Interesting one. He acknowledges having written a few poems during the supposed 10-year drunk. Even if he didn't keep track of his poems -notice how he praises Martin's editing job- he does remember he wrote those 4-7 poems. Pretty good memory, I should say, especially if we take into account he's writing this letter almost 40 years later.
Sorry fellers, but wow, some of you are sure hard sells. You refuse to believe that he wasn't a full-time
writer before the age of 35 because of a handful of poems he admits to have written before then, and then there's the implication that, because of these few poems of exception, the 10 year period that he talks about, of mostly literary inactivity, dispels a personal "myth" of some kind or his memory is faulty and he may have written a great deal more as part of some kind of deliberate deception on his part. And in his letter to Martin, he anticipates this criticism, and yet you let yourself fall right into the trap.
I don't buy it; I believe that he meant what he said, even if he didn't measure this 10 year period down to the month, week or day. Regardless of whatever activities he may have been engaged in"”his moves, jobs, drunks, fights, whores, or the rare poem or story"”he was not ready to be a full-time writer...he was not ready to be a full-time writer...he was not.... I believe that that simple message was all he was trying to say "repeatedly say on different occasions" but there are still those who find him impossible to believe, and this is supposed to bring everyone closer to the reality of his life. Bukowsk has talked about these exceptions within this 10 year period himself, and I don't view that as being any type of a deception whatsoever. . . . Poptop