I can't stomach the guy. He was an abusive drunk who thought it was funny to kick women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8KJiay6EI0

I watched that. Here's my take:

Fiance: I am and will continue to sleep with other men.

Bukowski: You fing w*re [kicks].

Relationships are hard. While I don't agree with physical or verbal abuse, I think in this case Fiance probably hurt Bukowski more with her words than he did with his kick. It certainly didn't seem like he was kicking her because he "thought it was funny to kick women".

Reason for downvote?

Apparently it's acceptable to downvote without providing an argument. It's anonymous and requires no thought so it's very popular.

No, just there are people who understand why physical abuse and violence is not tolerable in _any_ situation, especially not against the weak. People who equate physical and verbal violence (by verbal violence I mean anything not physical) either have no idea what they're talking about or they're mentally ill.

I agree, physical and verbal violence should not be equated. But not because verbal violence is clearly less damaging than physical violence. It's complicated, and subjective and different for everyone.

I'm totally against _any_ type of violence. But I've met and studied enough people who carry around a lifetime of mental illnesses caused verbal violence (esp. at a young age) to be able to say that one is worse than the other.

Yes, and those people are the same folks who give women who are violent or abusive to men a free pass, as women can't be violent against men as men are so much stronger than women.

> While I don't agree with physical or verbal abuse, I think in this case Fiance probably hurt Bukowski more with her words than he did with his kick.

So you do agree with physical abuse. According to you, if your partner says something that upsets you, its totally OK to hit them. That is domestic abuse 101.

> So you do agree with physical abuse. According to you, if your partner says something that upsets you, its totally OK to hit them. That is domestic abuse 101.

That's absurd. Where did I say "if your partner says something that upsets you, it's totally OK to hit them"?

I stated that:

a) Bukowski's fiance probably hurt Bukowski (by stating that she cheats on him) more than he did by kicking her.

b) It didn't seem like his reasons for kicking her were because he "thought it was funny to kick women."

Please read more carefully before you troll me, sir.

> a) Bukowski's fiance probably hurt Bukowski (by stating that she cheats on him) more than he did by kicking her.

Why would that be relevant whatsoever to why someone kicks their partner? You said you don't agree with abuse as a preface and then immediately put physical abuse on the level with having your feelings hurt by something someone said.

I don't know if you yourself has been in an abuse relationship or know anyone that has been, but these kinds of statements happen all the time as a way to create a justification for the abuse inflicted on someone. It's not only abusers that do this, but people that are friends and acquaintances of both the abuser and abused.

> Why would that be relevant whatsoever to why someone kicks their partner? You said you don't agree with abuse as a preface and then immediately put physical abuse on the level with having your feelings hurt by something someone said.

1. I stated that I don't agree with abuse (physical or emotional).

2. I stated that in this case I thought the emotional abuse Bukowski's fiance inflicted on Bukowski was worse than the physical abuse he inflicted on her. That's my opinion. I think the way that she casually taunted him with her infidelity is _serious_ abuse. The kick is also terribly abusive.

I don't know all the facts, only what I saw in the video. I don't know if Bukowski went on to be a serial abuser or not, but that's not relevant to what happened in the video, which is the subject of this discussion.

You say: "I don't know if you yourself has been in an abuse relationship or know anyone that has been" - the answer is yes. I don't know if you've ever been cheated on by someone you're in love with.

> 2. I stated that in this case I thought the emotional abuse Bukowski's fiance inflicted on Bukowski was worse than the physical abuse he inflicted on her. That's my opinion. I think the way that she casually taunted him with her infidelity is _serious_ abuse. The kick is also terribly abusive.

How exactly is being honest about not wanting and not committing to a monogamous relationship on an equal playing field as getting hit? Moreover, even if you considered that verbally and/or emotionally abusive, that in no way justifies hitting someone.

> I don't know if Bukowski went on to be a serial abuser or not, but that's not relevant to what happened in the video, which is the subject of this discussion.

