deleting every fart he ever made would enrage the Bukowskiites, but if you wanna do it, I'll support you. Iago Dali 16:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Trivia is getting more and more stupid. Should I add myself because I wrote a poem inspired by him? C'mon, cut the crap. --KesheR (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving towards a better intro

Why does it say "He was a nice and sweet man" at the end of the intro, which seems unencyclopedic to say the least, and yet when I go to the edit page that text isn't there? --Trilonaut

Since there's a couple of you (at least) looking after this article at the moment, I thought I'd put something up for discussion. The intro currently reads:

"Charles Bukowski (August 16, 1920 – March 9, 1994), was a Los Angeles poet and novelist. Bukowski is sometimes associated with the Beat Generation writers because of his informal style and non-conformist literary attitude, though he did not identify himself as a Beat. Bukowski closely associated his works with his home city of Los Angeles and wrote over fifty books before his death."

I wonder if we can do better. What I don't like about it is that we've moved straight into a debate (him being labelled a Beat, and him distancing himself). Could we start off with some things that are not open to debate and then move onto discussions later? Also (and I'm making no claims to be an expert here, my reading is primarily Post Office, Women, Factotum - though I've read those multiple times) I never got the impression of his work as being primarily about location (ie Los Angeles). I would tend to mention his lifestyle or themes before location. What do other people think? --bodnotbod 17:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, trim away. As I said to the other quety, this link is larded with "fat". Iago Dali 19:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, believe me, if I was confident I could do it well I would go ahead ;o) But I'm not sure how best to do it. It's not just trimming the intro I'm thinking about. In fact, I think the opening should be longer, as it looks better to have a longer para before the Table of Contents (see WP:LEAD), possibly even two paras. However, I'm not convinced I'm the best man for the job. If nobody else attempts it then perhaps I'll have a go in a few days' time. --bodnotbod 19:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Have at it.

Nothing personal to all of you who are concerned and eager contributors to this Bukowski entry, but I'm bowing out. Like a lot of things, wikipedia is a great in concept and flawed in execution. Trying to keep an entry accurate or even informative is like pissing up a rope. That applies to just about every wikipedia entry I've ever seen though, not just this one. It's not worth the constant monitoring and debate to try to keep it relevant or accurate.

Easy now, mjp

Smog.net 17:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

That is too bad, but understandable. Having visited your site, I believe you are somewhat of an authority on Bukowski and were making a genuine attempt to keep things accurate. terry1944


I'm new here and though I don't consider myself an authority on Bukowski I know a lot more than most. I've been researching his work for several years now and I plan on making some additions and edits that all should find relevant to his life and works.D6stringer 13:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology

Question: What is the internal chronology of Bukowski's novels? Ham on Rye --> Factotum --> Post Office --> Women?

152.93.5.6

That's correct, although they weren't written or published in that order.

[edit] Link

An editor has had an issue with a Charles Bukowski external link to A critical look at Charles Bukowski’s poem "My First Affair With That Older Woman". When I did a major rewrite to the Bukowski article a few months ago, I added a number of links to "positive" external sources and this one link to a "negative" take on Buk's poetry. I believe links should not only be to supportive sources but also to sources that that a critical look at the subject. I found the essay at the link to be a useful analysis of the issues that some people have with Buk's poetry. This doesn't mean I agree with it, but the article should retain the link to keep a NPOV. Are there other thoughts on this? For what it's worth, the site the article is on has a high Google page rank and has been mentioned by a number of sources, such as the New York Times, as a valuable source of poetry analysis. --Alabamaboy 12:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


I don't see much poetry analysis on there. I do see someone who thinks he's a better writer than pretty much everyone else who ever lived, and he's angry that the world hasn't recognized and rewarded his obvious and overwhelming talent. I'm not opposed to presenting a negative critique of Bukowski (or his work - some people have a hard time separating the two), there's plenty of fertile ground there. The poem rewrite isn't criticism though. It's a self-aggrandizing slam. I just think a more objective critique could be found. Smog.net 02:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


