Masaryk University Faculty of Arts
Department of English and American Studies
English Language and Literature
Ondřej Jarůšek
The Portrayal of Masculinity in the Novels of Charles Bukowski Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis
Supervisor: Stephen Paul Hardy, Ph. D.
2016
I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
…………………………………………….. Author’s signature
I would like to thank my supervisor, Stephen Paul Hardy, Ph.D., for his help, valuable advice and time he devoted to the present work.
Table of Contents
Introduction ...... 5 Chapter 1 ...... 8 Chapter 2 ...... 20 Chapter 3 ...... 39 Conclusion ...... 51 Works Cited ...... 55 English Résumé ...... 58 Czech Résumé ...... 59
Introduction
In his underground society he describes a purely masculine world, in
which women are hardly splashes of a puddle through which hardy fellows
traipse, mostly drunk, or in which they wallow. Then afterwards: wipe off
& away! Also most of the times drunk. . . . almost everything in his head
is reduced to the magical actions: fuck, drink, fight: beating women . . .
(Harrison 214)
The works of the 20th century German-American prolific poet, novelist and short- story writer Henry Charles Bukowski have often been criticized for its generally chauvinistic content and portraying femininity as rather inferior to masculinity. Karin
Huffzky, one of the author’s critics, quite aptly summarizes in the passage above from her article “Big Daddy Is Watching You” which Russell Harrison cites in his Against the
American Dream: Essays on Charles Bukowski the frequent image of relationships between the male and the female as it is depicted in Bukowski’s early writing. In it, the man is commonly presented as a dominant macho figure who perceives the opposite gender predominately as sexual objects that he can exploit and thus he treats them on this basis. However, this depiction of masculinity starts to gradually change in Bukowski’s later works.
The present work analyzes Bukowski’s portrayal of masculinity in the author’s first three novels, namely Post Office, Factotum and Women, with the focus on the character of Henry Chinaski, Bukowski’s alter-ego and the main protagonist of the books.
The primary purpose of the thesis is to provide evidence of the argument that in the texts can be observed Bukowski’s gradual deconstruction of the male protagonist and to prove that third of the novels represents the most significant alteration of the author’s portrayal of masculinity in comparison to his earlier works. Up to now, the research of Bukowski’s
5 writing has been concentrated mostly on the author’s depiction of women, the present work thus contributes to the discussion on the gender aspect in his works by analyzing the depiction of masculinity.
The first chapter deals with Bukowski’s inclination to the phallocentric nature of his writing as well as with the projection of traditional machismo attitudes in his works.
A considerable deal of attention if given also to the author’s comparison to (and contrast from) other American writers of his time, primarily the three lead figures associated with the literary movement Beat Generation whose writing is also considered phallocentric and in whose works masculinity is portrayed as superior to femininity, similarly as in the case of Bukowski’s works. The personal background of Bukowki’s life is given as well as the historical background of the researched novels in order to provide details of the author’s life which might have contributed to the style of his writing and to provide more in-depth understanding of the context of the works.
The second chapter discusses Bukowski’s portrayal of masculinity in Post Office and Factotum, the first two of the author’s novels. The character of Henry Chinaski evinces in the books signs of the conventional chauvinistic macho protagonist, but at the same time there can be observed numerous scenes and instances where those characteristics are being weakened and undermined. For example, even though Chinaski is presented as aggressive towards women and often manifests his dominance over them, the reader is also shown the protagonist’s tenderness, sensitivity or lack of power and control when interacting with some of the female characters.
The third chapter deals with Bukowski’s deconstruction of masculinity in Women, the third of his novels. The book represents the most significant alteration of the author’s portrayal of masculinity in terms of undermining of the traditional macho characteristics of the male protagonist and in spite of the fact that Chinaski at times still attempts to
6 behave according to his former image, his character is subsequently ridiculed. The erstwhile dominance and power of the protagonist is often reduced to a minimum and his manliness is on a number of instances undermined for example also with respect to his sexual performance. Moreover, Chinaski becomes more emotionally invested in his relationships with women than before which indicates he is in this sense also noticeably more mature.
The primary secondary source used in the present work is Russell Harrison’s
Against the American Dream: Essays on Charles Bukowski which has been chosen due to the noteworthy insights and useful pieces of information of the author in regard to the topic and focus of the Thesis. Furthermore, the present work consults a number of additional secondary sources which include works such as Sexual Politics by the
American feminist writer Kate Millett, Charles Bukowski, Outsider literature, and the
Beat Movement by Paul Clements or biographies (both in a Czech translation) Charles
Bukowski: Locked in the Arms of a Crazy Life by Howard Sounes and Charles Bukowski by Barry Miles because of their helpful overview of the discussed issues.
7
Chapter 1
The present chapter discusses the phallocentric nature of Charles Bukowski’s works and the author’s manifestation of machismo and chauvinism in his writing. In addition, the chapter focuses also on Bukowski’s comparison to other American writers of his time and the personal background of the author as well as the historical background of the analyzed novels is also provided.
Generally speaking, the perpetual battle of the sexes arguably belongs among the most characteristic, and perhaps also among some of the most controversial, aspects of Charles
Bukowski's writing. Although female characters play an important role in most of the author's works, throughout Bukowski's literary career they are frequently described in an unflattering manner from the writer's chauvinistic point of view which Russell Harrison in his critical work Against the American Dream: Essays on Charles Bukowski describes as “undeniable” (Harrison 183). Bukowski often highlights the sexual promiscuity of the female characters, their loose morals or sometimes also questionable mental state which contributes to the overall degradation of the opposite gender to rather one-dimensional sexualized objects without any distinguishable personality and negates any complexity in terms of their identity. This consequently led to the fact that Bukowski's depiction of his female characters was condemned more than any other element of his works by critics, even though there can be seen a shift in the portrayal of women in the course of his life
(Harrison 183) which is also suggested by Paul Clements in his work Charles Bukowski,
Outsider Literature, and the Beat Movement (Clements 82).
At the same time it is equally important to emphasize that the female characters as such do not stand at the very center of the author's works, even though the story often revolves around them, particularly in terms of the protagonist’s sexual relations with them. In other words, albeit women represent an essential part of Bukowski's writing,
8 they are presented as secondary characters, rather than primary ones. This can be deduced also from the fact that up until the gradual shift in their depiction which can be observed in Bukowski's novels, he portrayed them most often only in regard to the male protagonist and, perhaps more importantly, their existence outside of the relationships with him was considerably limited and reduced to a minimum (Harrison 183-184). The most dominant character in his works is thus the masculine figure, in the analyzed novels represented by
Bukowski's alter-ego called Henry Chinaski. Chinaski on paper, just as Bukowski in real life, “gambled, argued, fist fought, drank hard, and womanized excessively” (Clements
81) which indicates that it is not only femininity which Bukowski depicts in a stereotypical fashion, but also masculinity, working class machismo in particular. (81) In this respect Bukowski's works can be universally described as phallocentric where the female characters and the motive of femininity are implemented predominately in order to support and reinforce the dominance of masculinity and the center position of the male protagonist. (82) Therefore the main macho figure is for understanding Bukowski's works undoubtedly essential, because he places the macho motif at the center of his writing.
However, the emphasis on phallocentrism in writing cannot be observed solely in the works of Charles Bukowski, but was also common for other literary figures of his time.
For a better understanding of the problematic can be used the definition of the term
“phallocentric” provided by the Merriam-Webster online dictionary which is as follows:
“centered on or emphasizing the masculine viewpoint.” (Merriam-Webster) For example, in regard to male-centered writing which frequently contains also demeaning portrayal of women and certain notion of chauvinism, Bukowski can be rather easily linked also to other American writers of the 20th century, for instance to Henry Miller. (Harrison 153)
Furthermore, in the sense of manifesting macho attitudes and depicting masculinity in a traditionally manner, Bukowski was influenced (as least to some extent) by his literary
9 hero Ernest Hemingway, as Bukowski's longtime friend Gerald Locklin suggests in an essay “Notes on Bukowski and Hemingway”. (Locklin 100) Moreover, the similar chauvinistic focus which can be observed in Bukowski’s works can be seen also within the counter-cultural phenomenon known as the Beat Generation which was predominately considered a men's community, even though during its existence in included also “several female poets”. (Clements 82)
From a general perspective the movement was associated with putting male characters at the center of their works, while the female ones were assigned traditional positions and pushed to the background. As Clements writes “It has been considered a male canon and cabal where women were perceived to enact the roles of mother, groupies, and housekeepers.” (81) Thus apart from the characteristic unconformity and rejection of the mainstream culture, there can be seen similarities between Charles Bukowski and the
Beatniks also on the level of stereotyping of women and moreover, perhaps even hostile attitude towards them.
As Howard Sounes mentions in his biographic work Charles Bukowski: Locked in the
Arms of a Crazy Life, Bukowski would most likely hate anyone to question his heterosexuality and when he was drunk (which not a rare occurrence) he tended to manifest his homophobic attitudes (Sounes 109) which can be considered one of the contrasts between him and some of the lead members of the Beat Generation who were known for engaging in homosexual intercourse and relationships, as Christopher Gair points out in his book American Counterculture. (Gair 45) One of the three most prominent figures most frequently associated with the origins of the Beatnik movement, or the so called first wave “troika” (45), is considered to be William Burroughs, with the other two being Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac. Burroughs, in spite of his statement “I have never been gay a day in my life and I'm sure as hell not a part of any movement”
10
(William S. Burroughs: A Man Within) revealed his homosexuality in his book entitled
Queer and acknowledged his association with the Beat Generation in a 1977 television talk show interview (William Burroughs on NBC 1977). The concentration on phallocentrism in writing and also the presence of hostility to female gender can be observed among of all the three most notoriously known Beatniks. As an example of certain form of hostility towards the opposite gender among the Beats can be observed among all three most “notorious” Beatniks. An example of a certain form of hostility towards the opposite gender among the Beats can be seen in an article by William
Burroughs published in Playgirl magazine in 1978. In the article entitled “Women: A biological mistake?” Burroughs states he is aware of the fact he is “widely perceived as a misogynist” and later on he adds that “Women may well be a biological mistake”, whereupon he continues with saying “But so is almost everything I see around here.”
