Legs (1 Viewer)

[jddougher]

she arrived in a taxi
completely intoxicated.
it was
after one of my long days as
a May Co. stock boy
and I sat there
exhausted and
sucking at
my beer and
looking at her
in her rumpled state
spread across the bed
skirt hiked high.

I sucked at my drink
then walked over
to the bed and lifted
her skirt higher:
such a sight
those glorious legs
uncovered and helpless.

she was a great woman with
great legs.

we had such tremendous fun
and much agony together
for some years

but she found
life too hard;
she died
34 years ago and

I haven’t seen
legs like that
since
and I have
never stopped

looking.

 

[Black Swan]

jd,
you should have a look at the original manuscript, dated 1982,
http://bukowski.net/manuscripts/
instead of looking at the altered one from The People Look Like Flowers At Last - pg. 80 - 2007
This later version has most likely been bleached.

 

[Bukfan]

In which collection was the poem published originally?

 

[mjp]

As far as we know, The People Look Like Flowers was the first appearance. I don' think we're missing (m)any early/mid 80s magazine appearances.

But as is always the case with any Bukowski poem, that could be wrong.

 

[Skygazer]

Reading the date on the original poem, just puzzled by the dates, the poem is signed and dated as '82, but in it he describes Jane dying 34 yrs ago,
but the timeline has her death in 1962, It couldn't be anyone else, it has to be Jane? or have I got this wrong.Maybe I'm being too literal.

 

[skiroomalum]

I always thought she died when Hank was 38 and Jane was 48 in 1958, but I could easily be mistaken.

 

[zobraks]

Jane Cooney Baker died on 22nd of January, 1962.

If we can trust the gossips.

 

[roni]

agreed with skygaz in all points.
maybe Hank wasn't that good at maths.

 

[mjp]

Another example of the dogshit dilution and desecration by Saint John Martin, and what do we talk about? Whether the dates in the manuscript are correct.

I suppose it's redundant to continue to point out Martin's wide and gleeful path of destruction. Being that it's fait accompli, and no one walking around out in the world really gives a rat's ass about it anyway. It gets old, I can see that.

But it still rankles, as the kids say. It's an open wound that will never heal. Just continue to fester and irritate.

 

[Skygazer]

I always thought she died when Hank was 38 and Jane was 48 in 1958, but I could easily be mistaken.

I have seen a couple of references to that date also skiroom on the internet - one in Beats Timeline (or something) and although haven't seen official archive evidence of it, mostly it is the date on the timeline that is quoted. Which would put Jane at around 52 and Buk at 42 at the time of her death in 1962.

agreed with skygaz in all points.
maybe Hank wasn't that good at maths.

Maybe roni, but I don't think it was a typing error or bad maths, or a poor memory, he loved her too much for that. What I think and perhaps it's fanciful, but the date would tie in more with when he met her, so maybe it is less of a literal reference to her death and more an expression of how Jane was when he met her, that something in her was already dead and destroyed but she carried on living - who knows.

Another example of the dogshit dilution and desecration by Saint John Martin, and what do we talk about? Whether the dates in the manuscript are correct.

Yes... I suppose because it just struck me as odd and weird and sometimes the minutiae of his life and work does get discussed, here in the forum - because it's interesting and we are nosy.

[...I suppose it's redundant to continue to point out Martin's wide and gleeful path of destruction. Being that it's fait accompli, and no one walking around out in the world really gives a rat's ass about it anyway. It gets old, I can see that.

And No... the changes are the most important part, as you have said, his poem is far better than the altered one and those changes are what is important, didn't intend to lead the thread up a blind alley.

 

[mjp]

My wailing wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at the sky. Threads should go in whichever direction they go. No one should worry about derailing, dead ending or leading them up the alley where the sheep are sheared.

 

[Skygazer]

My wailing wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at the sky...]

Y'mean the great big proper one:wb:.

{... No one should worry about derailing, dead ending or leading them up the alley where the sheep are sheared.

Sheep shearing is an occupational hazard round my way:D.But thank you.

 

[jddougher]

jd,
you should have a look at the original manuscript, dated 1982...

Superb. I had never seen that before.

 

[d gray]

it's absolutely maddening, that combination of add-ons and what's cut out!

poor hank, all that work being fucking ruined. it would break his heart if he knew.

