Talk:Charles Bukowski/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

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)

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.

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.

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 (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)

I recall seeing somewhere (in a poem, I think) that Bukowski hated bowling. Unlikely Lebowski is based on someone who hated bowling.Snr Chris (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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...

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. 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)

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. 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)

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)

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 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)


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

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


An editor has had an issue with a Charles Bukowski external link. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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,,,,,, For: Alabamaboy, --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 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.

Hello Scheider, you worthless conservative no-talent.
Yeah, critics spend a lot of time on tripe-shit-garbage-caveman-dung like Shakespeare, read his Henry VI. Now that is tripe. A rhymed and moronic play, by Shakespeare. That play is not a fav among Shakespeare critics but he wrote a lot of tripe. Many of his much-applauded sonnets are tripe; exercises in 16th century "wit" and sonneteering. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs)

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. ( —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Evidently your reading of "A LOT" of Bukowski was rather shallow, or you read his crappy stuff. He had flashes of great genius here and there that you missed, evidently. (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bukowski's dad

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


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. 17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

pre beat generation?

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

      Second generation west coast Beat.

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 Category: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)


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)

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! 17:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Add filmography  ! ! !

  • 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)

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. 00:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


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)


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. 14:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the quote is from Factotum, although I am not able to confirm this right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 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. -- (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
But you're not sure if he had any polish descents. Its ridiculous to indicate someone nationality by surname... His parents gave him german names so maybe it will indicates you to german descents ;D —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoughtProcess (talkcontribs) 20:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 05:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)


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

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 (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The band "X"

The link to X in popular culture (music) was to the letter X. I've corrected it to link to the band section of the X disambiguation page but I'm not certain which of the listed bands is intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyk 94 (talkcontribs) 00:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


I've removed the "Readership" heading, as it's full of nothing but unverifiable assertions and speculations. The assertion that the European readership is educated and mature, while the American readership is slavish and adolescent is just a ridiculous sweeping statement without any tangible proof; if you have some, which is doubtful, present your source. We might suggest that the European readership is relatively of a larger size than his American readership, but to draw conclusions on these two groups (especially without citation) is inexcusable.

The section cites forums in general to support the point of the immaturity of American readers, but doesn't name the forums in specific, nor can we hope to draw conclusions on the entirety of Bukowski's readership based on the few posts on any message board. Following the line of reasoning given here, I could a forum thread filled with rabid defenses of Creationism to suggest that Christians are rabid Creationists. It's just ludicrous.

Perhaps the difference between some perceptions of him in the context of modern culture (specifically, that which glorifies slackers) and Bukowski's own lament towards his financial troubles, etc. merits discussion, but perhaps it would be better placed elsewhere. (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Bukowski99 has brought back the readership section, granted, with edits - but the section itself is still guilty of having a slew of unreferenced assertions. The claim that Europe's readership consists of "literary-minded adults" is unverified - how do we know they're "literary-minded adults"? How do you define someone objectively as "literary minded"? What source confirms that the European readership are "literary-minded adults," while the American readership is full of teenagers? "Extensive surveys" - what surveys? Cite them.
I also want a cite on the fact that collector's items cause Bukowski to be unjustly dismissed - people round up expensive collectors items, such as, perhaps, first editions, etc., without the author being dismissed as a curiosity. Personally - and I freely admit this is an entirely subjective reason - I think the reason Bukowski is dismissed is because he has a total void of literary talent. But I'm not going to put that on the main page, because it's unverifiable and POV.
Point is - could we please only put things on this page we can reliably verify? I'm deleting the section, and should any reader seek to revert my deletion, please raise your comments on the discussion page, so we can discuss this and come to an accord. (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wanted to add that I agree that removing this section was the right call. It isn't appropriate to include unsourced speculation or OR about Bukowski's readership in the article. Movingboxes (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Readership" section, which has been reinstated several times, still seems like POV pushing to me. I'd like to get opinions from several different editors so that we can move forward with a consensus. Movingboxes (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made comments as to why under the POV section. (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

POV in lead?

