Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kipling Wrote:
> > Not that it matters much, but I also
> disagree
> > with the decision to place quotation marks
> around
> > book titles, which technically adds 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?
>
> True. It seems, however, from the following
> example from 1935, that HPL did not NECESSARILY
> use quotation marks in his letters:
>
> In a May 1935 letter to Robert Block, HPL uses
> underlining (the manuscript equivalent of
> italics), for the Necronomicon, the Book of
> Eibon***, the Unausprechlichen Kulten, Cultes de
> Goules, De Vermis Mysteriis, and the Eltdown
> Shards. This last was probably an error, as his
> usual practice was to merely capitalize Eltdown
> Shards and Pnakotic Manuscripts:
> [
repository.library.brown.edu]
> dr:431122/
>
> But from what I can tell, prior to about 1927 (or
> maybe a bit earlier, I have not thoroughly
> checked), HPL was more or less consistent in using
> quotes for book titles. From maybe 1927 onwards,
> he starts using underlining (the manuscript
> equivalent of italics) in his typescripts and
> manuscripts, and this can be seen, for instance,
> in his 1927 manuscripts of "The History of the
> Necronomicon" and "Charles Dexter Ward"; and many
> later texts.
>
> Joshi, as far as I can tell, fully acknowledges
> this in his text notes variorum. His refusal to
> follow what some might conclude were HPL's final
> wishes, seems to be based on the idea that HPL
> adopted this new habit only to appease his
> oppressive editors. A similar theory seems to
> justify his treatment of the word "shew".
>
> However, the letter cited above seems to work
> against this theory. Whether he was influenced by
> his editors or not, he seems to have internalized
> the new habit to some extent. There was, after
> all, no danger that his letter to Robert Bloch
> would be wickedly meddled with by oppressive
> editors.
>
> In his essay, "Supernatural Horror in Literature",
> HPL seems to have made a deliberate choice to use
> italics (and never quotes) for all the works
> discussed there, regardless of whether or not such
> works had ever been published as a standalone
> volume. Some might argue that this was not quite
> correct, as applied, for instance, to the short
> stories, but to my mind it makes perfect sense in
> the context of that essay. HPL was concerned with
> these works in the abstract, and not with the
> context in which they were published. The
> consistent use of italics allows the reader to
> scan the essay for titles of works (no matter how
> long or short), and frees up the use of quote
> marks for many other purposes of which HPL is
> fond. Joshi has not yet made (to my knowledge) a
> new variorum edition of this essay; which is a
> good thing, as a consistent attempt to promote his
> new "quotes-for-book titles" policy would turn a
> tidy essay into a messy one. It would not be an
> improvement. Context matters.
>
> *** A reference, of course, to the work of the
> great CLARK ASHTON SMITH; which I point out to
> appease the "how dare you not talk about CAS"
> folks.
Context should matter because Lovecraft clearly favors the use of "show" and "showed" when a character is SPEAKING while typically reserving "shew" and "shewed" for the narrators or narration. Joshi, in replying to me thru a third person, ironically, used the phrase "regardless of context" to explain his position. So when you say "seems to justify his treatment of the verb "shew", but later point out that "context matters," you are having it both ways instead of acknowledging Joshi's error. HPL created so few substantial characters; nevertheless, the question of his "final wishes," as you put it is not in question with regard to the quoted speech of said characters. He chose/preferred to use "show" and "showed" in these contexts.
Context does matter, and the systematic use of "shew" is editorial self-indulgence that gives a false impression of the author's "preferences". No amount of Polly-ann avoidance of criticism changes that apparent fact.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 21 Jan 18 | 09:17PM by Kipling.