Jane (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Short Bus
- Start date
Brother Schenker
Founding member
As of yet, no. Best place for info is the Sounes bio on Buk.
Has anyone else noticed how in the closeup of the FBI files the year that Jane was born seems to be given as 1918? This is strange, 'cause buk usually said Jane was ten years older than him. In the first chapter of Women for example, he says that when she died she was 48 and he was 38.(She died in '62 so the ages were 52 and 42, or was there another woman who died in 1958???) So shouldn't it be 1910? Another Bukowski myth?
Yeah, you're right: it's probably just a mistake... It really doesn't seem like the FBI files are all that reliable, because, well in this case the name is wrong, the date is wrong... How much more mistakes did they make? And the line "Bukowski indicated he was married..." What does that mean? "Indicated"? How did he indicate? He said that they lived together for years, and thus INDICATED that they we're married? It's not exactly the same as "Bukowski stated(/reported/told the officials/said) that he was married", is it???
Rekrab
Usually wrong.
In bureaucratic language, "indicated" means he said it. With that kind of formal writing, the longer, more impressive word is used when the shorter, simpler word is actually what is meant. No hidden meaning there.
mjp
Founding member
I believe (as you may have noticed with all the editorializing I did on those FBI file pages), that Bukowski definitely told the FBI (or the post office or the prison board or whoever related it to the FBI) that they were married. The question is, if they were not, why did he say it, and who did he say it to?
If he said it to the post office, that's an understandable lie to take the heat off, as it was somewhat scandalous to "shack up" in those days. If he told the FBI they were married, I believe they were. I don't think he would lie to the FBI.
Either way, he never mentioned it after he became well known. So maybe they weren't married. Or maybe there were someone else's feeling to be considered...
Another one of those things we'll never know unless someone comes up with a document.
If he said it to the post office, that's an understandable lie to take the heat off, as it was somewhat scandalous to "shack up" in those days. If he told the FBI they were married, I believe they were. I don't think he would lie to the FBI.
Either way, he never mentioned it after he became well known. So maybe they weren't married. Or maybe there were someone else's feeling to be considered...
Another one of those things we'll never know unless someone comes up with a document.
Father Luke
Founding member
Only thing I can think of is common law marriage. After a certain point, it
becomes understood that they are an item. In that sense it is a truth.
As you implied, there is a status to marriage, mjp, where shacking up carries a
bit of shame. I believe he respected Jane so much that he desired to lend a bit
of credence to their relationship in the eyes of the FBI, and for Jane's sake.
Albeit a stretch, it's not too far a stretch, and it has a bit of the truth in it.
Confronting power with the truth is the game.
Just a guess. I may be way off base, but Power intimidates, and it may have
been the kind of bold move CB wanted, to be able to look those in power in
the eye and smirk, while honoring that, and those, whom he loved.
becomes understood that they are an item. In that sense it is a truth.
As you implied, there is a status to marriage, mjp, where shacking up carries a
bit of shame. I believe he respected Jane so much that he desired to lend a bit
of credence to their relationship in the eyes of the FBI, and for Jane's sake.
Albeit a stretch, it's not too far a stretch, and it has a bit of the truth in it.
Confronting power with the truth is the game.
Just a guess. I may be way off base, but Power intimidates, and it may have
been the kind of bold move CB wanted, to be able to look those in power in
the eye and smirk, while honoring that, and those, whom he loved.
Common law mariage? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage If I understand it right it wouldn't have been legal/possible at the time in L.A.
But in Post office, when Chinaski is asked if he was Betty's husband (in the hospital, when she was dying) he said: "I used to be her common-law husband." Maybe just a lie, but why would he lie by saying "common-law" and not just that he was her husband (or ex)?
But who knows, it might be just fiction: Its Chinaski, not BUKOWSKI and Betty, not JANE, so it doesn't have to be historically correct (or something I dont know...)
