The tragic rape of Charles Bukowski’s ghost by Black Sparrow Press (2013)(mjpbooks.com)
mjpbooks.com
The tragic rape of Charles Bukowski’s ghost by Black Sparrow Press (2013)
https://mjpbooks.com/blog/the-senseless-tragic-rape-of-charles-bukowskis-ghost-by-john-martins-black-sparrow-press/
111 comments
"Sit" is from Middle English sitten, from Old English sittan, from Proto-West Germanic sittjan, from Proto-Germanic sitjaną, from Proto-Indo-European *sed- (“sit”).
"Lay" is from Middle English lay, from Old French lai, from Latin laicus, from Ancient Greek λαϊκός (laïkós).
In English, "sit" feels immediate and active where "lay" is passive and indirect. The distinction is both important and rooted in history.
It is incredibly stupid that we still have editors trying to force English poetry into Latinate forms almost a millenium after the battle of Hastings and all the consequent Anglo/Norman jockeying for position.
"Lay" is from Middle English lay, from Old French lai, from Latin laicus, from Ancient Greek λαϊκός (laïkós).
In English, "sit" feels immediate and active where "lay" is passive and indirect. The distinction is both important and rooted in history.
It is incredibly stupid that we still have editors trying to force English poetry into Latinate forms almost a millenium after the battle of Hastings and all the consequent Anglo/Norman jockeying for position.
Not to be pedantic, but I think 'laying' has a different etymology, namely this one (quote from the OED):
'lay, v.1 General sense: To cause to lie.
[OE. lęcgan = OFris. ledsa, lega, leia, OS. leggian (Du. leggen), OHG. lecken, legen (MHG., mod.G. legen), ON. legja (Sw. lägga, Da. lægge), Goth. (= OTeut.) lagjan, f. lag- ablaut-variant of OTeut. leg-: see lie v.'
OE = Old English, OFris.= Old Frisian etc.
'lay, v.1 General sense: To cause to lie.
[OE. lęcgan = OFris. ledsa, lega, leia, OS. leggian (Du. leggen), OHG. lecken, legen (MHG., mod.G. legen), ON. legja (Sw. lägga, Da. lægge), Goth. (= OTeut.) lagjan, f. lag- ablaut-variant of OTeut. leg-: see lie v.'
OE = Old English, OFris.= Old Frisian etc.
I think GPs “lay” may be like “lay person” which is not the use in the poem.
Can't comment about the roots of the words, but I agree with your assessment of those words.
This is actually one of my favorite games to play with friends, taking a word and talking about it's connotations, or contrasting it with another similar word. Nothing super academic, just our own thoughts and feelings and examples of use.
This is actually one of my favorite games to play with friends, taking a word and talking about it's connotations, or contrasting it with another similar word. Nothing super academic, just our own thoughts and feelings and examples of use.
Whenever there's a pair of synonyms where one is fancier than the other it's almost always because one is French in origin (i.e. used by the Norman upper class) and the other German (i.e. used by the Anglo-Saxon peasantry). Think "purchase" vs. "buy".
My favourite example is "fact" vs "factitious". The word "factitious" actually means bogus, make, made up. Whereas "fact" means quite the opposite. However they both come from the same latin word "facere" which means to do or to make.
Have fun digging into that one!
Have fun digging into that one!
"lay" as in "layman" or "lay preacher" does have the derivation you give.
As a verb, "lay it down" has Germanic roots, e.g. "liegen". The Greek cognate seems to be "lexos", "bed". (All this from Skeat's etymological dictionary.)
As a verb, "lay it down" has Germanic roots, e.g. "liegen". The Greek cognate seems to be "lexos", "bed". (All this from Skeat's etymological dictionary.)
"Laying on the couch" is loaded with the kind of psychoanalytical implications that Bukowski hated. Which is a major reason why this feels so wrong. He would lie on the floor and listen to the radio.
I've read a lot of his works and I could _never_ imagine Bukowski "laying on the couch and looking at the wall."
Fortunately I have read only a few of his posthumous works.
edit: changed very little to few
Fortunately I have read only a few of his posthumous works.
edit: changed very little to few
>impressively efficient butchering
He removes the testicles while leaving the valuable meat and fat entirely unblemished.
He removes the testicles while leaving the valuable meat and fat entirely unblemished.
I'm not a Bukowski fan in particular, but I have worked as an editor, and I can't imagine any writer I've worked with accepting that kind of heavy-handed rewriting of their works. For myself, I never tried to rewrite an author's work, generally the idea is to try to get the writer to do the work and follow your feedback willingly. When the writer is deceased you have fewer options, but I think you pretty much have to accept it as is, and say, this is what we have.
Is it common for editors to add to a writer's text? My naive assumption was that they often cut and re-structure and maybe suggest re-wording, but I'm surprised to see an editor actively add content that wasn't there at all
Editors do participate in revisions quite a lot and for them to suggest additions is probably common. To take a writer's work posthumously, change it so drastically that you've reversed the meaning of paragraphs ("I lost at the track" -> "I won at the track"), and then publish it as that author's work without their involvement, I think that's beyond the pale.
The main point is that the process should be collaborative. Both parties are in agreement that the changes improve the result. And, I, for one, had no desire to do the author's work for them.
[deleted]
For those who do not know Bukowski's work and wonder why a drunk post office worker gets so much attention, check out Bluebird: https://allpoetry.com/poem/8509539-Bluebird-by-Charles-Bukow...
