Database updated (2 Viewers)

It's in there...

But I don't really understand the Earth Rose post. You show what I assume is an inside page with True story, then a separate True story page?

The pictures that show the cover are folded twice, the pic that shows the inside is folded three times...maybe I'm an idiot, but I don't know what I'm looking at.
The database doesn't match the pictures from Pogue Mahone (page 7 of the thread), and there is one Earth (Rose), no2 to sell on ebay which show the same, only 2 poems from Bukowski in that paper: freedom and True story.
The database doesn't match the pictures from Pogue Mahone
You show what I assume is an inside page with True story, then a separate True story page?

The pictures that show the cover are folded twice, the pic that shows the inside is folded three times...
ok, I'll solve this riddle.

- Poque didn't show a seperate (additional) True-Story page, but a close up of the same (for reading-convenience, I guess).

- The folding-lines appear to be correct and matching, when you put every bit in its right place. Like so:


I can't remember having ever heared of a 2nd issue of that, so I'd assume, those two database-entries of a mag called "Earth" refer to a different publication. But am too lazy now to look it up in Krumhansl, Fogel, Sounes or anywhere.

The point about its folding-lines is, this sucker is so huge, I even can barely cover the whole thing in a selfie (very old cellphone with mediocre camera-lens):


it IS in the database, but not in the "magazine"-section. Don't know where.
Last edited:
I didn't know where to post this, so I'll try here.

The database has been down for a couple of days.

I'm not bitching or pleading for someone to fix it right away, just hoping the appropriate person sees this.
Not only the database!
Have just realized: The WHOLE treasure-trove's gone. And the "Bye!"message seems to make it clear that it was on purpose.
[see screenshot]
I'm troubled. Have I come just back, only to witness the next loss? And what's the story behind?

I offered to host the entire site but Hannah wanted to keep

I haven't received a word about this most recent development. If anyone's in touch with Hannah let them know I'll still host, if they like.

In a pinch we could probably recover the static pages like the timeline from and other sources, but the database is unrecoverable unless someone has a local copy.
Last edited:
Rebuilding the database would be a lot of work. I can easily provide the platform, but the content would require sweat that I can't provide.

Last edited:
I'm not sure if it's an issue of rebuilding or rehosting, but it seems clear that Hannah has no intention of paying to continue the DB. I can't complain about that, as it's a burden that she needn't bear, but I'd be sad to see it just go away. I hope that it's just a matter of transferring the cost of a still-existing structure and not a matter of rebuilding the entire thing, as that's not likely feasible.

And it's not just the DB, it's the whole main page. This forum is all that's left. I suspect that Trevor's involvement is the reason why this is still here.

I no longer do paypal for reasons explained somewhere here long ago, but I'd chip in some way to make it happen.
The Timeline is gone too. Hopefully these parts of the site other than the Forum can be restored. Clicking on the link in Trevor's 12:50 post above I see it has the missing parts in the Wayback machine.
I spoke with Hannah, they're not interested in restoring, so we're on our own.

If anyone has a copy of the database that's more recent than 2009, please contact me.
On 10/28/2020, I did a copy/paste of the Timeline into a Word document. It may not be an ideal format, but you could probably use that to restore the Timeline.
Thank you rekrab, we have the timeline here as well unless you notice something missing:

Another bit of good news: Thanks to the "lists" feature Hannah made, the database's content is nearly intact on the same site. Does anyone see anything major missing from here?

Also helpful, the database prior to 2022 includes scans and notes from the forums. After 2022, Hannah appears to have removed any links or mentions of these forums. Example,

Here's "Eleven" from Wormwood Review

2021: is slow and not fun to browse. To speed up your browsing you can pay for a local copy here, or grab it for free with this tool. If there's interest in a works database AND people willing to fill it out, then I'll start one in a collaborative format - either a wiki, media add-on for the forum, or a custom solution. I'll make a thread with some examples and we can vote on it.
Last edited:
We've all known Hanna for a long time. We've fought like siblings over the years, but always got back in the car and shared the back seat again until the next rest area.

I personally don't think it's in her nature to send the database into oblivion. Not only did she spend countless hours making it what it is, but many other people contributed to what it is.

Believe it or not, about six weeks ago I mentioned to Skiroom my fear about something happening to the database and prayed it was backed up somewhere. If Hanna looks at the traffic, she knows exactly how often I used it in the past, and how much more I've been using it for the past 3 months to catalog my collection. Perhaps I should have personally offered more gratitude for it being around.

In talking about my fear, I told Skiroom I thought the database belonged in the god damn Library of Congress -- that's how historically significant I believe it is.

I sure as hell don't believe Jesus will be back anytime soon, but I have faith the database will return from the heavens.
@Pogue Mahone Athbheoim I believe the majority (if not the entirety) of the database's content can be found in the "lists" here:

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

email correspondence with Hannah this morning,

Hannah said:
Thanks, but no.

Trevor said:
Do you have a copy of the database you'd be willing to share? I'd like to resurrect it

Hannah said:
Thanks, nothing to assist with.

Trevor said:
Hey Hannah,

I see that Charles Bukowski visited your website and defaced it. How rude!