 

[roni]

Another example of the dogshit dilution and desecration by Saint John Martin, and what do we talk about? Whether the dates in the manuscript are correct.

I was as shocked as anybody when I saw this one and even printed out a side-by-side comparison for my use.

But if we start talking about the Martinizations in every thread where such an example comes up, we'd have discussions about the JM-work all over the place. (While missing all the other interesting things about Buks work, which I think this odd dating in his manuscript is.)

[...] the date would tie in more with when he met her, so maybe it is less of a literal reference to her death and more an expression of how Jane was when he met her, [...]

that's an excellent idea! I love it.
Only - in this particular case, I think the context and meaning of the very sentence is clear, when he says (save the line-breaks):
"she died 34 years ago"
He wouldn't use such a definite and final way to say it, if it was the beginning of a "dying"-process.

[ - of course one could interpret the predecessing lines "she GOT to dying" as a sort of start of her 'disintegration', beginning right after they've met. then maybe this interpretation could work.
but then - if you take away the literal meaning of 'death' from this paragraph, a lot of our attribution to Jane vanishes also.
Okay, we have the very good legs, he preferably attributed to her, but not solely. Same with the intoxication-status. Same with "fun and agony together". All of this points to Jane, but after you cut the final hint (her death) it could as well be somebody else. Of course, I'd rather see him masturbating while watching Jane than, say, the King.
Maybe he didn't even talk about one specific woman here, but intermixed several experiences? At least that's possible. A certain mood.
What state was he in, when he wrote that poem, what was happening the hours before or in his mind just then? (the published letters don't carry that date, unfortunately.)
Does ANYBODY have a document from that date? Other manuscripts maybe?
It's been a Wednesday - have the horses been running?
Who did he see this day, what book or newspaper did he read this day, What exactly had happened 34+/- years before in his life? When has he worked for the 'May Co'? What city?
( - I am just winking happy thoughts into a little tiddle cup, not producing literary criticism.) ]

it's absolutely maddening, that combination of add-ons and what's cut out! [...]

it is.
and both of it is so TYPICAL for the whole case!
(btw I like to state now that this poem may be interesting for reasons of Martinization and the miraculous date-incoherence - but as a POEM, forgive me St. Hank, it's pretty mediocre.)

 

[jddougher]

it's absolutely maddening, that combination of add-ons and what's cut out!

My take is that Bukowski was so appreciative of what Martin did for him that he (Bukowski) allowed Martin quite a bit of latitude in changing the work. Also, I think it's important to understand that Bukowski was first and foremost a working writer who was concerned at least in part with getting work out (and getting money in). Therefore, there was a line to walk between bitching about the editing being done to work already written and simply moving on to the next poem/story/novel. As a writer myself, I understand that perfectly. It's up to the devotees/fans/scholars to get all huffed about changes made, for the most part. Now, there were exceptions, such as the changes Martin made to sections of Women to which Bukowski objected. But it was only after a certain point in his career that Bukowski felt more emboldened to bitch about changes--and then only up to a certain point.

poor hank, all that work being fucking ruined. it would break his heart if he knew.

I don't think so. Reason: He knew. See my previous response. When you're a working writer, you only have so much time and energy to bitch and moan about the changes that an editor makes. For the most part, it's about getting on to the next job.

 

[mjp]

as a POEM [...] it's pretty mediocre.

It is.

And immeasurably more mediocre in the published version, unfortunately.

My take is that Bukowski was so appreciative of what Martin did for him that he (Bukowski) allowed Martin quite a bit of latitude in changing the work.

I guess once you're dead that latitude is more forthcoming, eh?

If you care to learn anything about what we're talking about you can, but I'll put it in a nutshell for you: Martin didn't start fucking Bukowski's poetry up en masse until Bukowski was dead. And fuck it up he did.

Make of that what you will. The words speak for themselves though, and what they say isn't pretty.

 

[Bukfan]

Only - in this particular case, I think the context and meaning of the very sentence is clear, when he says (save the line-breaks):"she died 34 years ago"

Maybe he was reworking an old unpublished poem and decided to keep "34 years ago" in it? Or maybe he liked the number "34" for some reason, or thought it was the number that fitted the poem best? I don't know. It's just a couple of explanations I thought of.