(Burroughs 10) It can be argued that Burroughs is being in the text intentionally provocative and thus the article does not in reality reflect his actual misogynistic attitudes, but, nevertheless, the passages from his rather controversial text can serve as an illustration of the existence of certain enmity towards femininity in the Beat movement.
Furthermore, the emphasis on the male perspective in writing as well as a notion of misogyny, that is “a hatred of women” (Merriam-Webster), can be seen also in the case of Ginsberg. For instance, according to Gair, Ginsberg in his most known poem “Howl” identifies heterosexuality with capitalism and anti-intellectualism and suggests that women represent a threat to a man’s ability to think creatively. (Gair 45 Clements 81)
Again, this illustrates the Generation’s distrustful tendencies and inclination to portraying the female gender in a derogatory manner in order to present the male gender as the central and more ideal one. Similar characteristics can be noticed also in the novels of Jack
Kerouac who generally portrays masculinity in the center of his works and focuses
11 primarily on the male point of view, whereas women are portrayed rather stereotypically, although not in a clear misogynistic fashion as in the case of Burroughs or Ginsberg.
Furthermore, as Gair points out, throughout Kerouac’s career the male figures in his books who are acquainted with the male protagonist are often presented as major characters, whereas women are assigned secondary and traditional roles. (Gair 44) The anti-women attitudes among Beats are apparent also in Michael Davidson's summary of the situation provided by Gair: “The Beat ethos relegated women to the role of sexual surrogate, muse, or mom; it did not raise them to a position of artistic equality. Literary friendships throughout the period were marked by a kind of boys' club mentality in which women were excluded.” (Gair 44). Women were thus characterized as substandard figures and their role was rather traditional and unequal in comparison to men, who were assigned the main significance. In addition, Gerald Locklin in his work Bukowski: A Sure
Bet emphasizes the fact that Kerouac was reprehended by critics for the projection of masculinity and manliness in a conventional fashion, similarly as Charles Bukowski
(Locklin 12). Besides the notion of unconformity and criticism of the American consumer culture it is possible to compare Bukowski’s writing to the works of the Beat Generation also on the basis of the distinct focus on phallocentrism and assigning women noticeably substandard positions in their works.
In spite of the undeniable similarities and related aspects both in prose and poetry, there is also a number of distinct dissimilarities (apart from the aforementioned homophobia) between Bukowski and the Beat Generation that excluded him from the inner circle of the movement, despite the fact he was also a prolific poet. Nonetheless, as
Jean-Francois Duval in his work Bukowski and the Beats points out, Bukowski was retrospectively recognized in several newspapers as a successor of prominent Beatnik figures like Kerouac and Ginsberg, (Duval 21) but his personal relationship to the Beats
12 and their works can be characterized as rather indeterminate. (Clements 71) Bukowski himself did believe to have very much in common with the movement in terms of his writing, for example, as Duval points out, when he was linked in 1967 to Beat-related names such as William Burroughs, Allen Ginsberg, Berolt Brecht, W.H. Auden, Henry
Miller, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Jean Genet and several others, Bukowski felt certain affinity or kinship only to very few of them, as he wrote in a letter to his German translator
(Duval 21-22) Moreover, Bukowski illustrates his relationship with the Beats in Women where his alter ego Henry Chinaski is preparing for a public reading and finds out that
William Burroughs himself has a reading the following night and stays in one of the neighboring hotel rooms. Joe, the organizer of the event, asks Chinaski whether he wishes to set up a meeting with Burroughs, but he rejects whereupon Joe notifies Burroughs about Chinaski's presence with hidden hopes Burroughs would like to meet him, but instead, Burroughs doesn't show any interest in meeting Chinaski. Later on the protagonist is looking for an ice machine and his eyes by chance meet with Burroughs’ and Chinaski then describes the moment by saying "He looked at me indifferently"
(Bukowski 190, Duval 22). Of course one cannot be certain whether this encounter described in the book is based on real events, or whether it should be considered a fiction, but the indifference of both Chinaski and Burroughs towards each other in certain respect illustrates the rather distant relationship between Bukowski and the Beats. (Duval 22) The notion of mutual disregard implicates Bukowski's lack of interest in being part of the popular movement as well as the movement's disinterest in accepting Bukowski as one of them or its refusal of recognizing Bukowski as one of its members.
Duval presents Russel Harrison's claim that Bukowski's uniqueness and distinct differentiation from others is possible to observe for example in his position of an
American artist whose poetry was appealing more to those who did not come from an
13 intellectual or academic background and, moreover, the content of his poems dealt with day-to-day realistic motifs, whereas the Beat writers, on the other hand, were more preferred among the more demanding readers. (24) Moreover, regardless to Bukowski's refusal of work, he stayed in a backbreaking job for more than a decade which later became the main theme in his first novel Post Office and thus, as Duval points out,
Bukowski did not have the carefree attitude to responsibilities typical for the Beatniks which contributed to the distance between him and the movement even more. (26) In this regard, Bukowski can be in comparison to the Beat Generation members understood as an outsider writer who did not have any serious ambition to produce works of certain higher intellectual overlap, but his poetry and novels concentrated on more simplistic and realistic topics. Nonetheless, in the works of Bukowski and the work of the Beats can be seen some similar elements, such as the described depiction of women and the focus on phallocentric writing.
Bukowski's frequent generalization of women and his inability to understand them has been attributed for instance to his alleged low experiences with relationships, (Clements
82) which was caused also partly by his problems with acne that Jim Christy describes in
Buk Book. Bukowski suffered from boils growing on his face and other parts of his body to such extent that he was force to resolve to treatment with ambulatory interventions.
Later, when he graduated from the high school, he did not have a female accompaniment to attend the prom with and thus he watched at night the dancing pairs through a window from outside the hall. (Christy 18-20) His experiences with women were thus considerably limited which can possibly implicate a certain frustration he might have suffered from due to his social seclusion and lack of regular interactions with the opposite gender already in his young age, and, in addition, as Barry Miles in a biography entitled
Charles Bukowski writes, Bukowski was not sexually active until the age of 23 when he
14 lost his virginity to “a 300 pound whore” he met in a bar in Philadelphia. (Miles 90)
Although he is hardly unique in this respect, these pieces of information from Bukowski's private life implicate his early resignation on more traditional approach and attitude towards his love life and also sex in general which he considered to be even less intimate than kissing. In Women, he explicitly writes “Kissing is more intimate than fucking”
(Bukowski 160) Such aspects of Bukowski's privacy in addition to his health problems during maturing could therefore also have a certain impact on his overall view on male and female relationships and perhaps contributed to the inclination to present femininity as inferior to masculinity later in his writing, because he was unable to establish any more complex partnership with the opposite gender. And even though he later in his life married twice, in an interview published in Tough Guys Write Poetry, Bukowski stated on the account of his first wife that he never loved her (Bukowski 48), but this might equally indicate that he was willing to invest some effort in order to analyze the nature of their relationship which can be seen as a sign of maturity on his part. In addition, Howard
Sounes describes the condition under which Bukowski was raised. His parents did not let him to socialize with other kids from the neighborhood, while his father beat him as a child with a razor strap on a regular basis. (Sounes 18-19) This period Bukowski himself described later a “Horror story”, emphasizing the capital “H”. (Bukowski: Born into This)
It can be thus argued that Bukowski’s perception of masculinity and male and female relationships was influenced by his experiences from his childhood or early adulthood which contributed to his subsequent adoption of some of the macho, aggressive attributes of his father, who was the most dominant (and feared) manly figure during his growing up. But at the same time, Bukowski’s inclination to writing poetry in a sense contradicts these conventional macho characteristics, since this literary form is traditionally
15 associated with sensitivity and gentleness which are attributes associated rather with femininity.
In their essay “Toward a Fuller Conception of Machismo: Development of a
Traditional Machismo and Caballerismo Scale”, G. Miguel Arciniega, Thomas C.
Anderson, Zoila G. Tovar-Blank and Terence J. G. Tracey state on the account of the concept of machismo, which Merriam-Webster dictionary defines as “an attitude, quality, or way of behaving that agrees with traditional ideas about men being very strong and aggressive” (Merriam-Webster), that “In the majority of the popular literature, the term has continued to be associated with the negative characteristics of sexism, chauvinism, and hypermasculinity” (Arciniega 19) and for a better understanding of traditional machismo can be used also the definition of Octavio Paz's in The Labyrinth of Solitude cited by Harrison which is as follows:
The fact is the essential attribute of the macho-power-almost always
reveals itself as a capacity for wounding, humiliating, annihilating. . . .He
is power isolated in its own potency, without relationship or compromise
with the outside world. He is pure in communication, a solitude that
devours itself and everything it touches (Harrison 198, Paz 82)
Russell Harrison introduces a proposition that such delineation can be viewed as fitting to Charles Bukowski's portrayal of masculinity in his early writing, but, nevertheless, it does not apply to the character of Henry Chinaski as depicted in the third novel any more.
(Harrison 198) Harrison also argues that the novel Women stands for a significant shift in
Bukowski's portrayal of female characters (197), but on the contrary, it can be equally said that the change in the book is evident also in terms of author's depiction of masculinity. Nevertheless, the alteration in depiction of masculinity and femininity did not occur spontaneously, but rather gradually during Bukowski’s novels the 1970s,
16 beginning with Post Office which is followed by Factotum and the last novel of this period is Women and thus the present work analyzes the depiction of masculinity in all three books.