Having "Gained fame, phenomenal sales and critical recognition in Europe but continues to be generally ignored by the American literary establishment" as the second sentence in the article seems POV to me. I removed it and it was reinstated. What do other editors think? Movingboxes (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. It seems like a series of well-attested facts to me. He is nearly a household name in Germany and France (fact), his sales are high (fact) and his critical recognition is well documented (fact). What's the problem? I assume good faith on your part and I am welcoming! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bukowski99 (talkcontribs) 03:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is that what "seems like a series of well-attested facts to" you doesn't seem as such to least a couple of other editors. You say that "Critics in the United States, however, tend to portray him as a loutish primitive devoid of any real artistic sensibilities and depth," but all you have to back this up are two references--one of which is from 1944, hardly applicable to what contemporary critics think of Bukowski. Comparing and contrasting his European and American reception, unless other sources have done it first, is WP:OR. I assume good faith on your part as well (I think this goes without saying, so I'm curious as to why you feel the need to point it out). Wikipedia policy is clear--even a series of "well-attested facts" can't be used to present a personal conclusion, no matter how "correct" it may be. Your edits, taken as a whole, seem to indicate that you have a strong opinion about the subject. I encourage you to let a concensus, involving other editors, develop on the talk page. Movingboxes (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Aren`t 2 references enough? How many are required in order to satisfy you? (A concerned reader) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If we're talking about modern critical opinions of Bukowski, then something from 1944 and a single modern reference are not sufficient. Movingboxes (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Your opinions are valued and appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be forgetting that the point of Wikipedia is not necessarily truth, it's verifiability. Bukowski's name might be a household one in France and Germany, but no cite is presented for this. Who says that he's a household name? Moreover, how can we verify this? It's making a sweeping generalization of the fact without any tangible proof, and therefore has no place in Wikipedia. You also need to cite the fact that his sales are demonstrably higher in Europe than in the United States. I can claim that his sales are higher in the United States than they are in Europe with just the same amount of evidence presented here (that is, none.)

Also, Il Corriere Della Sera and Le Monde are regular daily newspapers, I wouldn't be so bold as to call them "serious European journals," nor claim an interview with them as testament to the fact that he's beloved in Europe. Movingboxes is correct on the other sources - a single (unsourced!) article from the New Yorker in 2007 and a 64 year old article from Story Magazine are not suitable arguments to suggest that he's been "slighted" by the American establishment.

As for the other two, how exactly do they prove an academic battle of Bukowski's ill-recognized genius? One of them is published only by Black Sparrow Books (formerly Bukowski's own - perhaps not the best vantage point to deal critically with Bukowski), and the other seems to be flocked to by Bukowski fans that feel he's been left in the dust. They don't seem really all that academic, from what I can see of them. Even if they were entirely legit, how does this demonstrate that Bukowski's "genius" is at all being "fully recognized"? (I use the quotes to establish what I feel to be the spuriousness of those two phrases in relation to Bukowski, not to quote from the article.) To claim he had a "well-deserved place at the heights of literature" is wildly POV to begin with, and to further claim two rather obscure (and somewhat dated, about a decade or decade and a half old) books as evidence of the literary establishment "seeing the light," is ridiculous.

I maintain, as I did, that: a) The "Readership" section was, and is, full of only unverifiable assertions, at best cited from archaic or improperly sourced material, b) the sources that are cited do not back up the marvelous claims made later, based upon them (cf. ".. well-deserved place at the heights of literature." c) the claims in the Readership section are distinctly pro-Bukowski POV. I maintain, as I did, that the best (and perhaps only) fix for this section is total deletion - it serves no purpose in the Bukowski article, it's poorly and improperly cited, and contains heavy POV. Get rid of it, and the second lead sentence.

I'm honestly trying to maintain Good Faith, but it seems to me that these sections are written by people with strong feelings for Bukowski that want to denigrate those that criticize him and establish that he really is a great writer. (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Per this comment and Wikipedia policies on OR and POV, I'm removing the 2nd sentence and the "Readership" section. This article isn't the place to fight the battle for Bukowski's literary reputation. Movingboxes (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Bukowski's Wife?