I disagree with your assessment of Dan Schneider's writing style and critiques (I see the writer's style as harking back to an older, more ridicule-based form of critique, which used to be practiced but has since fallen out of favor). Still, I appreciate you saying (on your talk page) that you'll not delete the link. I also wanted to thank you the many excellent edits you made to the article. I think this article has been improved greatly over the last two months.--Alabamaboy 12:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


Well you're making my point for me. How is a "ridicule-based form of critique" neutral? Your defense for keeping the link is to maintain NPOV. Don't get me wrong, I've spent half my life dispensing ridicule as critique. But then it isn't my goal to maintain a NPOV, as wikipedia's is. Like I said, I don't think we'll ever agree on this. To tell you the truth, I find your staunch defense of the link (and Dan Schneider) baffling. Smog.net

Perhaps my use of ridicule was the wrong word. Let me elaborate: until the last few decades, literary criticism used to be more forceful and to to the point. If a critic did not like an author's work, they would point out in detail what was wrong with the writing. To do this, the critic would employ satire and other forms of criticism. Today, though, many critics have taken to a form of criticism which talks endlessly about a person's writing without actually saying what is good or bad about it. Dan Schneider's article is not neutral--he does not like Buk's writing and he states exactly why he doesn't like it. My point about the NPOV is that a Wikipedia article must include links to resources which both support and oppose any issue being discussed, in this case Buk's life and his writing. By linking to the article, we are providing a well-rounded presentation on Buk. BTW, I have read many of Dan's essays on his site and other places and I have found him to have a keen eye on poetry. I don't always agree with his accessments but I never fail to find something worth taking away from his critiques.--Alabamaboy 11:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
BTW, you are doing some really good edits. However, I noticed that you shortened the lead to one sentence. According to Wikipedia style, the lead needs to be a short summary of the article. For more on this, see Wikipedia:Lead section. --Alabamaboy 11:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
"According to Wikipedia style, the lead needs to be a short summary of the article." - Mea culpa, I wasn't aware of that. Smog.net

Really, all the junk links should be removed, good and bad. True references would be fine, but any trivial criticism should be removed. User:justfred

I disagree. All of the links are good and follow standard Wikipedia practice of linking to external sources of more information. The issue people keep having is that one of the links links to a negative criticism of Buk's writing. No one ever complains about the postive links but people hate having one link to someone who doesn't like Buk's writing. I say keep all the links so readers can explore all the information and make up their own minds.--Alabamaboy 00:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And I disagree right back. I have no problem with negative links (tho I don't think it's necessary to have positive and negative links for POV) but I read two of them and they're just junk. I think a few of the other links should be removed as well. Wikipedia is not a link farm. User:justfred

how is ten links a links farm? I've seen entries with dozens. as for the links quoted, the only one with any real criticism is the funny one by Schneider. read Mencken or Twain. this is the way crit used to be--funny and hard. boo-hoo, are u saying ole buk can't take one on the chin. he'd probably knock you on yr ass for implying that. if any links should go it's the imdb film link and the poem remixes. they smell of blatant commercialism, wiki ain't to be used to sell things. keep the funny links. 4.231.133.43

I don't see why it's necessary to have a link to literary criticism of Bukowski in some random guy's blog. Somebody (Alabamaboy?) explain to me what I'm missing? Maybe this guy is more important than I recognize in the literary criticism sphere, I dunno. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If anyone looked at the history of the article, they will see that when I did a major rewrite to the Bukowski article about 9 months ago, I added a number of links to "positive" external sources and this one link to a "negative" take on Buk's poetry. I believe links should not only be to supportive sources but also to sources that that a critical look at the subject. I found the essay at the link to be a useful analysis of the issues that some people have with Buk's poetry. This doesn't mean I agree with it, but the article should retain the link to keep a NPOV. The author of the link has a high Google page rank and has been mentioned by a number of sources, such as the New York Times, as a valuable source of poetry analysis. --Alabamaboy 21:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what you or anybody else did to this article 9 months ago. What I saw that caught my attention is an edit war, so I figured I'd ask why this link is important enough to edit war over. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it an edit war. An anonymous user keeps removing the link with insulting edit messages. I told the user to discuss this on the talk page and, if consensus here was to remove the link, then that's what we'll do. Simply removing the link after an objection to doing so has been raised is not the way we do things around here. Best,--Alabamaboy 21:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
That link is junk. There is no need to discuss removing a junk link. Does anyone think that link is not junk? You want negative, fine, find a valid negative link. That link is worthless, period. justfred

