I read something a bookstore owner said a couple of years ago. He said that the Bukowski books were the ones that got shoplifted the most, because Bukowski is easy to read. I like Buk OK, but he is extremely limited in his expression and the scope of the world he describes. Miller was a grand old man whose philosophy was all-embracing. Bukowski is, ultimately, a pessimist, while Miller is an optimist. It's positive vs. negative. Some people think that to be an optimist and love life is unrealistic or a refusal to face unpleasant truths, but I think it's more unrealistic to claim that life is all bad and that we have to wallow in pain and degradation in order reflect life accurately.
Bukowski is more of a realist than either of them, so I disagree with both of you. The world is an ugly place, and the more of it you add to your story, the more people can relate to it.
It's all negative if you don't get Bukowski. He also wrote poetry which makes more sense and give a bit more context to how complex he was. In my opinion Bukowski was a lonely man who conquered loneliness but loved people and their company more. Most probably he was a screw up trying to do better.
One wouldn't exist without the other, and neither without Joyce. Hemmingway was an extremely self indulgent descriptive writer in comparison to Bukowski. They are all masters in their own right and deserve their places in the pantheon of greatness.
I love miller, and while I understand what Charles is referencing about miller regarding how “in the stars” he can get, but I think the fundamental difference between these two is: Henry miller’s a lover of life, Charles endures life. Not to say he doesn’t have his fun, but it’s contextualized differently than with Miller. Consequently Miller is a dreamer and Charles is... just not.
I love Bukowski's work, but to be contrary for a moment, the "Le Havre" sequence alone in Tropic or Cancer is "juicier" than Bukowski's whole body of work. Falling asleep is par for the course when you read while drunk.
two very different writers. Miller is more of an intellectual and is connected to the European tradition. Bukowski is more of a populist, he comes from Fante.
One of writing's strangest and most wildly entertaining pirates! You'll laugh like you never laughed before, or you'll be so outraged you won't be able to read another line from Charles. And there is a big heart, well hidden away in him.
5:00--THIS. I have a problem with a lot of iconic writers (eg., Broch, Musil) because their writing contains a LOT of longueurs. Obviously these authors were writing at a time when the pace of life was considerably less hectic than it is now.
The only problem is compared to writers even more from the earth like Mudal and Giambe, who could talk about extruding fecal matter and make it beautiful, bukowski talked about things and made them like extruding fecal matter. He is also less subtextual than Grimisci and Botel. But he always wrote a good drunk and lived a good drunk ill give him that.
Miller is fantastic. I'm not saying this is jealousy talking (I don't know Bukowski's mind) all I can say is Miller was genius on fire, and Bukowski is..... ok, too.
Bukowski is what you get when you order Henry Miller from Wish. I tried reading Bukowski's books after I was already familiar with Miller in hope they'd be similar. And it felt like reading the diary of a 13 year old boy.
These guys are all self promoters. Don’t be fooled, if there was no Miller there could never have been a Bukowski. They are both great and they both speak about different times.
Don't listen to Bukowski on most other's books. His own works are there to entertain males between the ages of 15 and 25, fundamentally for the bitter only (although, sure, there are some laughs, and a toughness, along the way). For an airiness, or cerebral and celebrating, Whitmanic tone look elsewhere. The heaviness of Bukowski is the heaviness of one degraded by alcohol... we can be happy that he transcended his very troubled background by writing poetry and prose, but that he had to do it with a bottle firmly in hand is definitely not advisable for everyone. . His ill-temperedness in the face of the abstract, as against the material world he is firmly entrenched in - once you have read much more widely than your first few adult years - ultimately shows itself to be childish and fearful. If Bukowski leads you to better writers then so be it, he - I'm sure - has served his purpose in that way.