Why is Bukowski99 systematically deleting all reference to the name of Linda Lee Bukowski (Charles Bukowski's wife)? Being a biography article, it seems to be sensible to mention his wife's name at least once, instead of keeping her relegated to being simply called "Bukowski's wife." (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bukowski99, you certainly aren't required to do so, but you might save yourself a lot of hassle if you would take the time to discuss your planned edits and the rationale behind them (for example, systematically removing Linda Lee Bukowski's name from the article) on the talk page before making them. Right now we seem to be caught in a loop of edits and reversions, and that's taking time/energy that all of us could be using to improve the encyclopedia. Remember, this is a group project, not a one-person show. Movingboxes (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with absolutely everything everyone says. That's because I am polite, assume good faith, do not make any personal attacks and am very, very welcoming! (BUKOWSKI 99) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bukowski99 (talkcontribs) 12:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

First you edited virtually every reference to Linda Bukowski out of the article. Then, your edit says that his widow "styled herself" Linda Bukowski. Then, when that is changed and it is pointed out that it is perfectly common for a wife to take her husband's name upon marriage, you edit that "she had the legal right" to call herself that. You also abbreviated the first instance of her name to "L" when there is, to my knowledge, absolutely zero justification for doing this upon the first mention of somebody's name in an encyclopedia. Your other edits involving Linda Bukowski, while now sourced, all present her in a negative light. This may be encyclopedic--but constantly removing/adjusting/adding comments before her name is not. In Western culture, it is incredibly common for a wife to take the last name of her husband upon marriage. It doesn't require any sort of comment when a woman does so. Movingboxes (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have followed WIKIPEDIA guidelines and sourced my comments. I believe them to be accurate in letter and spirit. I am polite and welcoming, but many of you appear to be angry and your comments are increasingly ill-tempered. This is an internet encyclopaedia. No reason to hyperventilate. I assume good faith on your part.(BUKOWSKI99, AUGUST 27, 2008) Bukowski99 (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to instances of hyperventilating or "ill-tempered" comments? I'm just trying to discuss things with you. You're the one who says that you're "too busy" to discuss your edits before making them. The spirit of Wikipedia guidelines is to be WP:NPOV. Many of your edits appear to be pushing a particular POV on the article. Movingboxes (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I totally and absolutely agree with everything you have witten. I admire your good faith, 'welcomingness', lack of personal attacks and politeness. I must go now. I have no more time! Bukowski99 (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You agree that your edits appear to be pushing a particular POV on the article? Movingboxes (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

He said he agreed. Now go ahead and celebrate, douchebag. You are an internet hero!

User:, your edits are very similar to those of User:Bukowski99 (including working on the "Readership" section, which apparently only the two of you thought was worth including). Maybe you'd do better in sticking with your similar friend's "I am welcoming" attitude, since Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks (WP:NPA). Movingboxes (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