A couple of weeks ago i was surprised to discover his "16-bit Intel 8088 chip" poem : https://allpoetry.com/16-bit-Intel-8088-chip
He wrote this on a Mac IIsi-- https://realitystudio.org/bibliographic-bunker/charles-bukow...
Although I had read him, I did not have a Bukowski "phase" that many do. I was introduced to him by a man who had worked for the United States Postal Service, which he frequently derided. He said to me, "If you want to find someone who hates the Postal Service more than I do, check this out ..."
Well, I did, and read other things, and eventually began to recognize his contribution to culture, which is kind of a last step before my awareness of a particular author might fade, the way "The Copulating Mermaid of Venice, California" turns up in the concept for the Tom Petty video for "Mary Jane's Last Dance," and so on; I recognize, nod, and forget. I hadn't thought about him in years until I stumbled across "The Laughing Heart" as I was in a late night fit of hating my job. A part went "... be on the watch. the gods will offer you chances," which struck me as a kind of admonition. It was one I took to heart, because a "chance" happened not long after and I, in a rare fit of boldness, took it.
Some of his short stories stood out, the fantastical ones, and of course the poetry. The poetry here is just ... well, one can imagine the early transporters in the Trek universe not working particularly well. Something emerges at the other end, it has a similar shape to it but doesn't quite fit together well enough, and you're left with something you hope will die on its own before it realizes what has happened to it. The "vulgar poem" sample is like that, some kind of tortured Bukowski clone flopped out of a steaming vat, bleated an unnatural sound, and then you don't know if you're crushing its head out of mercy or disgust, but you'd rather not have that happen again.
And the article provides a handy index of avoiding such abominations, to boot!
Well, I did, and read other things, and eventually began to recognize his contribution to culture, which is kind of a last step before my awareness of a particular author might fade, the way "The Copulating Mermaid of Venice, California" turns up in the concept for the Tom Petty video for "Mary Jane's Last Dance," and so on; I recognize, nod, and forget. I hadn't thought about him in years until I stumbled across "The Laughing Heart" as I was in a late night fit of hating my job. A part went "... be on the watch. the gods will offer you chances," which struck me as a kind of admonition. It was one I took to heart, because a "chance" happened not long after and I, in a rare fit of boldness, took it.
Some of his short stories stood out, the fantastical ones, and of course the poetry. The poetry here is just ... well, one can imagine the early transporters in the Trek universe not working particularly well. Something emerges at the other end, it has a similar shape to it but doesn't quite fit together well enough, and you're left with something you hope will die on its own before it realizes what has happened to it. The "vulgar poem" sample is like that, some kind of tortured Bukowski clone flopped out of a steaming vat, bleated an unnatural sound, and then you don't know if you're crushing its head out of mercy or disgust, but you'd rather not have that happen again.
And the article provides a handy index of avoiding such abominations, to boot!
Read by Tom O'Bedlam at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVdpfhsj6uI. Along with many other Bukowski poems.
Another comment mentioned The Laughing Heart, it's at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQNmu1Q9NzA.
Another comment mentioned The Laughing Heart, it's at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQNmu1Q9NzA.
[deleted]
John Martin used Bukowski as a cash cow basically. Bukowski's books funded other books that flop which John Martin's company published.
https://www.poetrynw.org/interview-serious-books-a-conversat...
It would be interesting to see how John Martin would explain those edits. They just look so bizarre, some invert the meaning completely, others are just petty edits to change stuff just for the heck of it.
It's like there was a love-hate relationship between the two. In interview I found above, John keeps talking about himself when asked how the two of them hit it together, or how it was like seeing Bukowski rise and his response was basically "It was great, but look how much work I was doing".
One could almost write a book about their relationship just based on the edits and reading into them all kinds of interesting things. It's like John hated the drinking and the vulgarity and try to correct some of it, but ended up ruining the work in the process.
https://www.poetrynw.org/interview-serious-books-a-conversat...
It would be interesting to see how John Martin would explain those edits. They just look so bizarre, some invert the meaning completely, others are just petty edits to change stuff just for the heck of it.
It's like there was a love-hate relationship between the two. In interview I found above, John keeps talking about himself when asked how the two of them hit it together, or how it was like seeing Bukowski rise and his response was basically "It was great, but look how much work I was doing".
One could almost write a book about their relationship just based on the edits and reading into them all kinds of interesting things. It's like John hated the drinking and the vulgarity and try to correct some of it, but ended up ruining the work in the process.
That example at the end is just so cringeworthy. The editor deserves to be dragged through the mud for basically re-writing the entire work.
While word replacements and omissions are bad enough, I totally fail to understand why anyone would have thought that these meandering additions were a good thing? How is this even editing?
Edit: While substitutions and what you do, when your Mom sees you writing a piece and points at a word, asking, if you maybe could do without it, are a not so much a necessary thing, the writer of this comment doesn't fully understand how this is the professional accomplishment that it is. Last Christmas, I didn't go skiing. How is this even editing? ;-)
Edit: While substitutions and what you do, when your Mom sees you writing a piece and points at a word, asking, if you maybe could do without it, are a not so much a necessary thing, the writer of this comment doesn't fully understand how this is the professional accomplishment that it is. Last Christmas, I didn't go skiing. How is this even editing? ;-)
It never ceases to amaze me that people think they can get away with very obvious stuff, like this editor for example. Bukowski is not some unknown author - he has a good following.