Charles Bukowski is good at what he does & I have enjoyed his poetry. But... Henry Miller? Charles isn't a pimple on Henry Miller's ass as far as writing & paving an influential way for other writers. In any interview, Henry Miller is far more interesting, wise & intelligent than Bukowski. Malcolm Lowry was a completely different writer & he was fine. He was also a drunk long before Bukowski discovered alcohol & he was a much tougher man. This "bam bam bam" sentence composing that he says requires juice. Buillshit. Even a good suit has stitches, buttons & creases. You have to build a story from the foundation up. Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Steinbeck & Agatha Christie were geniuses' at it. Yes, some writers are more descriptive, maybe too descriptive than others with fine detail but some readers need that because they can't picture a scene. They don't have that imagination. Charles obviously doesn't understand that concept. Not all of Bukowski's poetry snaps, crackles & pops. I guess he doesn't like Dylan Thomas or Robert Frost either. How about Virginia Woolf, Lawrence Durrell, or Cortazar? No good? How about Truman Capote or Thomas Wolfe? They were innovators. But Henry Miller influenced the Beats before they sparked interest in anyone & they sold many books later despite their controversies. People like Norman Mailer followed Miller too -- and that's no easy feat. Charles was good in his "field" of poetry. But not everyone likes his low-life rambling. His career actually got started late with lots of luck for a postal worker. He's successful. But if it wasn't for authors like Miller & James Joyce, Anis Nin & even Ginsburg (these people were censored, banned, and went to court many times for their writings. Writings that cleared the way for someone like wine-drinking, obnoxious, little brown cigarette-smoking Charlie. A minor detail he forgot. But I guess that's his personality. When Charles asked the interviewer if he had any more questions the reporter should have said "Yes, if Malcolm Lowry is not a professional drunk then what makes you such a professional asshole?" It's interviews like this where Charles diminishes for me. It's a weary presentation. Like he's an expert on good writers. But he liked to piss people off. His "character" had to suit the writing he did I guess. RIP Charles.
@@theexpresidents not that it really matters but bukowski wasnt born till 1920 and wasnt said to start drinking till he was an early teen. anyways hamsun is the goat (i like miller a lot though--he even got me into hamsun)
![Henry Miller Recalls and Reflects [Interview 1956] (1/9)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q7Yx8Jz7ics/mqdefault.jpg)
![Henry Miller Recalls and Reflects [Interview 1956] (1/9)](/img/tr.png)
“This mans not even a fuckin professional drunk”
Miller was the paved gravel for Charles
Could not disagree with Bukowski more. Both Miller and Lowry did what he did long before him. I consider them both more complete writers.
I read something a bookstore owner said a couple of years ago. He said that the Bukowski books were the ones that got shoplifted the most, because Bukowski is easy to read. I like Buk OK, but he is extremely limited in his expression and the scope of the world he describes. Miller was a grand old man whose philosophy was all-embracing. Bukowski is, ultimately, a pessimist, while Miller is an optimist. It's positive vs. negative. Some people think that to be an optimist and love life is unrealistic or a refusal to face unpleasant truths, but I think it's more unrealistic to claim that life is all bad and that we have to wallow in pain and degradation in order reflect life accurately.
Bukowski is more of a realist than either of them, so I disagree with both of you. The world is an ugly place, and the more of it you add to your story, the more people can relate to it.
It's all negative if you don't get Bukowski. He also wrote poetry which makes more sense and give a bit more context to how complex he was. In my opinion Bukowski was a lonely man who conquered loneliness but loved people and their company more. Most probably he was a screw up trying to do better.
Absolutely. I agree as well. Complete is a good word for it.
One wouldn't exist without the other, and neither without Joyce. Hemmingway was an extremely self indulgent descriptive writer in comparison to Bukowski. They are all masters in their own right and deserve their places in the pantheon of greatness.
Bim bim bim bim bim bim
I love miller, and while I understand what Charles is referencing about miller regarding how “in the stars” he can get, but I think the fundamental difference between these two is: Henry miller’s a lover of life, Charles endures life. Not to say he doesn’t have his fun, but it’s contextualized differently than with Miller. Consequently Miller is a dreamer and Charles is... just not.
Charles is making me laugh and making me think... thanks Dylan
I love Bukowski's work, but to be contrary for a moment, the "Le Havre" sequence alone in Tropic or Cancer is "juicier" than Bukowski's whole body of work. Falling asleep is par for the course when you read while drunk.
_Black Spring_ is infinitely better.
His honesty brought to you by liquid truth
I love them both. They both make poetry out of the profane.
Miller was a whole genius, Bukowski was capable replay button.
It's time to get dull baby. Relish the boredom that's inside you so that others might get bored too.
two very different writers. Miller is more of an intellectual and is connected to the European tradition. Bukowski is more of a populist, he comes from Fante.
Waltzing Mathilda by Tom Waits is a wonderful ending to this sequence.
One of writing's strangest and most wildly entertaining pirates! You'll laugh like you never laughed before, or you'll be so outraged you won't be able to read another line from Charles. And there is a big heart, well hidden away in him.
Dim Dim Dim, Dim Dim Dim,
Henry Miller is the missing link between Buk and Emerson, Thoreau, and the American Transcendentalists.
Fascinating take. But there is also Crane, Lowry, Hamsun, the beat musicians like Dylan, all the beatnick like Burroughs, Cassady, Snyder, Keroac..
@@Otto-WebbHamsun is not a part of this.
He would’ve killed on Twitter
Holy sh1t, I never realised Al Pacino's character in heat was fully based on charles bukowski. Incredible.
Bukowski died as they were filming it, in 1994.