The Wikipedia articles for Transgressive fiction and Dirty realism list Bukowski as part of those movements. We may not have perfect agreement and we can discuss changing them to something else. However, I don't think it is better to have "unclassifiable" as a genre. He clearly is classifiable, as people have listed him in those genres for a while now. Movingboxes (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing the literary movements from the info box on the grounds that it is covered in the lead doesn't make sense. After all, Bukowski's name, dob, and the fact that he was a poet/novelist are also in the info box and we're not about to remove those, are we? Movingboxes (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't be quoted as source for a Wikipedia article. BUKOWSKI99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bukowski99 (talkcontribs) 10:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quoting it as a source, but rather as a sign that consensus might exist that Bukowski is part of those movements. We don't have to stick with those movements (though it is certainly better than the reference to Bukowski as a "Beat" that I found during a Google search yesterday), but I think that removing the movement entirely (or changing it to something meaningless like "unclassifiable") is a bad idea. Movingboxes (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, they're sourced now. Movingboxes (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been observing this situation. Movingboxes' source for classing Bukowski as Dirty realism in the Infobox is not satisfactory. The link shows that Bill Buford invented the term "Dirty realism" circa 1983. I've read enough Bukowski to know that he was not part of any literary movement. If after the fact some individuals view his work as part of Dirty realism, that should be mentioned somewhere in the article but to place it in the Infobox I would like better sources. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The literary movements were in the article way before I ever saw it. I don't really care what the movements are, but it's absurd to claim that Bukowski isn't part of any movement at all, or that he is "unclassifiable" as has been previously claimed. I don't see what the issue is with the term being coined in 1983. Your opinion about what your reading of Bukowski has shown is WP:OR. If you don't think Bukowski is part of any movement, what sources would you find satisfactory? Movingboxes (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion that that link you provided is enough to place Dirty realism in the Infobox is also WP:OR. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
My opinion that the reference is sufficient can't be OR--that doesn't even make sense. It might not be a sufficient reference, but . . . I don't even know what you're trying to say here. You saying that you've read Bukowski so you "know that he was not party of any literary movement," well, that is OR. Movingboxes (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
No dude, that does qualify as original research. Mishandling of secondary sources and stitching it together qualifies as OR. I've seen this happen in linguistic and historical topics in Wikipedia. Motherfuckers often don't realize it, but when you handle sources like that, that is original research. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
So you're not saying that my opinion that the sources are reliable is OR, you're saying that the information itself is OR? I understand your comment better now. I don't think that anything was "stitched together." I found two sources, one of which appears to be from a peer-reviewed paper, that describe Bukowski as being part of the movements in questions. But we can set that aside, because it isn't my position that Bukowski was part of either movement. Okay--so let's work together to improve the article rather than just tear information out (also, using abusive language really isn't helpful). Can we find WP:RS saying that Bukowski was part of no movement, or "unclassifiable" as Bukowski99 put it? Movingboxes (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the rush to place the alleged movements or genres in the Infobox. Bukowski reader after Bukowski reader will come by and edit those movements/genres away until better sources are provided. I went to Wikiproject Poetry and made a notice about this debate. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to "rush" anything, but in what should be a consistent push to make an article better, I don't think it is a good idea to just take stuff out without discussing possible replacements. I was curious so I decided to just look at some writer articles (choosing random American authors off the top of my head). William Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway, Sylvia Plath and Allen Ginsburg all have movements in their info boxes (this isn't meant to say that these writers are directly comparable to Bukowski, but that the quality of the articles ranges from at least acceptable to very good, and that is something that we should be working towards). Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry says that "articles discussing individual poets should adhere to normal Wikipedia biography conventions. The poet's early influences, associations with any groups or movements, and main publications should be mentioned, along with any later poets, groups or movements they may have strongly influenced." Whatever we decide about these particular sources, the question of literary movements will have to be addressed at some point. Movingboxes (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
With Bukowski especially it would be more correct to have the Infobox indicate Genre rather than literary movement. Placing an author in movements that he may have never acknowledged (I'm talking about movements, not genres) should be done with some qualification. Otherwise it makes Wikipedia look bad. Very bad. It will turn off many people from Wikipedia. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
That could be a good compromise, but I have to throw out there (not that you seem to be denying this) that it isn't necessary for an author to self-define their own literary movement for it to be valid. Movingboxes (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, like Arthur Rimbaud being classified as part of the Symbolist movement although he apparently never used that term himself and never wrote much about any literary movement. The symbolism was in his work not in any manifesto he wrote. The movement was in fact "codified" by poets such as Mallarme after Rimbaud already stopped writing. Well I'll look into this matter myself later, I don't have any sources on Bukowski at hand. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Nobody has attacked Dostoevsky's Infobox yet. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Me and my vast army of "worthless morons and dolts" will have to tackle that one after work. :) Movingboxes (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


Somebody seems to have a hard-on for transgressive ficion and dirty realsm. These are recently coined literary genres, not recognized by anyone except the coiners. They were invented by unpopular writers trying to carve out a nice for themselves by pretending that better-known writers were "just like us". These two genres are made-up. They are not recognized as valid by any authority.

