/lit/ - Literature

i hate gimmick authors

>>6107906
What's his gimmick?

He's a bore. after the first few poems you read his schtick gets old. It is like listening to your demented uncle with half a liver remaining tell the same story of fucking the trailer park princess at every family reunion. His style influenced the worst of my generation.

>>6107912
drinking is kool, fratboy edition on sale at the impulse aisle of the college bookstore next to coffee mugs and totebags

>>6107958
his novels and short stories are much better than his poems

>>6107996
not his fault that some of his fans are cunts

He's misogynist and anti-semitic. (@ 3:30)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2XWxlycvXA

>>6108027
Is it a bad thing?

>>6108048
pol pls

Because all the posts on /lit/ are actually made by a single anon named Tao Lin and he's insanely jealous.

>>6108027
Who cares

>>6108064
>mfw I'm Tao Lin replying to myself
>mfw this board is all me

>>6108027
threatening someone with your jewish attorney isn't anti-semitic. it's a sort of praise, actually.

>>6108079
But I'm not Tao. I've been replying to Tao the whole time? You are a God of shitposting. Now go to bed.

>>6108114
Oh Tao. You're so adorable.

>viral marketing for hack chink
>thread hidden

>>6108114
nice try tao (me)

>>6107903
He's amazing to read when you read him for the first or second time and you're aged around 18-21.

The older you get and/or the more you read by him, the more you'll loathe him, no matter how much you may have liked him before.

See also:
Palahniuk, Chuck
Vonnegut, Kurt

>>6108178
I don't totally disagree but Vonnegut isn't actively embarrassing to revisit like the other two are. Just not as good as you remember.

>>6107903
/lit/ has a real hard on for prose, which wasn't his strength. People and communities just have their preferences.

>>6107903
I've read very little of him but like a lot of the beat generation he thought his shit was made of gold. This arrogance out-shined his writing and his message, and it's almost impossible to detach yourself from his self importance once you realise how fucking prominent it is.

At the time of his fame I'm sure most people thought he was edgy and hip. Like Burroughs and Kerouac he romanticised misanthropy and a lifestyle set on the fringe of American society. But unlike the timeless writers of the 20th, the novelty of their message wore thin pretty quickly. He and all the other Beat writers tried way too hard to prove how cool they were, and it becomes unfortunately obvious when you read them with a critical eye.

If you want non-pretentious booze writing check out Raymond Carver. The dude was perpetually drenched in bourbon and I'm pretty sure he died of an alcoholism related illness. What separates him from Buttowski is that he doesn't go around screaming about how cool his debauchery is. He writes it how it is, and in doing so preserves his voice in American literary history with a fair bit more integrity.

tl;dr Buttowski tried way to hard. Read Carver instead. The beat generation is full of spastics

>>6108454

Bukowski wasn't a beat. Carver is for vermin who should be assraped with a beer bottle in front of their gibbering, masturbating relatives.

>>6108465
Beat = shit-tier hipster vagabonds high on their own stench.

Bukowski = beat

You find Buk when you need him. I needed him badly, he helped to save my life.

>>6108474

Nope. The beats were something specific, and he wasn't one of them. Stop trying to lord it over your betters, you fucking cunt.

>>6108027
>misogynist

He's completely right, just nourishing a mutually abusive relationship like a drunken asshole. Go figure.

The American Houellebecq.

>>6108454
Great post. I've been going through some of the Beats recently and I'm having trouble standing the in-your-face self-importance. I heard of Carver before and I'll definitely check him out.

>>6108465
>Carver is for vermin who should be assraped with a beer bottle in front of their gibbering, masturbating relatives.

Well then. Care to explain?

>>6107903
i dont hate him. i like him.

>>6107903
His "poetry" is literally worthless. Completely void of all worth. Absolute trash.

His short stories are okay until you get bored of his gimmick.

He's a phony, when it comes down to it. A phony bologna hack.

>>6108500

Carver sucks, and the only stuff that's decent was edited to within an inch of its life by a presumptuous editor. Used to know the guy's name, can't think now due to long indifference.