Harrison provides Kate Millett’s historical background of the period in which the novels were written as she describes it in her work Sexual Politics which has to be taken into consideration as well, because it can be seen as one of the aspects which might have influenced Bukowski’s decision to change the portrayal of traditional machismo and masculinity. According to Harrison, Millett claims that most of the time women were by contemporary writers depicted subjectively due to their puritan perception of the opposite gender and points out that “the years 1930-1960 represented a counter-revolutionary period with respect to women’s liberation.” (Harrison 184) Russell Harrison subsequently stresses the importance of understanding Bukowski’s works in this context, since, as he writes, “part of his boyhood, all of his adolescence, and part of his maturity took place during era of reaction against women’s gains, while his novels were written and published in the middle of the “second wave” of women’s liberation.” (184) Therefore it is possible to view Bukowski’s works as influenced by the Women’s Liberation movement in the sense that he gradually undermines the traditional masculinity of Henry Chinaski and ridicules his macho characteristics in order to present more complex female characters who do not serve as merely inhumane sexual objects for the central main protagonist.
Bukowski did not project his inclination to chauvinism and aggressiveness towards women only in his literary works, but also for instance during an interview on camera where he physically assaulted his wife (Charles Bukowski: Born Into This) or in a personal correspondence which furthermore conduces to the overall image of his machismo and misogynistic attitude. One of the examples is provided by Aubrey Malone in The Hunchback of East Hollywood: A Biography of Charles Bukowski where she
17 quotes the content of one of Bukowski’s letters: “Women are basically stupid animals, but they concentrate so much and entirely upon the male that they often defeat him while he’s thinking of other things.” (Malone 70) Another instance of Bukowski’s chauvinism is evident from a letter from 1984 addressed to one of his female admirers provided by
Clements:
On the matter of women, many women are bitches and killers and I've slept
with a few of them... In this country, the male is dominated by the female,
they went completely under to the Woman's Lib movement, so much so
that most of the look like and act like women. But the only difference
between them is the female has breasts and he ass is bigger... And the worst
male (?) is the one who is worried about Female Rights... I don't look at
the female as inferior to me, only different that I and there will always be
problems because of this difference, along with the joys. (Clements 82)
Clements believes that Bukowski in the letter “recognizes that social meanings of gender are constructed and inscribed into the body, then embodied and performed”
(Clements 82), but it can also be interpreted differently. Bukowski, with a certain exaggeration, expresses criticism aimed at the men whose masculinity was reduced or overshadowed because of the Women’s Liberation movement and attempts to present himself as a macho and his masculinity as almost unshakable by any woman. But on the other hand, as indicated previously, in Bukowski’s novels can be seen pieces of evidence of the author’s possible influence by the Women’s Liberation movement in the sense of gradual degradation and attempts to ridicule Henry Chinaski, the main protagonist. In this light Bukowski’s self-presentation in the letter appears to be contradictory to the portrayal of his alter-ego in his first three novels, all of which were written during the decade of the second wave of Women Liberation movement which thus reveals certain hypocrisy
18 displayed in the letter. The following chapters, the second one dedicated to novels Post
Office and Factotum and the third one to Women, deal with Bukowski’s gradual alteration of the portrayal of his alter-ego Henry Chinaski and provide evidence of the most notable change in the portrayal of masculinity which can be observed in the last of the analyzed works.
19
Chapter 2
The present chapter deals with Charles Bukowski’s portrayal of Henry Chinaski’s masculinity in the author’s first novel Post Office and the second novel Factotum. As in most of the author’s works, the protagonist’s relationships and sexual encounters with women can be considered one of the dominant themes and thus the analysis is focused predominately on the matter of Chinaski’s depiction during his interaction with women and how this interaction evolves and changes.
From a general perspective, the character of Henry Chinaski in the novels is represented as a low class laborer and his masculinity is portrayed accordingly to his social position in a rather stereotypical fashion. In other words, certain characteristics of the main protagonist can be seen as stereotypical features which are associated with the working-class environment, such as the projection of machismo attitudes which include inclination to aggressive behavior towards both men and women, chauvinism or excessive drinking. But at the same time there are evident instances of undermining and ridiculing these characteristics on a number of different occasions and the previously dominant position of masculinity is, sometimes more, sometimes less, debilitated by the influence and even certain growing ascendancy of femininity which becomes perhaps even more apparent in the case of Chinaski’s portrayal in Factotum where is shown a number of signs indicating the protagonist’s vulnerability, especially during his encounters with women.
Bukowski manifests the chauvinistic nature of his alter ego immediately on the first page of his first novel in a quite open, undisguised form which appears to be characteristic for most of the author’s writing:
I think it was my second day as a Christmas temp that this big woman
came out and walked around with me as I delivered letters. What I mean
20
by big was that her ass was big and her tits were big and that 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.
She talked and talked and talked. Then it came out. Her husband was an
officer on an island far away and she got lonely, you know, and lived in
this little house in back all by herself.
“What little house?" I asked.
She wrote the address on a piece of paper.
"I'm lonely too," I said, "I'll come by and we'll talk tonight."
I was shacked but the shack job was gone half the time, off somewhere,
and I was lonely all right. I was lonely for that big ass standing beside me.
"All right," she said, "see you tonight."
She was a good one all right, she was a good lay but like all lays after the
3rd or 4th night I began to lose interest and didn't go back. (Bukowski 1)
Bukowski in the scene, as in many other passages, uses very limited descriptive terms regarding the female and virtually every mention of her has sexual and demeaning connotations, it can be observed for example when he writes “her ass was big and her tits were big” or “she was big in all the right places” which suggests that the protagonist’s perception of her is primarily based on his chauvinistic attitudes. Moreover, the author does not even provide the reader with the woman’s name, instead, she is referred to “big ass” or “a good lay”. Therefore the author reduces her character to a mere sexualized object and her mental state is also questioned, but Bukowski’s alter-ego says “I kept looking at her body and I didn't care” which again rather clearly indicates he is not interested in anything else apart from the sexual intercourse which he subsequently achieves. Nonetheless, he says “like all lays after the 3rd or 4th night I began to lose
21 interest and didn't go back” which once more shows the protagonist’s lack of concern for the opposite gender on any deeper level.
The very beginning of Post Office thus reveals Henry Chinaski’s tendency to perceive females he meets or interacts with as a means of satisfying his sexual desires and treat them on this basis, therefore after his needs are fulfilled he leaves the woman and gradually moves to another one. Russell Harrison argues that in spite of the fact that in this scene the “big woman”, as Bukowski describes her, is objectified and portrayed as unfaithful to her husband, there can be seen a subtle indication of the woman’s motive for her infidelity which is her husband’s absence and his lack of affection for her.
(Harrison 185) This could be possibly understood also as Bukowski’s way of providing the female characters with some power over the masculine protagonist in the sense that if it wasn’t for her loneliness and in perhaps desperate need for sexual intercourse, she would have not given Chinaski her address and therefore would not have slept with him.
In this respect the protagonist is not in the position of a skillful lady-killer who accomplishes to seduce her, but it is rather the woman who seems to be in the position of the initiator of the contact. Nonetheless, the scene presents Chinaski as a strongly selfish figure concerned solely with himself who is convinced of his dominance over the female which he regards to instead of by her name only as “big ass” or “a good lay” and which he finally discards as a used and from this point on useless item. But although he terminates the sexual relationship with her by not coming back after several visits, he is not the one in the control of establishing it in the first place which is the fact Chinaski is blind to due to his mentioned self-centeredness and thus he thinks of himself as of an experienced seducer whom the woman fell prey to, not realizing (because of his chauvinistic and egoistic nature) the option that it was perhaps in reality the other way around.
22
In contrast, Bukowski’s depiction of his alter-ego Henry Chinaski on the very first page of his second novel, Factotum, appears to be distinctively different. The immediate beginning of the book presents the protagonist also in an encounter with a woman, but the hero is noticeably more vulnerable, powerless and much less confident than in the case of Post Office. Furthermore, the mood of the setting itself is also considerably changed. Whereas in Post Office Chinaski is employed and has access to sex, thus is by his standards relatively satisfied, the first lines of Factotum introduce the protagonist’s arrival in New Orleans “in the rain in 5 o’clock in the morning” (Bukowski 1). After spending a short time at a bus station Chinaski falls into depression and chooses to walk in the rain looking for cheap rooming houses with his suitcase falling apart. The imagery of the scene is therefore notably gloomy and desolating which contributes to the reader’s sympathy and pity for Chinaski’s tragic and sad existence which he is aware of, unlike in
Post Office where the protagonist gives on the impression of rather cocksure, almost sovereign figure. And even after the raining stops and the sun comes out in a couple of next lines which might at first indicate certain improvement of Chinaski’s situation, it gets worse. Upon entering an African-American neighborhood he encounters a woman,
“a high yellow” (1) who is sitting on porch steps and shouts on Chinaski exclamations such as “Hello, poor white trash!” and “How’d you like a piece of ass, poor white trash?”
(1) to which the protagonist doesn’t react in any way whatsoever. After that Chinaski starts walking again while the woman openly ridicules him. “Her laughter followed me down the street,” (1) states the protagonist at the end of the scene.
The first depiction of the main protagonist in Factotum is thus considerably dissimilar to his initial depiction in Post Office, because the reader no longer sees
Chinaski in the beginning as a confident and assertive masculine figure, but on contrary, there can be seen an emphasis on his tragic, failed being and furthermore, he is put into
23 the position of a victim when he is verbally assaulted by the woman. Moreover, the encounter with the woman in Post Office is for Chinaski primarily sexual and he expresses his lust for her, whereas in Factotum the encounter is non-sexual and the only indication of sex is present only in the form of mocking and ridiculing the protagonist who appears to be rather submissive which contrasts with his depiction in Post Office where he radiates notably more dominant and powerful impression.
The sense of certain dominance and machismo of Henry Chinaski’s character is in a number of instances demonstrated especially during his intimate interaction with women who the protagonist generally sees and treats mostly as sexualized objects. One of the first sexual scenes which is explicitly described in Bukowski’s first novel Post
Office can be considered Chinaski’s encounter with a woman whom he delivers a letter to. Because she seized the letter without signing for it, Chinaski is attempting to take it back and thus he enters the woman’s house against her will:
Then she was in front of the door, arms spread across. The letter was on
the floor.
"Evil evil evil man! You came here to rape me!"
"Look lady, let me by."
"THERE IS EVILWRITTEN ALL OVER YOUR FACE!"
"Don't you think I know that? Now let me out of here!"
