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 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.
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.
So you don't understand anything about poetry. Henry Miller was a great writer. Bukowski was a good writer, but a huge, one-off poet. And he was mainly a poet.
@@Furman-eu7vk I think Bukowski’s poetry is a highly redeeming quality actually man- Ham on Rye is fine too I just didn’t like him repersonifying this person that he thought was apparently called for in himself and his works - it became cringey to me - maybe he really was just like that, and that is fine too - I would rather read something else, but I still bought all of Bukowski’s work way tf back to check him out - I loved him when I was 11-16 ish - Tom Waits is an example of a Bukowski esque character I can love.. I’ve read loads, not only poetry but jesus man, a lot- not garbage either, my playlists show this to an extent, albeit I use openlibrary and buy books mostly... anyway, nah I read a lot of his work- his poetry is the exception.. Bukowski was right saying Miller goes up in the air but that is the quality I love in his work- idk, I guess I underrate Bukowski - as a writer, he is extremely skilled, but agn besides a lot of poetry- his persona, his style- I roll my eyes a lot, whereas I used to love it, anyway~ Maybe i’m being ignorant but I did give it a really fair shake and despite what you say, whether it’s true or not I don’t know much- I read a damn lott- that doesn’t mean I get poetry but I am familiar with plenty of stuff.
@@liltick102 Have you read The Days Run Away Like Wild Horses Over the Hills? Burning in Water, Drowning in Flame? Play the Piano Drunk Like a Percussion Instrument Until the Fingers Begin to Bleed a Bit? Dangling in the Tournefortia? War All the Time? The Roominghouse Madrigals? All these books are masterpieces. It's not for nothing that Bukowski became famous all over the world (I'm from Israel for example) he was an immense poet. There is nothing to compare him with Henry Miller. Henry Miller was a better author than him, I agree. But Bukowski was first and foremost a poet. Just like you wouldn't compare Jorge Luis Borges who is known as a writer but was also a poet with other great poets.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do you read poetry at all? Because Bukowski was primarily a poet! And he was a tremendous poet. The prose was only a side occupation. Stupid comparison.
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.
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)
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.
Bukowski wrote hundreds of amazing Poems. You have no idea what you are talking about. Any comparison between Bukowski, who was primarily a poet, and this was his main strength, and Henry Miller who was a writer, is ridiculous.