If Bukowski was a serial abuser, it is most certainly 100% relevant to the video in question. Domestic abuse isn't about a single incident, its about a continuum of behavior and events.

> You say: "I don't know if you yourself has been in an abuse relationship or know anyone that has been" - the answer is yes. I don't know if you've ever been cheated on by someone you're in love with.

I have, but hitting someone and being cheated on are not even remotely on the same playing field. In fact, it is a common tactic for abusers to accuse or blame partners for the abuse by insinuating or referring to actual past instances of cheating.

> "but hitting someone and being cheated on are not even remotely on the same playing field"

Hey man, I think we've covered some interesting ground here, but I think we just have to agree to disagree. I certainly don't think that cheating should be punished with physical abuse. However, I do think that the cheating on someone who you're engaged to and clearly expects monogamy is worse than hitting someone once. I just do.

Also, let's not forget that, whilst unacceptable, the kick was solicited by her admission of infidelity, whereas the infidelity is seemingly unsolicited.

> I certainly don't think that cheating should be punished with physical abuse. However, I do think that the cheating on someone who you're engaged to and clearly expects monogamy is worse than hitting someone once. I just do.

Cheating on someone is a violation of that person's trust. Hitting your partner is violation of their physical integrity.

> Also, let's not forget that, whilst unacceptable, the kick was solicited by her admission of infidelity, whereas the infidelity is seemingly unsolicited.

What is the point of making this statement if not to excuse her getting hit or to make her getting hit seem like "she was asking for it"?

You don't think that screwing around and then rubbing it in your partner's face is abuse?

No, it's not. A partner's monogamy is a gift, not an entitlement.

Perhaps to you. To others, monogamy in a romantic relationship is a requirement and a reasonable expectation.

Couples should figure out where they stand on that, before they resort to kicking.

It may well be that someone has a reasonable expectation of monogamy, but that's entirely irrelevant. If you don't like the way your partner acts in a relationship, you don't hit them, you talk about it and possibly break it off.

Whether or not monogamy is a gift or an entitlement depends entirely on your culture / value system. I think that abusing someone's trust is, well, abusive.

> I think that abusing someone's trust is, well, abusive.

She seemed to be straight up honest about that fact she didn't want a monogamous relationship, where is the abuse of trust in that?

You have never been in a deep relationship before have you?

But he thought it was acceptable to kick her. That's abusive.

I agree that it was abusive of Bukowski to kick her. 100%. That's doesn't mean that he kicked her because, "he thought it was funny to kick women". I think it's clear from the video that he kicked her because he was upset that she was cheating on him. I think he was entitled to be upset, but not entitled to kick her.

I'm wondering if your reading comprehension is really that bad or there's something else going on with you.

What is it that you find offensive? The part that he was a drunk? The part that he kicked another human being? The part that he kicked a woman? Would you have been OK if he was sober but kicked women? Would you have been OK if he was sober but kicked a man?

Side opinion: If you consume content only by people who are perfect (which really means follow your ethical system, your values), your content sources are going to be incredibly narrow. Also, because I have to make it crystal clear. I am not advocating kicking anyone. I just think that him committing something that I disagree with doesn't necessarily mean that his ideas aren't worth thinking about.

> What is it that you find offensive? The part that he was a drunk? The part that he kicked another human being? The part that he kicked a woman? Would you have been OK if he was sober but kicked women? Would you have been OK if he was sober but kicked a man?

Are your questions anything other than pointlessly flippant?

I dont think I like you

And then somebody reduces the man to this awful youtube clip where he's drunk and fighting with his fiancé, where he kicks her meanly from across the couch, several times.

And I have to remember: that's just this thread, this thread will pass. It's Friday. I'm in a decent mood. Let's find something to eat, start thinking about what I will work on today.

Every argument is ad hominem nowadays. It is the sickness of the post-modern era[1]. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner. Charles Bukowski kicked a woman. Paula Dean once used a racial slur referring to a man that robbed her at gunpoint. Leonidas probably opposed women in the military.