>>6108481

>Tfw you're talking to a bukowski apologist

Relax m8. Bukowski was a massive Beat, maybe he didn't hang out with Burroughs in New York or ride a pick up truck with Daniel Radcliffe but they all came from the same tired butthole in American culture.

>muh booze
>muh smelly clothes
>muh stream of consciousness
>muh literary value

I may be a cunt, but I'm not a fucking cunt.

>>6108178
I actually appreciated him more rereading him a decade later. He's sort of endearing when you look through the bullshit.

Same goes for Kerouac.

>>6108506

Yes. Fuck people who like Carver.

>>6108512

HE WAS NOT A BEAT. LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT LITERATURE AND STOP TRYING TO BE CLEVER YOU FUCKING CUNT.

The Caliphate can't come soon enough, really. So much insolence that needs discipline to silent it completely.

>>6108512
booze and stinky have been a staple of literature since the greeks, m8

>>6108520

Bahahahaha have a fucking cry m8. He was a beat-off though and through, no denying it.

He wrote like a beat and lived like a beat. He was a hipster and a boozer and loved to talk about both, therefore he's a beat.

>>6108524
No denying it. Deodorant wasn't invented till 1888, which means there was a lot of smelly authors before then. A majority in fact. I bet Dostoevsky drank a fair bit and probably ponged too, he just didn't write about it like a beat faggit

>>6108531

He wasn't remotely fucking hip and the Beats smoked more weed than drank beer. Buk never smoked weed and drank incessantly. You don't know your stuff, and you're trying to brazen it out in an era when anyone can check in ten seconds that you're bullshitting on basic facts. Why should anyone respect your opinion when you can't get observable, basic shit right.

>>6108511
>Carver sucks because I think so.

>>6108547
I like Carver's stuff, but only after Gordon Lish edited it. The unedited stuff in Beginners is atrocious sentimental garbage.

>>6108541
I don't even need facts when I'm faced with retorts like yours. The fact that you need to qualify how the beat generation 'smoked more weed than they drank booze' proves how much of a child you are. I mean, the only cunts that thought smoking weed and drinking booze was important enough to write down in a fucking book were the Beats. And since Buttowski wrote almost strictly about his smelly hangovers and pissed stained undies, I equate him to the beat generation. He so vehemently denied being a part of that shit movement because he saw in it his own lack of originality and finese.

Only people like you, who care about how much weed a writer smokes over how much he drinks, would get angry over something as benign and festering as the

>true definition of the beat generation

Get real fagit, you're a tool. Bet you don't even study literature at university. You just browse taiwanese anime forums and talk about hikikimori with your neo-beat friends.

Smoke a bowl m8 it's what Allen Ginsperg would have done

>>6108578
>You just browse taiwanese anime forums and talk about hikikimori with your neo-beat friends.
>tfw i finally realise NEET culture is BEAT culture in the internet age

feels hep, jack

>>6108578
was henry miller a beat?

was rimbaud a beat?

was ikkyu a beat?

>>6108593
Nah cause those cunts were good. Or at least average.

>>6108593
I haven't read any of those guys. I know Rimjob was a frenchy so that pretty much disqualifies him (you have to be an American to be a beat, because only Americans would produce something as asinine as On the Road). I don't know about the others. The last dude you mentioned sounds Japanese

I'm a newfag to lit, and if Bukowski is hated here well then fuck you goddamn fags. Srsly.

>>6108604
You should read more bohemian lit, it will help you to stop confusing anything in that general area with the Beat Generation, which is a specific name a small group of authors gave themselves.

Also, if it writes like a beat, and drinks like a beat, there's a good chance its a fucking beat.

>>6108619
I understand that the Beats were a small and specific collection of authors. I get that. I'm intentionally misusing the term as a pejorative to rustle the jimmies of
>>6108520 and >>6108541
How is that not obvious. Besides, I still legitimately think Buttowski was a best due to how close he was to the event horizon of the Beat's tactless subject matter. He was also a cunt American who lived and wrote through the same era as the Beats and therefore is to me more similar to that pack of hipsters than he to the Bohemians.

