Charles Bukowski: Six Best Novels

Charles Bukowski (1920-1994), poet and novelist of the beat and downtrodden, born in Germany but spent most of his life in Los Angeles. Before we talk about Bukowski's six best novels, let's talk about the mystery that is Charles Bukowski and his novels. What is it about Bukowski, how does he do it? There's something about his writing that works. He's simple and to the point, you know when you're reading Bukowski: no one ever had trouble getting through one of his sentences. I'd like to read Virginia Woolf or Henry James translated into Bukowski, would blow my mind. Bukowski doesn't use plot: his novels are just a series of events strung together, till he arbitrarily decides to end the book. There are no surprises, development, plot twists, literary techniques. But it works. Just as Catcher in the Rye is best read in one's teenage years, Bukowski's books appeal most to boys from age 15 to their late 20s. And to the girls who can put up with him. Because he's a pig. But it works. You feel his loneliness and desperation; his writing is alive, it has a soul of its own. Not always great writing, but writing with life. Not even always passionate writing, often he's too run down, beat up, or just plain tired to be passionate.  He's Beat. In some ways Bukowski's novels seemed secondary to his poetry, perhaps written to support his poetry. But it works.

Let's talk about Bukowski's six best novels, but of course he only wrote six novels: Post Office (1971), Factotum (1975), Women (1978), Ham on Rye (1982), Hollywood (1989), and Pulp (1994). Since five of them are semi-autobiographical they can be read chronologically: Ham on Rye, from the birth of his alter-ego Henry Chinaski to Pearl Harbor; Factotum, from the time he was trying to leave home to traveling the country and working for the Man; Post Office, when Chinaski got (semi-)steady work and tried to write steadily; Women, after he was starting to get famous and groupies began to appear; and Hollywood, when Chinaski was finally successful (money & fame) and was roped into making a movie (Barfly). Pulp does not fit into this sequence (no Henry Chinaski), but perhaps it represents the book Chinaski was writing in all those other books.

Now for the debate: trying to decide which is best of Bukowski's novels. Not that it matters -- readers who like one Bukowski novel will probably read all of them eventually. The consensus (tho not undisputed) is that Ham on Rye is his best, and I concur. It's about growing up Bukowski, and reads even more like a memoir than the rest of his books. At its best, Ham on Rye is heartbreaking and beautifully written. It's a real book, not just a "Bukowski book" (course I happen to like "Bukowski books," but I recognize the concept). If you only read one, read this. After that you could throw a blanket over the next three Bukowski novels: I'd say Factotum, Post Office, and Women, in that order. Bukowski fans would jumble those three endlessly. Both Post Office and Factotum have his philosophy and insights into the unnatural nature of work in America. Hollywood  ends up fifth by default, it's the story of making the movie Barfly, for which Bukowski wrote the script. Some people like this one because of the real-life characters in there, including Mickey Rourke and Faye Dunaway. But to me Bukowski's writing seems tired and by-the-book at this point. I don't think Hollywood is essential Bukowski, tho it's of a piece with his other work. A rich and famous Henry Chinaski just doesn't ring as true as a struggling, desperate Chinaski; must be the sadist in me. And finally Pulp, at which point apparently Bukowski had run out of steam, no more material from his own life and decided to write a real novel, with a plot but without Chinaski. Pulp is generally considered the worst of his books, and again, I agree. If we were going to dispense with one of Bukowski's six best novels, this would be the one. Some people like it, but I'm guessing they're die-hard Bukowski fans and completists. Some say it is intentionally poorly written (as the dedication suggests), but I don't see that as a genuine rationale. I think it's undoubtedly the worst of his novels, but I'm a completist. I've read all Bukowski's novels, and I read Pulp, and felt it didn't require Bukowski to write it.

Now, about those poems ... .