That’s pretty much it.
1. “If people cannot write well, they cannot think well, and if they cannot think well, others will do their thinking for them.”
2. “- Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
– Never use a long word where a short one will do.
– If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
– Never use the passive where you can use the active.
– Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
– Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.”
3. “When I sit down to write a book, I do not say to myself, ‘I am going to produce a work of art.’ I write it because there is some lie that I want to expose, some fact to which I want to draw attention, and my initial concern is to get a hearing.”
4. “For after all, what is there behind, except money? Money for the right kind of education, money for influential friends, money for leisure and peace of mind, money for trips to Italy. Money writes books, money sells them. Give me not righteousness, O lord, give me money, only money.”
5. “In an age like our own, when the artist is an altogether exceptional person, he must be allowed a certain amount of irresponsibility, just as a pregnant woman is. Still, no one would say that a pregnant woman should be allowed to commit murder, nor would anyone make such a claim for the artist, however gifted. If Shakespeare returned to the earth to-morrow, and if it were found that his favourite recreation was raping little girls in railway carriages, we should not tell him to go ahead with it on the ground that he might write another King Lear. And, after all, the worst crimes are not always the punishable ones. By encouraging necrophilic reveries one probably does quite as much harm as by, say, picking pockets at the races. One ought to be able to hold in one’s head simultaneously the two facts that Dali is a good draughtsman and a disgusting human being. The one does not invalidate or, in a sense, affect the other. The first thing that we demand of a wall is that it shall stand up. If it stands up, it is a good wall, and the question of what purpose it serves is separable from that. And yet even the best wall in the world deserves to be pulled down if it surrounds a concentration camp. In the same way it should be possible to say, “This is a good book or a good picture, and Read the rest of this entry
As I add misleading tags to this post, which will hopefully bring mislead people over among my fellow googlers, who entered (porn+naked) I realize that among my “most used tags” Bukowski pops up.
This man made me change a lot about myself. My writing: which is still bad, but more concise. My appreciation for prose and poetry. Especially poetry, which through him I understood it needn’t be dull. It needn’t be about the weather and how that reflected on the human condition. It could be about the human condition and how that reflected on the human condition. He made me see how drinking could be cool in a non-glamorous way, and how uncool a beershit is, the next day. He taught me about style, which made me give-up on the idea of hipster goggles. Bukowski had an intense desire to please people, which he tried hard to hide beneath layers of viciousness and chauvinism, but he never changed his art because of it; he showed me it’s ok to be an asshole. He also showed me I didn’t have to try so hard, because whatever I had coming would come (HERE). One of the few advice I ignored. He had the talent to be great, but a glimpse of modesty pointed me to the other direction.
He was hard on aspiring creators, because he told the truth. And now, as I try to convince myself that if I just remove my flat-screen, my ps3 and my sound-system from my room I’ll finally work hard, he is hard on me again:
1. “Literature is invention. Fiction is fiction. To call a story a true story is an insult to both truth and art.”
2. “It is a singular reaction, this sitting still and writing, writing, writing, or ruminating at length, which is much the same, really.
3. “There are three points of view from which a writer can be considered: he may be considered as a storyteller, as a teacher, and as an enchanter. A major writer combines these three — storyteller, teacher, enchanter — but it is the enchanter in him that predominates and makes him a major writer…The three facets of the great writer — magic, story, lesson — are prone to blend in one impression of unified and unique radiance, since the magic of art may be present in the very bones of the story, in the very marrow of thought…Then with a pleasure which is both sensual and intellectual we shall watch the artist build his castle of cards and watch the castle of cards become a castle of beautiful steel and glass.”
4. “The thought, when written down, becomes less oppressive, but some thoughts are like a cancerous tumor: you express is, you excise it, and it grows back worse than before.”
5. “No writer in a free country should be expected to bother about the exact demarcation between the sensuous and the sensual; this is preposterous; I can only admire but cannot emulate the accuracy of judgment of those who pose the fair young mammals photographed in magazines where the general neckline is just low enough to provoke a past master’s chuckle and just high enough not to make a postmaster frown.” Read the rest of this entry
I put artsy indie films and Hollywood blockbusters in the same category. I look at both with mistrust. The archetype of the blockbuster is a tightly structured movie, with very little space for creativity. Movies like Iron-Man, Men in Black, Twillight and more, are a product Hollywood sells. They have to make money, so I understand very little is to be left to chance. Art films (lacking a better word), are the opposite, often on purpose. If the norm is to shoot, write, light, in a certain way, they do the opposite to escape the norm. Originality supersedes quality.