So, how exactly is that link "junk"? Because you don't like it? Here's a line from that piece: "What possible purpose does the break at ‘was’ serve? We know she’s dying, so there is no drama, nor is there any existential ‘heaviness’ in stating, ‘the next day she was’."

Seems like legitimate critical analysis to me, so what justfred is really saying is he's a Bukowski fan and wants nothing but adulation in this entry. Alabamaboy, you have to realize that writers like Buk, or the Beats, or even some like the Postmodernists, have rabid fans that brink no disagreement. Stick to your guns. Many big name critics like Harold Bloom and Marjorie Perloff think Buk is shit, too. This guy just proves it.

You're right, though, Alabamaboy. That website BTW is not a blog, just a regular website with apparently a big following, if Google is to be believed. That's what cheeses justfred off. A blog is a running website in a journal form. That site has all sorts of articles on politics, films, science, etc. If you really wanna tackle some junk, justfred, go over to the Shakespeare entry (a really great writer BTW) and argue over the validity of that nonsense over Shakespeare being gay or someone else.

I'd trim some of the other links that just feed redundant info, but God forbid. Can't have too much praise! What a joke. 4.231.26.213

No, wrong. I DO NOT CARE WHETHER THE LINK IS POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE. Somewhere there must be valid commentary saying that Bukowski was a drunk, and that most of his writing glorifies a wasted life. If so it should be included. But the link to "This Old Poem" takes one of his poems and purports to rewrite it "better"; the article is almost entirely subjective. What "cheeses me" is that it's from some unknown writer with no credentials and basically nothing useful to say! If I rewrite Hamlet and post it on my website, noting all the places I think Shakespeare should have changed it, should THAT be linked from the Shakespeare page (no matter how many Google hits I get)! For that matter, is there a link from Wiki Shakespeare to the cosmoetica page? No. There should be no link to his Bukowski page. And because it doesn't matter: I've read Bukowski, I'm not that big a fan, but I do believe that the most of the links here are non-encyclopedic and should be removed - including the ones with redundant info you mentioned. Go ahead and remove them. You don't have to ask permission here. I still have no idea why Alabamaboy is so adamant about this particular article. Is he a fan of Schneider? I'm not impressed. justfred

Okay, I looked at Schneider's site. I'm still not impressed but apparently he is well-enough known on the web (there's a wiki page about him). I still think the article has no merit; but if it's kept it should have a more descriptive title, such as "Dan Schneider's Cosmoetica review of..."

But now I notice that Alabamaboy was one of the major writers of the Dan Schneider wiki page. [1] That explains a lot. I say remove the link. justfred

