Joshua Nomen-Mutatio's Reviews > Factotum
Factotum
by
by

I have a sort of pre-emptive dislike-verging-on-loathing of Bukowski, which I think is rooted in my post-adolescent rejection of and disillusionment with the Beat writers (whom I absolutely adored in high school). I’ve never read Bukowski before, but I’ve seen Barfly and Factotum on the screen. I’ve seen two documentaries about him which likewise left me more disgusted and depressed than anything. This is where I’m coming from. There’s also that aided in informing me about the man.
One of my poet friends in high school once told me that he only would read Bukowski while taking a shit. This has stuck with me over the years. Once, a girl I became involved with praised Bukowski while simultaneously giving me a caveat about what a terrible sexist he was. This is where I’m coming from.
I started reading this one on the shitter after a long day’s work. Then I moved to the couch where I drank alcohol and chain-smoked cigarettes while zooming through the book. I sneered at the blunt simplicity of the sentences at first, feeling the intense distance between this kind of writing and the George Saunder’s stories I’d been reading recently, as well as the generally more stylistically interesting and intellectually potent books I tend to gravitate towards. But I still felt entertained by this stuff, nonetheless. As more Tesco brand scotch intersected with my veins, I began to see slightly more nuance to this rather thematically repetitive first-person, clearly auto-bio stuff that Bukowski had written about a drunk-as-shit-nihilist/struggling writer who clearly is himself. Very little imagination seemed to be at work here. Just the spilt guts of a self-aggrandizing louse. But yet, I continued to be entertained, so I pressed on, feeling each sentence flow by without much effort on my part. Following the narrative of being employed many, many times, failing and getting fired just as many, drinking, drinking, drinking (to a sickening degree), and barnacle-ing to the hulls of a series of horrendously-depicted females. That’s about all there is to this novel. Working, Drinking, Fucking. Rinse, repeat.
“Even the most horrible human being on earth deserves to wipe his ass.�
But amidst the misspelled words (“he lighted his cigarette�) and dumb-assed factual errors (the USA fighting China in WWII) I gradually found some remarkably “human� moments speckled within the details. There’s a potent dissatisfaction with the exploitative nature of American Capitalism to be found within the job-after-fucking-job experiences the narrator tumbles through. There’s something weirdly edifying in witnessing the details of a severe drunk’s day-to-day physical ailments and triumphs and tribulations, even when nauseating, like most of them are. Even the contemptible attitudes displayed toward women have an oddly true ring to them. This is NOT to say that I agree with treating women like shit the way Bukowski clearly does, but that his shittiness is a stark reminder of certain horrible realities that do certainly exist in the minds of many men. And this I found interesting, in an historico-anthropological sort of way, while simultaneously depressing and upsetting.
And then I thought of Raymond Carver. He also was once a real-life drunk of epic proportions who wrote in tight, blunt, staccato, matter-of-fact sentence-lumps, consistently describing soul-crushing work-weeks, oceans of booze and cluttered ashtrays. Why do I like his writing so much and yet feel this strong, largely pre-emptive aversion to Bukowski? That’s the question. Carver's prose-style is really no more innovative or poetic than Chuck’s, but yet when I read two of Carver’s collections I encountered them with such a different attitude and happy reception. Carver, for one, doesn’t denigrate women the way Bukowski does. That’s one thing. And while he speaks of little else beyond sad, failed, alcoholic people, he manages to make it seem far less about him--the almighty, misanthropic author--and more about said sad, failed, alcoholic people. There’s an extremely off-putting narcissism to Bukowski, so far as I can tell from reading a single book of his, which Carver elegantly transcends, despite similar style and content.
But then I wonder, is there more buried deep within the the wine-soaked walls of Bukowski than lets on immediately? Or, do I perhaps harbor some of the same misanthropy that he nakedly exposes one word to the next? Am I really any better? Well, my answer to the first query is still "NO" and my response to the second still "YES" but contemplating these things during my read was enriching in some way, so I reluctantly give some credit there to ol' CB.
But what was Bukowski, really? A terminally depressed, ego-maniac/self-hater with a bottle permanently pressed to his lips. Some part of me can resonate with this, as much as I high-falutin-ly know that this is the case. There’s a dark knot of nihilism stuck inside my heart, I know this. Perhaps reading these rather bleak and repetitive exploits of Bukowski’s tingles some part of that in me that seeks connection and recognition. I do not know for sure.