With one hand I tried to push her aside. She clawed one side of my face,
good. I dropped my bag, my cap fell off, and as I held a handkerchief
to the blood she came up and raked the other side.
"YOU CUNT! WHAT THE HELL'S WRONG WITH YOU!"
"See there? See there? You're evil!"
24
She was right up against me. I grabbed her by the ass and got my mouth
on hers. Those breasts were against me, she was all up against me. She
pulled her head back, away from me—
"Rapist! Rapist! Evil rapist!"
I reached down with my mouth, got one of her tits, then switched to the
other.
"Rape! Rape! I'm being raped!"
She was right. I got her pants down, unzipped my fly, got it in, then
walked her backwards to the couch. We fell down on top of it.
She lifted her legs high.
"RAPE!" she screamed.
I finished her off, zipped my fly, picked up my mail pouch and walked
out leaving her staring quietly at the ceiling . . . (Bukowski 24-25)
In the scene Chinaski’s sexual aggressiveness directed towards the woman is hardly negligible, but Bukowski attempts to present her as the initiation of the physical contact.
When the protagonist wants to leave the house with words “Now let me out of here!” she attacks: “She clawed one side of my face, good.” However, Chinaski afterwards responds to the woman’s attack with an aggressive sexual assault which can be observed when he says “I grabbed her by the ass and got my mouth on hers” or “I got her pants down, unzipped my fly, got it in” and by then the roles of the aggressor and the victim start to change.
Nonetheless, as Russell Harrison points out, she is depicted rather mentally unstable and somewhat belligerent as well (Harrison 186) which contributes to the impression that although Chinaski sexually manifested his dominance over her, she in a certain way participated in the initiation of the physical contact and was perhaps even inclined to it
25 since she did not show clear signs of resistance. Moreover, according to Harrison, even though the woman screams the word “rape”, “she is shown partially complicit and when
Chinaski agrees it is rape, we feel he doesn’t really believe it, that somehow her physical aggression sanctions his sexual violence.” (186) Thus although the protagonist in this particular scene displays undeniable characteristics of a sexually aggressive macho figure, he is at the same time presented with a certain ironic element which alters the reader’s perception of him and one subsequently does not see him as the initiator of the physical violence which undermines the original impression. In other words, in the scene
Chinaski in not presented only as the aggressor, but also as the victim of the woman’s aggression when she physically assaulted him and scratches his face to blood. After all, according to Terry Trueman’s column included in Men Masculinities: A Social, Cultural, and Historical Encyclopedia by Michael Kimmel and Amy Aronson, Bukowski at numerous occasions depicted male characters as a target of female aggressive behavior
(Kimmel, Aronson 116) which can be seen also in the analyzed scene. Moreover, as Paul
Clement writes, “Bukowski may have described violent sexual acts and depicted women in derogatory term, but admitted that he felt vulnerable and was easily taken advantage of because of his easy-going nature, which he resented” (Clements 84), therefore the notion of vulnerability in a sense reflects the author’s own feeling of lack of power and control during his interactions with the opposite sex.
The projection of female aggressiveness aimed towards the main protagonist is even more significantly emphasized in Factotum. In the following scene Chinaski is accompanied in his room by a fat woman named Martha who lives in the same rooming- house and decided to visit him. After the initial short conversation Martha starts to dance and performs a striptease, whereupon she unexpectedly attacks the surprised hero of the book:
26
Suddenly her eyes narrowed. I was sitting on the edge of the bed. She leapt
on me before I could move. Her open mouth was pressed on mine. It tasted
of spit and onions and stale wine and (I imagined) the sperm of four
hundred men. She pushed her tongue into my mouth. It was thick with
saliva, I gagged and pushed her off. She fell on her knees, tore open my
zipper, and in a second my soft packer was in her mouth. She sucked and
bobbed. Martha had a small yellow ribbon in her short grey hair. There
were warts and big brown moles on her neck and cheeks.
My penis rose; she groaned, bit me. I screamed, grabbed her by the hair,
pulled her off. I stood in the center of the room wounded and terrified.
They were playing a Mahler Symphony on the radio. Before I could move
she was down on her knees and on me again. She gripped my balls
mercilessly with both of her hands. Her mouth opened, she had me; her
head bobbed, sucked, jerked. Giving my balls a tremendous yank while
almost biting my packer in half she forced me to the floor. Sucking sounds
filled the room as my radio played Mahler. I felt as if I were being eaten
by a pitiless animal. My pecker rose, covered with spittle and blood. The
sight of it threw her into a frenzy. I felt as if I was being eaten alive.
If I come, I thought desperately, I'll never forgive myself. (Bukowski 21-
22)
The protagonist’s passiveness and physical vulnerability is shown when Bukowski writes “I stood in the center of the room wounded and terrified” or “Giving my balls a tremendous yank while almost biting my packer in half she forced me to the floor” and
“I felt as if I was being eaten alive.” However, the author tries to present the scene also with a certain comical and absurd element, for instance when he refers to attacking Martha
27 as “pitiless animal” or when he writes “If I come, I thought desperately, I'll never forgive myself” which again adds to the humorous undertone of the scene. In order to furthermore highlight Chinaski’s pain and suffering, Bukowski uses rather detailed descriptions regarding Martha’s unattractiveness, for example he writes “There were warts and big brown moles on her neck and cheeks” or that her mouth “tasted of spit and onions and stale wine and (I imagined) the sperm of four hundred men.” The author thus tries to emphasize the protagonist’s suffering not only in terms of the pain Martha causes him, but also in terms of stressing her unattractiveness.
In the scene the male figure, previously in Bukowski’s works portrayed as powerful and macho, is entirely deprived of his masculine strength and dominance under the aggressiveness of a feminine figure, and therefore in this sense the character of Henry
Chinaski is reduced from the former position of an aggressor to a defenseless victim of aggression. In other words, whereas in the previous scene from Post Office Chinaski is presented as the one who is initiating the sexual assault, here it is the woman who is portrayed as the rapist and the male protagonist is thus unwillingly devoured by the feminine lust. In Russell Harrison’s view, Bukowski presents in the scene, with the addition of a strong comical dimension, the man figure in a situation where he finds himself in a physical fight as well as in a psychological struggle, as he is attempting to resist to the attack and preserve power over his body, but ultimately he fails and the woman gains complete control over him. (Harrison 187) The scene continues as follows:
As I reached down to try to yank her off by the hair, she clutched my
balls again and squeezed them without pity. Her teeth scissored
midpoint on my penis as if to slice me in two. I screamed, let go of her
hair, fell back. Her head bobbed remorselessly. I was certain the
sucking could be heard all over the roominghouse.
28
"NO!" I yelled.
She persisted with inhuman fury. I began to come. It was like sucking
the insides out of a trapped snake. Her fury was mixed with madness;
she sucked at that sperm, gurgling it into her throat.
She continued to bob and suck.
"Martha! Stop! It's over!"
She wouldn't. It was as if she had been turned into an enormous all-
devouring mouth. She continued to suck and bob. She went on, on.
"NO!" I yelled again... This time she got it like a vanilla malt through a
straw.
I collapsed. (Bukowski 22)
As one can observe, even though the protagonist tries to fight back, he is in the end fully overpowered by Martha’s merciless aggression which seems to culminate with every sign of Chinaski’s attempt to resist to her. This, furthermore, underlines his desperate situation and ultimately he is forced to physically submit to her, thus he pointlessly continues to attempt to stop her at least verbally by short exclamations. The significance of this scene in terms of the author’s representation of the main male figure can be observed in the notion that such depiction with the stress on weakness and vulnerability of the male protagonist appears to be in a strong contradiction with
Bukowski’s conventional portrayal of masculinity which is generally characteristic for its dominance. But nonetheless, the author in this scene in Factotum for the first time fully and most substantially reverses the traditional power relations between male and female characters by introducing the motif of victimization of the male protagonist. Bukowski then continues to further expand the theme of Chinaski’s frailty and sexual passivity in several other sections of the book.
29
Bukowski in Factotum emphasizes his alter-ego’s passive behavior and the lack of power predominately through his relationships or encounters with women, as for example in the previous scene with Martha. Another instance of depiction Chinaski’s vulnerability can be seen also shortly after he gets acquainted with Gertrude who does not actively use her aggressiveness to pacify Chinaski as in the case of Martha, but the protagonist experiences similar situation in terms of certain form of debilitating of the former dominant position of masculinity:
Whenever I went out into the hall of the roominghouse Gertrude seemed
to be standing there. She was perfect, pure maddening sex, and she knew
it, and she played on it, dripped it, and allowed you to suffer for it. It made
her happy. I didn't feel too bad either. She could easily have shut me out
and not even have allowed me to be warmed by a glimpse of it. (Bukowski
39)
In this passage Henry Chinaski openly recognizes the absence of his power and control over the opposite sex and his submissive position, even though it is not presented in a physical combat as during the attack of Martha, but it is rather emphasized in the form of mental torment of the protagonist who experiences the feeling of being sexually provoked by Gertrude along with inability to actually interact with her and achieve his sexual desires with her. In addition, Russell Harrison in the scene identifies undeniable notion of Chinaski’s masochistic tendencies which appears in the scene. Nevertheless, as mentioned previously, the notion of masochism is hinted also in the scene with Martha.
In this case it can be observed concretely when the protagonist says “She (…) allowed you suffer for it” and shortly declares he “didn’t feel too bad” about it which reveals his positive acceptance of this suffering. Useful for better understanding of the scene is also the definition of masochism provided by David Savran in Take It Like a Man: White
30
Masculinity, Masochism, and Contemporary American Culture: “According to [Richard von] Krafft-Ebing (And Freud after him), this “perversion” is fir and foremost a psychological disturbance that is characterized by its ability to transform humiliation, abuse, and pain into sexual pleasure.” (Savran 11) On the other hand, Chinaski’s suffering in the scene is not physical as in the previous one with Martha, but rather psychological due to the woman’s control over him. Yet the suffering does not arouse in Chinaski negative feelings and reluctance, as one might assume, but quite the contrary. The protagonist thus finds pleasure in the inner pain the woman “allows” him to experience.
