In the interest of specificity, the figure was not hypothetical: Mr. Joshi stated it quite credulously to me in a letter, saying that editing the complete extant correspondence was his dream and that it could approach 100 volumes, which is a bad estimate and a far cry from the 20-25 volume figure you gave, which, if doubled would make 40-50 slender volumes for the complete extant correspondence. One hopes that more Smith letters will be discovered; at this late stage, they would be of more interest than stray postcards by HPL.

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the interest of specificity, the figure was not
> hypothetical: Mr. Joshi stated it quite
> credulously to me in a letter, saying that editing
> the complete extant correspondence was his dream
> and that it could approach 100 volumes, which is a
> bad estimate and a far cry from the 20-25 volume
> figure you gave, which, if doubled would make
> 40-50 slender volumes for the complete extant
> correspondence. One hopes that more Smith letters
> will be discovered; at this late stage, they would
> be of more interest than stray postcards by HPL.

And at what time was this? It wasn't in the last dozen years at least.

Well over 12 years. It's beside the point. The Hippocampus Variorum edition of Lovecraft's fiction is not an improvement over Joshi's previous edition, as touted. He alters Lovecraft's punctuation and makes self-indulgent changes in usage and spelling. The verbal changes are a carry-over from the Arkham editions of course, and now can be seen as unsupported by textual evidence in most cases. A scrupulously accurate and authoratative edition has yet to be published. Happily no such editorial misguidance marks the Smith ouvre as presented by Connors and Hilger. Smith's fiction is superior to Lovecraft's, as others have well-argued herein. Lovecraft criticism, btw, has become redundant. The 9th of Hippocampus's Lovecraft Annuals was the last one I read.

jkh

JKH, by "redundant" do you mean that Lovecraft criticism has become repetitious -- recycling what's already been said?

Btw I just use the second edition of the Barnes & Noble Lovecraft fiction volume & figure that is plenty good enough for the rest of my life.

Yes, exactly. Repetitive.

Platypus Wrote:
>
> "I don't believe that HPL typed up his typescripts to say "show" only because
he was bullied by evil editors. The pattern I have noticed is that "show"
>usually looks like "shew" when HPL
>writes in script (because that's his habitual way of writing), but when he
>prepares typescripts, it is generally
> typed up as "show", unless HPL is aiming for some particular archaic effect. Joshi glorifies HPL's natural idiosyncrasies of hand-writing, and effectively deprives him of his
> right to control how he wants his final draft to be presented. His hand-scribbled drafts were never what he submitted or authorized for publication."
A fine and irrefutable summation of Joshi's pretentious malfeasance. As proof, I append these passages from a letter of HPL's to Kenneth Sterling:

"The point is that I couldn't get all my MSS. & letters written if I had to pay attention to any set of rules or stop to form my individual letters. With me, perforce,, the word or even phrase or sentence is the primary unit which makes its bid for recognition--not the letter." ...to which he adds: "One doesn't have to stop & ponder whether the t, h, & e are perfectly defined as separate units...it's perfectly clear according to the rules of common sense that any symbol of the given approximate shape in the given location must, barring a miracle, be "the" & nothing else" (Letters to Robert Bloch and Others, p.248). It's ridiculous. Back in the 1980's Joshi and Don Burleson even used "shew" in their own articles, slavishly aping Lovecraft's epistolary form. "Regardless of context," Joshi said, defending the indefensible systematizing of the verb.

jkh

"Before the age of the typewriter nobody but schoolchildren ever thought of making each letter separately and carefully" (HPL to Donald A. Wollheim, LRB 324). "About the spelling I use--I don't give the matter much thought, but adhere to what seems the most universal & conservative" (LRB 384).

jkh