John Martin (1 Viewer)

Ponder

"So fuck Doubleday Doran"
RIP
poptop said:
Lol...much appreciated, Ponder... It's good to know of your interest in the young people passing through here
I'm always willing to give new members information, links, etc, so don't put words in my mouth.
I also appreciate your knowledge on fante, it's just that you give me the impression that you're typing page after page, like you're only talking to yourself.

Anyway, sorry to have bored you and I thank you for the unexpected chance to further expand on why I felt that Fante's last novel, Dreams From Bunker Hill, is well worth reading, perhaps one of his best. It leaves the wistful impression that he was a master writer who had many more novels in him, even at that late stage in life, but he simply ran out of time.
If people klick on search and type fante, they'll find many threads on Fante and on Fante and BSP and this: https://bukowskiforum.com/showthread.php?t=804&highlight=fante you've started yourself.

By the way, I love Fante's work, I promote him in Europe. Great writer.
 

Rekrab

Usually wrong.
It's a very unusual interview with Bukowski as most of the questions are Fante-related. The interviewer was doing some research on Fante at the time and she decided to interview Bukowski on the subject.

That sounds very interesting. I'll look for that interview.

Too bad nobody thought to ask Bukowski about Write magazine during an interview. I can't recall anyone asking him details of his other early publications, either, although perhaps someone did.
 
Dan Fante son of John Fante

Dan Fante has had several books. And although he's not like Bukowski, his writing would be more like if John Fante was raised in NYC in 60's instead LA. Fast ad 'furious.' I had fun reading it.
 
I had some minor dealings with Martin back in the late '90s, mainly me bugging him for addresses of many of the BSP writers for my own publication, or asking Buk related questions. He was always helpful, though brief, and I can only imagine how many people like me bugged him throughout the years. We did have a misunderstanding at one point, but it got sorted out.
I think his contribution to contemporary American writing is immeasurable, even if he'd never published Bukowski.
Even his overzealous protection of Bukowski's writing is understandable. And really it's not that unusual for a publisher to maintain a tight lock on a writer's output.
 
i've been meaning to scan this for a while. a cool little article on martin and the black sparrow press....
scan0006-3.jpg

scan0007-3.jpg

scan0008-2.jpg

scan0009-2.jpg
 

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
Great article! There's some info I have'nt seen before. Thanks a lot, James!

Funny, Martin says he bought 200 periodicals with Buk poems, dating back to the 1940s - enough poems for a sixth (posthumous) collection. - I always thought the posthumous collections were created from a backlog of unpublished poems Buk had sent him through the years. Hmm...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well all the better then! The article, (at time of publication?)-says he's 72. Forgive me please Ponder, I can't print the thing, I'm outa' ink, so I'm skwintching at my very shity computer screen trying to make out dates.
The man and his minions were masters! Thank God for every one of them. My life would be that much more empty if it were not for Charlels Bukowski, and John Martin! CRB:)
 

mjp

Founding member
Funny, Martin says he bought 200 periodicals with Buk poems, dating back to the 1940s - enough poems for a sixth (posthumous) collection. - I always thought the posthumous collections were created from a backlog of unpublished poems Buk had sent him through the years. Hmm...
So you didn't believe me the first 100 times I said that whole "poems set aside for posthumous publication" fairy tale was bullshit? I am hurt. Truly.
 

Ponder

"So fuck Doubleday Doran"
RIP
Forgive me please Ponder, I can't print the thing, I'm outa' ink, so I'm skwintching at my very shity computer screen trying to make out dates.

I bought a cheap laser (black ink only) printer a while ago.
Made in China of course. The thing goes on forever and ever.
 

cirerita

Founding member
So you didn't believe me the first 100 times I said that whole "poems set aside for posthumous publication" fairy tale was bullshit? I am hurt. Truly.

Ha, ha! You guys are truly something. Let's say that the posthumous collections were taken rather than created from the backlog of unpublished material. Bukowski didn't specifically set aside any poem at all to be published by Martin, either when he was alive or when he was dead. He never knew which poems were going to be printed.
 

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
So you didn't believe me the first 100 times I said that whole "poems set aside for posthumous publication" fairy tale was bullshit? I am hurt. Truly.