In addition, by choosing twice the expression “to allow” with the woman being the agent of the verb, the dominant and submissive position of Gertrude and Chinaski is furthermore emphasized.
Chinaski then, still in the same scene, continues to describe the situation even further and there can be seen another indication of his inability to reclaim the control which leads to his feeling of powerlessness:
She moved forward. Bits of her were touching me. I simply couldn't
respond. There was a space between us. The distance was too great. I felt
as if she was talking to a person who had vanished, a person who was no
longer there, no longer alive. Her eyes seemed to look right through me. I
couldn't make a connection with her. I didn't feel shame for that, only
rather embarrassed, and helpless. (Bukowski 39)
Here the lack of active self-assertion and confidence of the protagonist is illustrated perhaps even more clearly. Chinaski finds it impossible to make a contact with Gertrude and recognizes certain form of a mental barrier which separates him from her and which he is unable to overcome. Moreover, there is a sense of incorporeality when Chinaski describes himself as physically non-existent during his encounters with Gertrude who
31 indifferently looks through him as if he was not even there. This furthermore signifies protagonist’s inability to interact with the female character and evokes the notion of
Chinaski’s inferior position in Gertrude’s presence. Ultimately he admits his powerlessness and helplessness which underlines the loss of some of the characteristics of the traditional concept masculinity and thus Chinaski’s identity starts to become reshaped and redefined.
Chinaski’s passivity and the notion of the protagonist’s certain unmanliness in the conventional sense is in Factotum illustrated not only at times of random encounters with various females, but also during his relationship with Jan, a woman the hero spends a significant amount of time with in the book. In the course of the relationship Chinaski states Jan’s have become accustomed to “four fucks a day” (Bukowski 81) apart from seeing him “poor and humble” (81). Nonetheless, once the protagonist acquires relatively stable employment and shortly after also starts to profit on horse races, his affection for
Jan gradually grows weaker and thus she decides to confront him about her frustration:
“You haven't made love to me in two weeks.”
“Love takes many forms. Mine has been more subtle.”
“You haven't fucked me for two weeks.” (82)
Jan, since she was used to regular and very frequent intercourse, 28 sexual acts a week according to the information provided by Chinaski, thus 56 in two weeks during which her partner failed or perhaps more likely refused to meet her demanding standards, resulting into her frustration, seems to in the conversational exchange attack or at least challenge the protagonist’s manhood by stressing her unsatisfied needs and placing the blame on him. Apart from the previous instances of Chinaski’s rather non-macho depiction the reader sees another example of undermining of the protagonist’s masculinity, this time in the sense of presenting his unsatisfactory performance as a lover
32 with decreased level of libido. But Chinaski’s problems to satisfy his partner was even introduced already in Post Office: “In bed I had something in front of me but I couldn't do anything with it. I whaled and I whaled and I whaled. Vi was very patient. I kept striving and banging but I'd had too much to drink.” (Bukowski 99) Those problems then become even more frequent in Women. In contrast, Chinaski is at several other times as well presented as a highly potent womanizer, for example in the scene when he has a sexual contact with multiple female characters in a row. Chinaski, his girlfriend Laura and two of her female friends Jerry and Grace are all at the time located on a boat which belongs to a millionaire Wilbur Oxnard whom the three women live with and are supported by him. Nonetheless during Wilbur’s absence, when Chinaski finds himself alone on the boat only with the women, Jerry climbs into the protagonist’s bed next to him get warm, whereupon they start to kiss and have sex, although rather secretly not to give rise to Laura’s suspicion. A similar scenario occurs very shortly after with also
Grace, despite her initial mild resistance, and in order to emphasize his confidence and manly power, Chinaski responds to her in a provocative and vulgar fashion: “’You rotten son of a bitch,’ said Grace, ‘you bastard, Laura's my friend.’ ‘I'm fucking you,’ I said,
‘feel that thing going in and out of your body, in and out, in and out.’” (Bukowski 59)
Grace then accuses Chinaski of raping her, but similarly as in the “rape” scene depicted in Post Office which was analyzed earlier, there is present a strong notion that none of the characters in fact do not consider the sexual act a rape, after all the reader can for instance observe that Grace refused Chinaski only verbally, but physically was inclined to the intercourse and did not try to stop the protagonist in any way. She even explicitly expresses feelings of pleasure and when Chinaski repeats to her over and over again that he is penetrating her, she says “Don't talk like that, you're making me hot” (59) which only encourages the protagonist to continue. Therefore although Chinaski is at times
33 presented as an incompetent lover who fails to satisfy his demanding girlfriend which in a sense undermines the image of his masculinity, he is also, on the contrary, depicted as a philanderer who is able to sexually dominate and devour women which contributes to notion of a strong macho protagonist who uses women as sexual objects without any emotional attachment.
Chinaski’s machoism and inclination to manifestation of his power is illustrated also in terms of his aggressive behavior towards women. In Factotum the protagonist sits in the evening in his apartment alone because his girlfriend left after one of the frequent arguments between them. However unlike during other instances of this kind, this time
Chinaski suddenly decides not to wait for her to come back, but to go out a look for her.
He finds her in one of the local bars and demonstrates his anger rather uncompromisingly:
“I walked up behind her, standing near her stool. ‘I tried to make a woman out of you but you'll never be anything but a god damned whore!’ I back-handed her and knocked her off her stool. She fell flat on the floor and screamed.” (Bukowski 83) Chinaski in the scene rather clearly demonstrates his dominance over Jan by hitting her in the face and despite the fact the incident occurs on a public face in front of the eyes of other drinking guests, none of the present people tries to interfere and defend Jan which partly contributes to the protagonist’s feeling of power and confidence. In addition, Russell
Harrison believes that Bukowski in the scene uses the motif of Jan’s presumed unfaithfulness as a means of placing Chinaski again into the position of a victim which then in a way serves to the purpose of certain justification of the protagonist’s attack.
(Harrison 193) Nonetheless, Bukowski’s jealousy was according to Barry Miles the source of domestic violence on women also in the writer’s private life (Miles 126) so it probably is not necessarily surprising that his alter-ego is possessive and aggressive towards females as well. The author therefore presents Chinaski with certain overly
34 masculine and macho characteristics, but the protagonist is at the same time shown as having a reason or motivation for his actions and violent behavior towards his girlfriend, thus resembling Bukowski’s acts of aggression in his personal relationships.
The motif of aggressiveness which is presented as a part of Chinaski’s nature and one of the defining elements of his masculinity evokes a notion of the protagonist’s inability to manifest any form of caring or sympathetic emotion towards the opposite sex, but Chinaski’s depiction in several passages of Post Office disproves such presumption.
As an example can be used the scene in which the protagonist’s girlfriend Betty is taken to a hospital after certain period of excessive drinking and when Chinaski is acquainted with the situation he subsequently rushes to find Betty in her room in order to ascertain the severity of her condition:
I touched her arm. “Betty!” Her eyes opened. They were beautiful
again. Bright calm blue. “I knew it would be you.” she said. Then she
closed her eyes. Her lips were parched. Yellow spittle had caked at the left
corner of her mouth. I took a cloth and washed it away. I cleaned her face,
hands and throat. I took another cloth and squeezed a bit of water on her
tongue. Then a little more. I wet her lips. I straightened her hair. I heard
the women laughing through the sheets that separated us. “Betty, Betty,
Betty. Please, I want you to drink some water, just a sip of water, not too
much, just a sip.” She didn't respond. I tried for ten minutes. Nothing. More
spittle formed at her mouth. I wiped it away. (Bukowski 89)
Here Bukowski presents to the reader rather unfamiliar, perhaps almost surprising image of the male protagonist whose traditional masculine characteristics such as inclination to visible demonstration of his power and dominance are replaced with those features that might be form a general conventional perspective associated rather with
35 femininity, as, for example, tenderness and sensitivity. Chinaski’s caring personality reveals itself when not only when the protagonist cleans Betty’s mouth, adjusts her hair or tries to keep her hydrated, but he also afterwards attempts to alert nurses about her serious condition. This then rather clearly and undeniably indicates that he is not able to perceive the opposite sex only as sexual objects to which he keeps emotional detachment, but that Chinaski himself, the strong macho figure, is harbors much deeper and sophisticated feelings towards women, although certainly not all of them, nevertheless in the case of Betty it seems to be true. At the same time it is important to emphasize that those feelings are revealed primarily because of the critical circumstances which are depicted in the scene and Chinaski thus would not have manifested the softer side of him otherwise. Nonetheless, it does not last very long. After all, the reader learns about that
Betty in fact died only when Bukowski writes, rather factually: “The funeral was to be at
10:30 a.m.” (Bukowski 90) Moreover, the author shows Chinaski’s grieve about her death as very minimal which might mean the protagonist hides his sadness and affection for his deceased partner from the outside world in order not to reveal his vulnerability and pain.
In addition, the character of Betty in reality is based on Jane Cooney Baker (who appears in Factotum as Laura), Bukowski’s actual first serious girlfriend who was also an important source of inspiration for the writer’s works (Sounes 38, 39) and the fact he harbored very strong feelings for her is supported also by the one of author’s letter addressed to John William Corrington in which Bukowski confesses about his pain of her loss (Miles 164). Moreover, to his suffering and deep feelings for Jane testifies for instance also the fact Bukowski dedicated to her poems “To Jane Cooney Baker, Died 1-
22-62” or “For Jane”. Therefore the protagonist is not portrayed accordingly to the writer’s personal life only in terms of his aggressiveness, but also in terms of his sensitivity and strong feelings for his girlfriend which are nonetheless not always evident.
36
The tenderness of his alter-ego Henry Chinaski is thus most certainly genuine and his grieving and pain after Betty’s death must have been substantial, but the author does not show this strongly hurt and mourning part of Chinaski’s personality in order not to weaken his masculine projection even more.