One of my poet friends in high school once told me that he only would read Bukowski while taking a shit. This has stuck with me over the years. Once, a girl I became involved with praised Bukowski while simultaneously giving me a caveat about what a terrible sexist he was. This is where I’m coming from.
I started reading this one on the shitter after a long day’s work. Then I moved to the couch where I drank alcohol and chain-smoked cigarettes while zooming through the book. I sneered at the blunt simplicity of the sentences at first, feeling the intense distance between this kind of writing and the George Saunder’s stories I’d been reading recently, as well as the generally more stylistically interesting and intellectually potent books I tend to gravitate towards. But I still felt entertained by this stuff, nonetheless. As more Tesco brand scotch intersected with my veins, I began to see slightly more nuance to this rather thematically repetitive first-person, clearly auto-bio stuff that Bukowski had written about a drunk-as-shit-nihilist/struggling writer who clearly is himself. Very little imagination seemed to be at work here. Just the spilt guts of a self-aggrandizing louse. But yet, I continued to be entertained, so I pressed on, feeling each sentence flow by without much effort on my part. Following the narrative of being employed many, many times, failing and getting fired just as many, drinking, drinking, drinking (to a sickening degree), and barnacle-ing to the hulls of a series of horrendously-depicted females. That’s about all there is to this novel. Working, Drinking, Fucking. Rinse, repeat.
“Even the most horrible human being on earth deserves to wipe his ass.�
But amidst the misspelled words (“he lighted his cigarette�) and dumb-assed factual errors (the USA fighting China in WWII) I gradually found some remarkably “human� moments speckled within the details. There’s a potent dissatisfaction with the exploitative nature of American Capitalism to be found within the job-after-fucking-job experiences the narrator tumbles through. There’s something weirdly edifying in witnessing the details of a severe drunk’s day-to-day physical ailments and triumphs and tribulations, even when nauseating, like most of them are. Even the contemptible attitudes displayed toward women have an oddly true ring to them. This is NOT to say that I agree with treating women like shit the way Bukowski clearly does, but that his shittiness is a stark reminder of certain horrible realities that do certainly exist in the minds of many men. And this I found interesting, in an historico-anthropological sort of way, while simultaneously depressing and upsetting.
And then I thought of Raymond Carver. He also was once a real-life drunk of epic proportions who wrote in tight, blunt, staccato, matter-of-fact sentence-lumps, consistently describing soul-crushing work-weeks, oceans of booze and cluttered ashtrays. Why do I like his writing so much and yet feel this strong, largely pre-emptive aversion to Bukowski? That’s the question. Carver's prose-style is really no more innovative or poetic than Chuck’s, but yet when I read two of Carver’s collections I encountered them with such a different attitude and happy reception. Carver, for one, doesn’t denigrate women the way Bukowski does. That’s one thing. And while he speaks of little else beyond sad, failed, alcoholic people, he manages to make it seem far less about him--the almighty, misanthropic author--and more about said sad, failed, alcoholic people. There’s an extremely off-putting narcissism to Bukowski, so far as I can tell from reading a single book of his, which Carver elegantly transcends, despite similar style and content.
But then I wonder, is there more buried deep within the the wine-soaked walls of Bukowski than lets on immediately? Or, do I perhaps harbor some of the same misanthropy that he nakedly exposes one word to the next? Am I really any better? Well, my answer to the first query is still "NO" and my response to the second still "YES" but contemplating these things during my read was enriching in some way, so I reluctantly give some credit there to ol' CB.
But what was Bukowski, really? A terminally depressed, ego-maniac/self-hater with a bottle permanently pressed to his lips. Some part of me can resonate with this, as much as I high-falutin-ly know that this is the case. There’s a dark knot of nihilism stuck inside my heart, I know this. Perhaps reading these rather bleak and repetitive exploits of Bukowski’s tingles some part of that in me that seeks connection and recognition. I do not know for sure.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
Factotum.
Sign In »
Quotes Joshua Nomen-Mutatio Liked
Reading Progress
October 10, 2012
–
Started Reading
October 10, 2012
– Shelved
October 10, 2012
– Shelved as:
fiction
October 10, 2012
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-42 of 42 (42 new)
date
newest »

message 1:
by
s.penkevich
(new)
Oct 10, 2012 06:46AM

reply
|
flag

Adam, thank you for the amazing response. It makes me wish we could hang out. Seriously. The DFW-antidote stuff is a total fucking bulls-eye, btw.