Let's throw out all of human history and art and listen to the pious, sniveling PC morons of the last 10 years. That is the modern world for ya.

[1] http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/regiftedxmas12.html

> Every argument is ad hominem nowadays.

Careful... http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

In fairness, the form

  Thomas Jefferson said that [some well reasoned argument or opinion]

  Yeah, but Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner. 
  [and thus we shouldn't consider his argument]

is pretty clearly ad hominem.

Yeah Friday. It's Bagel day!

But this crap still bothers me. It drags an otherwise nice discussion about good art into the gutter of reactionary judgements. A lot of really good artists had/have problems, but that doesn't discount their work.

So you have to like everything about a person in order to appreciate their art? I never realized this was a prerequisite, thanks for clearing that up.

You do realize that this ignorant, reactionary stance invalidates the work of practically everyone ever, yes?

EDIT: If you're going to downvote someone's comment please have the guts to make an argument.

His quality as a human being has no impact on his quality as a writer. The guy was a genius and an all out asshole

Agreed. Succinctly put.

I'm not saying what he's doing is OK, but do we know the context of this?

>...women.

Would it be more tolerable to you if he were kicking a man?

I'd also like to recommend Bukowski Tavern in Inman Square, Cambridge, MA. They have Bukowski's writings all of the walls and are generally a good place to get a beer. There's a second location in Boston, but I haven't been to that one: http://bukowskitavern.net/

I've only read one, but it was quite unlike anything I'd read before - old guy, depressing grind of a job, alcohol and rough women - but a rawness and authenticity that you don't often get. At the time I was very interested to learn that he was effectively writing of the life he'd lead.

There's a whole stack of comment below on judging him-as-a-person - but if you read widely you'll be well aware that many books are worth reading despite the character flaws of their authors.

Are there any specific books you recommend?

Run With the Hunted and Love is a Dog from Hell spring to mind, but for me half the fun of reading him is just jumping in randomly. His life was chaos so it's fitting. If you read enough about "Hank" a picture of who he was will start to materialize.

Since he's dead and not able to spend your book sales money on booze and horses, he'd probably be ok with you just reading his stuff online for free[0]. He is also great to listen to, there are a lot of recordings of his readings that you can find in the usual places. The poems are filled with a kind of beautiful carnage which contrasts the even tone of his delivery. Like, "Yeah, that crazy shit happened but so what?"

One of my favorites as a teaser to start with:

  Rain

  a symphony orchestra.
  there is a thunderstorm,
  they are playing a Wagner overture
  and the people leave their seats under the trees
  and run inside to the pavilion
  the women giggling, the men pretending calm,
  wet cigarettes being thrown away,
  Wagner plays on, and then they are all under the 
  pavilion. the birds even come in from the trees
  and enter the pavilion and then it is the Hungarian 
  Rhapsody #2 by Lizst, and it still rains, but look,
  one man sits alone in the rain
  listening. the audience notices him. they turn
  and look. the orchestra goes about its
  business. the man sits in the night in the rain, 
  listening. there is something wrong with him,
  isn't there?
  he came to hear the
  music.

[0] http://www.poemhunter.com/charles-bukowski/poems/

p.s. I can't speak for the quality of that site, you may have better luck elsewhere. When I looked up Rain all I got was the first line, so it's possible that other poems have errors.

Very pretty, thank you.

Women was an excellent book. A complicated book that works on many subtle levels. On one level, it is in essence, the T.V. series Californication. On another level, it is the story of a man finding himself through his partners. Ham on Rye was also another excellent story of Bukowski's origins. All of his books were part memoirs, now. Post Office, tracks his early years working in the Post Office. Day in, day out. Checking in, his life being eaten away. The prose isn't great. However, it is rather amusing to read it today. Especially in a city where you hear people working 90 hour weeks; 90 hour weeks in tiny red-bull fueled offices. For what, for someone's glory.

Ham on Rye