I'd love to assist in its return, if you'll allow.
I'd like to know how the search functioned. It only searched for titles, correct? There wasn't a content search?
Greetings, sisters, brothers, and others! ?

I'm fine, thanks to those who were concerned.

Cost wasn't a factor in closing the site; technology was. The site—and the database—run on PHP and a couple of MySQL databases. The PHP scripting language changes every year. So, every year, I've had to learn what's changed and go through the site (and others) to make sure I update all the code.

I attempted to update everything to adapt to the changes at the end of 2023, and I probably could have done it eventually, but it was more difficult and frustrating than it's been in previous years, and after spending a day on it, I asked myself, "Why am I doing this? Why am I spending the days I have left on earth like this? Do I really want to do this again next year, and the year after that, and the year after that?" I couldn't come up with a good answer to why, and the answer to whether I want to keep doing it into the foreseeable future is 'no.' I always saw the database as the heart of the site, so I didn't want to leave the site up without its heart.

As for recreating the database, I don't believe it's re-creatable. There are 18 database tables, and the way they interact is complicated. It took 39 PHP files to create that database interface. It's unlikely anyone could make it work as it used to, and it would hurt me to see it in a broken or "less-than" state. If someone here believes they can make sense of all of that and update it to make it work, let me know. But I warn you, I'm not a professional coder, so the whole package probably needs a lot more than an easy update fix. It probably needs a rewrite from the ground up. And that will be a considerable task.

I say it would hurt me to see it in a "less-than" state because it's my work, and I don't think anyone can begin to imagine how much work it was. I started working on it in 1996 and didn't stop for 27 years. Many people contributed to it, of course, but I did every minute, hour, year, and decade of work on it myself. That should give me the right to retain its integrity as I see fit, even if that means deleting it. (I didn't delete it; I haven't lost my mind yet.)

And honestly, technology wasn't the only factor. If I still had the love for Bukowski's work that I had in the past, I'd deal with the technology. I'd spend the time needed. The site, database, timeline, forum, and everything else I did was a labor of love. But I don't have that love for Bukowski anymore, so it boils down to whether I want to spend my time working to maintain something I don't love anymore.

For me, and I assume for most people if we're being honest, that's a 'no.'

None of this has to make sense to you to be valid for me. ? I didn't do this to hurt anyone, though I knew it would hurt some of you. I love you all, and I'm glad to be one of the people who brought us all together.


Last edited:
Thanks Hannah. I think those of us who have been here a long time have some sense of how much work you put into the DB. I know I put a fair bit of my time into pulling together the Wormwood information I sent you and that is just a very small portion of the content, so your effort must have been very substantial. If my opinion counts for anything, I think Hannah has made a strong case for allowing her to decide the fate of the DB. She sounds willing to work with someone if they think they can handle the task of re-building it, but it strikes me as highly unlikely that someone will be both willing and able to take that on.
Thanks for explaining your decision, Hannah, and for all the work you put into the site over the years. I worked with databases before I retired and have some idea of the complexity you're talking about. If you no longer love Bukowski's work as you once did, why put in all that effort every year? It makes sense. A question: is the version of the database and Timeline saved on Web Archive fully functional but static, or is it a stripped-down version of the real database and Timeline?
The database I found on the wayback machine (see link above that I posted on Thursday) has no search functionality. You can get to the search page but it doesn't pull up anything when you search (probably because it's not linked to the .php files Hannah posted and various related reasons). The timeline, on the other hand, appears to be functional and is from December. The links in the timeline still pull up images when clicked. Also, the manuscripts and checklist are still accessible as are the "More" pages (Art, Miscellany, FBI Files, etc.) from the right-hand drop-down. Everything responds more slowly than it did from here, but a good chunk of it seems to still be in working order.

No doubt that the database was the heart and soul of this place (aside from us, of course) but there is still a good amount of useable resources.
If keeping the same look were a requirement I'd probably massage the db to work with a pre-made solution, like Advanced Custom Fields for Wordpress, and then theme it until it's familiar. If not, I'd look at a semantic wiki, which I think would be handy for finding relations between multiple types of works.

While much more amateur looking, XF's Resource Manage and/or Media Gallery would make collaboration much smoother.

All these front-ends are either free or cheap. The only thing of real value is the database.
Hey Trevor: I only understood a few of the words you posted (I'm an organic chemist and drinking water protection guy by trade). Let me put it this way: I trust you, but would like to honor Hannah's wishes. Run with that as you may. I don't think that format/similar look matters at all to me unless it goes against Hannah's articulated wishes.

Others should opine; this is something that the few of us left should weigh in on.
It sounds like Trevor can make the Database functional to some degree, although it may look and behave differently than when Hannah built it. There's value in that, but would it be acceptable to Hannah? I agree we should honor her wishes.
I've been thinking about this, and Trevor, if you think you can work with it, I'll send you the database.

I'm not really concerned with the appearance; that has never been my concern. But I can't walk anyone through implementing it or answer questions about how it works (though when you look at it, you'll probably see pretty quickly how all the relations work). I want to be hands-off.

I'm still on the fence about the rest of the site. But as it stands, I don't believe I'd like to give that over to anyone.
I'm glad you're alive and kicking, Hannah. That's what's most important.

P.S. A very belated Happy Birthday to you!

Users who are viewing this thread