I guess if you want to derail an effort to establish some sort of cultural landmark, tossing out accusations that the person who is being recognized with said landmark was a Nazi might work. However, I have a feeling that this has more to do with the millions of bucks the owner of the property stands to lose than anything else. Either way, Bukowski historic home preservation may be in deep doo doo:
Whether the commission believes the charges may be immaterial — it’s how much grief its members are willing to put up with. The bungalow’s owner, Victoria Gureyeva, says she and her lawyer have no plans to ever allow a cultural monument to Charles Bukowski on her property.
“This man loved Hitler,” she insists, citing Pleasants’ writing. “He may be a great writer — I’m not a critic. But that’s what libraries are for. This is my house, not Bukowski’s. I will never allow the city of Los Angeles to turn it into a monument for this man. My grandfather was a Holocaust survivor. I’ll bring the whole Jewish Westside into this debate if I have to. Then what will the city of Los Angeles do?”
As for Bukowski’s own Jewish roots: “He never acknowledged his Jewish side,” Gureyeva argues. “The rumor is that Hitler’s mother was part Jewish. Now we have Bukowski — Hitler number two.”
Saying nothing of his womanizing, belligerence and alcoholism. I wonder what the old man would have thought?
Posted by: Varg | November 29, 2007 at 04:00 PM