Bukowski IS the poet laureate of our time... brilliant, honest prose that defies the clean shallowness that subjugates the potential of independent thought.
true, and the shame of it is that if you write with same honesty you WILL NOT get published. today's fair is for writing that sounds poetic but lacks EVERYTHING that a poem need to be true clear and impacting.
Thomas O'Bedlam is the perfect mouthpiece for Mr. Bukowski. Every word, every pause, every inflection fits perfectly and makes Hank's work resonate with truth. Both are incredible artists and masters of their craft. Sublime!!! 👏👏👏👏👏
"The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" Jeremiah 17:9 Our best protection is to stay under protection of The Word.
@@ShadareaRapt If someone had God they wouldn’t need God. If someone had peace they wouldn’t need peace. If someone had love they wouldn’t need love. If someone had freedom they wouldn’t need freedom. People
Whenever I hear nowadays something similar to "beware the preachers" that's said here, I don't think of those in churches or those in established religious leadership. I think of those who I often come across online recently. Those who have a drastic way of thinking and have a tendency to go too far when advocating, when they really trample those they say they advocate for. They damn you and "cancel" you far harsher than what's beyond reasonable over the smallest of things like a pack of rabid wolves. They circle and wait to jump because they see themselves an infallibly right in all things they say and do. It's pathetic. It's worrying. It feels like it's spreading.
I am absolutely fascinated with this poem. While I think it has some good quotes, it’s the flaw of the work as a whole that really internets me. “Not being able to create art, they will not understand art” is pretty convenient for an artist to say. Everything he mentions comes down valuing understanding life and the world, which is inherently just flawed. Life and the world cannot be understood, it can only be experienced. Life is not art. The inherent difference between life and art is that art can be contained into some sort frame, that frame might be a movie, a picture, or in this case a poem. Something in a frame can be understood, interpreted, and analyzed because the frame allows it to be. However you can’t frame life. Once life is framed, it is no longer life, it is art. “They will consider their failures as creators only as failures of the world” is exactly what this poem is doing. “And then they will hate you, and their hatred will be perfect” is ironic because that mentality applies to what the poem is doing as well. The poem is just as much part of the hemlock.
oh, making pseudo-intellectual phrases doesn't rip you out of the herd of sheep. You are part of the crowd, can't understand what an identity is. And Art has a definitive meaning. It's not everything.
It is a question of the majority, which is always silly - and the minority, true people. "they will attempt to destroy everything that differs from their own". No one from the minority tries to destroy anything - only they make and create, but the black majority destroys it.
Because they think they "know everything" and will be the first to judge others. My opinion. Probably someone else has the opposite one...that's the beauty of the readings like this one.
@@DaniloSol My experience is that people who DON'T read books think they know everything. Reading only expands your sense of how little you actually know about the world. As I said, I love the guy's work, but Bukowski frequently talked bollocks, simply because it sounded good.
@@happymaskedguy1943 Do you think that you're reading useful and educative books? If so please write down why and in which direction (good, bad or manipulative).
@@happymaskedguy1943 he’s not saying it’s bad to read books. Some people consume no knowledge, some people try to consume all knowledge, neither of those people are fit for a world in which you need to know you that you can’t know everything.
@@DaniloSol That depends entirely on what you consider useful and educative. I try my best to read widely - poetry from different cultures, perspectives, eras, styles, subject matter; fiction that has stood the test of time (ie Russian classics, the great short story writers such as Maupassant and Hemingway, Bradbury, etc); new acclaimed fiction such as Cormac Macarthy; popular science books on various subjects; philosophy (currently greek); and those stories and subjects which I find fun, such as classic ghost stories and gothic/ horror fiction (I love the works of M.R James, Lovecraft, Algernon Blackwood, Elizabeth Gaskell, Stoker etc. perhaps not 'educational or helpful' in a broad sense, but they help me to make more sense of who I am and what I love most about reading. I don't do this because I want to 'consume all the knowledge' (which is a frankly ridiculous thing to suggest, tbh), but because I love to learn, I love to become exposed to new ideas, new facets of the universe and the world around me. That's why most people read - because they enjoy it, even if it is challenging and difficult. No matter how you cut it, Bukowski's lines warning about such people is utter B.S. He read widely himself. He's full of sh** on those lines.