I'm still not sure that this link meets the smell test. Dan Schneider appears to be modestly notable, but ... if the issue is that Alabamaboy thinks it's needed to maintain some sort of balance in the external links, I think we might as well just prune most of them and call it a day. It's not worth edit warring over, and there doesn't appear to be a consensus for its inclusion at any rate. As long as the article itself is presented in an NPOV fashion, that's what matters most. A couple links of general information should suffice. That's what I think anyway. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 00:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you think the article is overall NPOV. Let me be honest here: I really like the way Dan Schneider rewrote Buk's poem as a form of criticism. As someone who reads tons of lit crit, it is refreshing to see a writer take such a new way of criticism. Does that mean I agree with Dan? Most of the time, no. However, I think the article is good criticism. And I must ask what you mean by the smell test?--Alabamaboy 00:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, is it me or is there a lack of "assume good faith" in this discussion? My point all along was that there wasn't consensus to remove the link and to discuss this on the talk page. justfred says that because I wrote an article here about Dan Schneider my motives are suspect. You say the link doesn't meet the "smell test." What the heck? One anonymous editor (not justfred, just for the record) has been using sockpuppets to edit and debate this issue and has violated the 3 revert rule on the article, and I'm the one suspect on all of this. As this link [2]
shows, a while back I did a major rewrite to the article to both expand the article and make it more NPOV. How can the article be NPOV (in your words) but this one link fails the "smell test." Heck, I worked on all of that. I wish both of you would assume my good intentions here.--Alabamaboy 00:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, calm down. I think you're projecting a little bit. When I first came to this page I had no idea who added the link, just that it seemed to me not worthy of inclusion on its own merits. So how could I have been insulting you personally by questioning its inclusion? By the same token, I could make the same assumptions about what you've just written here about my opinions -- right? I'm not suggesting such a thing, just pointing out that it's easy to jump to conclusions. For the record, I think justfred was wrong to cast those kinds of aspersions. The smell test is a figure of speech meaning "something just not quite right." As in, there's something just not quite right about including it in the article, but I haven't decided quite what yet, which is partially why I'm not being insistent about my opinions. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 01:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Alabama boy has repeatedly blocked my removal of the link in question, finally explaining that he´d agree with the removal provided consensus in favor of doing so was reached in the discussion page. Well, how exactly do you define consensus, Alabamaboy? You´re more or less the only party who doesn´t want the link to be removed or believes it to have any value. If it wasn´t for a tiny hanful of objections we´d HAVE a complete consensus, instead of the very stong one we have now. I repeat that I do not object to criticism of Bukowski or of anyone or anything else per se -- just bad, self-interested criticism.
Actually, another anonymous user in the discussion above supported the link, as you know since you argued with him/her. And yes, I found Dan Schneider to be interesting enough to write an entry on him. I've also written entries on a number of other writers. Anyway, I'd be fine with renaming the link along the lines of what you suggested "Dan Schneider's Cosmoetica review of..." although that seems a bit silly since we don't do that for the other links However, unless the consensus forms to remove the link we should not do so. So far I see you and Katefan0 against the link and me and an anonymous editor for (although, personally, I don't give anonymous editors much credit in a discussion, which is why I'm glad you're now using a log-in account). BTW, why are you using both an anonymous IP address and your log-in name to debate and edit this issue. Please stick to one or the other. --Alabamaboy 00:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, at the moment there appears to be a stronger consensus that the link is questionable. I saw two other registered users besides myself (justfred and smog.net) who have at least raised questions about whether it's appropriate. It would seem, then, prudent to leave the link out until everybody can decide the best way to proceed, although I won't edit war over it. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 01:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That (above, and anywhere else on this page) was not me. I sign my entries. Please don't assume. (Though I believe I made at least one edit before logging in - for the record I'm 66.234). The other links, if they're worth keeping, probably deserve descriptive names as well. Consensus schmonsensis - it's not that important an issue. You obviously are a fan of this bad link and will war to keep it, as you've done for the past few months despite a variety of other editors removing it - yes, I checked the history. Maybe once you get bored with it the article will be corrected. justfred

Apologies on that. I knew you'd edited at least once from an anonymous IP and wasn't sure which one you were. I have not "warred" on the link but, as I said, I don't appreciate it when people remove it without discussion. I'd also appreciate if you would stop insulting me because I disagree with you. To my knowledge, I have not once insulted you over this disagreement.--Alabamaboy 00:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Alabamaboy, sure you have. You're an administrator, I'm sure you recognize edit warring when you see it -- repeatedly undoing an edit that wasn't vandalism is pretty much the textbook definition. I have no doubt that you felt you were doing the right thing, but motivations aside, undoing another editor's edits is edit warring, regardless of whether you view it as just or not. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 01:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Insulted you how? By saying you're wrong? By saying you appear to be a fan of the article you keep trying to link to? The reason I ended up here today is because someone else changed it, and you changed it back. I can count in the history half a dozen users and/or IPs that have tried to change this link, and you keep changing it back and arguing about it.

