Harlequin - Another bullshit myth (1 Viewer)


Founding member
Yep, you heard it right. The Harlequin story -as told in biographies and by B. in interviews and stories- is pure adulterated bullshit.

Well, to be honest, part of the story could be true as I haven't find any factual data to corroborate it, but the tidbits I've unearthed these days clearly show that B. simply made another myth out of that episode. For instance, the genesis is untrue and the chronology is entirely wrong.

I hope Uncle Howard uses this whenever he updates his notes again :D
That's why it would be such a launch to see the B.-Fry(e)-correspondence.

What a pity that it's lost.
Last edited by a moderator:
What a pity that it's lost.

The Fry family members still alive told me that everything was destroyed when Barbara's ranch house was burned to the ground... but I suspect that the B/Frye material could have been in California at the time...
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, well.

Maybe it'll pop up someday. Someone will find it in some trash along with Write, saying: "What's this shit?" and dump it forever, while fiercely in the hinterland bukowski.net burns.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm talking about Harlequin, not about the Fry/B. relationship, though some details are intertwined, of course. Anyway, I'll let you know the story when I have a more complete picture. I just wanted to tell you that most of the episode is another myth wisely devised by B.

And I found a poem by Barbara Fry -I think it's in Nimrod- where she says she's tired of the city life and she misses the cows from Wheeler. I'm serious.
And I found a poem by Barbara Fry -I think it's in Nimrod- where she says she's tired of the city life and she misses the cows from Wheeler.
If you have time to scan it, I bet I'm not the only one who'd like to read that poem. Can't wait to hear the real story on Harlequin. Bukowski was smart enough to make up good bull and stick with his story.
I was just taking a quick look at the letters from Barbara Fry (she signs them as Fry) to Judson Crews, and, man, what a laugh! What a conceited young woman. She rejects all the big names because their poems do not meet Harlequin "standards." I checked again the signature to be sure it was Fry's as I had the impression it was Bukowski who was writing those rejections ;)
I've just realized something that never before occured to me and I guess this thread would be the place to post:

We all know Bukowski's often repeated story that in 1955 after his bleeding ulcer incident (which actually took place in 1954) he chose the magazines he sent poems to by using an address-list in 'Trace', (so far so good). A mag of the name 'Harlequin' (edited by Barbara Frye) seemed crazy enough for him to take his writing, so he sent his poems and indeed was published in it. After that there started a letter-conversation between Barbara and him, then the marriage and etc....

The marriage took place in 1955, we know that for sure.

Well, according to our list of mag-appearances, he wasn't published in 'Harlequin' before 1957! (Harlequin - Vol. 2, No. 1 - 1957)

Now do the math!
Thanks Abel!

I mean, Roni.

The dates don't work, yes.

Though I would hardly call it a "wisely devised" myth. The five or six people in the world who would care about this, even a tiny bit, are all right here. I doubt more than 100 people in the world could name Fry as Bukowski's once-wife.

For that reason, I'm not really sure which parts of this story qualify as myth. As opposed to the garden variety lies that Bukowski was fond of telling.
it's a minor find (except if you care for details).

But so is that his bleeding ulcer didn't happen in 1955 or that he could have been married with Jane.
All these are just details, but we're here to set the record straight, ain't we? At least we've discussed these things here, sometimes pretty intense.

Also, think about the consequence of this find: How did it Really happen? Has she rejected his poems at first (for over 2 years)? But still started a (letter-)affair with him, then even got married, but it still took 2 years to print his poetry in her mag? What happened there?

(and btw I didn't even remeber this thread, so it kinda was my own find, so I'm a tiny little proud of it. I mean, even though the data was readily available no biographer before has mentioned this so far, right?)
And cire didn't really give away in this thread, what it was exactly, did he? So I invented the wheel a second time, okay, but I invented it.
All these are just details, but we're here to set the record straight, ain't we?
Yes! And it is interesting to me, and I'm glad you pointed out the find. Thank you.

What I was downplaying was the original poster's non-presentation of this fact (as was his annoying and ridiculous habit) as if it were the introduction to some sort of bootleg Gypsy Mythbusters episode.

His (supposedly) upcoming book will either be full of great, previously unknown information, or one big dry hump of nothingness, wrapped up in his typical hyperbolic bullshit (which he somehow manages to make boring - it's like a strange magic trick).

Knowing him I expect the latter, but welcome the former.
okay, you both had a bad fallout. And it's true, that he sometimes didn't come up with things. But we can't deny that he also contributed a lot and shared some great finds, when he was active here.
I wouldn't ever deny his contributions. His name is on the site.

But things like this thread - which he did too often - were just baiting. It's hostile behavior, and it goes against the spirit of this place, which is to make as much information available as possible. He and I just have different philosophies as far as that goes.

In the end I believe that he got a lot more from us than he gave in return. But that's just my opinion.

Users who are viewing this thread