Bukowski, the most published author of the 60s
- Thread starter cirerita
- Start date
cirerita
Founding member
David, I'm not sure I'm following you. The graph displays both the total number of magazines Bukowski was in and the total number of magazine issues with his work. Both lines represent his periodical appearances in the 1950-70 period. I'm not comparing his appearances to anyone else's... yet...
Rekrab
Usually wrong.
Okay, I did misread it. I thought it was all magazines issued -- the entire market -- compared to the issues he was in. If it's all Bukowski, I don't get the distinction. How is "magazines Bukowski was in" different from "magazine issues with his work"? Seems like the same thing to me. I'm being my normal dense self here. Waiting for the light bulb over my head to come on.,
cirerita
Founding member
Well, English is not my mother tongue and perhaps I did not explain that as accurately as I should have. Anyway, let's say Bukowski was in three Merlin's Magic issues in 1961 and in two Simbolica issues that same year. He was, then, in two (separate) magazines and in five magazine issues in 1961. Maybe I should use "magazines" and "issues" in the graph instead of "magazines" and "magazine issues".
which was an intersting year according to that graph: He had MUCH more appearences than in the previous year, but in a fewer number of magazine titles. 1967 seems to be the only year, where we see a similar developing.
I guessed it.
How come, they declined between 1968 and 1969? Wasn't 'Notes' a periodical column from the beginning?
Rekrab
Usually wrong.
It would be interesting to see Bukowski titles versus All titles (total market, all authors), as well as Bukowski issues versus All issues (total market) -- to see Bukowski's "penetration rate" (sorry about that term.) I imagine he was in something like 20% of all titles published.
cirerita
Founding member
That's correct, I'm afraid.
I'd expect that his small press submissions in that period would be reduced for other reasons too, including having to provide the Webbs with new poems for their books and of course being otherwise distracted by his new family.
The dip at the end of the 60s' must also be at least partially caused by having BSP taking most of his output? I'm probably over simplifying.
cirerita
Founding member
The 62-63 dip was mostly caused by the "depression". Marina was not born yet, and the Webbs used old poems in It Catches.
The 67-69 dip is not really a dip, although the graph lines seem to say so. The number of issues dwindled when he stopped sending weekly columns to Open City. And the number of titles is smaller precisely because most of his contributions were for Open City and a few other underground papers. Most of the poems in At Terror Street and The Days Run Away were old poems or they were culled from the littles.
The 67-69 dip is not really a dip, although the graph lines seem to say so. The number of issues dwindled when he stopped sending weekly columns to Open City. And the number of titles is smaller precisely because most of his contributions were for Open City and a few other underground papers. Most of the poems in At Terror Street and The Days Run Away were old poems or they were culled from the littles.
Rekrab
Usually wrong.
cirerita: from your extensive research, do you have a wild guess on what percent of all little magazine titles or issues Buk appeared in during that period?
mjp
Founding member
In the Burning in Water intro he says he was in "a slump or a blackout" after the publication of It Catches at the end of 1963, and that the Webbs brought him to New Orleans in early 1965 to write for Crucifix. I would hazard a guess that the "slump" was at least partially brought about by Frances being pregnant, and everything that went along with that. They would have known she was pregnant in January or February of 1964, since Marina was born at the beginning of September. Which would make a three year "dip" if you include any extended mourning over Jane.
Plus I think you have to build a significant lead time into any calculations you do based on when the magazines were published as opposed to when he wrote the poems. In other words, 1) write poem, 2) mail poem, 3) poem accepted, 4) wait for publication. Sometimes a long wait.
Anyway, I wouldn't make too much of a serious "depression" that kept him from writing. He certainly wrote a lot of letters during that time. And he was still at the P.O. And the baby. Like hank solo, I think there are a lot of reasons outside of Jane for him to be distracted or uninspired at that time. I'm not saying Jane had nothing to do with it. I just don't think he went to bed for 2 years or anything over her death.
cirerita
Founding member
Of course there were other reasons, I'm just saying that -to me- the main one was the "depression" following Jane's death. As you know, "depression" is B's own term, not mine.
The real "dip" -statiscally speaking- was in 1963, not in 1962. The number of periodical appearances increased in 1964-65. The "slump or blackout" took place after the "dip". Those are the facts. In 1963, Frances was not pregnant and B. was not writing new stuff for any book/chap. The 1963 appearances could have been submissions from either 1962 or 1963, but I don't think they were any earlier than that.
I think B. was "depressed" at the time -whatever the reasons- and he did not produce as much poetry in 1962-63. He wrote loads of letters, sure, but not poetry. And if he did, he destroyed it or it was lost, but it was not published.
The real "dip" -statiscally speaking- was in 1963, not in 1962. The number of periodical appearances increased in 1964-65. The "slump or blackout" took place after the "dip". Those are the facts. In 1963, Frances was not pregnant and B. was not writing new stuff for any book/chap. The 1963 appearances could have been submissions from either 1962 or 1963, but I don't think they were any earlier than that.
I think B. was "depressed" at the time -whatever the reasons- and he did not produce as much poetry in 1962-63. He wrote loads of letters, sure, but not poetry. And if he did, he destroyed it or it was lost, but it was not published.
He was depressed most of the times. That was the reason why he wrote, the way he wrote and subjects he wrote - no money, women or fame could change that.
mjp
Founding member
I'm not doubting your research, I'm just saying that publication is not necessarily an accurate indicator of whether he was writing. It's speculation to apply publication numbers to anything other than publication.
I know, I know - if we take all the speculation out of here we'll be left with about 100 posts. Just saying.
Manuscripts tell us the most about his work habits at any given time, but unfortunately the '60s manuscripts are few and far between.