Regarding the use of the verb "show" in Lovecraft, referencing the Hippocampus Press edition, here are the locations of STJ's erroneous usages of the British variants, often in conjunction with modal constructions (can show)or the infinitive(to show). Characters who are not narrators would naturally not have used these British variants in most instances, and it is unfortunate for the academic reception of the now-standardized editions that Mr. Joshi "felt" and "believed" that it was somehow appropriate to systematise Lovecraft's use of this verb:
Vol. I: p.196 (show), 199 (shown), 292 (shown), 302 (strewed; STJ curiously chose "strowed"), 306 (showed), 310 (show), 313 (showing).
Vol II: p.60(3 examples should read "show"), 63 (HPL's comma after "the blasphemous horror" should not have been deleted), 64 (shown and showed), 65 (showing), 66 (shows), 88 (shows), 478 (show), 494 (showed), 500 (showed), 508 (showed).
Vol. III: p.28 (shows...from the transcript of Lake's call), and p.56 (show).
Again, HPL clearly chose the "o" over the "e" in these cases for very sound stylistic reasons. I
wonder what others may think about this.

jkh



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 8 Mar 17 | 03:47PM by Kipling.

I wonder why, of all hills to die on you picked this one, and why you decided to do it here.

Spare me your awkward use of metaphor. Why did the fool you voted for choose Mt. Washington to die on?
If your nerves can take the ascent
(no guardrails, 28 below zero Saturday with heavy dense fog, kind of like your mental climate)
go there and jump off, pipsqueak.

jkh

Yeah, because the guy that randomly comes to a Clark Ashton Smith forum to bitch about a few particular words in how S. T. Joshi edited the work of H. P. Lovecraft is fit to call others dense. Did you get kicked off of a Lovecraft forum or something?

S. T.'s editorial work on Lovecraft's text has been outstanding and passionate and supremely intelligent. It has me looking at images of Lovecraft's typed manuscripts, and this has me wondering. Lovecraft seems to have enjoy'd getting his revision clients to type up his stories as a form of payment for the revision work he did on their tales, and I am wondering if, in so doing, these scribes follow'd Lovecraft's preference for British spelling or if they alter'd that aspect of his texts. I am super-excited about pouring into the Variorum edition of ye revisions & collaborations!

"I'm a little girl."
--H. P. Lovecraft, Esq.

wilum pugmire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> S. T.'s editorial work on Lovecraft's text has
> been outstanding and passionate and supremely
> intelligent. It has me looking at images of
> Lovecraft's typed manuscripts, and this has me
> wondering. Lovecraft seems to have enjoy'd getting
> his revision clients to type up his stories as a
> form of payment for the revision work he did on
> their tales, and I am wondering if, in so doing,
> these scribes follow'd Lovecraft's preference for
> British spelling or if they alter'd that aspect of
> his texts. I am super-excited about pouring into
> the Variorum edition of ye revisions &
> collaborations!

"When we attend less to "authority" and more to principles, when we look less at merit and more at demerit (instead of the converse, as some persons suggest), we shall then be better critics than we are. We must neglect our models and study our capabilities. The mad eulogies on what occasionally has, in letters, been well done, spring from our imperfect comprehension of what it is possible for us to do better."
--Edgar Allan Poe
Mr. Joshi has erred, specifically, by not following Lovecraft's autograph and typed manuscripts in rendering the speech of Tillinghast and Pickman in "From Beyond" and "Pickman's Model," and in the "call from Lake" (the biologist) on page 28 of volume 3 of the Variorum edition, as in his previous editions. Another 29 instances in volume 2 of changing from the American spelling used by Lovecraft to the British spelling of forms of to show[u] preferred by Joshi are perhaps[u] justifiable by his desire for uniformity/consistency in usage of the verb, but there is [u]no question that Lovecraft preferred to use "show" or "shown" in the half-dozen examples mentioned above. The two characters are both "off the deep end" and HPL apparently chose to use the "American" spellings in their dialogue. Of the other 29, a significant number appear to me as conscious choices to use "show" rather than "shew" when an art-product forms the preceding noun: "the canvas showed," "the picture showed," or when a Natural object or background is subject: "by the way it shows" (the constellations, in "The Strange High House in the Mist", p.88 vol. 2). Yes, HPL almost always preferred "shew" to "show," in his letters, but if such a pattern as I describe indicates that he did in fact prefer "show" in certain [u]fictional contexts[u] (the crucial distinction in my view), then what, other than a foolish consistency, is gained by altering what he wrote in both his autograph and typed manuscripts? No, six perceived errors in judgement affecting an otherwise dazzling job of editing will not be seen as worth pointing out by many people-- hence my need to quote our beloved Edgar. I believe this error arose from an over-emphasis on the fact that, as Massimo Berruti wrote, Lovecraft "reserves for himself an absolutely privileged, demiurgic role in the fictional world." (2009 Lovecraft Annual)

jkh



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16 Mar 17 | 02:01PM by Kipling.

