Bukowski was an eccentric guy and often he used to contradict himself. This poem seems to encompass his life philosophy and which also happens to be written on his tombstone in just two words: "Don't try"
However, in his another poem, Roll the Dice, he presents something entirely different outlook on the subject of trying. And this is a poem I really admire.
ROLL THE DICE
-------------
If you’re going to try, go all the way.
Otherwise, don’t even start.
If you’re going to try, go all the way.
This could mean losing girlfriends, wives, relatives, jobs and maybe even your mind.
It could mean not eating for three or four days.
It could mean freezing on a park bench.
It could mean jail.
It could mean derision, mockery, isolation.
Isolation is the gift.
All the others are a test of your endurance, of how much you really want to do it.
And, you’ll do it, despite rejection and the worst odds.
And it will be better than anything else you can imagine.
If you’re going to try, go all the way.
There is no other feeling like that.
You will be alone with the gods, and the nights will flame with fire.
DO IT. DO IT. DO IT. All the way
You will ride life straight to perfect laughter. It’s the only good fight there is.
>However, in his another poem, Roll the Dice, he presents something entirely different outlook on the subject of trying.
Is it a different outlook? I think the "don't try" in the gravestone you mention refers to the same concept, or as Yoda put it "Do or Do not. Do not try".
"Don't try" to me reads not like "Don't do anything daring" (avoid trying stuff) but instead "Do things fully, don't just dip your toes in" (commit to stuff, don't do half-hearted tries).
Besides we do know that he did go all the way, he quit his main non-writing job (at a later age) and went all-in in writing.
> “I began to realize how important it was to be an enthusiast in life. He taught me that if you are interested in something, no matter what it is, go at it at full speed ahead. Embrace it with both arms, hug it, love it and above all become passionate about it. Lukewarm is no good. Hot is no good either. White hot and passionate is the only thing to be.”
And I think that's exactly what you and Bukowski are saying here.
Of course, the "don't try" line is an aphorism. Often enough, you won't know whether or not you'll like something until you've tried it. And sometimes, it might take a few tries and some warming up. That's only human. Often enough, though you already know deep down your gut "this isn't for me" while your mind hasn't caught up yet. Bukowski's poem might just be the bucket of icewater that some aspiring writers, stuck in a grueling grind over their keyboards, really need.
I like the nietzschean spirit in the poem you posted.
I found the following after searching for "don't try" which is also quite nice:
"Somebody asked me: "What do you do? How do you write, create?" You don't, I told them. You don't try. That's very important: not to try, either for Cadillacs, creation or immortality. You wait, and if nothing happens, you wait some more. It's like a bug high on the wall. You wait for it to come to you. When it gets close enough you reach out, slap out and kill it. Or if you like its looks, you make a pet out of it."
- Charles Bukowski
There's often a leap of faith in important matters. I believe both his views don't try or all the way are trying to convey that. Basically don't waste time going mild.
But truth is, he's not telling the whole story. First full throttle may make you blind. Second there are times you can't go all in on one shot (lack of resources, risk of death, or simply not knowing which path). You have to chunk your progress. Still doing these chunks with high intensity, care and reminiscence.
> Second there are times you can't go all in on one shot (lack of resources, risk of death, or simply not knowing which path). You have to chunk your progress.
I believe his philosophy was to ignore those issues (lack of resources, risk of death), because if you start thinking about them, you'll never venture out, but instead spend your whole life preparing.
This poet is fantastically narrated in this youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNo8EFRwvus (BTW it's better without the associated montage of video clips IMO, just switch to a different tab and listen to the audio alone).
"Don't try" is misinterpreted to mean "don't bother" when it should be interpreted as "Do or do not, there's no try", and "If you __have__ to try, don't do it all".
This poem seems to how I currently approach dating. Tinder autoswipe on. Immediate authentic message as to why I like the women I don’t unmatch. Women on the streets, telling them I find them attractive, and if they have time to listen going into detail why. Most of them it makes their day.
I couldn’t care less if I get an infinite amount of rejections. I am not setting for less. I’m too old for that shit and I have seen what it does. If it means I’ll end up alone constantly striking out until I die, then so be it.
I am ready to never experience any form of love and intimacy ever again, and because I am ready for that I feel fearless to go after what I want.
Needless to say, I am not that good looking. I am only living once and realizing it.