Let me repeat what should be obvious: Using a Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article is intelectually dishonest. Some of you are frustrated writers with an axe to grind. Bukowski99 (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aren't being used as a source for the literary movements. Movingboxes (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Ty 00:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I disageee. Movingboxes stated that Wikipedia articles were the source for Bukowski`s genres. Moving-slurry loves Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice that I'd since added sources? Movingboxes (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to get back to this topic later. This article isn't going anywhere and it will be set right soon enough. A is putting the smack down (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if this discussion is completely died down but... Regarding infoboxes, sometimes it's just easier to leave a lot of spaces blank. One quick line does not get into the complexities of, say, genre or movement. It makes more sense to add a section within the article where it can be discussed fully in prose form. Well, that's my advice; take it or leave it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


I still don't see why there has to be a "genre" attached to Bukowski, esprecially when there is NO consensus on the matter whatsoever. The person with a hard-on for pigeon-holing Bukowski's work has taken trivial sources and dished it up as "fact". So there's a reference somewhere for Buk being a member of a certain 'school' of writing. So what? That reference is itself WEAK. It does not hold water. The reference is in itself a "POINT OF VIEW" so why is it valid when expresssing a point of view on WIKI is not? This is literature - it's all just a point of view!

It would be more proper for a genuine encyclopaedia article to NOT include weak or controversial references. That's the trouble with WIKIPEDIA - it loves ANY reference without judging the value of said reference.

Having said this, BUKOWSKI was NOT a member of the listed genres. The genres are themselves problematic - the invention of minor critics that nobody listens to or cites as authoritative. WIKI editors (you know who you are!) should weigh the value of references, rather than just blindly quoting minor writers with underhanded agendas.

I would write more, but alas, I have no time.

I appreciate your good faith, welcoming attitude, politeness, sagacity, good manners, sobriety, intelligence, good intentions, harmony, peacefulness and over-all marvelousness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree regarding enotes , unless anyone can prove why we should regard this as a reliable source. Regarding the other sources, they are from universities, and this would normally be regarded as acceptable, unless there is a good reason why not. That's just the way wiki works. If you have an equivalent source to say he is not part of any movement, then that can be factored in also. WP:NPOV demands reliance of sources, not original research. Ty 06:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Bukowski snubbed by Oxford Anthology of Modern American Poetry

Anthology of Modern American Poetry. Edited by Cary Nelson. Oxford University Press, 2000. 1,249 pages. Very many poets included. Bukowski was not included. A is putting the smack down (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask Cary Nelson for details. In the preface to the anthology Nelson does say that some publishers ask "exorbitant reprint fees" and this caused the omission of many poems> Bukowski was not included at all. Since Bukowski is really not known for any specific poems the anthology would hve had to reproduce a nice amount to show his artistry, which may have been too costly. The anthology is important and influential. It is on the shelves of many local libraries here in Los Angeles, and there are not many poetry anthologies of this type on LA public library shelves. A from L.A. (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, total neutering - oh, I'm sorry, I mean neutrality - is almost complete

This is almost idiotic, uninformative and useless enough to qualify as an A-Class wikipedia article! Keep up the good work. You are only a few bits of completely erroneous and incorrect information away from perfection. Keep shooting for the stars. I'm sure there is someone here who can dust this thing up and pull a few more invented literary movements from their ass to hang on Bukowski. Get to work, slackers.

By the way, you removed the external link to calling the site a "chat forum," yet cite the timeline from in the References section. Typical. Now that I look at it, I suppose the six or seven hundred manuscripts, 5,599 entry database of Bukowski's published work, timeline, interviews, articles and FBI files on are trivial. You're right. I have seen the light. You are the experts after all.

You're almost there, kids. Don't give up now. (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, do you have anything you want to say to help improve the article? Maybe you could improve the article. External links, like other content, are open to discussion and maybe a reversal of a decision. This is a work in progress. However, sarcasm is self-defeating. Just a hint. Ty 00:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Please put the link to back up. There's more good information on Bukowski there than any other site on the web. (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have done. It seems useful to me. Ty 08:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Gracias! (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could improve the article. Ty 00:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
You must be new around here. Yes, I could improve the article. But why bother when people who know next to nothing about the subject can stumble in and piss all over it? It's really an exercise in futility, and far too masochistic a pursuit for me. I'll leave the improving of this comprehensive and well crafted - whatever it is - to the experts and geniuses who have made it what it is. (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Bring Me Your Love?

Article is missing the novel, Bring Me Your Love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Bring Me Your Love is a short story, not a novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)