Why doesn’t Charles Bukowski get much respect in the U.S. as a “serious” author?

When asking the hesitation as to why Charles Bukowski does non get much repute in the U. S. as a respectable author, unity must begin by examining who does non give him much respect. Certainly it cannot be give tongue to that he is not respected or enjoyed by whatsoeverone, for he has a large play alonging. Fittingly, for a poet whose account was made in ephemeral underground journals, it is on the Internet that the Bukowski cult finds its most florid expression.There atomic number 18 hundreds of Web sites devoted to him, not just in America but in Ger legion(predicate), Spain, the Czech Republic, and Sweden, where one fan writes that, after reading him for the first term, I felt there was a soul-mate in Mr. Bukowski. (Kirsch) yet a stauch critic of Bukowski, C. E. Chaffin, acknowledges the art objecty who enjoy his fiddle.Without re beliefing exclusively the historical antecedents that brought Bukowski to this poetic nadir, I should first propel the reader that he may be the best known American poet in Europe today, and for cardinal reasons 1) His language is simplistic and 2) The attitude in his main body of work at matches the prevailing atheistic pessimism among intellectuals on the continent. (Chaffin) However, even in recognizing Bukowskis appeal, Chaffin mentions two criticisms that will be dealt with later in this paper. If, as it pops, Bukowski has a large following, who is it that does not consider him serious? A cursory search quickly reveals that m whatsoever in University academia and those who approach poetry from a more scholarly viewpoint appear to be those who baulk Bukowski. This rejection becomes obvious when one considers the fact that Bukowski is not included in the book that is called the most comprehensive appeal of twentieth-century poetry in English available. In the third edition of The Norton Anthology of Modern and Contemporary Poetry, in which poets appear in order of birth, the class of 1920 fields a strong team, including Howard Nemerov and Amy Clampitt.If you were to browse the poetry section of any large bookstore, you would probably find a book or two by each of those critically esteemed, prize-winning poets. Nowhere to be found in the canonizing Norton anthology, however, is the man who occupies the most shelf space of any American poet Charles Bukowski. (Kirsch) It should be noted that the three editors of The Norton Anthology of Modern and Contemporary Poetry, Jahan Ramazani, Richard Ellmann, and Robet OClair, were all university professors.Other critics, such(prenominal)(prenominal) as C. E. Chaffin, argon poets and critics of poetry who concord spent years studying, researching, and writing poetry. These types of people often have well-constructed and rigid concepts as to the characteristics and qualities of proper poetry. Now that we have discoered a group of people who discard Bukowski as a serious author, we can begin to examine the reasons for their rejection of him. One of the first complaints about Bukowski is that his poetry is not sincerely poetry at all.When looking at reactions to Bukowskis poetry there have the appearance _or_ semblances to be a lack of, well, respect despite his hardcore fan base, and sales that would make most poets extremely happy. In fact the universal accusation is not that Bukowski isnt a good poet, but that his work is bargonly even poetry at all. In a mostly appreciative New Yorker review, Adam Kirsch still managed this cheeky, backhanded compliment He bears the same relation to poetry as Zane Grey does to metaphor, or Ayn Rand to philosophy a highly colored, morally uncomplicated cartoon of the real thing. (ONeill) An example of this can be found in the poem they, all of them, know from Bukowskis book, The Pleasures of the Damned. It is difficult to find any semblance of poetical style in over four pages of seemingly mindless repetition. There is app arently no rhyme or reason to this poem, and many would ar gue that the simple creation of a long list is not enough to qualify as poetry. This is not to say that there is not a message in his work, but that the work is not poetic in nature.In addition, Bukowskis language not only is often seen as non-poetic, but simplistic, as described by C. E. Chaffin earlier. Another reason for the rejection of Bukowski comes from his tendency to write in the first person. An examination of his work reveals that that vast majority are written in the first person. This is all the way line up as poems such as metamorphosis, the drowning, and for they had things to say are written in this style. While this is not particularly wrong, it can be enough for some to reject his work.I dont particularly like Whitman either, for some of the same reasons I dont like Bukowski, although Whitman is utmost and away the more accomplished poet. Both are archetypically American in their embrace of the individual ego and almost exclusive use of the first person, but wh ereas Whitman attempts to merge with the world as a superior ego (on the heels of Emerson), Bukowski simply reports, as an isolated consciousness, in painful and sordid detail, what happens around him. In view of this it is difficult to say which poet is more personal or impersonal.