Oh, and I am also a feminist, I do everything with consent and apologize for any intrusions. You’d be surprised how polite I am (taking proper distance) despite being direct with my compliments on Tinder/everywhere else.
If you read my comment history, I was in relationships the whole time (single since recently).
Edit: I knew this would get downvotes. Yet, I wrote it anyway, to me this topic matters enough that I don't mind the downvotes. If anything, the downvotes are in spirit of the poem and how I approach this. I'm willing to get hurt a lot more in this area. I'm willing to risk it all. Are you? For the past 10 years, I know I wouldn't.
I know I think differently than some about this. I also know that whenever I get into a conversation with most of you, it seems we're more similar than you'd think. I've had enough of them, a lot of unchecked assumptions are hashed out and it seems in most cases we tend to agree (at least based on the dozens of conversations I've had with people).
To all the downvoters, I'd suggest two things: (1) suggest a better alternative, (2) I'm open to hearing why you think my approach is not a net positive to the world. I think it is: I'm allowing others to meet me as a person. I don't see what's wrong with that. You downvoted, so clearly you think it's a net negative. I'm open to a good faith based discussion on it.
Apparently Douglas Adams found it very difficult to write. According to the biography by Neil Gaiman it was almost painful for him, every book or manuscript a chore. I'm happy he didn't follow the advice from Bukowski to just give up!
Bukowskis poem seem to represent the romantic idea that art is divinely inspired and the artist is just a vessel. Maybe it really felt like that for Bokowski, while for others writing is just hard work.
It is funny that Adams who have such a playful style of prose found writing torture, while the much more self-important and edgy Bukowski find it easy. (Assuming the poem represent his own experience.)
When I do my best work (programming, not poetry) I feel like I was inspired.
I always get inspired in the same way, by doing the hard work for as long as it takes, and that usually feels like torture.
Perhaps Adams and Bukowski use a simmilar method to each other, but is just presented differently.
> Charles Bukowski:
> if you have to sit for hours
staring at your computer screen
or hunched over your
typewriter
searching for words,
don't do it.
> if it's hard work just thinking about doing it
I read this as "if you don't want to do it, then don't", not as "If it is hard work then don't do it". Thinking about doing it, and doing it are different things.
I really don't believe that any world class writer (or world class anything) got inspired before doing the hard work first. That is a romantic idea, not the inspiration itself.
I read recently about how tribal people dance until total exhaustion, after which they enter a trance and see visions.
Then recently I sharpened my knife for 2 hours straight, and somehow managed to write something that seemed to be relatively divinely inspired (compared to my usual crap).
There might be a pattern where some kind of physical/mental exhaustion would induce the people into a trance like state under which inspired worked could be “channeled” through.
I use these mystical terms somewhat loosely, but I would say that after an actual channeling experience (not very successful but one nonetheless) the act of writing feels weirdly similar to the point that I suspect they could share some similar processes underneath.
My most recent episode of "divine inspiration" was in the last months of my PhD. I felt like both a sponge where everything I was experiencing could be spun into a relevant idea and a faucet on full blast where I couldn't stop the flow of ideas if I tried. I had several sleepless nights and work binges that left me more energized than tired. Graduating and getting my work published were somewhat validating that the ideas weren't totally manic and made sense to at least some audiences.
The flip side is a hypersensitivity I've experienced from other periods of artistic zen (photography, music). Everything, good and bad, gets cranked up to 11 and the pendulum breaks off its carrier eventually. And so it did.
Well, Adams books appear that way too. The writing is very contrived and stiff (even as comedic writing) - so it's all about the jokes. They're still great jokes and funny characters, but what's left as the strongest impression is them, not the writing flow, turn of phrase, or even plot.
I mean that in the same sense a movie like Airplane! is just about stringing jokes together, and has no deeper plot or "cinematic" qualities (compared to a comedy like Shaun of the Dead or Young Frankenstein).
Although I do think it's a bit harsh to call his writing contrived or stiff, I did get a sort-of similar vibe of "individual moments stringed along" when I first read his books.
I do disagree when it comes to overall themes. Granted, he was not the masterful storyteller along the lines of Terry Pratchett, but I do think he nailed some of the general sci-fi satire points.
I like Adams, Pratchett and Gaiman separately (see comments by others for context). Perhaps my fondness for Adams is that I discovered him first.
I don't think Bukowski did find it easy. He's saying he could only write poetry for its own sake and for no other motivation whatsoever and reaching that point is hard and may never come but realizing this essential point saves you a lot of time and crap poetry!