Chinaski briefly reveals the more loving, sensitive part of his personality also in another instance in Post Office. His later girlfriend Fay gets in the course of their relationship pregnant and gives birth to their daughter. The protagonist after seeing the baby visits the mother of his only child and takes care of her similarly as he had taken of
Betty earlier: “Fay had a spot of blood on the left side of her mouth and I took a wet cloth and wiped it off. Women were meant to suffer; no wonder they asked for constant declarations of love.” (Bukowski 128) Here the reader sees the recurring motif of
Chinaski’s gentle cleaning of the woman’s mouth which appeared also in Betty’s case and therefore the manifestation of the protagonist’s tenderness cannot be considered a mere unique matter, because it can be observed several times which indicates that it is one of the permanent constituent of Chinaski’s personality. But at the same time it is implicated that he tends to hide his tenderness towards women and reveal it only at some situations in which they are defenseless and vulnerable as for example Betty on her deathbed or Fay on her bed after giving birth to Chinaski’s daughter.
The portrayal of Henry Chinaski’s masculinity in Post Office and Factotum thus appears to be at times rather two-fold, predominately in terms of the protagonist’s treatment of women. On one side the reader sees characteristics of a violent, hyper- masculine figure whose aggressiveness towards women is demonstrated on number of different occasions, but at the same time the protagonist is shown as being capable of acts of sensitivity and tenderness which appears to contradict with Chinaski’s tendencies to manifest his masculine power and his macho presentation is thus in this sense partly
37 undermined, although it is still an important feature of his character. Bukowski also debilitates the traditional masculine characteristics of his protagonist by instances of depriving Chinaski of physical power and emphasizing his vulnerability which can be seen especially in Factotum where he for example becomes a target of female’s attack and thus from the former position of a dominant aggressor Chinaski finds himself in a position of a rather submissive victim.
38
Chapter 3
The present chapter discusses Bukowski’s portrayal of his alter-ego Henry Chinaski in the author’s third novel entitled Women in which the change in the depiction of the protagonist’s masculinity and debilitation of his machismo appears to be most significant and crucial in the context of the three analyzed novels. The title of the book might lead to one making a premature and incorrect presumption that the primary aspect the work is focused on are girlfriends and other female acquaintances of the male protagonist, but as
Russell Harrison mentions, it is ironically the male protagonist himself and ridiculing of his chauvinistic macho attitudes which the author is predominately concentrated on
(Harrison 198) and as Paul Clements points out, “the focus has shifted from workplace dramas to relationships with women and the emotional complexities which seem to show more sympathy, irony and self-criticism.” (Clements 84) Therefore in this sense the novel can be considered phallocentric as Bukowski’s previous works as well, but nevertheless, the relationships with various female characters are the most important theme of the book and thus their importance for the story is essential.
The previous chapter dealt, among other things, with the reader’s initial impression of
Henry Chinaski’s character in terms of his masculinity based on the protagonist’s depiction on the first page of the two analyzed novels in which can be observed certain indications of that Chinaski does not fully correspond with the traditional characteristics of a macho character, but in the case of Women these suggestions become rather more evident and valid as the debilitation of Chinaski’s masculinity is demonstrated noticeably clearly then before and it starts from the very beginning:
I was 50 years old and hadn't been to bed with a woman for four years. I
had no women friends. I looked at them as I passed them on the streets or
wherever I saw them, but I looked at them without yearning and with a
39
sense of futility. I masturbated regularly, but the idea of having a
relationship with a woman-- even on non-sexual terms--was beyond my
imagination. (Bukowski 1)
Bukowski, in the introduction to the novel, presents Chinaski in terms of his masculinity and relationships with women as a rather tragic, or perhaps tragicomic figure in comparison to the protagonist’s earlier portrayal. He has reached middle age and is deprived of his erstwhile youthful liveliness and explosive temperament, thus he gives the impression of what appears to be only a residue of his former self. To this notion then contributes not only the fact he confesses about the four year-long absence of any sexual partner which previously was not an issue, but the reader learns also of Chinaski’s assertiveness and self-confidence has descended to such a low level that he considers impossible to establish any king of contact with the opposite sex. Moreover, Paul
Clements believes that “Bukowski inverts the dominant role of male Casanova and conqueror, blurring the distinction between the dominance and submission” (Clements
85) which can be observed during his relationships with women thorough the novel. This seems to contradict with his image as it is depicted in the previous novels where he can be easily identified as a strong masculine figure with distinctive macho characteristics which are now absent.
Even though it might appear surprising based on the initial portrayal of Henry Chinaski in beginning of the novel, the protagonist throughout the story of the book experiences a considerable amount of sexual encounters with a number of different, however the most significant relationship in the book is the one with a sculptress Lydia Vance, whose character is based on Bukowski's second and last wife Linda King. The first time Chinaski meets her is when Lydia approaches him during an intermission on one of the protagonist's public reading, but his harsh and vulgar reaction drives her off: “'I'd like to
40 rip that fringe off your jacket--we could begin there!' Lydia walked off. It hadn't worked.
I never knew what to say to the ladies.” (Bukowski 2) The protagonist's rude reaction seems to correspond with Chinaski's portrayal in previous novels where he generally tends to present himself as a rather macho figure, but here his attempt to display those strong masculine characteristics failed and he is left ridiculed by Lydia's withdrawal.
Russell Harrison one the account of the scene writes that “At moments like these one gets the impression that Chinaski is acting accordingly to an image he has of how men are expected to act rather than how he actually feels.” (Harrison 198) Harrison's argument can be considered valid, nonetheless, it can be also added that Chinaski is not necessarily acting as he thinks men in general are expected to act, but he is acting rather as he thinks he himself is expected to act by his fans and admirers since he no longer makes a living by doing menial manual jobs as in previous novels, but he has started to become more successful in his literary career which now allows him not to work in factories, warehouses, etc. The reader thus sees an apparent indication that Chinaski, although he perhaps no longer fully identifies with the macho figure he represented years before, is influenced by the perception of him by the outer world and is willing to submit to the image he is expected to represent, regardless to his own perception of himself which might be different.
In spite of Lydia's initial lack of success to establish a certain connection between her and Chinaski, the two eventually become acquainted after she visits the protagonist in his apartment where Chinaski accepts Lydia's offer to serve her as a model for sculpting a bust. Harrison makes an interesting observation noting that although Chinaski during the first session aggressively grabs Lydia and repeatedly kisses her, thus acting accordingly to the way he presumes he is expected to act, one day he breaks this pattern and reveals
41
“a new and surprising vulnerability” (Harrison 199) which indicates the protagonist’s decision not to hide himself behind the arterial projection of his former machismo:
“Ooooh,” she said, “you've got on a new shirt!”
It was true. I had bought the shirt because I was thinking about her, about
seeing her. I knew that she knew that, and was making fun of me, yet I
didn't mind. (Bukowski 7)
The protagonist, probably for the first time, manifests his genuine affection towards the opposite gender which is not based solely on his sexual lust by altering his external appearance in order to appeal to Lydia in a more common fashion, instead of displaying the macho attitude he is generally associated with. One can also notice that throughout the novels Chinaski perceives women in a number of instances particularly as mere objects he can sexually exploit and thus satisfy his own compulsions which can be seen as a parallel between him and the protagonist in Henry Miller’s works, but as Kate Millett in her Sexual Politics points out, “Miller’s hunt is a primitive find, fuck and forget”
(Millett 296) which no longer applies to Chaniski’s portrayal during his relationship with
Lydia.
On the other hand, it is equally important to emphasize that the vulnerability of Henry
Chinaski which Harrison mentions is not in fact a concept which was for the first time introduced in Women, but can be seen also in the earlier novels as was demonstrated in the previous chapter. Nevertheless, unlike for instance in Factotum where Chinaski's vulnerability was presented predominately by the protagonist's lack of physical power and control, as for example in the scene with Martha when she attacks him and hurts him, here one gets the notion of Chinaski's vulnerability in a rather personal and emotional sense. Moreover, in this scene Chinaski reveals his vulnerability by himself, on his own initiative, whereas in the scene with Martha it was she who forcibly reveals it by
42 overpowering the protagonist. Lydia then recognizes Chinaski's attempt to appeal to her and addresses the fact he had bought a new piece of clothing which in the protagonist evokes a feeling of being ridiculed by her for the voluntary revealing of his emotional attachment to her and the aforementioned vulnerability. This again reflects the author’s own feelings towards her which are manifested in his letter addressed to Jack Micheldine cited by Clements:
I’m really in love with this sculptress, this Linda King, man, she writes
poetry too. When we split, I just go crazy. Fucking real deep down pain
agony, babe, all the coals burning, all the knives going in, more horrible
than any cancer death. (Clements 85)
The character of Henry Chinaski can be thus seen as more romantic and emotionally vulnerable in his relationships, but one of the features of the protagonist which is demonstrated in the previous novels is the jealousy and irritation with flirtatious behavior of his girlfriends. This characteristic of the protagonists was for instance illustrated in
Factotum in the passage when he sits in a bar with Gertrude and she starts to admire one of the guests:
"Isn't he handsome?"
"Who?"
“That soldier over there. He's sitting alone. He sits so straight. And he's
got all his medals on."
"Come on, let's get out of here." (Bukowski 41)
After this Chinaski immediately storms out of the bar in anger, not responding to
Gertrude’s confused questions. A similar situation occurs also in Women, of course what distinctly differs is the protagonist’s reaction. In the scene Chinaski and Lydia, already some time in a relationship, are visiting the Venice beach where they have a picnic on a
43
“knoll of grass that overlooked the sea“. (Bukowski 15) The setting itself evokes a rather romantic atmosphere which is for Bukowski’s writing not very usual. After they eat
Chinaski goes and buys two candy bars for Lydia “so that she might have a choice” (15) which one of them she prefers. However upon his return from the store back to Lydia, they take notice of a young and tall shirtless African-American with “a very muscular body” who “appeared to be in his early twenties” (15) which precedes the following exchange between Chinaski and Lydia:
“Did you see that guy?” she asked.
“Yes.”
“Jesus Christ, here I am with you, you're twenty years older than I am.
I could have something like that. What the hell's wrong with me?”