Did this editor really think nobody would notice? That nobody would get pissed and complain? I just don’t get it
Did this editor really think nobody would notice? That nobody would get pissed and complain? I just don’t get it
There is clearly a pathological element in such an operation, whether it was by Martin or someone else. Inserting yourself in the work of somebody else can be a power move, or a subconscious desire to get noticed - like a serial killer leaving signature clues. Or it could be a misguided commercial consideration, that Bukowski can be "too sad / depressing / offensive" and so he needs to be toned down to sell more books.
Besides, Bukowski the writer is famous but Bukowski the poet, like all poetry, enjoys very limited popularity.
Besides, Bukowski the writer is famous but Bukowski the poet, like all poetry, enjoys very limited popularity.
The title is enough of a hint
These "corrections" are indeed a serious crime. And such a letdown from an old Bukowski friend.
One of the most interesting things to do in terms of looking at editorial changes is to read side-by-side What We Talk About When We Talk About Love and Beginners by Raymond Carver. The latter is the unedited version of his collected stories. It's really fascinating to see how Gordon Lish really formed what people think of as Carver's style, although there are some really odd changes like the number of a hotel room was changed from Carver's original to Lish's version. In this case, though, I personally believe that Lish's editorial changes definitely improved Carver's work and while Carver originally disagreed, you can see the lasting impact on his style in his later works.
Wow, scrolling to the end, where he shows the edits, it's not even subtle changes. He changes "a girl asked why I write" to "a girl asked why my writing is so vulgar". It feels like the editor thought he was "juicing up" the story and giving readers what they want. He also makes the grammar INCREDIBLy proper, more proper than most editors would. It feels like he just likes editing stuff.
Bukowski dead drunk on French TV in 1978: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C99h2r8txh4
At the time there were only 3 channels, and that show was very popular, so it's a famous moment. What I find surprising is how elegant he is, even in that situation.
At the time there were only 3 channels, and that show was very popular, so it's a famous moment. What I find surprising is how elegant he is, even in that situation.
I don’t know if elegant is the right word. He just seemed like a drunk man who had been in that situation a few times before.
This is extraordinary. The sample edits given at the end of the article go far beyond normal editorial changes. They completely change the meaning and content of the poem. It is a _different poem_.
This comment about the editor struck me:
> "Now, when I bring this subject up among a certain crowd, they bristle. They become very defensive of Martin and downright antagonistic toward me while they list the many ways in which he is a wonderful man..."
Does anyone know more about the relationship between Bukowski and Martin, and why Martin would be revered today? Why he would have supporters? Why he would even need supporters? (It seems odd that he'd have any role that meant he needed either detractors or fans; either seems a mistake in an editor.)
This comment about the editor struck me:
> "Now, when I bring this subject up among a certain crowd, they bristle. They become very defensive of Martin and downright antagonistic toward me while they list the many ways in which he is a wonderful man..."
Does anyone know more about the relationship between Bukowski and Martin, and why Martin would be revered today? Why he would have supporters? Why he would even need supporters? (It seems odd that he'd have any role that meant he needed either detractors or fans; either seems a mistake in an editor.)
>The sample edits given at the end of the article go far beyond normal editorial changes.
Right, as I was reading along, I thought how bad could this possibly be. But they changed:
>I lost $40
>at the track
>today
>so I'm somewhat
>bitter.
To this:
>and I won $400
>at the track
>today
>so I'm somewhat
>pleased.
Not that I've ever been a reader of Bukowski, but this is just changed into something that he simply didn't write.
I had no idea that this was something that people did.
Right, as I was reading along, I thought how bad could this possibly be. But they changed:
>I lost $40
>at the track
>today
>so I'm somewhat
>bitter.
To this:
>and I won $400
>at the track
>today
>so I'm somewhat
>pleased.
Not that I've ever been a reader of Bukowski, but this is just changed into something that he simply didn't write.
I had no idea that this was something that people did.
Now I'm wondering what other books of poetry this has happened to and I didn't know it?
Altering a poem is a whole different animal than editing a book or a movie, for instance.
Altering a poem is a whole different animal than editing a book or a movie, for instance.
> Altering a poem is a whole different animal than editing a book or a movie, for instance.
I don’t know about that. George Lucas has managed to butcher his own movies after the fact, and newer audiences would never know.
Hundreds of thousands of people still believe that “Go Set a Watchman” is a new book as opposed to the first draft of “To Kill a Mockingbird.”
I don’t know about that. George Lucas has managed to butcher his own movies after the fact, and newer audiences would never know.
Hundreds of thousands of people still believe that “Go Set a Watchman” is a new book as opposed to the first draft of “To Kill a Mockingbird.”
Martin supported Bukowski early in his career (as a late-blossoming writer). There are many friendly mentions of him and Black Sparrow Press from Bukowski himself. They had a contract. Martin would publish anything Bukowski wrote, as long as he put himself to work. In hindsight, that offer does appear much less generous.
>Does anyone know more about the relationship between Bukowski and Martin,
IMO his deal with Martin made it so Bukowski was able to write full time in the later years of his life. Otherwise he may have had to still work at the Post Office and only be able to write part time.
>and why Martin would be revered today? Why he would have supporters? Why he would even need supporters?
He's revered because he (Black Sparrow Press) published many works by authors who would have otherwise never gotten a publishing deal. His supporters are most likely fans of the authors he published and those from the San Francisco Beat Generation. He, and Black Sparrow Press, had/have a close relationship with City Lights Books and Lawrence Ferlinghetti.
IMO his deal with Martin made it so Bukowski was able to write full time in the later years of his life. Otherwise he may have had to still work at the Post Office and only be able to write part time.
>and why Martin would be revered today? Why he would have supporters? Why he would even need supporters?