Ha! He says this before having met my Mr. Hyde side.


Hey Knig! Weren't you going to send that to me? Pout.

I've had that one on the to-read shelf for years. Thanks for the reminder.

Retrospective politeness is the best kind of politeness.

'Come with me'
'What'
'I want to show you my bedroom'
I followed Gertrude down the hall. [also includes some elementary level bedroom descriptions] Gertrude moved close to me.
'You like my bedroom?"
'It's nice. Oh yes, I like it.'
'Don't ever tell Mrs. Downing that I asked you in here, she'd be scandalized.'
'I won't tell'



Mind you, that's how I feel about Harry Potter. To each their own, I suppose.
Hint: the misanthropy is part of the point. I'm a hardcore feminist, and I still love Bukowski's work. It's hard writing about a hard life - there is no sugar to give the subject. If it were sweeter, it wouldn't be Bukowski.
The man was so celebrated, that his publishing company paid him a salary with a lifetime guarantee, even if he never completed a thing.
Just because one does not see the value in what they are reading, does not mean value does not exist.


Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn are great precursors to all of these down-and-out types; in his case though, redemption comes from a weird everyman mysticism that shines like a vein of silver amidst the sordid drinking/fucking/barroom sawdust soaked in urine, old beer and spit.

I think what disturbs me about Bukowski is that he gets away with being a really ugly, awful person because he plays the bruised romantic card. This is especially evident w/r/t women readers of Bukowski, who seem to almost invariably adore at least aspects of his writing, offended though they are at the way he writes about women.
But, you know, he's just a tremendous asshole who has no idea how to be a real human being and care about other people. He's good at depicting the pain and subtle terror of personal experience, but just has no clue about other people, male or female, as is evident from pretty much all his writing.
For me, a large part of the dislike for Bukowski comes from my attraction to Bukowski's writing, or at least the idea of it. I mean, I've been a drunk, I smoke too much, I have (really) vomited into my typewriter. I, sadly, haven't always been much better to the women in my life than Bukowski was. Bukowski was big on calling himself honest, and his fans think he's real honest, too. But openness is not all that constitutes honesty. Bukowski is missing a critical faculty, an ability to understand that he needs to find a way out of his view of the world.
So I guess the way I'd put the thing is that writers like DFW are, for me, the antidote to my attraction to the Bukowskis of the literary world. Cause if I let myself, I'm sure I would just read book after book of crap like this, and it gets just real solipsistic and self-serving and dark and lonely.
I know because I've been there.



Carver's appeal (ultimately) really remains mystique to me. I'd appreciate input.

And as far as Fred Exley, I have such untenably fond memories of A Fan's Notes that I had to pull it out and take a look and see what I thought was so great. Here's a bit from page 1:
"The pain was excruciatingly vivid, and for many moments I was terrified by the fear of death. Illogically, this was one terror I believed I had long since cast off--having cast it off, I thought, with the effortless lunacy of a man putting a shotgun into his mouth and ridding himself of the back of his skull. That the fear of death still owns me is, in its way, a beginning."
What he's describing, incidentally, is a copious drinking- and bad news-induced panic attack.
And a random paragraph from the middle of the book:
"Abruptly, without thinking, I expectorated distastefully onto the marble floor. All during the phone conversation my mouth had been dry as dust; since hanging up, I had sensed the saliva flooding back into my mouth, and the thick and rich glob of sputum just missed a passing matron dressed in a mink coat, landing just in front of her and causing her to come to a tottering halt. She cast on me a look of outraged severity. The sputum had neither hit nor splashed upon her, I was sure. What did she want from me? 'I'm not a gentleman,' I said. Still she lingered, looking even more indignant. 'What do you want?' I said finally in exasperation . . ." And it goes on like that.
So the prose itself isn't anything recognizably special, like Carver's and presumably Bukowski's, but like Carver's and unlike Bukowski's, it works pretty well. And further, unlike Carver stuff but like Bukowski stuff, A Fan's Notes is very autobiographical (which is why he only has one good novel). Exley pulls it off.
Actually, the place A Fan's Notes really occupies in my mind is the Red-Blooded American Male� version of The Bell Jar.
So that's my stoned take on those guys.