“Look. Here are a couple of candy bars. Take one.”
She took one, ripped the paper off, took a bite and watched the young
black man as he walked away along the shore.” (15)
Here the protagonist's attributes connected with his masculinity and attractiveness are questioned by Lydia who regards to Chinaski almost as if he was the complete opposite of her image of what a male should look like, in other words Chinaski is challenged by her idealized picture of an attractive masculine figure which he is unable to compete with.
However unlike in the scene with Gertrude and the soldier in the bar, this time Chinaski's behavior indicates his egoism and jealousy were reduced and that he is actually submitting to the fact his strengths as a competitor for a woman's favor are among other masculine rivals considerably limited. Harrison likewise highlights the difference in Chinaski's reaction between the two scenes and stresses that “the male is no longer imprisoned in stereotypes and stock reactions but is revealed as vulnerable at times and, at other times, as downright unattractive”, adding that the protagonist “has become quite different from
44
“power isolated in its own potency, without relationship or compromise with the outside world,” as Paz described the macho”. (Harrison 202) One can thus see that Bukowski in the novel starts to undermine and ridicule the traditional masculine characteristics of his alter-ego more visibly than before on a number of different levels and even though the protagonist's former portrayal could be considered at least partly fitting to Paz's definition,
Chinaski's depiction in Women seems to contradict this conception. Moreover, Chinaski's lack of action in the scene can remind one the protagonist's passivity discussed in the previous chapter. Kate Millett states that “In general, Freud defines and identifies the masculine with activity, the feminine with passivity” (Millett 190) and thus from this
Freudian perspective Chinaski's behavior could be considered non-masculine since he does not evince any action to Lydia's crude remarks as he did in Factotum and stays rather passive and avoids conflict.
Chinaski, although he still at times behaves as he thinks he is expected to as was discussed earlier, in the following passage denies the genuineness of those instances when he presents himself as a macho which implies he does not consider himself being one and that he rather tends to create the illusion of being one:
“Hank, don't forget what you told me about your women.”
“Told you what?”
You said, “They always come back.”
“That's just macho talk.” (Bukowski 92)
The protagonist in this phone call with one of his girlfriends after he breaks up with
Lydia implicitly admits the delusion behind which he hides his true self which in fact does not correspond with the conception of macho he is desperately trying to display, even though it is not genuine. In this sense Chinaski suddenly gives the impression of a noticeably less powerful and more vulnerable character who, as was shown, is capable of
45 harboring deeper feelings towards the opposite sex, but generally does not explicitly manifest them in order to preserve the former image of a figure with a set of distinctive masculine features and attitudes, but in reality, as Howard Sounes mentions, Henry
Chinaski in Women no longer resembles the typically manly figure he was used to associated with, since in the novel he is numerously ridiculed by the younger women or depicted as impotent due to his heavy drinking. (Sounes 206) Russell Harrison believes that by portraying Chinaski in this rather unconventional manner within what he refers to as the “chauvinist tradition”, the author “has begun to deconstruct that tradition as we have come to associate it with Hemingway, Miller and Mailer.” (Harrison 203) Therefore
Bukowski’s third novel does not support the traditional masculine portrayal, but rather it undermines and ridicules it as was also shown in the analyzed passages.
The undermining of those conventional characteristics continues throughout the whole book. In it, Chinaski's character is not presented in a new light only in terms of his emotional vulnerability or substantially egoistic and jealous behavior, but his image of a self-interested lover who sexually devours women is noticeably altered as well. Even though Bukowski presents this motif even in his first novel Post Office and is indicated also in Factotum, it is not until the third novel when the theme becomes more significant and developed to greater details which contributes to the overall notion of the continual undermining of the protagonist's traditional masculine characteristics. As hinted earlier,
Chinaski’s libido and ability to perform as a lover is frequently crippled by his alcoholism which is reflected in the text on numerous occasions. The following passages from
Women demonstrate Chinaski’s description of his sexual intercourse he engages to with different women which arouses an idea of an arduous, exhausting activity, rather than moments of pleasure:
46
I began to sweat. My back ached. I was dizzy, sick. Her pussy seemed to
get larger. I couldn't feel anything. It was like trying to fuck a large, loose
paper bag. I was just barely touching the sides of her cunt. It was agony, it
was relentless work without a reward. I felt damned. I didn't want to hurt
her feelings. I desperately wanted to come. It wasn't just the drinking. I
performed better than most when drinking. I heard my heart. I felt my
heart. I felt it in my chest. I felt it in my throat. I felt it in my head. I couldn't
bear it. I rolled off with a gasp. (77)
I pumped on and on. Five minutes. Ten minutes more. I couldn't come. I
began to fail, I was getting soft. Mercedes got worried. "Make it!" she
demanded. "Oh, make it, baby!" That didn't help at all. I rolled off. (160)
We got into bed and I mounted her. Without foreplay it was much more
difficult but I finally got it in. I began to work. I worked and I worked. It
was another hot night. It was like a recurring bad dream. I began sweating.
I humped and I pumped. It wouldn't go down, it wouldn't come off. I
pumped and I humped. Finally I rolled off. "Sorry, baby, too much to
drink. (226)
Here the description of sex at times when then protagonist says “I began to sweat”,
(77) “My back ached”, (77) “I pumped on and on”, (160) “I began to fail”, (160) “I worked and I worked” (226) or “It was like a recurring bad dream” (226) does not even remind one of intercourse, but evokes rather a notion of hard labor and thus seems similar to Chinaski’s description of his weariness caused by his job as a postal clerk in Post Office where he describes his exhaustion by saying for instance “I ached all over” (Bukowski
47
52) or “Every muscle in my body ached” (64). On the other hand, the novel offers also a number of instances where sex is depicted quite differently with the emphasis on more pleasant feelings than in these passages above. Nonetheless, as the reader can see,
Chinaski’s excessive drinking multiple times interfered with his intimate life and this recurring motif of an unsatisfactory lover in terms of his sexual performance furthermore contributes to the repeated ridiculing and undermining the masculine characteristics of the protagonist. Furthermore, Harrison emphasizes that sex (which is often portrayed as
“unmacho”) is also frequently shown as a result of the woman’s initiative, whereas
Chinaski (whose libido is at times reduced) tries to purposefully avoid this partnership obligation and Bukowski’s unconventional treatment of the masculine figure means that, in the novel, “The male has been problematized as the protagonists of Lawrence, Miller and Hemingway had not been.” (Harrison 210) This therefore even more adds to the notion of Bukowski’s withdrawal from the traditional way of portraying the male protagonist and undermining these traditional characteristics.
Despite the fact that Chinaski in Women is still depicted as a womanizing character, he displays the lack of the emotional detachment and indifference towards his female partners in a way which appears rather surprising based on the protagonist’s depiction in the previous novels. In other words he tends to reveal his emotions and vulnerability during the interaction with women more than ever before and by the end of the book those instances are not any more subtle, but they become more explicit and open. It becomes most evident when during the course of the story Chinaski arranges a Thanksgiving dinner with two different women, Iris and Debra, at the same time even though he knows he cannot attend both of them and thus has to eventually choose which woman he will choose over the other. Once he chooses Iris, his conscience forces him to tell the truth to
48
Debra and suddenly the reader is presented an image of Chinaski as he was never shown before:
I walked up to her and put my arms around her. I started to tremble and
cry.
“Hank, what's wrong?”
Debra dropped the bag of groceries to the floor. Our dinner. I grabbed her
and held her to me. I was sobbing. The tears flowed like wine. I couldn't
stop. Most of me meant it, the other part was running away.
“Hank, what is it?”
“I can't be with you Thanksgiving.”
“Why? Why? What's wrong?”
“What's wrong is that I am a GIANT HUNK OF SHIT!”
My guilt screwed inside me and I had a spasm. It hurt something awful.
“A belly dancer is flying down from Canada to spend Thanksgiving with
me.”
“A belly dancer?”
“Yes.”
“Is she beautiful?”
“Yes, she is. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. . . .”
Debra pushed me off.” (Bukowski 250)
Bukowski in this instance presents probably the most unmacho portrayal of his alter- ego which can be in the three novels found. Chinaski’s helplessness, inner suffering as well as self-reproaching is apparent when he says “I was sobbing”, “I couldn’t stop” or
“My guilt screwed inside me and I had a spasm”. At the same time he also states that
“Most of me meant it, the other part was running away” which evokes a notion of
49
Chinaski recognizing certain cowardice in himself, a rather unmanly feature. The residues of the protagonist’s strength and dominance which could be observed in the author’s earlier works now completely evaporates and from a women-beating, insensitive chauvinist in the end becomes a trebling, crying and pitiful figure. Even though this transition might appear shocking at the first glance, if one takes into a consideration the gradual undermining of those masculine features in the novels discussed in the present and the previous chapters, this consequent depiction of deconstructed Henry Chinaski is perhaps a logical conclusion.
Altogether, Charles Bukowski’s overall depiction of the protagonist Henry Chinaski in Women is in comparison to the previous novels distinctly different. His traditional macho features such as dominance, power and control over the opposite gender or emotional detachment from the relationships with women are frequently and considerably undermined by the author’s unconventional treatment of the protagonist. It can be observed for example in terms of Chinaski’s unsuccessful attempts to be perceived by his former image which of course consequently fails and thus indicates this self-presentation as macho is not genuine and does not correspond with the protagonist’s actual feelings.
Bukowski also undermines Chinaski’s masculine characteristics in terms of his sexual life where can be seen a recurring motif of an incompetent lover who is unable (or unwilling) to perform adequately. And, last but not least, Chinaski’s masculinity appears to be the most significantly undermined in terms of his emotional vulnerability. His chauvinistic nature seems to be ridiculed and the protagonist’s character gives the impression of certain maturity when he becomes emotionally invested in the relationships, primarily the one with Lydia who he no does not perceive as a sexualized object, but as someone he is bonded with on a deeper level.