But in Post office, when Chinaski is asked if he was Betty's husband (in the hospital, when she was dying) he said: "I used to be her common-law husband." Maybe just a lie, but why would he lie by saying "common-law" and not just that he was her husband (or ex)?
But who knows, it might be just fiction: Its Chinaski, not BUKOWSKI and Betty, not JANE, so it doesn't have to be historically correct (or something I dont know...)
ROC
It is what it is
It may not have been legal, but it was certainly possible.
A relationship (at least a hetro one) after a certain length of time is a de facto marriage.
I think Bukowski may have understood this even if he may have been ignorant of all the legals. He was very widely read.
But what the hell do I know?
A relationship (at least a hetro one) after a certain length of time is a de facto marriage.
I think Bukowski may have understood this even if he may have been ignorant of all the legals. He was very widely read.
But what the hell do I know?
Father Luke
Founding member
From the Wikipedia link you provided:
Common-law marriage In fact, a common law marriage is just as legally binding
as a statutory or ceremonial marriage in some jurisdictions "” it is just formed
differently.
Would it have been legal? I dunno.
More importantly it would have given the relationship Jane and CB had
dignity in his eyes. The times were different. But not so different that he
wouldn't have wanted to spit in the eye of authority given the chance.
Again, just a guess.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rekrab
Usually wrong.
This thread on Bukowski and marriage got me to thinking about how, when Bukowski edited the proof copy of my miniature book, BUKOWSKI, THE KING OF SAN PEDRO (Published in 1985 by Richard Wong), he deleted a line I had in there about him having been married in the late 1950s to Barbara Frye. I always wondered why he took that fact out. Was it incorrect? Or did he feel that it conflicted with his outsider image, that marriage was too convention for the early, living-in-the-shadows Bukowski? Maybe he just thought the line was badly written or ill-placed or irrelevant. Anyway, it's always puzzled me. I still have the proofs he marked up and I should take another look at it to see exactly what the line was and it's context. If I recall, he just X-ed out the entire line, and that's how it was printed. Any thoughts as to why he might have made this change?
mjp
Founding member
They were definitely married, I think Sounes has a copy of their marriage certificate. As to why he wanted that removed, who knows. Maybe he was having trouble with Linda at the time, or maybe, as you said, he didn't like the line. ;) He couldn't have thought he could wipe Barbara Frye out of his history, too many people knew her and knew they were married.
Of course we would also like to see the proof! You know we want everything. The bukowski.net machine is hungry, Mr. Barker, and no soul shall be spared!
Or something.
Jane seemed to have lived a very sad life indeed and whether some of it was self inflicted or not is pretty much irrelevant to me. It was still a very sad life
The fact that she's mentioned so positively in a number of Bukowski's poems is a great thing. In one he mentions the number of days she'd been underground but i cant remember which one. It's a testament to his feelings for her and i think it's great that someone who thought so little of themselves, was not well known and has been dead a long time, is remembered. She surely would have loved it :)
The fact that she's mentioned so positively in a number of Bukowski's poems is a great thing. In one he mentions the number of days she'd been underground but i cant remember which one. It's a testament to his feelings for her and i think it's great that someone who thought so little of themselves, was not well known and has been dead a long time, is remembered. She surely would have loved it :)
Rekrab
Usually wrong.
mjp -- I considered that myself, that possibly Bukowski was having trouble with Linda and didn't want old flames brought to mind, and that's why he deleted the line about being marrried to Barbara Frye.
I'll dig out that marked up proof. It's oversized, a huge sheet of paper, so I will need to scan it in sections. Can't recall if I have a xerox or the actual one he marked up, which would be cool. I would have kept the original if I had a choice. Will dig it out for you Buk hungry freaks.
I'll dig out that marked up proof. It's oversized, a huge sheet of paper, so I will need to scan it in sections. Can't recall if I have a xerox or the actual one he marked up, which would be cool. I would have kept the original if I had a choice. Will dig it out for you Buk hungry freaks.
Father Luke
Founding member
As the kids say: You nailed it.