He's revered because he (Black Sparrow Press) published many works by authors who would have otherwise never gotten a publishing deal. His supporters are most likely fans of the authors he published and those from the San Francisco Beat Generation. He, and Black Sparrow Press, had/have a close relationship with City Lights Books and Lawrence Ferlinghetti.
>> Does anyone know more about the relationship between Bukowski and Martin, and why Martin would be revered today?
John Martin was the manager of an office supply business in LA and also a rare book collector. He founded Black Sparrow Press specifically to publish Bukowski, who at the time was publishing mostly in obscure magazines or in "chapbooks", which were essentially cheaply produced pamphlets. Martin sold some of the first editions from his collection to fund the company.
He offered Bukowski $100 a month back then, something like $700 a month in today's dollars, to quit his post office job and write full time. Without that, Bukowski, who was what almost 50 years old at the time?, had the choice of either continuing to work at the post office and write on the side, or quit and write full time and face desperate poverty.
Don't get me wrong, if this is accurate about what John Martin has done with his editing, it's horrible and wrong and contrary to some of the other comments here I do not think rape is too strong of a word for it. Hopefully the original works get published at some point.
But without John Martin, most of the poem and stories that Bukowski wrote would have gone unwritten. I found out about Bukowski just randomly browsing the stacks in a university library in the 1980's and I remember the titles jumping out at me. Burning in water drowning in flame. South of no north. The days run away like wild horses over the hills. War all the time. Without John Martin, those books wouldn't have been in the stacks.
I don't know about revered. I can defend John Martin but I can't defend his editing.
John Martin was the manager of an office supply business in LA and also a rare book collector. He founded Black Sparrow Press specifically to publish Bukowski, who at the time was publishing mostly in obscure magazines or in "chapbooks", which were essentially cheaply produced pamphlets. Martin sold some of the first editions from his collection to fund the company.
He offered Bukowski $100 a month back then, something like $700 a month in today's dollars, to quit his post office job and write full time. Without that, Bukowski, who was what almost 50 years old at the time?, had the choice of either continuing to work at the post office and write on the side, or quit and write full time and face desperate poverty.
Don't get me wrong, if this is accurate about what John Martin has done with his editing, it's horrible and wrong and contrary to some of the other comments here I do not think rape is too strong of a word for it. Hopefully the original works get published at some point.
But without John Martin, most of the poem and stories that Bukowski wrote would have gone unwritten. I found out about Bukowski just randomly browsing the stacks in a university library in the 1980's and I remember the titles jumping out at me. Burning in water drowning in flame. South of no north. The days run away like wild horses over the hills. War all the time. Without John Martin, those books wouldn't have been in the stacks.
I don't know about revered. I can defend John Martin but I can't defend his editing.
When I recently listened to an audiobook of Kafka's ‘The Process’ in English, it turned out to be based on a new edition, which explained that Max Brod originally applied some of his own editing to Kafka's manuscripts before releasing the books. And that the proper order of the chapters is currently unknown—whether because of Kafka or of Brod. Plus, apparently old translations of the book to English also mangled the words plentifully, introducing even more confusion. So there was some effort by modern editors to at least put the chapters in the order that makes more sense, and translate the text more straightforwardly.
could maybe considered similar to what Griswold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rufus_Wilmot_Griswold did to Poe.
Perhaps John Martin thought he was doing Charles Bukowski a favor with his educated corrections but I find them atrocious. The publishing world is rife with this type editing work. The film world is replete with changes that butcher the original work and intent of the original creator. When watching a movie look for the director's cut if multiple cuts exist.
I mean...it kind of depends. As a history buff, I love the French plantation scene in the long version of Apocolypse Now Redux... I totally understand why it was removed from the original theatrical release, though. I think director cuts tend to play to the more 'hardcore' fans of a piece, and sometimes serve to make the work less accessible to more casual viewers.
[deleted]
I've only read a little about Bukowski, but when his name comes up, I'll wonder how much he was innately a drunk asshole and how much he had to play one because it was his brand, and your public demands what's on-brand, and, oh, you know, your mask becomes your face and all that.
I love the side by side. The crisp debauchery shines next that other flabby timid slop
There's a scene in the movie Sideways where the Paul Giamatti character quotes some poetry, and someone complicates him on his brilliance in writing it.
He says, with disgust, "It's Bukowski."
He says, with disgust, "It's Bukowski."
This truly is a quite depressing abomination.
(2013)
I'm hardly a SJW but it's 2022, can we stop equating rape which is a shockingly violent violation/assult of a real a human being with anything less. I'm sure I'm gonna get slammed for this but whatever.
I happen to agree, but I feel the need to explain why “rape” is used this way.
The original meaning of the word was “to take by force”. Using it to exclusively describe sexual assault is a more modern thing.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/rape
This kind of double meaning in English is very common. The word murder can also be used as “to perform badly”.
A way to look at it is English often has two forms of words like this. There is murder (general) and there is Murder (specific).
As someone who is bipolar, the “misuse” of labels around mental health is aggravating. The misuse of “rape” is the same.
The general usage of words dilutes the impact of the specific use. I’d love to bring back capital letters to English nouns. That way we could use Murder and murder to clarify what which meaning is used.
The original meaning of the word was “to take by force”. Using it to exclusively describe sexual assault is a more modern thing.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/rape
This kind of double meaning in English is very common. The word murder can also be used as “to perform badly”.
A way to look at it is English often has two forms of words like this. There is murder (general) and there is Murder (specific).