He said that writing poetry is easy, "it just pours out of him", but writing prose is hard work, essentially "like working in a factory". He didn't like that very much, but eventually wrote more prose when he got older - perhaps eventually took a liking to longer projects which don't produce immediate gratification.
It also overlooks the fact that if you don't put the hours in you will never be divinely inspired.
I'm reminded of the outcome of the two groups of potters in a pottery class, one group challenged to make a perfect piece and the other to make as many pieces as possible:
> Apparently Douglas Adams found it very difficult to write. According to the biography by Neil Gaiman it was almost painful for him, every book or manuscript a chore.
As an author of many years and thousands of pages, I can relate to this. There is an oft misattributed quote on the matter, "I hate to write, but I love having written." In my case "hate" is too strong a verb, I merely find it exhausting. And yet somehow I wish I had more time to do it.
Bukoski goes well with Philip K Dick. The portrait they paint of 1950s and 1960s America (even if accidentally) is truly dystopian, a world of wild-eyed amphetamine addicts and self-destructive alcoholics wrapped up in the social norms of their day. It's really some of the most depressing literature out there, and almost none of the characters in their works are even vaguely likable or admirable. It's probably 'good writing' in the sense of being an honest appraisal, but yikes, I wouldn't want to live in their worlds.
I like Bukowski a lot because under what you describe, I feel an immense sense of humanity. Without that sub-level, it'd be indeed gross and depressing...
Seasons in Hell by Mike Shopshire paints a similar picture of early 70's middle America. Looking back, I get a sense of how depression era people felt about the 20's. Pages of complaints about constant hangovers gets really childish really fast, especially for middle aged men.
I dunno, I've found plenty of likable characters in the PKD I've read. Bob Arctor in a Scanner Darkly, Barney Mayerson in the Three Stigmata, Joe Chip in Ubik. The list could go on.
For a more mainstream yet unapologetically artistic intro to Bukowski, check out “Factotum” starring Matt Dillon. It’s not perfect and still rather polished, but the tone and darkness and context of his life and writings basically both being the dregs of humanity, well, that’s art being able to share it like he did. Definitely not my taste - give me surrealist James Tate any day…
Also, handy tip for those who want to write: get a 3x5” or smaller spiral notebook and a pen with a clip that can fit in the spiral. Put it in your pocket and take it everywhere. See something funny or unique standing in line? Scribble it down.
Eventually you’ll get better and better at picking your words on the spot, of translating from your head to the page and then to a reader. It’s harmless practice and sometimes you can surprise yourself. Writers write.
Then people accuse us of being lazy because when we’re working the hardest the most anybody sees is somebody glaring at a screen or piece of paper in a typewriter.
Woke up this morning, and it seemed to me
That every night turns out to be
A little bit more like Bukowski
And yeah, I know he's a pretty good read
But God, who'd wanna be
God, who'd wanna be such an asshole
God, who'd wanna be
God, who'd wanna be such an asshole
- Modest Mouse
In literature classes I find Bukowski to be an interesting way to gauge your peers. Not as course material mind you, but you can guess a lot about a classmate's attitudes from how they feel (if familiar) about Charles Bukowski and Haruki Murakami. Sort of like how you can tell a lot about certain kinds of tech workers by their taste in books really (granted the yardsticks are different and they have to actually be readers).
from the article:
In the posthumous collections, Black Sparrow publisher John Martin has made changes to the majority of Bukowski’s poems. Damaging changes that run counter to just about everything Bukowski represented. Wholesale removal of references to drinking, drugs, sex and madness. Changes that completely alter the meaning of the manuscripts. Changes that don’t even begin to make sense. It feels like nothing short of gleeful, unrepentant vandalism and destruction.
Sadly I know, I've read Alex De Britto talk about it and his editions should be more faithful to the original. Anyway there are manuscripts at https://bukowski.net/
I don't claim to BE a writer, but I think I had moments of good writing in my life, and I like writing a lot (I wrote two - largely unsuccessful, of course - novels, two technical books, and tons of other stuff), and I completely disagree with this. And for most of the rest of the poem.
honestly this is such a bad take and it really annoys me. it's okay if it doesn't come easily! some of the best works of art took ages to conceptualize and realize, and the fact bukowski thinks that's antithesis to art shows in his sloppy and unconsidered writing.