 

[Skygazer]

I was as shocked as anybody when I saw this one and even printed out a side-by-side comparison for my use. [...that's an excellent idea! I love it....]

You do?!:).
I don't think he would have necessarily had to have used the word dying instead of dead roni, but yes it is a very absolute, definite statement, so perhaps not a metaphor kind of thing? - it's a bit of a puzzle.

(btw I like to state now that this poem may be interesting for reasons of Martinization and the miraculous date-incoherence - but as a POEM, forgive me St. Hank, it's pretty mediocre.)

For me it isn't a mediocre poem at all. Perhaps I am biased because I like all the Jane related poems. What is revealing in this poem is exactly where the balance of power within the relationship was.
On the surface people might jump to the description of him lifting Jan'e skirt while she is out cold, standing over her and masturbating, pointing it out as an example of his misogyny*. But he then describes Jane opening her eyes and coolly watching him. It gives you the sense that Bukowski is very much the inexperienced, enthralled and for the want of a better word - subordinate one. It's a pretty powerful scene.

But most of all. I love the final stanza, it just conveys in simple lovely words the depth of his passion and feelings for Jane.

On the subject of the dates; in the poem "Barfly" he gives the date of her death as 31 yrs ago, when was that poem written and did he get the date correct in that one?:)



*that has become such a ridiculously overused, hysterically thrown about word, that it is losing all it's real impact or relevance to real examples of it - sorry, had to have a moan about it.

 

[d gray]

My take is that Bukowski was so appreciative of what Martin did for him that he (Bukowski) allowed Martin quite a bit of latitude in changing the work.

you mean like the way he let him change stuff in "women"? you think if bukowski was around to see what martin's done to his stuff since he died he'd "appreciate" it? c'mon, man, you sound like an idiot.

I think it's important to understand that Bukowski was first and foremost a working writer who was concerned at least in part with getting work out (and getting money in).

that's strange, i had the impression bukowski was first and foremost an artist. you talk like the guy was a journalist or copy writer. again, sounding like an...

It's up to the devotees/fans/scholars to get all huffed about changes made, for the most part.

what else is there?!? if you're not one of those, how can you be interested in him?

i guess you're not one of those. what are you?

 

[mjp]

He probably won't be back until he needs to post another link to his forum. In case you haven't noticed.

 

[d gray]

well, he is a "working writer."

yup, him and bukowski, just two peas in the "working writer's" pod.

 

[Skygazer]

Sooo... kind of like a dog with a bone here, but just wanted to defend the poem under discussion a little bit more, even if I'm wrong, because I've been mulling it over, need to say it and get it over with.

Looking at the two poems side by side alters everything and you can see very clearly how by changing a few words, or omitting whole lines! the meaning and message of a poem gets totally lost.. That's why I don't like the published version; for me it ends up being a slightly pervy and worse, feeble poem in parts, in an attempt to cater to the PC crowd, or Bukowski ranters, who label him a misogynist. I'm thinking the reason for the changes were to make the poem more palatable and safe? and remove the - Bukowski getting his sexual jollies over an unconscious, unconsenting woman scenario.

But the whole point is missed, if you look at the poem line for line, even in the first two, the altered version fails to deliver:
" she arrived in a taxi
completely intoxicated." she arrives yes, but nothing about the demeanor.

Bukowski version:
" she came in on a taxi
completely intoxicated"

you get a sense of her being confident and a bit cavalier, swanning in - as well as drunk.

The poem then goes on to describe how he is exhausted from work and waiting quietly at home - a bit of a role reversal there, normally it's the man who rolls in drunk. In his, she has been out on the razz, having fun.

The bed scene, in Bukowski's version there is (duly) an awake, permitting female, but not in the altered one and as a result it is weaker for it.

Bukowski's poem clearly conveys the image and message that this was a bold, undomesticated woman with whom he was besotted, she made a huge impact on his life.

The altered poem gets that across too, but it's just a bit lame by comparison, Bukowski's poem is honest, slightly disturbing, dirty and just a bit glorious.
The changes are terrible, I think.

 

[Harald]

Jane Cooney Baker was born 1910 July 7 in Carlsbad New Mexico but grew up in St Louis where her father was a doctor, he died about 1919 according to Barry Miles bio