Once I wrote an email to T.S.Joshi because I wanted to know why he had never mentioned an obscure horror writer Robert Murray Gilchrist in his works. To my surprise, he answered me. :-)

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spare me your awkward use of metaphor. Why did the
> fool you voted for choose Mt. Washington to die
> on?
> If your nerves can take the ascent
> (no guardrails, 28 below zero Saturday with heavy
> dense fog, kind of like your mental climate)
> go there and jump off, pipsqueak.

This is the reason why I seldom frequent this forum any more: too many trolls coming in to further their own personal agendas and hide behind pseudonyms. It never hurts to be courteous.

Joshi also forces HPL to say "shew" and "shewn" (and other things) even when HPL is supposed to be pretending to be the modern American celebrity magician Harry Houdini. I never saw the point to that at all.

HPL had consistent handwriting, which is of course a useful trait when you and others (such as the people he shanghaied to do his typing for him) have to dechipher your handwriting later. But it seems that HPL's typists, and indeed HPL himself when he did his own typing, usually translated "shew" in script to "show" in type. I can only assume that was exactly what HPL wanted.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 27 Apr 17 | 08:14PM by Platypus.

Scott Connors Wrote:
> This is the reason why I seldom frequent this
> forum any more: too many trolls coming in to
> further their own personal agendas and hide behind
> pseudonyms. It never hurts to be courteous.

And yet, on the other hand, even if you find being discourteous to be painful, you must have decided you could endure it. I admire your courage in the face of discomfort.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Joshi also forces HPL to say "shew" and "shewn"
> (and other things) even when HPL is supposed to be
> pretending to be the modern American celebrity
> magician Harry Houdini. I never saw the point to
> that at all.
>
> HPL had consistent handwriting, which is of course
> a useful trait when you and others (such as the
> people he shanghaied to do his typing for him)
> have to dechipher your handwriting later. But it
> seems that HPL's typists, and indeed HPL himself
> when he did his own typing, usually translated
> "shew" in script to "show" in type. I can only
> assume that was exactly what HPL wanted.

Yes, and the long-standing imposition of verbal variants that were not used by HPL in his autograph manuscripts and typescripts was stretched, in the Hippocampus volumes, to further impose syntactical changes, weakening the style of some sentences. Note Mr. Joshi's deletion of the first comma from the following passage: "On the green and flowery mountains of Cathuria stand temples of pink marble, rich with carven and painted glories,... (CF I-110)
Deleting the comma after "marble" was entirely unwarranted, as I'm sure you'd agree. Shortly after the books came out I cited another example, and Joshi was kind enough to respond, stating that "Lovecraft has made a grammatical error here." You decide; is the deletion of the 3rd comma in the following sentence a grammatical error, or just an alteration of sentence structure?: "There's no use in my trying to tell you what they were like, because the awful, the blasphemous horror, and the unbelievable loathsomeness and moral foetor came from simple touches quite beyond the power of words to classify."
Not that it matters much, but I also disagree with the decision to place quotation marks around book titles, which technically adds[u][/u] errors. And what's up with the half-quotes ('Necronomicon') on III-519? So what if HPL used quotation marks around book titles in his letters?
This reminds me of Basil Copper's controversial revisions to August Derleth's Solar Pons stories back in the early 80s. These of course involved changes to Derleth's diction and spelling to preferred British forms, and even rewriting some passages if I infer correctly. Ironically, Mr. Copper was given [i]carte blanche[i] to do this by James Turner, who [u][u][i]advised and assisted[i] Mr. Joshi with the 1984 Arkham House editions. Peter Ruber reprinted an article by Jon. L. Lellenberg in which he quoted an insouciant passage from Turner's reply to "The Broken Chessman" ( a [i]nom de plume[i] of a Praed Street Irregular who was inquisitive about the direction the Solar Pons project was taking). Lellenberg argued that such a libertarian attitude towards editing, [u]intended to smooth over perceived inconsistencies[u], "tends to efface the development of an author's style and skill," and that Turner and Copper lacked the competence "to limit their 'corrections' to real errors only" (Original Text Solar Pons Omnibus, XVI). Mr. Ruber himself was responsible for the terrible proofreading errors in [i]The Final Adventures of Solar Pons[i], but his point in following up Lellenberg was well taken: "If Copper objected to anyone arbitrarily editing his own writings, why does he make arbitrary changes to another writer's work"? (XX)

At least Smith's fiction was not victimized by editorial malfeasance. I prefer Smith's revised versions of "The Beast of Averoigne," and "The Satyr," putting me in the minority I guess, but other than that, kudos to Hilger and Connors.

Concerning a passage in "The White Ship" ....

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Note Mr. Joshi's deletion of the
> first comma from the following passage: "On the
> green and flowery mountains of Cathuria stand
> temples of pink marble, rich with carven and
> painted glories,... (CF I-110)


> Deleting the comma after "marble" was entirely
> unwarranted, as I'm sure you'd agree.