I mean there is no art there. There is art, there is angst, in OG punk songs, and the music helps. There is no art in Bukowski's poems. His line breaks are all over the place, he's cynical and bitter, and ... that's it. That's all there is to his writing. There's no nuance, no feeling, no nothing.
At least punk songs have some kind of emotional resonance, or at the very least a good hook, you know?
I guess what I'm saying is that every Bukowski poem I've read reads like one I wrote in seventh grade.
Funny, I don't find his writing sloppy and unconsidered at all. His sense of style is so clearly defined, that I think I can come across a poem or story of his that I hadn't read before and recognize it as his work.
Readit News
However, in his another poem, Roll the Dice, he presents something entirely different outlook on the subject of trying. And this is a poem I really admire.
Is it a different outlook? I think the "don't try" in the gravestone you mention refers to the same concept, or as Yoda put it "Do or Do not. Do not try".
"Don't try" to me reads not like "Don't do anything daring" (avoid trying stuff) but instead "Do things fully, don't just dip your toes in" (commit to stuff, don't do half-hearted tries).
Besides we do know that he did go all the way, he quit his main non-writing job (at a later age) and went all-in in writing.
> “I began to realize how important it was to be an enthusiast in life. He taught me that if you are interested in something, no matter what it is, go at it at full speed ahead. Embrace it with both arms, hug it, love it and above all become passionate about it. Lukewarm is no good. Hot is no good either. White hot and passionate is the only thing to be.”
And I think that's exactly what you and Bukowski are saying here.
Of course, the "don't try" line is an aphorism. Often enough, you won't know whether or not you'll like something until you've tried it. And sometimes, it might take a few tries and some warming up. That's only human. Often enough, though you already know deep down your gut "this isn't for me" while your mind hasn't caught up yet. Bukowski's poem might just be the bucket of icewater that some aspiring writers, stuck in a grueling grind over their keyboards, really need.
> "No. Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try"
Master Yoda in The Empire Strikes Back.
I found the following after searching for "don't try" which is also quite nice:
"Somebody asked me: "What do you do? How do you write, create?" You don't, I told them. You don't try. That's very important: not to try, either for Cadillacs, creation or immortality. You wait, and if nothing happens, you wait some more. It's like a bug high on the wall. You wait for it to come to you. When it gets close enough you reach out, slap out and kill it. Or if you like its looks, you make a pet out of it." - Charles Bukowski
But truth is, he's not telling the whole story. First full throttle may make you blind. Second there are times you can't go all in on one shot (lack of resources, risk of death, or simply not knowing which path). You have to chunk your progress. Still doing these chunks with high intensity, care and reminiscence.
I believe his philosophy was to ignore those issues (lack of resources, risk of death), because if you start thinking about them, you'll never venture out, but instead spend your whole life preparing.
I couldn’t care less if I get an infinite amount of rejections. I am not setting for less. I’m too old for that shit and I have seen what it does. If it means I’ll end up alone constantly striking out until I die, then so be it.
I am ready to never experience any form of love and intimacy ever again, and because I am ready for that I feel fearless to go after what I want.
Needless to say, I am not that good looking. I am only living once and realizing it.
Oh, and I am also a feminist, I do everything with consent and apologize for any intrusions. You’d be surprised how polite I am (taking proper distance) despite being direct with my compliments on Tinder/everywhere else.
If you read my comment history, I was in relationships the whole time (single since recently).
Edit: I knew this would get downvotes. Yet, I wrote it anyway, to me this topic matters enough that I don't mind the downvotes. If anything, the downvotes are in spirit of the poem and how I approach this. I'm willing to get hurt a lot more in this area. I'm willing to risk it all. Are you? For the past 10 years, I know I wouldn't.
I know I think differently than some about this. I also know that whenever I get into a conversation with most of you, it seems we're more similar than you'd think. I've had enough of them, a lot of unchecked assumptions are hashed out and it seems in most cases we tend to agree (at least based on the dozens of conversations I've had with people).
To all the downvoters, I'd suggest two things: (1) suggest a better alternative, (2) I'm open to hearing why you think my approach is not a net positive to the world. I think it is: I'm allowing others to meet me as a person. I don't see what's wrong with that. You downvoted, so clearly you think it's a net negative. I'm open to a good faith based discussion on it.
I'm always open to learning.