As someone who is bipolar, the “misuse” of labels around mental health is aggravating. The misuse of “rape” is the same.
The general usage of words dilutes the impact of the specific use. I’d love to bring back capital letters to English nouns. That way we could use Murder and murder to clarify what which meaning is used.
I also came here to complain about this use of the word "rape". If you titled this article "The Tragic Rape of Charles Bukowski's Poetry", then it would be used solely as the original meaning. The current title is specifically designed to invoke the idea of a sexual assault - what if the title used the word "Corpse" instead of "Ghost"?
It definitely could. Depends on the meaning of “ghost”. In context of the article, I took ghost to mean “legacy”, rather than the person.
English is frustratingly imprecise.
English is frustratingly imprecise.
The imprecision is a very human and cultural aspect of language where much poetry sneaks in, though.
If we all spoke Lojban, I'm sure the poetry would be very precise, but I wonder if it could convey the same things.
If we all spoke Lojban, I'm sure the poetry would be very precise, but I wonder if it could convey the same things.
I think the word would be "Corpus" not "Corpse."
Also, is sexual contact with a corpse rape? As of 2015 it was not in Massachusetts and many other US states:
When you die, you lose your status as a person, Troyer explains, although you are still human, your body or your remains are quasi property. “You’re not really a subject, but you’re not fully an object,” he says.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/sep/04/necroph...
Also, is sexual contact with a corpse rape? As of 2015 it was not in Massachusetts and many other US states:
When you die, you lose your status as a person, Troyer explains, although you are still human, your body or your remains are quasi property. “You’re not really a subject, but you’re not fully an object,” he says.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/sep/04/necroph...
I think the vulgarity is very much in line with the subject matter.
But the 'take by force' meaning does not make sense, as nothing is being taken from anyone. While its a literary crime, Black Sparrow Press is not doing something they don't have the right to do.
If this bothers you, definitely don’t read Bukowski. He uses offensive metaphors that could cause serious damage to you!
You’re taking a direct translation of the root words literally and only applying it to mean legal rights and excluding moral or ethical rights.
In this case, they are taking the original work, corrupting it, and passing it off as the original. Legal, but definitely not moral or ethical.
I think “rape” is a little strong, but not inaccurate.
In this case, they are taking the original work, corrupting it, and passing it off as the original. Legal, but definitely not moral or ethical.
I think “rape” is a little strong, but not inaccurate.
>root words literally and only applying it to mean legal rights
No I'm not.
No I'm not.
It's 2022, can't we stop conflating analogies and metaphors with "morally equating"?
When we "kill" a program there's no life murdered or equivalent moral issue involved either.
But I don't take issue with the wording just because I've had a relative killed in a bad situation. And I don't think anybody should (or if they do, they should get over it).
When we "kill" a program there's no life murdered or equivalent moral issue involved either.
But I don't take issue with the wording just because I've had a relative killed in a bad situation. And I don't think anybody should (or if they do, they should get over it).
At issue is not whether analogies and metaphors are a type of morally equating. At issue is whether it is appropriate to use a particularly severe term in a decidedly less severe manner.
"Kill" is used in many less severe circumstances. We kill plants and mold and bacteria. "Kill" does not nearly universally refer a specific severe act with a real human victim. Notice we don't murder programs.
Regardless of historical usage (words do not have some innate meaning which persists through all time), the current usage of the word is almost exclusively limited to a very particular crime. A better comparison would be "genocide". We should ask ourselves how we would feel about a company transitioning from cross-platform to a single OS being described as committing a genocide of other OS users. Or even better, we should ask actual survivors of genocide how they would feel.
And in this case, survivors are already telling us how they feel. For example: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/stop-saying-rape-out-of-conte...
There are terms which because of their specificity and severity (in modern usage) cannot be used metaphorically without calling to mind the non-metaphorical meaning. This is quite distinct from more standard metaphors which we barely recognize as metaphors at all (no one thinks of a sprinter when we ask them to run a program).
Regardless of what decision we end up making on what terms we are comfortable using, we can recognize that not all violent terms are equal in how concretely they call to mind their violent meaning when used metaphorically and that victims of violence are speaking out about the usage of certain terms. How we should respond to that is a judgment call we all have to make.
"Kill" is used in many less severe circumstances. We kill plants and mold and bacteria. "Kill" does not nearly universally refer a specific severe act with a real human victim. Notice we don't murder programs.
Regardless of historical usage (words do not have some innate meaning which persists through all time), the current usage of the word is almost exclusively limited to a very particular crime. A better comparison would be "genocide". We should ask ourselves how we would feel about a company transitioning from cross-platform to a single OS being described as committing a genocide of other OS users. Or even better, we should ask actual survivors of genocide how they would feel.
And in this case, survivors are already telling us how they feel. For example: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/stop-saying-rape-out-of-conte...
There are terms which because of their specificity and severity (in modern usage) cannot be used metaphorically without calling to mind the non-metaphorical meaning. This is quite distinct from more standard metaphors which we barely recognize as metaphors at all (no one thinks of a sprinter when we ask them to run a program).
Regardless of what decision we end up making on what terms we are comfortable using, we can recognize that not all violent terms are equal in how concretely they call to mind their violent meaning when used metaphorically and that victims of violence are speaking out about the usage of certain terms. How we should respond to that is a judgment call we all have to make.
Personally I think people should be free to say what they want to. And people are free to react the way they want to too. But neither side should have the power to silence the other.
