Finished Bukowski's Ham on Rye (1982)
| flatulent kink-friendly sound barrier abode | 06/17/25 | | black chapel travel guidebook | 06/17/25 | | bisexual brindle indian lodge pisswyrm | 06/17/25 | | flatulent kink-friendly sound barrier abode | 06/17/25 | | violet comical university knife | 06/17/25 | | citrine ape | 06/17/25 | | Mint self-centered therapy | 06/17/25 | | concupiscible maroon ticket booth multi-billionaire | 06/17/25 | | boyish public bath private investor | 06/17/25 | | Brilliant resort | 06/17/25 | | black chapel travel guidebook | 06/17/25 | | slate temple foreskin | 06/17/25 | | flatulent kink-friendly sound barrier abode | 06/17/25 | | violet comical university knife | 06/17/25 | | flatulent kink-friendly sound barrier abode | 06/17/25 | | black chapel travel guidebook | 06/17/25 | | Gold market | 06/17/25 | | glassy dilemma giraffe | 06/17/25 | | flatulent kink-friendly sound barrier abode | 06/17/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 17th, 2025 6:21 AM Author: flatulent kink-friendly sound barrier abode
I finished Bukowski’s Ham on Rye (1982), which is apparently his most famous novel along with his first, Post Office. It is a semi-autobiographical novel about his youth - born in Germany, raised in Los Angeles, always a poor outsider, wisecracking and fast talking, his loves were alcohol and writing. He developed terrible acne as a teenager which made his outsider status worse but even that was something he accepted and suffered through.
The book is lovely, an easy and flowing read. Bukowski discusses the difficulties of life and he does it in a wry, direct, honest and disarming style. One can’t help but love the guy - he’s got such a defined voice.
He states that he’s neither a misanthrope nor a misogynist in the book, and I think at least the second part is true for him - for the first, he uses alcohol to dull the pain of existence. However, Bukowski, for all his self-loathing and rawness, seemed to channel his suffering into a grudging acceptance of the human animal - ugly, dirty, and laughable, yes, but not necessarily evil. He’s disillusioned, yes, but rarely metaphysically embittered. The distinction between my response and his might be that he located suffering within fate—while I seem to locate it within betrayal, both relational and metaphysical.
I’ve read all of Bukowkski’s poetry online (https://www.best-poems.net/charles_bukowski/index.html) and will continue to read more of his works.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5739087&forum_id=2).#49023314) |
|
|