Against: justfred, Katefan0, 201.144.40.61, 200.78.5.62, 24.19.46.41, smog.net, 68.234.36.174, 132.239.59.199. For: Alabamaboy, 4.231.26.213. --justfred

Heck yes I'm a fan of the article but I'm also a fan of all of the article/websites I link to in the article (if I didn't think they were good I wouldn't have linked to them). And the vote count you give is not valid b/c smog.net and I came to an agreement and the anonymous IPs don't count (and are also sock puppets, in one case).

As a means of compromise, I would accept any other link that is to someone who DOES NOT like Buk's writings and explains why they don't like it. Provide this new link and we can go with it. I still say, though, that that rewrite of that poem goes a long way to showing why many people think Buk's poetry is not very good and that essay is excellent criticism. The main reason I get so worked up over this is that many of the literary articles on this site only provide positive coverage of the writer and are usually written by partisans who love said writer. As I did with the African American literature article, I try to provide positive and negative criticisms to literary subject I write about. And whether you like him or not, Dan Schneider's literary criticism have gained a lot of attention.--Alabamaboy 01:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You know what, just remove the link. This isn't worth all the agravation. However, I think this really hurts the NPOV of the article. Many critics think Buk's poetry sucks and we will now only be linking to sites that praise Buk. To me, that's not very NPOV. IF I get a chance, I will write a criticism section to the article soon that make up for this lack of NPOV because it will include referenced info from critics who like and hate his work.--Alabamaboy 01:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a much better solution. There should be critical voices included inside the article -- much better than just leaving it to an external link to tell the other side of the story. In fact, I'll help yo do it. For the record, I apologize if I somehow contributed to you feeling ganged up on, it was never my intention. I just wanted to understand why this link was so important. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 01:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have to gather some references and stuff but once I'm ready I'll drop you a line.--Alabamaboy 01:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought this was obvious, but I´ll say it anyway -- the fact that most of the links to Bukowski information are complimentary toward him does not and cannot justify including links reflecting different views regardless of their quality. In any case, it stands to reason that a) a person interested in writing about Bukowski will likely think highly of his writing and also that b) a person who dislikes Bukowski´s work will probably require some extenuating motivation to write about him, such as, for example, jealousy.

PS Anonymous editors are worthless, of course. Fortunatenly, however, the reason many of us haven´t inagurated ourselves as offical editors is because we find it impossible to take Wikipedia seriously anyway.

Actually, just the opposite is true. As mentioned earlier, all the big name critics- the Blooms, Vendlers, Perloffs, etc. find Buk's writings--poetry and prose--to be worthless. The idea that these critics are 'jealous' of Buk's writing is absurd on its face. They just don't spend much time on tripe like Buk, so finding links to their disses will be slim. Nice to know Wiki yet again supports the ignorance of the majority rather than the opportunity for critical ideas to rise and fall on their own. 4.230.147.227

Hello Scheider, you worthless conservative no-talent.

[edit] Bukowski and the Beats

I am doing a term paper on Charles Bukowski's relation with the Beat Generation. I am leaning toward the fact that he is NOT associated with them, as commonly believed. I need Secondary sources. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helen highwater (talk • contribs)


He wasn't a beat. He never considered himself a beat. He met Neal Cassady once in passing and that is the extent of his relationship to the beat movement. IrishGuy 19:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Bukowski definately is NOT part of the beat poets/writers. The main difference, as I read it, is that while Bukowski's anger in his wrtiting grew out his own failures and abuses, the Beats writing reflects an entire generation's anger over post WWII excesses, and the seeking of the paths to break free from them. Bukowski was a sad, literate drunk; the Beats were really convinced that their work would change the world for the better. For a comparison of these two tones, choose any Bukowski poem and choose any poem by Ginsberg. Bukowski bitches and complains, while Ginsberg crackles with fire and depth. I used to read A LOT of Bukowski- then, I grew up. (rickymanis@hotmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.250.119 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bukowski's dad