Also since this submission hasnt been downvoted into oblivion, your personal, anecdotal reaction is not the norm (on HN)
Also since this submission hasnt been downvoted into oblivion, your personal, anecdotal reaction is not the norm (on HN)
> At issue is not whether analogies and metaphors are a type of morally equating.
He literally used the word “equating”.
> Notice we don't murder programs.
And if someone does say that, will you swoop in to tell them that it’s inappropriate? Because I have absolutely heard people use the word “murder” metaphorically.
> And in this case, survivors are already telling us how they feel.
Interestingly those are all cases where I can easily imagine someone saying “murder” instead of “rape”. I also think those examples are pretty flippant and waste the impact of the word.
For the record, I think this particular use of the word “rape” to describe the poem’s butchering is reasonable. The work shown was utterly destroyed.
He literally used the word “equating”.
> Notice we don't murder programs.
And if someone does say that, will you swoop in to tell them that it’s inappropriate? Because I have absolutely heard people use the word “murder” metaphorically.
> And in this case, survivors are already telling us how they feel.
Interestingly those are all cases where I can easily imagine someone saying “murder” instead of “rape”. I also think those examples are pretty flippant and waste the impact of the word.
For the record, I think this particular use of the word “rape” to describe the poem’s butchering is reasonable. The work shown was utterly destroyed.
My intention is not to argue that the usage is inappropriate. Sure, it's probably obvious from my post that I think it is, but that's not the argument I was trying to make. And I'm certainly not trying to silence anyone (as the other replier pointed out one should not) because of their word choice. I didn't downvote/flag any of what I'm replying to.
The argument I'm trying to make is first that it's not arbitrary to question the use of this word but not "kill" or other violent words. There is a distinction because of the specificity and linguistic contexts in which the word is used.
And second that because it's not arbitrary, the complaints from survivors are also not arbitrary and should be considered--not taken as absolute unassailable truth, but considered.
For comparison, I can imagine those who lost loved ones in the infamous Air France Flight 447 might be upset to be reminded of Air France. But Air France is a 10+ billion euro company operating hundreds if not thousands of flights per day. It is stunningly rare that "Air France" is used to refer to that accident and on balance, I think most would conclude Air France is of positive or neutral impact to the world. I would be quite suspect of an argument that "Air France" is inappropriate language.
On the other extreme you have a term like "Holocaust" which effectively has no other meaning or usage than a reference to that genocide.
Now you may conclude that no usage of any word is inherently inappropriate, and if that's the case, we're simply at an impasse, and I'm fine with that. I won't try to stop you or change your mind. But for most people, I think there is a point where the triviality of the use and the severity of the word add up to inappropriateness.
It's not clear-cut. You'd probably be hard pressed to find anyone genuinely bothered by "killing" a process. But you also won't find too many people who would defend say... being kicked out of a bar for causing a drunken fight being described as being persecuted like in the Holocaust. There's a spectrum.
So my point is just this... there are some logical reasons why many people consider a usage like this article on the inappropriate side of the spectrum. We can at least acknowledge that and recognize that there's a legitimate judgment call to be made here. We aren't in "killing a process" territory. And we certainly aren't in arbitrary word policing because we happen to be bothered by it territory.
Unless of course you fundamentally disagree that any metaphor could be inappropriate because of the thing which is alluded to in the metaphor. In which case we're just starting from different fundamental assumptions, which is fine. I'm not trying to challenge anyone's values.
I'll end here. There are obviously legitimate grievances in the article regardless of the word choice in titling it, and I've done enough to derail the discussion of those already. For that, I apologize.
The argument I'm trying to make is first that it's not arbitrary to question the use of this word but not "kill" or other violent words. There is a distinction because of the specificity and linguistic contexts in which the word is used.
And second that because it's not arbitrary, the complaints from survivors are also not arbitrary and should be considered--not taken as absolute unassailable truth, but considered.
For comparison, I can imagine those who lost loved ones in the infamous Air France Flight 447 might be upset to be reminded of Air France. But Air France is a 10+ billion euro company operating hundreds if not thousands of flights per day. It is stunningly rare that "Air France" is used to refer to that accident and on balance, I think most would conclude Air France is of positive or neutral impact to the world. I would be quite suspect of an argument that "Air France" is inappropriate language.
On the other extreme you have a term like "Holocaust" which effectively has no other meaning or usage than a reference to that genocide.
Now you may conclude that no usage of any word is inherently inappropriate, and if that's the case, we're simply at an impasse, and I'm fine with that. I won't try to stop you or change your mind. But for most people, I think there is a point where the triviality of the use and the severity of the word add up to inappropriateness.
It's not clear-cut. You'd probably be hard pressed to find anyone genuinely bothered by "killing" a process. But you also won't find too many people who would defend say... being kicked out of a bar for causing a drunken fight being described as being persecuted like in the Holocaust. There's a spectrum.
So my point is just this... there are some logical reasons why many people consider a usage like this article on the inappropriate side of the spectrum. We can at least acknowledge that and recognize that there's a legitimate judgment call to be made here. We aren't in "killing a process" territory. And we certainly aren't in arbitrary word policing because we happen to be bothered by it territory.
Unless of course you fundamentally disagree that any metaphor could be inappropriate because of the thing which is alluded to in the metaphor. In which case we're just starting from different fundamental assumptions, which is fine. I'm not trying to challenge anyone's values.
I'll end here. There are obviously legitimate grievances in the article regardless of the word choice in titling it, and I've done enough to derail the discussion of those already. For that, I apologize.
I have no problem with the notion that certain words should be used with care. Rape jokes are generally in very bad taste. Flippantly using the word is rather uncouth.
