While word replacements and omissions are bad enough, I totally fail to understand why anyone would have thought that these meandering additions were a good thing? How is this even editing?
Edit: While substitutions and what you do, when your Mom sees you writing a piece and points at a word, asking, if you maybe could do without it, are a not so much a necessary thing, the writer of this comment doesn't fully understand how this is the professional accomplishment that it is. Last Christmas, I didn't go skiing. How is this even editing? ;-)
It never ceases to amaze me that people think they can get away with very obvious stuff, like this editor for example. Bukowski is not some unknown author - he has a good following.
Did this editor really think nobody would notice? That nobody would get pissed and complain? I just don’t get it
There is clearly a pathological element in such an operation, whether it was by Martin or someone else. Inserting yourself in the work of somebody else can be a power move, or a subconscious desire to get noticed - like a serial killer leaving signature clues. Or it could be a misguided commercial consideration, that Bukowski can be "too sad / depressing / offensive" and so he needs to be toned down to sell more books.
Besides, Bukowski the writer is famous but Bukowski the poet, like all poetry, enjoys very limited popularity.
Edit: While substitutions and what you do, when your Mom sees you writing a piece and points at a word, asking, if you maybe could do without it, are a not so much a necessary thing, the writer of this comment doesn't fully understand how this is the professional accomplishment that it is. Last Christmas, I didn't go skiing. How is this even editing? ;-)