Ha-ha! I knew that, but I did think the posthumous books were created solely from the backlog of unpublished poems Buk left behind. This article here suggests that some of the poems were taken from old mags, and that's news to me. Did Martin also use poems from old mags for the posthumous books??
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cirerita

Founding member
Keep in mind that Martin began collecting Bukowski circa 1963-64 and that Bukowski began to send all the MSS to Martin many years later. That means that Martin didn't have many early MSS -not even after Bukowski's death- and some poems were found in the littles only.
 

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
I see! That explains it! - Still, I was under the impression that the posthumous books only contained unpublished material, but I guess I was wrong.
Thanks, cirerita!
 
I see! That explains it! - Still, I was under the impression that the posthumous books only contained unpublished material, but I guess I was wrong.
Thanks, cirerita!

When I was in Dallas earlier this summer, I got a remainder copy of, 'The Pleasures Of The Damed.(thank god, $7.00 as opposed to $30.00). Many reprints of poems from older collections, but also, many listed as 'uncollected'-(these are the ones I seek out). After the thread about editing,(just WHO made some/many of the editing choices), and seeing the GLARING differences between some originals and later printed poems; well, needless to say I am much more discerning in my judgement/evaluation of the posthumous writings. Quite frankly, I sorta' wish that I didn't 'know'.
Well, you can't edit from the grave, and one can only hope that the BEST is coming through. I mean, as far as I know Bukowski wrote his shit and then put it aside,(no carbons; closets and all that). But the question does remain,(at least in my own head), WOULD HE CARE? CRB:)
 

ROC

It is what it is
But the question does remain,(at least in my own head), WOULD HE CARE? CRB:)

Judging by his previous reactions to Martins editing, yes. (See 'Women' first edition).
He was assiduous, thoughtful and thoroughly professional in regards his writing most of the time (as far as I can tell).
I would think he might be grateful for obvious error corrections. A lot less so for the seeming arbitrary changes imposed under the guise "editing".
 

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
I wonder how big a percentage of the poems in the posthumous books comes from Buk's unpublished backlog, and how big a percentage of the poems comes from the old mags?
Not that it matters greatly, I'm just curious.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
Thanks, ROC, You're a scholar of precision! I've never known what's what, anyway...:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder how big a percentage of the poems in the posthumous books comes from Buk's unpublished backlog, and how big a percentage of the poems comes from the old mags?
Not that it matters greatly, I'm just curious.

In my 'innocence' I bought several posthumous publications, (just saying I wish I had invested my hard earned cash into some of his earlier writings; ) 'The People Look Like Flowres At Last', is /was quite shabbily produced as far as quality of paper/binding is concerned ).
Since joining the forum I have done some limited comparrison with previously published works, it all seems to mesh. But one cannot compare the work that is said to be previously unpublished/ uncollected...and so on.
I must say this whole discussion has really got me to thinking about how much of Bukowski's,(especially the posthumuus works published AFTER J. Martin left the scene), WERE changed/edited, and by whom? I mean, J.M. may have made changes/choices, but at least overall we know that he and Bukowski were friends/professional associates. With much of it there is nothing the reader can do but interpret and try to discern it for themselves. CRB:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
Well, after Martin stopped publishing himself, he still edited the posthumous books that Ecco released, but as far as the changes in some of the poems goes ("The Crunch" f.ex.), it's hard to say who made them and why. You've read the discussion here yourself, I guess. It's difficult and maybe impossible to reach a definite conclusion...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Black Sparrow Press

For those who may be only vaguely familiar with the output of John Martin's BLACK SPARROW PRESS, here are two partial lists from my personal collection. If memory serves me correctly, John published over 700 titles in the 36 year history of the press.

A few PAGET PRESS titles are also included. Take particular note of their Al Purdy limited edition of BIRD WATCHING AT THE EQUATER. It is one of the most beautifully produced trade books I have ever seen. I wish BSP had published it.

Long after Alfred Knopf, Roger Strauss and Bennett Cerf are forgotten, I believe John Martin will be remembered for his remarkable contribution as a publisher to American Arts & Letters.
 

Attachments

  • BSP - A NEW YEAR'S GREETING Annual Publications.doc
    29 KB · Views: 368
  • BSP and Paget Press Collected Publications.doc
    815 KB · Views: 259

Gerard K H Love

Appreciate your friends
planaheawrote:
here are two partial lists from my personal collection.