I also think there is balance. The fact that some claim offense or hurt at a word does not mean no one should use it.
I also think there is balance. The fact that some claim offense or hurt at a word does not mean no one should use it.
I often use 4 letter shortcut aliases. Inspired by this, "mrdr" is now a new alias of "kill -9".
You don't get it, do you?
This asswipe, Martin. He fucked up Bukowski's poems. With his mincing, middle-class stink.
Oh, it's not a dirty poem anymore, it's a vulgar one. By the time he's done, it sounds like Bukowski went to Vassar.
Now you? You're going to mince around like this too?
But Michael Phillips -- he respects Bukowski. He knows how to write. He uses the right goddamn word in the right goddamn place.
Like: "castrating". Because Martin took the balls from his poems. "shitty". Because he shat all over them. "unmolested". Because it's like he diddles kids.
That's the same thing you're doing. You're trying to castrate Phillips. And you know what that is?
Rape.
This asswipe, Martin. He fucked up Bukowski's poems. With his mincing, middle-class stink.
Oh, it's not a dirty poem anymore, it's a vulgar one. By the time he's done, it sounds like Bukowski went to Vassar.
Now you? You're going to mince around like this too?
But Michael Phillips -- he respects Bukowski. He knows how to write. He uses the right goddamn word in the right goddamn place.
Like: "castrating". Because Martin took the balls from his poems. "shitty". Because he shat all over them. "unmolested". Because it's like he diddles kids.
That's the same thing you're doing. You're trying to castrate Phillips. And you know what that is?
Rape.
To be honest though, while I don't like what Martin did to the poems, and while he should never have taken those liberties with them, I sort of get what he was trying to do with the example Phillips gave.
By changing "ancient" to "medieval" and "dirty" to "vulgar", he's trying to invoke the switch from Church Latin to the vulgate. I mean, there's the organ music in the background, the red wine like the blood of Christ. And then he's saying, "Look at Charles Bukowski, he writes in the language of the common people".
He then reinforces "no vulgarity" later. An addition about "clean[ing] up my act" is also there, to go with the "cleaning the shit stains" (now also explicitly "cleaning"). Which is about devulgarifying the poems.
To go along with all this he makes the poem about why he writes "like" that, not just "why he writes". To make clear that it's about why the poems are vulgar specifically, not why the poems exist at all.
And then he emphasizes that Bukowski is pleased with the result (he puts "pleased" in twice).
So there's a logic to it. It's a little pedantic and a little pretentious. And it changes the meaning of the poem. And it does some of the very devulgarification it's talking about. But it's not totally dumb.
By changing "ancient" to "medieval" and "dirty" to "vulgar", he's trying to invoke the switch from Church Latin to the vulgate. I mean, there's the organ music in the background, the red wine like the blood of Christ. And then he's saying, "Look at Charles Bukowski, he writes in the language of the common people".
He then reinforces "no vulgarity" later. An addition about "clean[ing] up my act" is also there, to go with the "cleaning the shit stains" (now also explicitly "cleaning"). Which is about devulgarifying the poems.
To go along with all this he makes the poem about why he writes "like" that, not just "why he writes". To make clear that it's about why the poems are vulgar specifically, not why the poems exist at all.
And then he emphasizes that Bukowski is pleased with the result (he puts "pleased" in twice).
So there's a logic to it. It's a little pedantic and a little pretentious. And it changes the meaning of the poem. And it does some of the very devulgarification it's talking about. But it's not totally dumb.
But what about all the ghosts who're reading this who might have also been victims of tragic sexual abuse?
Give me a break. Can't he have an opinion? I guess you're raping the OP.
This is textbook usage of an alternate dictionary definition of the word, not just usage for hyperbolic shock factor. Though obviously, it is a word which carries a lot of weight.
That was my first thought as well, but then I realised there is a big difference when one just grossly exaggerates (e.g. "touching someone without consent is rape") and when the word is used with poetic licence. Rape of a ghost is clearly not meant literally.
I got the impression that was the point, to exaggerate.
But I can't help but wonder, would you had felt the same way had the author chosen other shockingly violent acts such as "disembowelment", "lobotomy", "castration", or "amputation"?
But I can't help but wonder, would you had felt the same way had the author chosen other shockingly violent acts such as "disembowelment", "lobotomy", "castration", or "amputation"?
Those are also over the top, but comparing text editing to violent sexual domination is well past the American taste for absurd overstatement, and just comes across like a silly, blinkered person overly absorbed in their little drama.
It works against the author's apparent interest. They throw the dials to 11 as a bit of norm-setting editorializing about supposed severity of the unjust edits, but it just ends up being more bullshit clickbait, blending in to the background of every! other! desperate! headline!
It works against the author's apparent interest. They throw the dials to 11 as a bit of norm-setting editorializing about supposed severity of the unjust edits, but it just ends up being more bullshit clickbait, blending in to the background of every! other! desperate! headline!
I disagree. It's very fitting within the context of Bukowski's work.
If anyone doubts this, find the phrase "like a sickle" in Bukowski's work and you'll see it's in the right general area.
Too me all those words are over exaggerated. Nothing close to that has been done to Bukowski. His work is being misconstrued, and that's bad enough. Turns out rights holders are usually scum.
I guess it depends on how much you like Bukowski if it feels overdone or not.
I guess it depends on how much you like Bukowski if it feels overdone or not.
Those do not happen to a sizeable fraction of the population. Rape does.
Is that really the deciding factor? What percentage of the population it happens to?
Why?
Why?