>>6108641
Typing in my phone, faulty syntax is an expression of my free flowing consciousness

>>6108641
You should still read Miller though, he basically did what the Beats did but better and decades earlier and in a more strange/original way while being sincere but also not taking himself too seriously.

>>6108523

>>6108657
Okay cool. I'll check him out. I've been keen in reading Miller actually, because I've heard similar things to what you espouse.

>>6108578
hey friend. I think you have some gr8 posts up in this board, and I agree that Bukowski was certainly a beat.
What I think is wonderful about the guy is that he fell into writing, from his deadbeat jobs and ruined relationships. And he wrote about with enough finesse that he became successful as an author. There will always be those that shit on him because his subject material is not transcendant stuff, but he is true to his nature, i.e. he was a low-life working shit jobs until around 40 when he started writing novels.
he writes fantasy low-life stuff, the complete absence of a cause or calling was his shtick.
But everyone has a shtick right? Just because we find out the shtick through (careful)* analysis shouldn't be a reason to degrade an artist. Why don't we all lighten up?
*one doesn't need to delve far to find buttoski's schtik

>>6108777
I like your attitude. That is a reasonable way to interpret the bloke. Next time I shit post I'll do so with what you said in mind. Perhaps maybe I'll even come to appreciate a poem or two of his.

Fair thee well, m8

Captcha: nopou

>>6108777
Mind you an authors background should remain irrelevant to his/her work and message. I don't care if they grew up rich or poor or in between. They can write about that shit, that's fine. Just as long as they do well. You see it with Sylvia Plate. Her reputation precedes her and her poetry gets lost in the Frey. If instead we just focused on her outputs, and not on her history, we might find something deeper in her works.

Same with Heidegger. Cunts don't want to read the dude because he was a supposed Nazi. But his Nazism has nothing to do with his work, with what he contributed to society.

When a good book is produced it extends out beyond the author. If a book is simply made good because it was written within a specific context, then it's no good to me.

Bukowski may have been dirt poor and found his solace in writing, and I respect and admire that, but at the end of the day his writing is still shit.

>>6108657
I wasn't really impressed by Tropic of Cancer. It was disappointing, actually.

>>6108475
>You find Buk when you need him. I needed him badly, he helped to save my life.

This.

There is a rumor about him that he is a reincarnated Indian Holy Man, who came back to help others through heir pain.

Easily among the top 5 american poets, even if the ivory tower academics ignore him out of classist ignorance

come at me, girly-men

>>6110856
lol poor b8

>>6107903
Read ''Women'', it was a decent read. Might read some more by him in the future. Just a self proclaimed low-life writing about low-lifes, it has its charms.

>>6108578
>the only cunts that thought smoking weed and drinking booze was important enough to write down in a fucking book were the Beats
But Tao Lin writes about drughs too, and his writing is autobiographical. ¿Can we safely say Tao Lin is a pioneer of the neo-beats?

>>6107996
I'm pretty sure a lot of authors drink.

>>6108454
Bukowski has said on many occasions that he did not believe himself to be a great author.

He also wasn't a beat. His audience was mostly people like him. Bar flies and poorer working class people who just wanted something they could relate to.

If you're going to talk shit about an author, you really shouldn't start with "I've read very little of him".

>>6108541
Bukowski did smoke weed and did mescaline (both of which can be found in his novel Women).

But that doesn't make him a beat.

He isn't a beat because aside from coming from the same time period, his writing has absolutely nothing in common with beat literature.

>>6108777
Bukowski did not "fall into" writing.
He read like crazy as a kid and began writing short stories very young. He sent out tons of work during his days working dead end jobs and only published a small amount of it. He was also writing a column for an underground newspaper during that time. He only started writing novels when an editor promised him a salary for life if he would quit his job at the post office and write full time.

>>6113135
The Sun Also Rises consists almost entirely of people drinking.

Does that make Hemingway a beat?

>>6113192
But Tao's lifestyle resembles in more ways the Beat lifestyle than Hemmingway's.

>>6113270
I was replying to the green text.

But yeah, I could see that.

WAIT

What the fuck is a beat?

>>6113486

there can't possibly be anyone this new to lit

>>6113489
It's like a turnip, right?