Bukowskis poem seem to represent the romantic idea that art is divinely inspired and the artist is just a vessel. Maybe it really felt like that for Bokowski, while for others writing is just hard work.
It is funny that Adams who have such a playful style of prose found writing torture, while the much more self-important and edgy Bukowski find it easy. (Assuming the poem represent his own experience.)
I certainly believe that is true.
When I do my best work (programming, not poetry) I feel like I was inspired. I always get inspired in the same way, by doing the hard work for as long as it takes, and that usually feels like torture.
Perhaps Adams and Bukowski use a simmilar method to each other, but is just presented differently.
> Charles Bukowski:
> if you have to sit for hours staring at your computer screen or hunched over your typewriter searching for words, don't do it.
> if it's hard work just thinking about doing it
I read this as "if you don't want to do it, then don't", not as "If it is hard work then don't do it". Thinking about doing it, and doing it are different things.
I really don't believe that any world class writer (or world class anything) got inspired before doing the hard work first. That is a romantic idea, not the inspiration itself.
Then recently I sharpened my knife for 2 hours straight, and somehow managed to write something that seemed to be relatively divinely inspired (compared to my usual crap).
There might be a pattern where some kind of physical/mental exhaustion would induce the people into a trance like state under which inspired worked could be “channeled” through.
I use these mystical terms somewhat loosely, but I would say that after an actual channeling experience (not very successful but one nonetheless) the act of writing feels weirdly similar to the point that I suspect they could share some similar processes underneath.
The flip side is a hypersensitivity I've experienced from other periods of artistic zen (photography, music). Everything, good and bad, gets cranked up to 11 and the pendulum breaks off its carrier eventually. And so it did.
I mean that in the same sense a movie like Airplane! is just about stringing jokes together, and has no deeper plot or "cinematic" qualities (compared to a comedy like Shaun of the Dead or Young Frankenstein).
Although I do think it's a bit harsh to call his writing contrived or stiff, I did get a sort-of similar vibe of "individual moments stringed along" when I first read his books.
I do disagree when it comes to overall themes. Granted, he was not the masterful storyteller along the lines of Terry Pratchett, but I do think he nailed some of the general sci-fi satire points.
I like Adams, Pratchett and Gaiman separately (see comments by others for context). Perhaps my fondness for Adams is that I discovered him first.
Deleted Comment
I'm reminded of the outcome of the two groups of potters in a pottery class, one group challenged to make a perfect piece and the other to make as many pieces as possible:
https://excellentjourney.net/2015/03/04/art-fear-the-ceramic...
As an author of many years and thousands of pages, I can relate to this. There is an oft misattributed quote on the matter, "I hate to write, but I love having written." In my case "hate" is too strong a verb, I merely find it exhausting. And yet somehow I wish I had more time to do it.
Deleted Comment
Also, handy tip for those who want to write: get a 3x5” or smaller spiral notebook and a pen with a clip that can fit in the spiral. Put it in your pocket and take it everywhere. See something funny or unique standing in line? Scribble it down.
Eventually you’ll get better and better at picking your words on the spot, of translating from your head to the page and then to a reader. It’s harmless practice and sometimes you can surprise yourself. Writers write.
Then people accuse us of being lazy because when we’re working the hardest the most anybody sees is somebody glaring at a screen or piece of paper in a typewriter.
https://mjpbooks.com/blog/the-senseless-tragic-rape-of-charl...
from the article: In the posthumous collections, Black Sparrow publisher John Martin has made changes to the majority of Bukowski’s poems. Damaging changes that run counter to just about everything Bukowski represented. Wholesale removal of references to drinking, drugs, sex and madness. Changes that completely alter the meaning of the manuscripts. Changes that don’t even begin to make sense. It feels like nothing short of gleeful, unrepentant vandalism and destruction.
> staring at your computer screen
> or hunched over your
> typewriter
> searching for words,
> don't do it.
I don't claim to BE a writer, but I think I had moments of good writing in my life, and I like writing a lot (I wrote two - largely unsuccessful, of course - novels, two technical books, and tons of other stuff), and I completely disagree with this. And for most of the rest of the poem.
Sloppy and unconsidered is the whole point. The same way a punk song (1977-era not Green Day era) is not meant to sound like a classical concerto.
At least punk songs have some kind of emotional resonance, or at the very least a good hook, you know?
I guess what I'm saying is that every Bukowski poem I've read reads like one I wrote in seventh grade.
Deleted Comment