It doesn't say that much, does it? That it is OK to edit? Bukowski edited a lot anyway.
I'm not being puritanical? It is OK to edit a work and it still retain the whole of its meaning? Literally changing a verb or a noun here or there, is normal editing. It doesn't corrupt the poem or commit some editorial sin.
I have been reading some of the other edits and they are shit and unnecessary, yet in the end the poem isn't actually mutilated, i.e. the meaning is still retained.
It is a subject that always interested me and only now during lockdown giving it a bit more time. I guess to many of the Bukowski fans on here it can seem like a perversion of the original. And, i get that and in some cases agree. Yet, I don't know, who knows what goes on behind closed doors. All writers have editors etc. Can you really know the extent to which an editor helps? Is it really a cardinal sin to have an editor make some changes?
I don't mean to be a dick. Genuinely. Maybe I am in denial. I don't want to believe all the books published after Bukowski's death are essentially 'duds' - that seems so harsh. I think it is possible to read those duds and still get the full flavour of Buk!
I'm torn. It has been so long since I've been here, sorry to ruffle feathers. I type and think out loud.