50
Conclusion
The present work discusses the evolution and development in terms the portrayal of masculinity which can be observed in the novels of Charles Bukowski. The content of
Bukowski’s works and his phallocentric style of writing (presenting the masculine point of view as principal) is generally criticized for being chauvinistic, hateful towards the opposite sex or for frequent displaying of the dominance and machismo attitudes of the male narrator, but such characteristics correspond predominately with Bukowski’s early works and are no longer very fitting for his later writing where can be seen a gradual undermining of the traditional image of a macho protagonist. Nonetheless, Bukowski’s writing was not unique in the sense of the phallocentric focus or presenting masculinity as dominant over femininity, since this features can be in fact found also in the case of other American writers of his time, for example Ernest Hemingway or Henry Miller and even the writing of some of the lead figures of the popular literary movement the Beat
Generation shared similar aspects with Bukowski’s works. However, Bukowski’s later writing started to evince signs of undermining and ridiculing of the chauvinistic and masculine conventions with which his works are commonly associated with.
The course of this change can be observed particularly in Bukowski’s novels written and published during the 1970s, namely Post Office (1971), Factotum (1975) and
Women (1978), thus during the period of the “second wave” of the American feminist movement. It is important to take this historical context into consideration, because it can be considered as one of the possible factors which influenced Bukowski’s writing and contributed his motivation to gradually alter the conventional image of masculinity and male and female relationships.
The portrayal of the male protagonist of the first two of the discussed novels (Post
Office and Factotum) named Henry Chinaski, Charles Bukowski’s alter ego, is twofold.
51
The main character is in the books primarily presented as a member of the working-class environment and Chinaski’s masculinity is rather stereotypically depicted accordingly to his socioeconomic status, thus he is shown as a chauvinistic and womanizing heavy drinker with inclinations to aggressive behavior towards women and tendencies to manifest his power and dominance over them. However, Chinaski is at the same time also shown on certain occasions as powerless, passive and rather submissive or vulnerable during his encounters with females and, in addition, the reader is briefly presented also his sensitivity and tenderness as well which considerably contrasts with the character’s traditional macho characteristics. Therefore in spite of the fact that the author Charles
Bukowski depicts the protagonist Henry Chinaski in both Post Office and Factotum as a rather macho working-class laborer, there can be also observed a number of instances of noticeable undermining of the conventional masculine attributes.
The third of the discussed novels Women represents the most significant change in the author’s depiction of masculinity. Unlike in the previous novels, the protagonist
Henry Chinaski no longer makes a living as a laborer, but is presented as relatively successful in his literary career. Chinaski, knowing he is perceived by his readers on the basis of his former macho image, at times still attempts to act accordingly to their expectations, but since this self-projection is not genuine, his overly masculine behavior is subsequently ridiculed. The traditional macho features of masculine character, which include dominance, power and control over the opposite sex as well as a certain emotional distance from the relationships he engages in, are thus substantially undermined by the ironical and unconventional way Bukowski treats the male protagonist. Apart from the aforementioned Chinaski’s failed attempts to act accordingly to his former image as he is expected to, the author’s deconstruction of the traditional portrayal of masculinity can be observed for example in terms of the protagonist’s furthermore emphasized passivity,
52 several instances of unsatisfying and poor sexual performance, lack of power or vulnerability which is not to be understood necessarily in the physical sense as in the case of the previous novels, but rather in the sense of emotional sense. For example, Chinaski creates a deeper bond with some of the female characters and tends to reveal or admit his affection for them, especially regarding the character of Lydia. This indicates the character’s more mature perception of relationships in comparison to Bukowski’s earlier works. Moreover, Bukowski presents his alter-ego Henry Chinaski also in a situation in which he starts openly crying and sobbing directly in front of his girlfriend to whom he repeatedly apologizes for his insincerity which can be considered as one of the most notable instances of the author’s debilitation of the macho characteristics of the male protagonist who is thus presented in possibly the least manly situation one can think of.
In conclusion, even though Charles Bukowski’s depiction of women and femininity is often unflattering and demeaning, the author’s portrayal of men and masculinity is frequently negative as well. Russell Harrison writes that “there are few characters generally, male or female, with whom an intelligent reader, male or female, can identify” (Harrison 214) and also notes Bukowski’s remark to the actor Sean Penn:
“Sure I make look women look bad, but I make men look bad too. I make myself look bad.” (214) This can be best observed on the example of Bukowski’s alter-ego Henry
Chinaski whose traditional masculine features are being in the author’s novels gradually ridiculed, debilitated and undermined which culminates in the author’s novel Women which can be ultimately understood as Bukowski’s method and way of criticism of the traditional macho image according to which he used to present himself in the past. As
Barry Miles mentions in the introduction to the novel, Bukowski in Women “treats the traditional American male view of women and sex with irony, but it wasn’t enough to prevent the book from being criticized by feminists and also by many of the women who
53 are portrayed within it” (Miles ix). However, when the author finished the book, he wrote
(anticipating the critique) to one of his friends A.D. Winans the following: “I may get killed on this one. It’s written as some type of high-low comedy and I look worse than anybody but they’re only going to think about how I painted them.” (ix) Therefore in this sense, Bukowski’s alter-ego is to be perceived as the author’s means of deconstructing and criticizing the traditional masculine attitudes, behavior and views of the opposite sex and relationships.
54
Works Cited
Primary sources
Bukowski, Charles. Factotum. New York: Virgin Books, 2009. Print.
---. Post Office. New York: Virgin Books, 2009. Print.
---. Women. New York: Virgin Books, 2009. Print.
Secondary sources
Arciniega, G.M., Anderson, T.C., Tovar-Blank, Z.G., Tracey, J.G. “Toward a Fuller
Conception of Machismo: Development of a Traditional Machismo and
Caballerismo Scale.” Journal of Counseling Psychology. Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 19-
33. National Domestic and Sexual Violence. Web. 3 March 2016.
Bukowski, Charles. Tvrdí Hoši Píšou Básně. Trans. Dušan Krejčí. Olomouc: Votabia,
1996. Print.
Bukowski: Born Into This. Dir. John Dullaghan. Perf. Charles Bukowski, Bono, Taylor
Hackford, Sean Penn, Barbet Schroeder, Tom Waits, Harry Dean Staton, Mickey
Rourke. 2002. DVD.
Burroughs, William. “Women: A Biological Mistake?” Playgirl. March 1978. Print.
Christy, Jim. Buk Book: Och Charles Bukowski. Trans. Ladislav Šenkyřík. Praha:
Pragma, 2004. Print.
Clements, Paul. Charles Bukowski, Outsider literature, and the Beat Movement. New
York: Routledge, 2013. Print.
Duval, Jean-Francois. Bukowski a Beatnici. Transl. Petra Kudrnáčová. Praha: Pragma,
2002. Print.
Gair, Christopher. The American Counterculture. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University,
2007. Print.
55
Greg Hobbs. “William Burroughs on NBC 1997.” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube,
2 August 2012. Web 27 February 2016
Harrison, Russell. Against the American Dream: Essays on Charles Bukowski. Santa
Rosa: Black Sparrow, 1994. Print.
Huffzky, Karin. “Big Daddy Is Watching You.” Literatur Konkret. Fall 1979. Print.
Kimmel, Michael, and Aronson, Amy. Men Masculinities: A Social, Cultural, and
Historical Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2003. Print.
Locklin, Gerald. Notes on Bukowski and Hemingway. 2005. GESSESHAFT. Web. 3
March 2016
Locklin, Gerald. Charles Bukowski: Zaručený tip. Trans. Dušan Krejčí. Olomouc:
Votobia, 1996. Print.
“machismo.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster. Web. 29 April 2016.
Malone, Aubrey. The Hunchback of East Hollywood. Manchester: Headpress, 2003.
Print.
Miles, Barry. Charles Bukowski. Trans. Ladislav Šenkeřík. Praha: Volvox Globator,
2008. Print.
---. Introduction. Women. By Charles Bukowski. New York: Virgin Books, 2009. ix.
Print.
Millett, Kate. Sexual Politics. Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1970. Print.
“misogyny.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster. Web. 29 April 2016.
Paz, Octavio. The Labyrinth of Solitude. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1985. Print.
“phallocentric.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster. Web. 29 April 2016.
Savran, David. Take It Like a Man: White Masculinity, Masochism, and Contemporary
American Culture. Princeton: Princeton University, 1998. Print.
56
Sounes, Howard. Bláznivý život Charlese Bukowského. Trans. Robert Hýsek, Jana
Mišáková. Praha: Pragma, 1999. Print.
William S Burroughs: A Man Within. Dir. Yony Leyser. Perf. Fred Aldrich, Laurie
Anderson, Amiri Baraka. 2010. DVD.
57
English Résumé
The present work deals with the portrayal of masculinity in the novels of Charles
Bukowski written in the 1970s, namely Post Office, Factotum and Women, and its primary purpose is to present the evolution and development of the main protagonist
Henry Chinaski in terms of his traditionally male characteristics which he gradually loses.
The author, who had been generally associated with the manifestation of chauvinistic and macho attitudes in his early works, appears to undermine and implicitly critique those features in the discussed novels written during the “second wave” of the American feminist movement by depriving the male protagonist of his former power and control over the opposite sex or by emphasizing his physical as well as emotional vulnerability, particularly during his encounters and interaction with women.
58
Czech Résumé
Tato práce se zabývá vyobrazením maskulinity v románem Charlese Bukowského napsaných v 70. letech 20. století, jmenovitě Poštovní Úřad, Faktótum a Ženy, přičemž jejím primárním cílem je popsat evoluci a vývoj hlavního protagonisty jménem Henry
Chinaski z hlediska tradičních mužských charakteristik, které se z jeho postavy postupně vytrácí. Autor knih, jenž byl obecně spojován s projevy šovinismu a machoismu ve svých ranných dílech, tyto prvky v rozebíraných románech napsaných během druhé vlny feminismu oslabuje a implicitně kritizuje prostřednictvím postupného zbavování hlavního protagonisty jeho dřívější síly a kontroly nad opačným pohlavím nebo také pomocí zdůrazňování jeho tělesné i citové zranitelnosti, zejméně během střetů a interakce se ženami.
59