Bukowski on Women
59commoner gardener mysoginist?
Much as I am drawn to Bukowski's writing, his style, his verve, his sheer damn it all too hell honesty, I'm disappointed reading the showy book 'Women', which strikes an unusually contemptible note. Exaggeration is rife, it's as though he's desperate to convince the reader. Henry Miller made a far greater fist of it. (No sexual pun intended) Much of it I'm sure is true Bukowski, but then much of it is preening and humbug, combined with the familiar (in male literature) expressions of disgust toward women. Bukowski is revealed here (through Chinaski) as having a good dose of commoner gardener puritanism, fearful and contemptuous of females, often narrow minded, occasionally priggish, but ultimately without compassion, mistaking abuse for freedom.
My admiration has dimmed somewhat, he's not quite the heoric figure I imagined, a fine writer, one of the very best, but hampered by this commonplace attitude.The obsessive neatness of his prose finally begins to reflect the neatness of his ideas. Was I mistaken about Bukowski? Is he not a writer that goes beyond the margins of so called 'honesty' into truth? Either way it's a shame about the emotional retardation that is so evident in this work. Then again - you could argue - Bukowski's great gift was his willingness to lay bare his flawed and weatherbeaten humanity. Or in this case, his wilful lack of it where women are concerned.
And the verdict? There's the usual fine writing style, and one or two dazzling flashes, but it's a tired book. The novel is ultimately tedious and repetitive, the constant exposition of Chinaski's sexploits, a total bore, like watching an old man jack off in public. Bukowski displays, (along with his genitals), his dissatisfaction with life, with himself, and most of all with women. A depressing book, with dull ideas, and a strong hard streak of Germanic puritanism.
CommentsLoading...
great review. i've long felt that bukowski suffers from an idealized self image and it's evident in his simplistic and antagonistic take on women. i have read most of his work and found "women" boring. he can't get over himself, a flaw which permeates most of his later writings. i also liked "tales of ordinary madness" and his "burning in water, drowning in flame" poems are genius. i have been published in the same magazines as bukowski on both coasts and find him to be a great writer, but very limited in style and scope. bukowski writes like he's looking in the mirror, without seeing the man who is looking in the mirror. thanks for the great analysis of a writer who is great, but not as great as his worshippers think.
emotional retardation? idealize the world and let me know how that works out for you.
No, patrick, it was not a great review it was a well written review.
Alice you say Buk has a commonplace attitude... I laugh though, knowing those who are wrapped in caution are far more commonplace. Patrick mentions he has "been published in the same magazines..." "...on both coasts" a line that would have got him punched by Buk. It is a rare thing to laugh at the golden rule, the fearful have no heart for it.
Patrick, Bukowski is a man, getting over himself isn't his job. Seizing life by the horns sounds a bit closer to the mark even if it's in the worst of conditions.









Tony 2 years ago
Yes, we agree that 'Women' is not a very good book. What books from Charles Bukowski would you recommend? Either poetry or fiction, what is the best Bukowski I could read?