You sir, are what I'd call a heavy hitter. Good job on that. Some dedication was involved in putting that together. You could have made a seperate thread with all that.
 
Gerard K H Love,

At the risk of being thought of as a show off, here is how I maintain my book collection in very fine condition. There is also an opaque dark purple curtain which is pulled in front of the book shelves to protect the books from sunning or other radiant damage. All books shown, about 450 volumes, are Black Sparrow Press editions save a couple Paget Press Barfly editions. Oversize BSP books such as Horsemeat are keep in a separate location with other oversize books, e.g., the original Ansel Adams limited edition volume from the New York Graphic Society.

BSP Collection Pix A1.JPG BSP Collection Pix B2.JPG
BSP Collection Pix C3.JPG BSP Collection Pix D4.jpg
 
wowzers! very nice planahea...
so i'm assuming that storing them flat and stacked on top of each other doesn't cause any harm?
 

mjp

Founding member
At the risk of being thought an idiot, why do you shelve them horizontally?

I can see how that would prevent the lovely gravity sag some bindings get (the later, thick BSP books are especially prone to that), but you rarely see anyone go horizontal. I suppose because it makes access difficult. But it seems to make logical sense. I may start copying your method.
 

chronic

old and in the way
I've always heard that stacking more than a few books on top of one another can damage the books. Damned if I can remember the reason now. For about 2 years I had a stack of about a dozen books and when I pulled them off of the shelf, half of them had bowed covers. I can't honestly say whether that was a result of stacking them or if something else caused it.
 
Many suppose that horizontal storing of stacked books leads to binding twists or sagging as mjp noted, but as long as the stacks height and weight is reasonable and books are not squeezed into a space no such damage occurs. Note how the adjustable shelf height is limited. Heat, light and moisture are the primary culprits that lead to mold, sunning and foxing. So dry, cool and dark storage is best if not essential. Further, horizontal storage eliminates shelf worn edges, and in my opinion reduces the likely hood of corner bumps and dust jacket tears. I don't care if it renders some books hard to access, once I enter a book in a printed and detailed inventory there is no need to touch it again except for a future sale. I read trade and mass market paperbacks almost exclusively. The exception is my current reading of Portions... in hardcover which I am thoroughly enjoying. That's why I purchased two hardcover copies. I read in Portions... material I haven't seen in almost fourty years, it's wonderful!

I did notice in a picture posted by Bill of BOS Press in another thread many BSP books that were horizontally stacked way to high for the health of the books, in my opinion. Perhaps he stacked them for the purpose of the picture.
 
Thanks, Planahea. Makes sense to me. I've often considered pros and cons of the horizontal stack vs. the vertical, but I've never heard or figured out anything definitive.

If anyone else has another insight, please share.
 

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
I did notice in a picture posted by Bill of BOS Press in another thread many BSP books that were horizontally stacked way to high for the health of the books, in my opinion. Perhaps he stacked them for the purpose of the picture.

Hi,
Yes, you are right. I had stacked those just to take the photo of the with the least amount of pictures. I put mine in my bookcase vertically, which could be tough on the corners, but for the fact that I seal mine in archival safe plastic. While this keeps them from having any moisture or scuffing problems, I hear some say that books need to breethe. PLUS, it makes me look like a psychotic book collector as I have thousands of volumes of little magazines all sealed in their cacoon of acid free/archival safe plastic.

Bill
 
Hi Bill,

To some we are a weird idiosyncratic bunch of crazy bibliophiles. When I pull back the heavy purple curtains (They are really 100 count cotton twin bedsheets hung from a series of suspended and adjustable shower rods.) to show some of my books, friends tell me they fell like applauding as if it's the opening of a Shakespearean play. They really hoot and holler when I tell them I "dust" the books with cans of compressed air. Of course, I sometimes clean my kitchen floor that way too. Just blow all bits & pieces under the refrigerator until another day. But they really laugh at me most because I only extend viewing privileges, but forbid them to touch the books. I know my friends too well!

I am seriously considering putting up calligraphy signs that read, "IF IT'S NOT YOURS, DON'T TOUCH IT." Many of my friends are real b***busters and yet very loyal, so I tolerate them. :)

Btw, that canned air cleaning also allows the books to breath fresh air not stale plastic air. You can almost hear them sigh. :D

Kindest,

Bill
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top