Bark Notes
Bark Notes
Various LDM books and articles mention the "Bark Notes". It sounds like these are considered to be essential reading by many people. Is this true, or is most of the info contained in them generally known or published elsewhere? I know that parts of them are referenced in Ely's, Corbin's, and perhaps other books, but I assume that there are still parts of the notes that are closely guarded secrets? <br> <br>Assuming that they are required reading, is there any chance of them being published one of these days? From Glover's book, I get the impression that the only way to get ahold of a copy is to know the right people. Am I waiting in vain for the day that the SMHS adds them to their published list of documents?
I am not an expert on the origin and history of the "Bark Notes", but as I understand it, they were a sort of "diary" (well not really) kept by Jim Bark and passed down to his family. The story goes that Chuck Aylor was instrumental in "aquiring" a copy of the Bark Notes from Jim Bark's son-in-law, John Spangler. The notes were supposedly taken and copied (or typed or read into a tape recorder... depending on whose version you hear) and returend to Spangler without him being any the wiser...until copies of the Notes began appearing in public. <br> <br>There are supposedly various versions of the Notes. Some folks think they are useful, others think they are not. I have always thought that if they WERE <br>taken from Spangler and copied, then Spangler may well have had a "real" copy of the Notes, and this might add to their usefullness. Have copies been embellished over the years? I dont know, but given the way this legend has grown, I would think this is probably so. <br> <br>The Notes don't in themselves tell you where Bark thought the LDM was located (though in one chapter he does tell ...sort of...which mountain he thought the LDM was on). What value I have found in them <br>is that they do seem to point to a general area of the mountains and does cause a researcher to think carefully and work thing through...which in itself can be rewarding. <br> <br>I believe the Bark family has the copyright, though I may well be wrong here. If you drop me a line in private I should be able to tell you how to get a copy.
Peter is exactly correct. I knew Chuck Aylor very well, and in his waning years when he was living under Crazy Jake's influnce , one day the Bark notes showed up when I was there. I think , that Jake had a hand in the acquiring of the notes from Spangler's possession, without Spangler knowing about it at first. I at that time ,35 years ago, got to read them first hand. I read them twice and what I remember is that Sim Ely's book was almost word for word right out of theark notes. Again this was awhile ago. If you get a copy of the notes compare them of course yourself.
Starting sometime around 1910-1914 Jim Bark started writing The Bark Notes adding to them up until the mid-1930s. They were written as a manuscript for publication, not as a private diary. Since they were written for publication (which never happened) Bark changed some things in them and left many others out. The copyright was (and I believe still is) held by both the Spangler and the Ely families. John Spangler was Bark's nephew by marriage. Although parts of the Bark Notes have been published to the best of my knowledge it has been without the permission of the copyright holders; but John Spangler was too elderly and ill at the time to fight it (although it caused him considerable hurt).
I believe I can add a little extra detail to the referenced version of the Bark Notes. I believe Thomas Probert, et al, wanted at one time to publish Bark's work. It went so far as to be set in book print type. I have seen photo copies of some of the sections. They looked nice. However, my understanding was that negotiations fell through with the Bark/Spangler family and the project was dropped. So, in a sense, it was not officially published. However, I am sure some "demo" printings were made (one of which is probably the one referred to at the Phoenix Library) and are floating around. But, rest assured, it was never officially published in the true sense of the word. If memory serves me correctly, the sections I saw were EXACTLY word for word as what can be seen in various "underground" versions of the Bark Notes. Meaning wording and grammar were left exactly as Bark intended. Nothing - that I could tell - was "cleaned up." It should also be noted that the Spangler family still holds the copyright to the material and cling to that priveldge religiously. Therefore, all Dutch Hunters should respect the material and not intentially abuse the use of it by reprinting it or quoting directly from it. Especially not for monetary gain - such as publishing sections verbatim in books or magazine articles. (It makes me wonder how Helen Corbin did what she did. Her book has massive sections of the Bark Notes included in it. I wonder if she had permission?)