But not everyone was thrilled to see the home landmarked. The poet's widow, Linda Lee Bukowski, said she did not think her husband would have appreciated seeing a fuss made over the house he rented.
with all due respect to linda lee, and to bukowski himself more importantly, their opinion is noted but not relevant. a published author loses control of his work the minute it is out there in the public domain. he's sold it, it's gone. people buy it, they live it, they breathe it. it becomes theirs. no-one can tell me not to travel thousands of miles to look at a house one of my favourite authors lived in just because the author would not have liked it.
for example, leonard cohen realised when he heard vietnam servicemen singing "suzanne" that he no longer 'owned' the song.
like it or not, you can't keep artistic expression (and associated ephemera and locations) precious if it is out there and means something to the audience for which it was most certainly intended.[/QUOTE]That's true, but it's not about keeping anything precious at all, and, by the way, artistic expression or works of art and the house the woman or guy lived in while producing said stuff are two completely different things, at least to me. While it's perfectly understandable why somebody would like to have a look on B.'s bungalow (I'd like to have one myself) it's also perfectly understandable that somebody is or might not be too comfortable with that idea, especially B. himself (maybe) or his widow or family.
But all that, as we see, matters little anyway. There are "Bukowski tours" and the delongpre bungalow is rather famous now.