Database updated (1 Viewer)

Johannes

Founding member
This is great.

The new manuscripts and the red dots! I always wondered about which ones where published and which ones were not.

Thanks a lot!
 

mjp

Founding member
weird. I can't see the red dot with Chrome...
I tested in Chrome (7.0.517.44), Firefox and IE when I made the changes and they all showed everything okay. They show up for me right now in Chrome. They're just html, the dots. They aren't images or anything. So, I'm not sure what the problem might be there. We'll see if anyone else is missing the red dots. You can see the black ones, yeah?

And I'll check the code, but it's hard to troubleshoot since they show up for me.
 

reasonknot

Founding member
I get green no.s', red dots,black dots,and blue signatures.Are the red dots published and was blue his hand writting preference.I guess i can check the latter for myself.It's all right there.Fun stuff this out dated software,funstuff.
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Reaper Crew
Moderator
Founding member
I tested in Chrome (7.0.517.44)... You can see the black ones, yeah?...

that's the version I have, just checked. I can see the black dots. but if it's just me, I'll live. I'll just switch browsers. no worries.
 
Absolutely cool, thanks a lot for the hard work. Just touched the tip of the iceberg, but had a great read in the undated manuscripts already. No problems with dots here, the pink butterflies I see are my problem.
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Reaper Crew
Moderator
Founding member
this is what I see with Chrome:

chromebuk.png


odd that the red dot in the explanation is visible, but doesn't show up next to the uncollected poems.
 

mjp

Founding member
Oh, they're all black. Well that's a hint, anyway. Let me check the CSS and see if there's anything in those boxes that prevents the color markup from being displayed.

I have to say though, it's a bug in that version of the browser (I assume you are on a Mac?), because it works in a strictly standards-compliant browser like Opera.
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Reaper Crew
Moderator
Founding member
pc.

checked Opera, Safari, IE. the red dot shows up on all those.

but don't spend any time on this if it's just a bug in my browser (as it seems to be). I just thought it was strange. Chrome is the browser I generally use, but Opera is pretty similar, so I can switch.
 

hank solo

Just practicin' steps and keepin' outta the fights
Reaper Crew
Moderator
Founding member
I guessed you were on a mac too hooch.

I have Chrome 7.0.517.44, (not sure how up-to-date that version is) and I get red and black dots... Win 7 64x. Perhaps mjp just fixed it?



edit: - just noticed - chrome says its up to date...
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Reaper Crew
Moderator
Founding member
works now!

I hit refresh and the red dots appeared. so either mjp did something, or I had to refresh the page. which would be typical for me....
 

mjp

Founding member
I didn't do anything but think about it. But now it makes sense; the black dots were cached in the browser and when you refreshed the new ones showed up. That was an easy fix. Ha.
 

Black Swan

Abord the Yorikke!
Thank you for everything you're doing. Being able to read all these poems and letters in that order is really appreciated!
 

mjp

Founding member
No need to thank me. There's a lot of insight to be gained from those things. At least there is as I add them, because I have to look them up to see if the title is already in the database, etc., and while I'm doing all that I get a more comprehensive picture of where the poems ended up (e.g., many of the '72, '73 poems are in What Matters Most, things like that), and a feel for the period. 1973, where I am now, is a good year to work on because Bukowski moved in with Linda for 6 months, then to a depressing apartment for a short time, and that transition is right there in the poems. I guess what I'm saying is doing this forces me to spend more time with each manuscript than I do when just reading through them, so it's a good thing, not a chore.

The only drag is that when I add a manuscript that has been collected I usually end up reading the collected version along with the manuscript, and more and more often that just depresses me.
 
Saw a thread in the forum archive discussing John Martin's heavy editorial hand (how he made changes to the original text of WOMEN, for example, which pissed Bukowski off to the extent that Martin had to change the words back after the first printing, etc.)

Are the Martin editorial changes just as severe in the poems? I mean, how far away from Bukowski's original intention did he go? Enough to warrant new editions?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Reaper Crew
Moderator
Founding member
man, that's fantastic.

here's why we're lucky that a cranky old punk runs this site:

1. he loves Bukowski, but realizes that flat out hero worship is shortsighted,

2. he knows his way around the interwebs and the dots and dashes and his binary whatnot,

3. he's a control freak, and

4. he has a great aesthetic sense (yes, I know that sounds gay, but it's true. admit it.)

good stuff.
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Reaper Crew
Moderator
Founding member
I meant that in the best possible way, of course. like the way you won't let me leave the house without my face done. you do it because you want the best for me.

seriously, if you weren't a control freak (as I am in the things I have a clue about, which are few) this place would just be an ok website/forum. your obsessive nature makes it stand out. heh.

neurosis is good. embrace it.
 

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
I see the handwritten ms for THIS NIGHT (originally called WALL PAPER). Very cool. Any reason anyone can think of for the numbers above each word? It is counting the letters, of course, but not sure why. It would not be for typesetting, or I cannot see any reason to do that for typesetting as it will noto help you space anything as an i takes up much less space than an m. The only time that they are exact is if using a typewriter font which is probably too retro to be done in 1963. Also, the numbers very much seem to be in Bukowski's handwriting.

At the time he was in writing groups with FrancEyE, right. If so, could this be some kind of poetic exercise?

(maybe this should be its own thread?) Sorry, mods...

poem1963-09-23-wallpaper.jpg
 

mjp

Founding member
Good question. He was corresponding with Sheri Martinelli at the time, and she was into hocus pocus bullshit like astrology and numerology...maybe it had something to do with that. I've never seen it elsewhere.
 

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
Maybe he was trying to make some kinda systematic poem using words with a specific number of letters in them?
I think we need an expert in codes to decipher it. :p
 

ROC

It is what it is
Of course it would.

What would the word 'two' be?

There are 255 letters in that poem. And we all know what that means, right?
 

mjp

Founding member
Added manuscripts for 1979. All pre-1980 manuscripts that I have are on the site now.

879 unedited files left to process and add (509 different poems). So the total, when it's all said and done (someday), will be 1,407 manuscripts available on the site. About a third of the titles in the database.
 

mjp

Founding member
Yep. an ancient love in The People Look Like Flowers At Last - pg. 120.

And the story told as a boy in panties from Betting on the Muse - pg. 35
 

mjp

Founding member
Of the nine poems, four have longer titles than what the database indicates.

what do you write -- database
what do you write on a machine -- nyq 37

do you think hemingway -- database
do you think hemingway or celine would act like this? -- nyq 37

the privatization -- database
the privatization of the parts -- nyq 37

i think of snails -- database
i think of snails crawling toward the twilight.... -- nyq 37
Oh, and I fixed these. You know, four months after you gave me the info.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top