Because if you are under no threat of being disemboweled, then you can joke about it.
If you are, however, under a constant, low-level threat of being raped, then you kind of want people to take that seriously. You don't want people to make light of it. You don't want people to devalue that.
And we, who are not under that threat, can and should respect that.
If you are, however, under a constant, low-level threat of being raped, then you kind of want people to take that seriously. You don't want people to make light of it. You don't want people to devalue that.
And we, who are not under that threat, can and should respect that.
I am an amputee. The idea that I as an amputee should have the right to stop others from discussing or even joking about amputation seems absurd to me.
I understand the argument about being sensitive to the topic of rape. I do not think that extends so far that no one can use the word except in its literal meaning.
I understand the argument about being sensitive to the topic of rape. I do not think that extends so far that no one can use the word except in its literal meaning.
Are a large fraction of the population getting amputated against their will?
Do you suppose that people who live in war zones are forbidden from making jokes about bombs?
I get what you’re going for and have already stated elsewhere that I think rape jokes are tasteless. But your criteria doesn’t make much sense. Good for you for wanting to be sensitive to others. But if you’re going to be sensitive to others, maybe ask why your care doesn’t extend to victims in general and somehow only applies to this one word.
I get what you’re going for and have already stated elsewhere that I think rape jokes are tasteless. But your criteria doesn’t make much sense. Good for you for wanting to be sensitive to others. But if you’re going to be sensitive to others, maybe ask why your care doesn’t extend to victims in general and somehow only applies to this one word.
Nobody is talking about forbidding. The topic is being a decent human who takes others into account.
> who takes others into account
Odd then that you seem so dismissive of the other concerns called out.
Odd then that you seem so dismissive of the other concerns called out.
Those "concerns" are pretty damn minuscule in comparison.
Since the topic is poetry, I took it as a somewhat literary allusion: eg. "The Rape of the Lock".
You're free to use, or not use, what ever words you like. Also, why is rape such a bad word but not murder or torture or suicide?
There are billions of survivors of rape living and trying to cope, and it is wrong to trivialize their experience by comparing it to a misguided editor trying to make some bad poetry better.
Murder and torture and suicide occur at nowhere near the same scale, and in two of those the primary victims are not around to suffer poor choice of words. For what it's worth, I also wish we didn't speak so trivially of "killing" e.g. UNIX processes. "Rape" is an easy word to avoid.
Murder and torture and suicide occur at nowhere near the same scale, and in two of those the primary victims are not around to suffer poor choice of words. For what it's worth, I also wish we didn't speak so trivially of "killing" e.g. UNIX processes. "Rape" is an easy word to avoid.
Yes I agree it's a strong word with strong connotations. It's good to have such words and make a language strong and effective. You seem to be equating use of the word rape with the act of rape. Maybe we should also not use the word war, maybe we should not speak at all because someone is trying to cope with something. It shouldn't be used in a professional environment, but out in the world or on the internet who are you to play hall monitor?
[deleted]
Now do "violence."
[deleted]
This is 2022, this term is very diluted now.
Thank you.
> I'm hardly a SJW
You didn't care about the quote on "castrating him" in this article, or being analytical or relating this to dirty realism so you clearly are.
The article is literally about people like yourself wanting to edit these things from history (article is 2013)
Read Charles Bukowski "The Fiend" and then understand why words like rape and castrating were chosen if you care at all about what's being talked about and why the article was written this way.
I despise trigger warnings but surprises are also unfair on a tech forum even if we are talking Bukowski, it is about child rape -
https://onlinereadfreenovel.com/charles-bukowski/page,22,416... (The Fiend starts half way down)
You didn't care about the quote on "castrating him" in this article, or being analytical or relating this to dirty realism so you clearly are.
The article is literally about people like yourself wanting to edit these things from history (article is 2013)
Read Charles Bukowski "The Fiend" and then understand why words like rape and castrating were chosen if you care at all about what's being talked about and why the article was written this way.
I despise trigger warnings but surprises are also unfair on a tech forum even if we are talking Bukowski, it is about child rape -
https://onlinereadfreenovel.com/charles-bukowski/page,22,416... (The Fiend starts half way down)
>can we stop equating rape which is a shockingly violent violation/assult of a real a human being with anything less
sure, we can but in fact using rape as a metaphor for really bad things that one person does to another person is not used to downgrade rape but really to point a finger at why the thing being done is bad. Because rape has power as a bad thing.
Sure, but I mean we must not use rape as an analogy for anything that is not rape, holocaust for anything that is not holocaust, fraud must only be used for things that are legally prosecutable as fraud and so forth. The language must be cleaned and simplified, metaphor and analogy while a seemingly necessary component of the human mind must be excised.
sure, we can but in fact using rape as a metaphor for really bad things that one person does to another person is not used to downgrade rape but really to point a finger at why the thing being done is bad. Because rape has power as a bad thing.
Sure, but I mean we must not use rape as an analogy for anything that is not rape, holocaust for anything that is not holocaust, fraud must only be used for things that are legally prosecutable as fraud and so forth. The language must be cleaned and simplified, metaphor and analogy while a seemingly necessary component of the human mind must be excised.
Do not use the term rape for anything but serious sexual assault. Deeply offensive.
Rape isn't originally sexually connoted and broadly means taken by force.
[deleted]
This is a stupid comment. Policing language will bring you nowhere.
[deleted]
"Sit on a couch and look at a wall"
to
"Laying on the couch and looking at the wall"
loses a lot somehow in a hard-to-pin-down way. It's almost an impressively efficient butchering