In this case, the reason Joshi does not use the comma is because he claims, as his "copy text", a handwritten manuscript sent to Alvin Earl Perry in 1934 (published in facsimile in WHISPERS #4). I have a copy of WHISPERS #4, and the comma does indeed seem to be absent.

Joshi's logic is that this draft must have been prepared in 1934, making it later than any other draft. He therefore decides that this reflects HPL's final wishes, and derives a number of alternative readings from it (e.g., "rove" instead of "can move"; "native place" instead of "native shore")

In my opinion this is a mistake. The copy sent to Perry is not a new draft, prepared in 1934 for publication. It is a more-or-less "original" manuscript, prepared circa 1919, and given to Perry as a gift in 1934, on the theory that "original manuscripts" are potentially valuable keepsakes.

The reason Lovecraft gives such "original" manuscripts away, after his stories are published, is that he has no further use for them. They do not reflect his final wishes, and he prefers to work with typescripts and printed copies anyhow. He discusses this attitude in his letters.

The manuscript given to Perry is hand-written (apparently in pencil, though it's hard to be sure from a facsimile) and scribbled on 2 sides of 4 sheets of paper. The inscription addressed to Perry (clearly in ink) suggests the copy is being given as a gift. While the inked inscription to Perry is dated September 5, 1934, the manuscript itself is undated.

Both HPL's surviving typescript (at JHL) and the copy given to Perry, appear to have matching corrections. For instance, on both the typescript and manuscript, it appears that an earlier word, probably "has", has been corrected to read "hath" ("... none hath ever beheld Cathuria"). On another occasion, in the typescript, an earlier word (probably "beseeched") has been hand-corrected to read "besought"; and the manuscript also reads "besought" but with marks and smudges suggestive of the erasure of an earlier word (again, probably "beseeched"). Note that "beseeched" is the reading found in the 1919 publication in UNITED AMATEUR; which however reads "hath" and not "has".

The theory that best explains this is that HPL wrote the manuscript circa 1919, then prepared the typescript from the manuscript. He then corrected both copies to read "hath". He then published in UNITED AMATEUR (based on the typescript). He then corrected both copies to read "besought". Then in 1927 he published in WEIRD TALES (submitting either the single-spaced typescript or a new double-spaced typescript based on the single-spaced typescript, and in any event ignoring the manuscript).

Remember Occham's Razor (entities are not to be multiplied without necessity). We know HPL composed handwritten manuscripts, before preparing typescripts, and there is no need to postulate two handwritten manuscripts. One such document is adequate to explain all available evidence.

In short, this is a draft that dates back to at least 1919. Its variant readings are earlier to, and not subsequent to, the typescript, and are not the variants HPL chose for publication ... TWICE.

HPL probably prepared a double-spaced typescript of this story for submission to WEIRD TALES, which may have been the occasion for further revision. In my view, the WEIRD TALES text is the best evidence of HPL's final wishes for this story. Hence, WEIRD TALES should be probably followed except when it is clearly in error. The only clear error by WEIRD TALES is "distent" being wrongly fixed to "distant" in the phrase "its sails distent" ("distent" here meaning "distended" as in "pulled taught"). Correct that WEIRD TALES error, and you're done, IMHO. If you want, you can also replace the "simplified spelling" favored by WEIRD TALES with HPL's habitual "British" spellings, though from all the evidence, it seems HPL consented to this kind of change, and did not care about this one way or the other (after all, "harbor" and "harbour", etc. etc., are both authentic archaic variants).

Note that WEIRD TALES faithfully preserved here for this story, all deliberate archaisms by HPL, including "shew", which is also used in the surviving typescript. HPL, of course, usually used the modern spelling "show" in his typescripts, particularly when the setting was modern. Joshi's theory is that he did this only because he knew editors would not honor his wishes, but the example of "The White Ship" shows that is not necessarily the case.

The end result of this would not differ much from the surviving single-spaced typescript at JHL. So faithfully following the JHL typescript would not be a terrible choice either. But the variants Joshi derives from the manuscript have no particular claim to be "definitive".



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 7 Jan 18 | 07:12PM by Platypus.

Have you seen the Variorum edition available from Hippocampus Press?

Thanks for explaining. In a few instances, the printing of "shew" or "shews" for the modern spellings is contrary to both handwritten and typed manuscripts prepared by Lovecraft ("From Beyond" being an early example), and when characterization is affected, these usages are obviously deviant and unjustifiable by any rationale Mr. Joshi may deign to use. It's deucedly odd for an editor to make no distinction between verbs rendering speech and those used in narration in the first place, and there are other overtly gratuitous changes as well, such as "strowed" for "strewed," and the use of quotation marks around book titles based on the epistles. A disservice to the author.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 7 Jan 18 | 10:17PM by Kipling.