Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: will.dockery@gmail.com (W.Dockery)
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments,rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: Charles Bukowski "Bluebird" review
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 02:36:06 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <23bb6e569a5e0aa9c71e380671ce7dab@www.novabbs.com>
References: <83bbcaa1-f0b2-4da7-ba08-56a3f9718d53n@googlegroups.com> <09590b1e-a35a-4d67-8ac4-fad0581c0cben@googlegroups.com> <598208c9a79eb6563ca1bf75a0d03ccf@news.novabbs.com> <adcdd32f0fb0c6c8ac6d38c3157846a3@news.novabbs.com> <8301de29-d4d1-4262-9925-20385496eeban@googlegroups.com> <897d3c87-4fa2-4545-a31c-aad175106d74n@googlegroups.com> <c99bed76-869f-4688-9f98-e4589494d44en@googlegroups.com> <38943d87-da54-43f2-9049-e916cefeef5fn@googlegroups.com> <14a82409-7e4e-4fe9-966a-2836fd2e439dn@googlegroups.com> <tbmkbg$1c2im$1@dont-email.me> <fea676b0f0a56544126a98d0b20e4d10@news.novabbs.com> <6da36e302388115c025e0c1144c9d69d@news.novabbs.com> <ec7bf98c991ebc85a11f700736c22936@news.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3882721"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="Vf9CM7g99yqfGvzEHTw0bhrjcIfvzYBBhUuRma0rLuQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: acd0b3e3614eaa6f47211734e4cbca3bfd42bebc
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$PpyyHW3fqgrBnoCTOB5EE.tW4hAjBWCtXNDfM61X53FQLtStff.kO

George J. Dance wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
>>>>>> Another one from Bukowski, "Bluebird":
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://youtu.be/lyMS4qJ8NXU
>>>>>
>>>>> Blech.
>>>>  >
>
>>>> Wow! It's a good thing I read "Bluebird" for myself. I might've formed
>>>> the wrong opinion of it.
>
>>> For continuity, the George Dance review of "Bluebird":
>
>>> George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 2022-07-21 7:00 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
>>>> >> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 10:51:22 PM UTC, blackpo...@aol.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> https://youtu.be/lyMS4qJ8NXU
>>>>
>>>>> It's really just a paragraph or two being read.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's not 'just" a prose paragraph. Just from Bukowski's reading, you
>>>> can tell he's reading a poem: you can hear the line breaks.
>>>>
>>>>> That said, we don't like the last line ("But I don't weep, do you?").
>>>>
>>>>> It reminds us of a former first lady's coat, which said "I don't really
>>>> care, do you?" although the Bukowski quote predates that.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know, but I'd bet it was her husband who said that. That's
>>>> always a problem in a poem (when a line or phrase unintentionally echoes
>>>> something more familiar, resulting in a mixed image), but it's probably
>>>> one that will go away: the Nixons have been consigned to the dustbin of
>>>> history, where they belong.
>>>>
>>
>>>> Having the line end with "do you?" is a totally obvious choice and hurts
>>>> the poem.
>>>>
>>
>>> It may detract from the poem for some; it turns it from a purely
>>
>>> introspective piece into a didactic or 'message' poem. But there's
>>
>>> nothing wrong with didacticism per se. And I admire Bukowski for going
>>> there.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I think "Bluebird" was written as a spoken piece (from all that
>>
>>> repetition); that Bukowski was considering his audience, whom he was
>>
>>> writing for; and that his audience -- tough guys, hard workers and hard
>>
>>> drinkers, rebels without a cause -- are the men most likely to have
>>
>>> their own bluebird problem, and (for the same reason) most likely to
>>
>>> suppress that knowledge. He cannot count on that sort of man (he knows,
>>
>>> since he's been one himself) to just suddenly think, "Gee, he's not only
>>
>>> talking about himself -- he's talking about a general truth about man,
>>
>>> which might be true of me as well." Especially in a spoken reading,
>>
>>> where he and his audience will have passed on to another poem a few
>>
>>> moments later. For the poem to be most effective, he has to give his
>>
>>> audience that thought explicitly.

Exactly, well put.