5:00--THIS. I have a problem with a lot of iconic writers (eg., Broch, Musil) because their writing contains a LOT of longueurs. Obviously these authors were writing at a time when the pace of life was considerably less hectic than it is now.
You're reading shitty writers. Read Trocchi, Malaparte, Celine, Fante, even Fleur Jaeggy.
FKN ABSURD
The only problem is compared to writers even more from the earth like Mudal and Giambe, who could talk about extruding fecal matter and make it beautiful, bukowski talked about things and made them like extruding fecal matter.
He is also less subtextual than Grimisci and Botel. But he always wrote a good drunk and lived a good drunk ill give him that.
Way to name-drop writers that either don't exist, or have nothing to do with American letters.
Miller was a mystic, Buk not so much.
Miller was no mystic.
Miller is fantastic. I'm not saying this is jealousy talking (I don't know Bukowski's mind) all I can say is Miller was genius on fire, and Bukowski is..... ok, too.
Bukowski is what you get when you order Henry Miller from Wish. I tried reading Bukowski's books after I was already familiar with Miller in hope they'd be similar. And it felt like reading the diary of a 13 year old boy.
lol well said. You could fit 3 Bukowski books in one Miller chapter imo.
These guys are all self promoters. Don’t be fooled, if there was no Miller there could never have been a Bukowski. They are both great and they both speak about different times.
@@DWinegarden2I disagree. Bukowski would have existed, regardless of any void.
e ai tudos, nao realizou Brasil tem fã de Henry Miller kkkkk
Don't listen to Bukowski on most other's books. His own works are there to entertain males between the ages of 15 and 25, fundamentally for the bitter only (although, sure, there are some laughs, and a toughness, along the way). For an airiness, or cerebral and celebrating, Whitmanic tone look elsewhere. The heaviness of Bukowski is the heaviness of one degraded by alcohol... we can be happy that he transcended his very troubled background by writing poetry and prose, but that he had to do it with a bottle firmly in hand is definitely not advisable for everyone. . His ill-temperedness in the face of the abstract, as against the material world he is firmly entrenched in - once you have read much more widely than your first few adult years - ultimately shows itself to be childish and fearful. If Bukowski leads you to better writers then so be it, he - I'm sure - has served his purpose in that way.
Charles Bukowski is good at what he does & I have enjoyed his poetry. But...
Henry Miller? Charles isn't a pimple on Henry Miller's ass as far as writing & paving an influential way for other writers. In any interview, Henry Miller is far more interesting, wise & intelligent than Bukowski. Malcolm Lowry was a completely different writer & he was fine. He was also a drunk long before Bukowski discovered alcohol & he was a much tougher man.
This "bam bam bam" sentence composing that he says requires juice. Buillshit. Even a good suit has stitches, buttons & creases.
You have to build a story from the foundation up. Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Steinbeck & Agatha Christie were geniuses' at it.
Yes, some writers are more descriptive, maybe too descriptive than others with fine detail but some readers need that because they can't picture a scene. They don't have that imagination.
Charles obviously doesn't understand that concept. Not all of Bukowski's poetry snaps, crackles & pops. I guess he doesn't like Dylan Thomas or Robert Frost either. How about Virginia Woolf, Lawrence Durrell, or Cortazar? No good? How about Truman Capote or Thomas Wolfe? They were innovators.
But Henry Miller influenced the Beats before they sparked interest in anyone & they sold many books later despite their controversies. People like Norman Mailer followed Miller too -- and that's no easy feat. Charles was good in his "field" of poetry.
But not everyone likes his low-life rambling. His career actually got started late with lots of luck for a postal worker. He's successful. But if it wasn't for authors like Miller & James Joyce, Anis Nin & even Ginsburg (these people were censored, banned, and went to court many times for their writings. Writings that cleared the way for someone like wine-drinking, obnoxious, little brown cigarette-smoking Charlie. A minor detail he forgot.
But I guess that's his personality. When Charles asked the interviewer if he had any more questions the reporter should have said "Yes, if Malcolm Lowry is not a professional drunk then what makes you such a professional asshole?"
It's interviews like this where Charles diminishes for me. It's a weary presentation. Like he's an expert on good writers. But he liked to piss people off. His "character" had to suit the writing he did I guess.
RIP Charles.
It's "Ginsberg."
Also, Lowry began drinking in the 1920s, the same decade as Bukowski. So there goes that theory.
@@theexpresidents not that it really matters but bukowski wasnt born till 1920 and wasnt said to start drinking till he was an early teen. anyways hamsun is the goat (i like miller a lot though--he even got me into hamsun)
Pathetic and sad, really.
Miller sucks. That's it. Empty drivel. Very boring. Unrealistic.