>>6113501

it's kinda like a turnip if a turnip sat at a keyboard for a couple hours here and there and never did anything else of note

>>6107903
I've read "Women" and it was boring. Perhaps, I "just didn't get it".

>>6113501
more like turnup

>>6108178

Vonnegut is shit.

Palahniuk is kid shit.

They are not comparable to Buk in any form

>>6107903
>Why does /lit/ hate him so much?
Because he's not a good writer.
>in a straight forward manner.
Oh boy, this smells like a worm.

>>6116731
bukowski is more like howlin wolf than ICP

>>6116769
You give Howlin' Wolf a bad name by saying that.

>>6116815
Bukowski is a good lad, bully.

>>6116815
You edited up comics to show your distaste towards Bukowski?

What a faggot.

>>6116835
she also makes screenshots of her own posts and collects them for later use.

bukowski did actually had sexual relations with her mother though.

>>6116876
That's really pathetic and conceited. Some euphoric atheist level shit right there.

>>6116731
>6116815
i am down with the clown motherfucker shout out to my juggalo homies

>>6113978
cheers, m8 :^)

>>6116835
>>6116876
>>6116909
This shit is GOLD.

>>6116731
ICP is minimalist? not the shit I heard. what would minimalist rap even sound like?

ICP held blue-collar jobs? maybe. they're from Detroit. But the little I've heard never alluded to that. I suppose they're probably of the underclass, though. They don't seem to be slumming, like they secretly grew up in West Bloomfield or Gross Pointe. I'm sure the internet would've outed them by now.

Still, that comic seems flawed to me.

>>6107903
He's too conceited for his talent.

And I also don't like people who create some kind of persona and turn literature into a theatre for the media. I have a lot of respect for people who just let their work speak for itself.

>>6116948
I thought the media totally ignored him for like 30 years or whatever. When they came around to his ideas, he just acted the same as he always did? I didn't realize he created any type of media circus around himself, but please link me.

Bukowski accompanied me through some crazy times in my life. I discovered him at 19 (see >>6108178 ) in the middle of a two year long drug binge. His gritty poetry just fit well then.

The way I see it, Bukowski's work is to poetry what grunge rock is to music. He champions the low life and says a big ''fuck you'' to anything that could be considered conformist or mainstream.

I don't think he takes poetry writing OR himself very seriously; you can tell that he wrote certain especially simple/pointless/revolting works just to sit back and be amused at how readers and publishers actually payed money for it, and to laugh at people who reverently quoted poems that he dug out of the bottom of his wastebasket and sent in as a gag. If you look a bit closer, Bukowski is the opposite of arrogant.

Between the drunken scribblings, he's hidden a few brilliant and insightful things, the fun part is trying to find them.

>>6116928
Bruh, I hardly even care about Bukowski. I've only read Ham on Rye and thought it was a 6/10 at best. I can see a case being made for his talents from either perspective.

If you don't think its pathetic to spend a substantial amount of your time talking about how much you dislike a piece of work instead of allocating your efforts elsewhere, towards something constructive, then you've got far too much time on your hands.

The alternative is that you're a troll who thinks you're more clever than you really are and you've got a chalkboard with a running tally of how many anonymous strangers have taken your totally epic bait.

Either way, you're just shitposting.

>>6116938
>what would minimalist rap even sound like?

BITCH U GEST ITT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT3OQwyvKmk

>>6116928
Incredible how even your webcomics are shittier than most webcomics. Bukowki must really have fucked your mom and passed down his shitty genes to you for you to be this retarded. Is that why you hate him so much ? Because he's responsible for your cognitive impairment ? I mean, even I think he's shit, but come on. You're starting to make him look like Joyce by comparison.

>>6116960
Uh if you want a source, e.g. Charles Bukowski, Outsider Literature, and the Beat Movement, page 157ff., it's online.

He was underground forever (maybe he was bad..?), then the whole "hi i'm an alcohol" began to sell.

I mean that's okay, I just read about him shitting on an author I liked and I thought someone who writes about nothing but ugly hookers and drinking and failing maybe shouldn't really judge others.