So was he "German American", per this article, or "Polish-American", per Rhineland? Alai 18:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drinking

I'm quite surprised that there are not more references to his drinking and general disregard for... well... things. What is currently written is (probably) quite factual but, it gives no insight into who he really was. The article leads one to think that he was a postman that turned author but, based on his writing, he was a drunk[en hero] that bought some time as a postman and eventually became an icon to many via his ideas and lifestyle. I understand that this is to be a factual article but, in reality, without more references to drinking and what it meant to his work, it is not at all factual, it's just dates. The "Life" section is extremely poor. Regardless of the fact that it's written in a poor style where almost the entire section is written as a single paragraph, it says almost nothing interesting. It should actually be called a "Timeline" section and a "Life" section should be added to actually portray the lifestyle that he lived and what it meant to his work.

It's a Wikipedia article. Feel free to revise it if you think you can improve it; that's the whole point. Rray 16:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Whatever you do to "improve" it, some idiot will come along and ruin anyway, so don't waste your time.
Amen to that. Every time I look at this it's worse. What's funny is all the glassy-eyed wikibots trying to force it to follow "wikipedia standards," and that is exactly what's making it suck. Oh, and that and the fact that any asshole who has rented Barfly from Blockbuster is somehow an authority. Yawn. Smog.net 17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pre beat generation?

Is Bukowski pre beat generation? (It is mistake, I think )

      Second generation west coast Beat.

[edit] Cultural depictions

I suggest moving a lot of the 'film' and 'music' references to a new page Cultural depictions of Charles Bukowski ... this seems to be an emerging standard and has the advantages of allowing more space for a fuller treatment of references in popular culture and also 'de-clutters' the main article so it can focus on the life and achievements of the subject. Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc became a featured list; other examples include Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great, Cultural depictions of Vincent van Gogh, and Cultural depictions of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart ... see the category Cat:In popular culture for a complete list. I'm happy to do the work of moving things across if others agree that this might be a productive way forward. Stumps 09:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The film and music references continue to grow. Are there any objections to this proposal of a new Cultural depictions of Charles Bukowski page? Stumps 17:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

Currently, there is only a list to biographies and books of criticism. There should be some mention of the criticism and praise he has received, rather than an unencyclopedic list. − Twas Now 07:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove bibliography?

Do you think the bibliography should have its own page? It's a bit long. Just a thought.--Rvilbig 07:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at this point. The bibliography is merely formatted poorly. I've reformatted the bibliography so it takes up less space. That said, the bibliography needs some major work. While I've grouped the books by decade for now, they should ideally be grouped by genre or subject. For more info on what the bibliography should be like, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). I should add, though, that if the bibliograpy grows much bigger then you should have an excerpted bibliography here and create the main bibliography on its own page. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

the books [...] should ideally be grouped by genre or subject

Oh, that's a great idea! Good luck with that.
When you're finished, maybe you can give first names to all the ants in your neighborhood. That would make about as much sense as grouping poetry collections by subject.
Keep pounding those square pegs into the round holes, and soon wikipedia will be just perfect! Smog.net 17:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add filmography  ! ! !

http://imdb.com/name/nm0001977/

  • The Suicide (2006)
  • Factotum (2005)
  • My Old Man (2004)
  • Son of Satan (2003/II)
  • Apporte-moi ton amour (2002)
  • Bring Me Your Love (2000)
  • The Man with the Beautiful Eyes (1999)
  • Horseshoe (1998)
  • Love for $17.50 (1998)
  • Bukowski at Bellevue (1995)
  • Amor por menos (1994)
  • The Blanket (1994)
  • Lonely at the Top (1993)
  • Guts (1991)
  • Cold Moon (1991)
  • Love Pig (1990) ( aka Bring Me Your Love)
  • Cold Moon (1988)
  • Crazy Love (1987)
  • Barfly (1987)
  • The Charles Bukowski Tapes (1985) vol 1 + 2
  • The Killers (1984)
  • Tales of Ordinary Madness (1981)
  • The Secret Of My Endurance (audio)

