Jeffrey: Welcome to another episode of “Defending Charles Bukowski”, where we read randomly selected passages of his novel, Post Office, aloud in front of a man who speaks highly of Bukowski, and that man’s wife. The man in question then must defend Charles Bukowski, to his wife, as a literary genius. I’m your host, Jeffrey Nohren. Our episode today is sponsored by LeBlanc and Lawton LLP: divorce attorneys at law. Are you ready Stan?
Stan: I am always prepared to defend Bukowski, Jeffrey.
Jeffrey: Fantastic, Stan. Now “Bukowski readers” generally fall into one of two categories: People who love Bukowski but have never read his novels, and people who love Bukowski and have, in fact, read his novels. Which of those two are you?
Stan: I fall in the second category, Jeffrey.
Jeffrey: Great, Stan. That’s what our sponsors prefer, although it’s much harder to find. Laura, tell us a little about yourself.
Laura: I was raised in a religious household by a father who saw me as property whose value was determined by my virginity. I married Stan when I was eighteen and he was thirty five. He was my professor for “literature and fine arts” at the college where I was meant to find a husband.
Jeffrey: That sounds about right, Laura. Shall we begin? [Slurps loudly from a tumbler of brown liquor and cracks open the novel POST OFFICE]
“I think it was my second day as a Christmas temp that this big woman came around with me as I delivered letters. What I mean by big is her ass was big and her tits were big and she was big in all the right places. She seemed a bit crazy but I kept looking at her body and I didn’t care.”
Laura: Wait, this is Charles Bukowski?
Stan: You have to understand Laura, he’s a drunk, but he’s a genius, in a kafkaesque way.
Jeffrey: Stan, we have a rule. You can only use the word “kafkaesque” once an episode. So you’re done. You’ll have to put it away.
Laura: I’m sure I just don’t have the education needed to understand.
Stan: That’s true, you don’t. He’s refreshingly honest: a genius in brevity, simplicity, grunge, and truth.
Laura: Truth? Does your unfiltered dialogue sound like this?
Stan: You have to understand honey, every man’s honest, unfiltered dialogue sounds like this. Most of us just aren’t smart or brave enough to say it outright this way.
Jeffrey: What if I told you that wasn’t true, Stan?
Stan: How so?
Jeffrey: What if I told you most men have, naturally, more complex and empathetic internal dialogues? What if I told you men, with penises, are capable of thinking in metaphors, and are walking around doing so in grocery stores and car washes, day to day life?
Stan: I’d tell you they’re trying too hard to impress others, something truly intelligent people never do. I’d tell you that you’re a “try-hard”.
Laura: I have concerns.
Jeffrey [takes a swig of bourbon and cracks the book open to a random page]: Oops. That’s one of a handful of sexual assault scenes. The network won’t let us air those. [Opens to a new page]
“‘It’s over,’ she said, ‘I’m not sleeping with you another night.’
‘Alright keep your pussy. It’s not that great.’
‘Do you want to keep the house or do you want to move out?’ she asked.
‘You keep the house.’”
Stan: This is an excellent example of his honest writing. He doesn’t dress anything up. He puts the worst parts of being human on display. It’s refreshing.
Jeffrey: Again, are these parts of ”being human” that you relate to?
Stan: Well no, ok. Not fully. He’s brilliant, but obviously a terrible person. I am an interesting and intelligent person because I observe this terrible and brilliant person.
Laura: But if that’s true, what about reality tv shows? If it’s sophisticated to play witness to the worst traits of humanity, am I sophisticated for watching Cheaters, like you’re sophisticated for reading Bukowski?
Stan: No, those shows are braindead garbage for women. They’re eroding your mind. They’re making you dumber by osmosis. Also, they’re giving you a negative outlook on the entire male gender.
Laura: Oh. I’m still not allowed to watch them?
Stan: Not in my house, that I paid for! Look, hearing little bits of his writing makes him sound bad. You’re just not getting the full effect of reading his novels.
Laura [casting a worried glance at Jeffrey]: Is that true?
Jeffrey: That’s true. Unless you muddle through, you’ll never truly understand that it is also very boring.
Stan: Maybe you just don’t have the attention span for literature.
Jeffrey [opens to a random page]
“The streets were full of insane and dull people. Most of them lived in nice houses and didn’t seem to work, and you wondered how they did it. One guy wouldn’t let you put mail in his box. He’d stand in the driveway and watch you coming for two or three blocks and he’d stand there and hold his hand out.”
Stan: Now that’s not fair. This is part of a larger, meaningful passage.
Jeffrey: And what is the meaning of that passage?
Stan: That everyone except the narrator is dull and insane.
Jeffrey: Perhaps including the narrator?
Laura: But that seems boring and reductive. I’d have a difficult time reading it, unless I found it relatable, I suppose. Do you find it relatable?
Stan: It is relatable. It’s the human condition.
Laura: But if you feel like you’re surrounded by people who are “dull and insane”, and you live with and spend the majority of your time with me and our children…
Stan: You just lack the depth to truly understand it, Laura. He’s a transgressive realist. His novels are uniquely kaf-
Jeffrey: No.
Laura: Theoretically, what if I didn’t lack the depth to understand it? What if I understood it perfectly well, and found it repulsive and shallow?
Jeffrey: Ding! Ding! Ding! And with that, we conclude our episode. Laura, you have won a 20% off coupon at LeBlanc and Lawton LLP: divorce attorneys at law. Tune in next week, when our guests will include a young man from an upper middle class family who just completed an MFA on his parents’ dime, and his wife, who is struggling to complete a degree in biomedical engineering while working to cover rent.
Ponds, Pebbles, and Porphyria 
Leave a comment