I don't think anyone would care about what we wrote if it wasn't for the image - and he'd probably admit it - so why do we actually? It's just this need to project and identify (similar to DFW) and it takes away from people who have something to say.

>>6116938
>ICP is minimalist?
The lyrics. I'm talking about the fact that Buk's fans call his bad, flat, shallow writing "minimalist". The same way ICP's lyrics are bad, flat, and shallow.

>ICP held blue-collar jobs?
I said manual labor. They backyard wrestled for money, one of them worked in fast food.

> I suppose they're probably of the underclass, though.
They were dirt poor, both of them.

>Still, that comic seems flawed to me.
It's "seems" flawed to you because of your weak kneed argument of personal ignorant indecisiveness. "Not that I've heard", "Blue collar jobs? Maybe." "I suppose they're underclass". I'd be unsure of flaws if I was you as well.

>>6117004
wow. this is surprisingly not horrible.

the perfect part is the last bit is just letting the beat ride for a minute, and in the last few seconds, he inhales like he's gonna say something… which never comes. minimal rap, yo.

I bet his live show is off the hook, since it's all about a strong personality.

>>6117029
what if ICP is good

>>6116990
Was going to chime in, but you expressed my sentiment pretty well. Good post.

>Bukowski
>ICP
>tripfags
>shitty stripcreator comics

Earth is suffocating.

>>6117040

that would be a miracle
fucking magnets
how do they work

>>6117029
you sure know a whole lot about artists you totally hate.

>>6116992
>If you don't think its pathetic to spend a substantial amount of your time talking about how much you dislike a piece of work instead of allocating your efforts elsewhere, towards something constructive, then you've got far too much time on your hands.
I'm not putting anything of my life on pause. I come here when I'm free and feel like it. Probably just like you. Looking back, it's been almost two days between the thread's inception and me posting in it.

>The alternative is that you're a troll who thinks you're more clever than you really are and you've got a chalkboard with a running tally of how many anonymous strangers have taken your totally epic bait.
It could be the same person over and over. They regurgitate the same shit so often that the comics literally mimic their arguments to me. I'm simply having fun.

>Either way, you're just shitposting.
Fine if you feel that way. I'm just somebody who is willing to have a discussion (or argument) on Bukowski's writing. If you don't like me, don't read me. I make it easier by wearing a trip.

>>6117009
>Incredible how even your webcomics are shittier than most webcomics.
It's a free webcomic maker, calm down.
>Bukowki must really have fucked your mom
Ok, I'll just move on then, I can guess the rest of your post.

>>6117078
did he?

>>6117056
Haha.

>>6117040
>what if ICP is good
I wouldn't even entertain that idea.

>>6117062
I don't hate them. I know enough to be able to argue my point.

>>6117088
That's a big post, you could at least have the decency to green text me some direction or context so I know what you want.

>>6117122
my post was directed at the very last point of your last post

>check out red copy of post office (i think?) from robarts
>mfw some guy wrote inside the cover advice on what to drink while reading it or something (can't remember)
>mfw he puts his email on the next page and says he's down to chill and talk about books
>mfw i never emailed him

>>6117142
No he didn't.

>>6117078
If your definition of fun is posting those shite web comics in response to people who like an artist that you don't, you're pretty deranged.

> I'm just somebody who is willing to have a discussion (or argument) on Bukowski's writing.

And if you did that like a normal person, I wouldn't have called you a pathetic faggot. You entered this thread with le epic meme comics and that's it. If you weren't so vain, you would articulate an actual comment, copy that into a text document, save it, and repost it for discussion. Instead you screencap yourself and make shitty posts.

> If you don't like me, don't read me.

Hahahaha

>tripfagging for years on end and painstakingly making OC about a single author you dislike

What kind of trauma/mental illness causes this, lads? The whole "bukowski fucked her mom" angle starts to make more and more sense.

>>6117293
Tripfags want attention, and get a steady trickle of it for mediocre gimmickposting. They feel embarrassed for not getting more despite all the effort they put into being a !~PERSONALITY~! so they rationalize more and more over time that they will get more attention the more elaborate and effort their gimmick persona is.

Then literally no one remembers them a day after they stop.