I beware of the mindless blockbuster as I do of indie-crap.
Stoker looks a lot like indie-crap. Fortunately its director is Chan-wook Park and luck of lucks, he didn’t get lost in translation.
The plot uses two conventional settings: A woman becomes Read the rest of this entry
I know it’s not a popular opinion, but here it goes: Neo’s an asshole.
Matrix was centered on the struggles of Human resistance against the dominance of their mechanical counterparts. A Rage against the machines, if you will. We see this from the biased human perspective, of course. We’re conditioned to be on Neo’s side… but should we?
1- Agent Smith provides the first reason that shows that Neo is one of the bad guy: “I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You’re a plague and we are the cure.”
2- The machines needed sunlight to function, the humans thought. As a result, we decided to wreck the entire planet and all its life forms, which have existed for billions of years, for our own benefit. There’s not much said about the machines actions, but apart from wanting to annihilate humanity they probably were pretty good guys. I don’t see why they wouldn’t give a hand to penguins or pandas. They’d definitely leave beavers to attend to their own affairs, every dam way they’d like. But no. We decided to destroy everything for a remote chance of a survival in an austere world.
3- The machines cultivated the humans as the energy source the humans took from them. No pig, cow or hen ever took anything from a human being. And no, Babe or Chicken Little don’t count. We still breed and feed them, we keep them in animal farms much like the ones the machines kept the humans. Difference: the machines gave us an entertainment. In the Matrix, we get to play humans to pass the time. The pigs don’t get to play animals.
4- The machines work as, well, a well-oiled machine. They act as a group and have a collective goal in mind. Obliterating humanity may not be the best goal, but it’s not the worse either. It’s a goal. Humans betray each other for what they know to be an illusion. At their best, they pull together for short bursts, waiting for a miracle to come.
5- In the end, humans rely on divinity. The message is, no matter what you do, you have to rely on higher powers. You can only do so much. Neo is god. A flawed god who attains very little, but a god nonetheless. The machines
I’m not the messiah, but you can follow me:
Episode 9 and I’m finally married to Hannibal, the TV show. Almost.
The first episodes had some fine details but their structure was so flat, they became flattened as well.
The main character is not Hannibal, but Will. I almost had to google him, but I remembered Mads Mikkelsen’s voice calling for the sad basterd. I assume he’s a functioning sociopath, like Tony Soprano, without the gut or the guts. He is filled with characterization but lacks Read the rest of this entry
1. “Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you’ve been to college.”
2. “Novelists have, on the average, about the same IQs as the cosmetic consultants at Bloomingdale’s department store. Our power is patience. We have discovered that writing allows even a stupid person to seem halfway intelligent, if only that person will write the same thought over and over again, improving it just a little bit each time. It is a lot like inflating a blimp with a bicycle pump. Anybody can do it. All it takes is time.”
3. “Once I understood what was making America such a dangerous, unhappy nation of people who had nothing to do with real life, I resolved to shun storytelling. I would write about life. Every person would be exactly as important as any other. All facts would also be given equal weightiness. Nothing would be left out. Let others bring order to chaos. I would bring chaos to order, instead, which I think I have done.
If all writers would do that, then perhaps citizens not in the literary trades will understand that there is no order in the world around us, that we must adapt ourselves to the requirements of chaos instead.”
4. “I think I succeeded as a writer because I did not come out of an English department. I used to write in the chemistry department. And I wrote some good stuff. If I had been in the English department, the prof would have looked at my short stories, congratulated me on my talent, and then showed me how Joyce or Hemingway handled the same elements of the short story. The prof would have placed me in competition with the greatest writers of all time, and that would have ended my writing career.”
5. “When I write, I feel like an armless, legless man with a crayon in his mouth.”
6. “Don’t you think that’s the main reason people find [writing] so difficult? Read the rest of this entry