--Rvilbig 22:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That picture in the middle

Can we get a better one? The picture just looks so unprofessional, and makes him seem like just some other small-time writer. I think a better picture would be one of a younger Bukowski.68.49.107.78 00:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles

Did he always write as Charles ? Did he also use that as his name for all other purposes - if so when did he start that ? -- Beardo 03:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] quote

I'm a little concerend by the quote "I have one of two choices -- stay in the post office and go crazy ... or stay out here and play at writer and starve. I have decided to starve." seeing as it is simply referenced (in the link) as an unpublished letter. Can anyone verify it? Unfeferenced secondary sources are not teh wins. 60.241.206.217 14:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German, not Polish

From what I've read by Barry Miles and others, Bukowski's grandparents were all German and born in Germany. The name may be of Polish, Ukrainian, or Jewish origin. Doesn't mean a thing, since lots of Germans have Polish or Czech surnames, just as many Poles and Czechs have German surnames. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossen3 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the Polish classification was based on ethnicity not nationality. Bonaparte was ethnically Italian yet he was classified as Corsican initially and later French regarding nationality. Bonaparte is an Italian surname, and it doesn't make him ethnically French. There are thousands of Spanish surnames in Italy, yet that doesn't make them ethnically Italian. If a person has a Jewish surname, that means they are ethnically Jewish, doesn't it? I don't really care what Bukowski's ethnicity is but it is worth mentioning that there is an enormous difference between nationality and ethnicity. Pistolpierre (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What it comes down to is basically this: somewhere down the line Bukowski has Polish ancestry, since he carries a Polish surname. As editor Pistolpierre (talk · contribs) said above me, it is important not to confuse nationality and ethnicity. --71.112.145.211 (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Influences?

How are influences decided? I note this because one of my favorite poems by Bukowski is about Tolstoy's death, yet Tolstoy is not listed as an influence of Bukowskis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephharper911 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Influences are decided by info pertaining that said subject claimed to be influenced by him and/or expresses admiration. All of the ones in the Bukowski article--though I am still curious about James Thurber, but I do remember Bukowski mentioning him once-- Bukowski himself have claimed to have been influenced by (he once called John Fante his "god").

Though Bukowski wrote a poem about Tolstoy, he claimed in the book "The Captain Is Out to Lunch and the Sailors Have Taken Over the Ship" that he doesn't like Tolstoy (nor Shakespear). I hope this helps answer your question. --Rimbaud 2 Sat Nov 10 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimbaud 2 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy Love

Was a film based on B's works, made in Belgian (tho I saw it in London)in 1987. Given the amount of attention paid to Barfly in the article, shouldn't this be at least listedPlutonium27 (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] split article into new pages?

although i think the content is ok, i think the page is far too bloated. my view is that 2 new pages should be created - 1 on 'Bukowski in popular culture' and another being 'Bibliography of Bukowski'.

then on the charles bukowski page, there could be a smaller generalized writeup on how buk has influenced Music, Film and television, etc.

the same could apply for Bibliography. as it stands, 90% of his work doesnt have its own page so i would move all of this to a Bibliography page and dont bother linking it to a page that doesnt exist.

on the main buk page, i would just have his main novels/work listed and a smallish writeup.

this would hopefully reduce the size of this page and make it look neater.

any thoughts? Perry mason (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Literature Lily Burana references Bukowski ("You're in Bukowski country") in her 2001 novel, Strip City: A Stripper's Farewell Journey Across America.

Hi, I have deleted this as it seems to consitute self-promotion and is not relevant to Buk or his work.

Alelover (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] drawings

The little drawings the illustrated his LA Free Press column should be mentioned, with a sample shown. -69.87.204.224 (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up

It seems to me that some of the article should be cleaned up and condensed, especially the 'Popular Culture' section. I doubt every band to ever allude to Bukowski should be listed, it's ends up being too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.28.67 (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)