>>6117078
>Ok, I'll just move on then, I can guess the rest of your post.

If you could you would already have guessed the likely consequences of Bukowski fucking your mom, which is you getting half your genes from Bukowski.

>>6117293
I find it more funny than anything.

I mean, I agree with him, Bukowski is shit, and it was ridiculous at first how butthurt you all got about it, but it's also kind of ridiculous to keep it up this long. Then again I'm still posting on this fucking board as well so I guess I was the faggot all along.

I hope I will piss off frustrated bitches decades after my death one day.

Only the greatest still manage to get people mad in another century.

>>6117230
>If your definition of fun is posting those shite web comics in response to people who like an artist that you don't, you're pretty deranged.
What do you think, this is my job? If I wasn't getting some laughs making these things, I wouldn't do it.

>And if you did that like a normal person, I wouldn't have called you a pathetic faggot. You entered this thread with le epic meme comics and that's it. If you weren't so vain, you would articulate an actual comment, copy that into a text document, save it, and repost it for discussion. Instead you screencap yourself and make shitty posts.
I'm here. I don't make it a secret that I'm willing to discuss Bukowski. I'm not stopping anyone from coming up to me with a strong counterpoint to me. I also don't pretend to be a goodie two shoes. I love seeing people lose their shit, like you, over trivial shit like a tripfag posting a free webcomic.

>Hahahaha
Hey, you're the one complaining yet you refuse to filter me. Your problem, not mine.

>it's not ok to like Bukowski
>it's not ok to like the Beats
>it's not ok to like Vonnegut
>it's not ok to like alcohol
>it's not ok to like turnips
you're making it harder and harder to like you every day, /lit/

>>6117390
thanks for reminding us that we can filter tripfags sometimes i space a bit

>>6117400

>bukowski
>beats
>Vonnegut

we were all 19 once, anon

>>6117428
but I'm 23 :(

>>6117443

Welp, still plenty of time for suicide I guess

>>6117420
No problem.
I've got to get off. Let me just say, for those of you who literally get mad, flip out, or whatever about me or any other tripfag or person on the internet: Chill out. It's some guy over the internet. Honestly for the people who attempt to get me into some sort of "gotcha" or attempt to tarnish my trip, it's a trip. I don't care about it really at all. I know I'm ruining some of my own fun, but it's become obvious to me to have to say this. I use to think the "fucked your mom" and "your a girl" guys and I were having fun and you aren't actually letting a tripfag get you smash the keyboard mad. I still hope for most of you that's true.

If you're legit getting angry at me, or any other trip, for fucks sakes filter the trip or learn to chill the fuck out and relax. You're on fucking 4chan.

>>6117390
>If I wasn't getting some laughs making these things, I wouldn't do it.

That's my point. You get a kick out of shitposting. You're a faggot.

>I don't make it a secret that I'm willing to discuss Bukowski. I'm not stopping anyone from coming up to me with a strong counterpoint to me.

Are you really willing to discuss though? How many entries to civil discussion were there before you came here?

So, in your infinite desire to discuss the faults of Bukowski's writing you went and made structured arguments in response to those comments, right?

Oh, wait.

No. That's right. You just posted antagonistic bait of no value. Nice 1. Sure rekt us all.

> Your problem, not mine.

I was laughing at your hypocrisy

>>6117482
Good post. I've responded to your shit in the past, and while I've never gotten actually mad, I've spewed some vitriolic shit at you. Just so you know. I would never wish you harm and its all in good fun. And keeping all those things in mind, I do still think you're a fucking goon, especially in how you dedicate time toward making those little "here's me on 4chan" images. And keeping THAT in mind, regardless, I hope you have a good day/night (wherever you are) and I wish you all the best in your real life. Seriously. But on here, man, fuck your shit, nigga.

Here's a nice background.

>>6117447
I really really don't get this mee-mee

>>6108102
>threatening someone with your jewish attorney isn't anti-semitic

>implying that his attorney can win a case just because they're Jewish and Jews are lying bastards that can convince anyone of whatever shit spews out of their mouths isn't antisemitic

>>6108578
>Ginsperg