(Chaffin) As Chaffin points out, the problem is not just that Bukowski writes in the first person, but he writes from a distant, disconnected view. It is difficult for many to appreciate poetry that combines a first person view with this type of reporting, as Chaffin calls it. There are many who reject Bukowski as being serious because of the content of his work. Throughout his poetry, crude language and references to things and actions not normally discussed, especially in the presence of children, are found.Poems such as the last days of the suicide kid, tabby cat, and fooling Marie (the poem) clearly cross a line that many have drawn concerning language and subjects that should not be discussed. novi ce C. E. Chaffin addresses this issue directly. Bukowski made his reputation by unashamedly and non-judgmentally recording a lifestyle of fatalistic, atheistic hedonism which is really not hedonism but its opposite, a sort of terminal anhedonia medicated with booze and sex as distractions an attitude not far removed from the Marquis de Sade, who believed Whatever is, is good. (Chaffin) Jim Harrison also comments on this when he writes Bukowskis short fiction concentrates on uncontrite drinking and publicly anti-social behavior, employing a scatological idiom which serves to mock academe and animate his single style and ideology, while also contributing to Bukowskis often harsh critical reception. . . . Bukowski is known for depicting unpeaceful and sexual imagery in his hard-edged prose. This graphic usage has lead some critics to dismiss Bukowskis work as superficial and misogynist in nature. (Harrison)This choice of style and substance denies Bukowski the type of memorable qu otes or lines that are found in so many other poems. It is hard to quote Bukowski because there are more or less none of those short lyrics with bow ties of closure that are so pleasant for a reviewer to quote. (Harrison) Lines such as I think that I shall never see A poem lovely as a tree from Joyce Kilmers Trees are simply not present in Bukowskis works. However, it is an interest observation that the very thing that causes critics to reject him is what draws so many readers to him.Clearly, the approval of the critics is not something that defines success. However, it can have an effect on perception. Critics may have difficulty dealing with Bukowskis works because they may not be intended to stand on their own but to be viewed as a whole, making a general commentary on life rather than individually selecting aspects of life for discussion. Any time someone views only a part of something that was intended only to be viewed as a whole, they are going to be left with an incomplete and unsatisfactory view of the work.Bukowskis poems are best apprehended not as individual verbal artifacts but as ongoing installments in the tale of his true adventures, like a comic book or a movie serial. They are strongly narrative, plan from an endless supply of anecdotes that typically involve a bar, a skid-row hotel, a horse race, a girlfriend, or any permutation thereof. Bukowskis free verse is really a series of declarative sentences bemused up into a long, narrow column, the short lines giving an impression of speed and terseness even when the language is hokey or cliched.(Kirsch) Bukowskis general attitude toward life in general and poetry specifically may be a factor in his rejection as a serious author. Obviously, a poets general attitude toward life will be prevelant within his work. This attitude is summarized by Adam Kirsch. Alcohol was the fuel, as it was often the subject, of these poetic explosions I dont think I have written a poem when I was completely sob er, he told one interviewer. And he rejected on principle the flavour of poetry as a craft, a matter of labor and revision.(Kirsch) perchance one of the reasons for critics rejecting Bukowski is because of those who appreciate and follow Bukowski and his works. Often poets and others are measured as much by the people who follow and replicate their work as by their work itself. Of course, there are a lot of bad poets in thraldom to Bukowski after all, his great skill lay in making the writing of great poetry seem easy. Poets who affect his lifestyle without learning the craft of writing do so at their peril.And dont look to the man himself for clues on where the poems come from he once said that writing a poem is like winning a shit, you smell it and then flush it away writing is all about leaving fag as much a stink as possible. But to disregard Bukowskis work on the basis of the bad poetry that followed in his wake seems as bloody minded as denying the vastness of The Clash because of the mohicaned twattery of Sum 41. (Kirsch) While this type of rejection of his work is not necessarily valid or defensible, this does not prevent those with a dislike or disapproval of his work from going this direction.Clearly Bukowski has his critics as well as his fans. And although many may be attracted to his work and his style, he will continue to have those who criticize him. Bukowskis style keeps some from considering him a serious author. He writes about subjects and uses vocabulary that offends others and thereby causes their rejection of his work and of him. Perhaps the clearest reasons why he is not regarded as a serious author are given by C. E. Chaffin. In Bukowskis work, however, it is clear that no separation between author and persona exists except insofar as Bukowskis memory may be unreliable.His lack of persona is his lack of art. I think his regard as a possibly major poet represents the nadir of American poetry precisely because his rants are life ma squerading as art, no more, no less. . . . It is not Bukowskis renown I question, an unreliable indicator of quality in any case, but 1) His lack of craft 2) His lack of transcendent values and 3) As above, that he represents the final dislocation between life and art in poetry. . . . To return to his poetry, I think Bukowski proved that anyone could be a successful writer by the same token, he significantly lowered standards for the craft of poetry.Indeed, he should be considered the father of performance poetry judged on gut feeling and audience reaction rather than the constant values of form and substance. (Chaffin) Works Cited Chaffin, C. E. Essay Charles Bukowski Melic Review Vol. III Issue I Harrison, Jim King of suffering New York Times November 25, 2007 Kirsch, Adam Smashed, The pulp poetry of Charles Bukowski. The New Yorker March 14, 2005 ONeill, Tony Dont Blame Bukowski for bad poetry, U. K. Guardian, September 5, 2007