Bukowski seems to owe a debt to John Fante, another soaked, ranty, poverty-stricken LA masochist. I read a little Fante after Bukowski. Fante was an earthy narcissist with violent tendencies, but less sexist and tended not to live in filth, which made Fante's work somehow drier and more tedious. Though, I never got to Ask the Dust.
I watched Barfly and some interviews after reading too much Bukowski. I kept waiting for the payoff or the meaning behind his glorifying living in garbage and treating women poorly. Eventually I just found it to be his schtick, and moved on.
Carver is indeed more humane, and seems to be capturing a more universal experience in regards to failed alcoholic people, while Bukowski writes his personal experience as if he were the pinnacle of a universal struggle. Carver has a beautiful poem called "You Don't Know What Love Is (an evening with Charles Bukowski)" in Fires: Essays, Poems, Stories that captures both writers in a single moment. I highly recommend that.

Platitudes are often spoken by...everybody.


Factotum (the film) was worth an hour-and-a-half, too.
Some may like Hollywood - see my review here:
/review/show...
I refer to Buk's observations as "anthropological", which reminds me that readers' reactions may offer a bit of self-selecting anthropology too.
Take Jason's comment that:
(Bukowski and Stephen King fans) need an anti-foaming agent.
Or this from "professional" poetess (oddly commenting on Buk's verse and not this novel) S.D:
(Those who are) fixated on him is either a woman-hating male, usually with pretty serious substance abuse problems, or a totally spineless and pathetic female.
While Buk's tone doesn't quite have a confessional quality it's interesting that it aroused Adam's "confession". I wonder what he would think about the "bruised romantic" label.
Just a view from one who is not self-reflective enough to be unhappy.


I still haven't checked out Fante or Exely (as rec'd by Drew) but after being reminded of this review via a random "vote" or "like" I will recommit myself to do so.
Also, and especially after reading the Carver poem, I think I still hate Bukowski's long dead guts. But remain weirdly and distantly fascinated somehow.

"Bukowski was big on calling himself honest, and his fans think he's real honest, too. But openness is not all that constitutes honesty."

"Carver is indeed more humane, and seems to be capturing a more universal experience in regards to failed alcoholic people, while Bukowski writes his personal experience as if he were the pinnacle of a universal struggle."

I still haven't checked out Fante or Exely (as rec'd by Drew) but after being reminded of this review via a random "vote" or "like" I will recommit myself to do so.
Also, and especially after reading the Carver poem, I think I still hate Bukowski's long dead guts. But remain weirdly and distantly fascinated somehow.

I get the same feeling from US political news thanks to 45, I feel hatred but I am also fascinated by his daily success at exceeding the stupidity of his previous decisions. His decisions are always indirectly creative. I tend to think in worst case scenarios, and I am surprised 50% of the time at each new low that I hadn't quite imagined or thought possible.
Back to Bukowski. I read Bukowski hoping that his filth and misogyny would add up to something, either a secret about the human condition or there would be a serious reason (e.g trauma) behind it. Nope. He was a narcissistic slob with a romantic, earthy temperament. He is someone I would ignore in society. A smelly guy in a dirty shirt, talking about how great he is? No thanks.
I read Bukowski hoping to understand him. I think I do. He wrote clearly about his preoccupations: alcohol, cigars, not bathing, and arguing with women. Using his own calculus, Bukowski rounded this up to being a genuine man. I read his work thinking "A genuine man, huh? What this could mean?" and then discovered he is a guy I would avoid. Most uncharitably, when I have been depressed, I have found reading Bukowski rather comforting. No matter my personal predicament, upon reading a scene of sordid Bukowskian squalor, I can say "at least I am not this guy," laugh at his ridiculous self-seriousness and begin to feel better.
