For me, "The Haunted Jarvee" is one of the best nautical stories by W.H.Hodgson, along with "The Derelict", "From The Tideless Seas" and "The Voice In the Night". "Through The Vortex Of A Cyclone" is also a great marine story, though it is not a horror one. What I do not like about Hodgson´s sea tales is they are very stereotyped. (A vessel sets sail, then there is a storm, suddenly they aboard her find themselves in the vicinity of an island, a derelict or a wreck, then they go to search it etc. etc.). Also the monsters are very convential and repetitive (chiefly those monstrous crabs and octopuses get on nerves)
Mr. Hodgson should have been more creative in this respect. :-)

Minicthulhu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For me, "The Haunted Jarvee" is one of the best
> nautical stories by W.H.Hodgson, along with "The
> Derelict", ... What I do not like about Hodgson´s
> sea tales is they are very stereotyped. ... the monsters are very
> convential and repetitive (chiefly those monstrous
> crabs and octopuses get on nerves)
> Mr. Hodgson should have been more creative in this
> respect. :-)


Oh, I don't know about that, ... to some extent, yes, ... but the fungoid growth in "The Derelict" is a great, and memorable "monster" (forever stuck in my mind). And I assume you have read The Boats of the "Glen Carrig", ... quite original.

Generally, I think American writers are more creative with monsters than English writers, who more tend to re-use, nurse and polish their hereditary traditions. I guess it is because of the difference in mental perspective between the new frontier and the Old country.
And, not to go too much off-topic, I'd still like to briefly get back to what Sawfish said in the other thread, about Lovecraft's weird fantasy creations being like science fiction. Yes, a richly imaginative science fantasy (same for the other Weird Tales writers of the era, and A. Merritt), and the audiences accepted these wild excursions as convincing and believable, ... before the event of satellites and every square inch of the World being geographically mapped, quickly developing technology and rational scientific thinking, and with that, the loss of innocence. Before the satellite, we still were spiritually living more or less in medieval times (looking at early school Atlases). But I think that loss of innocence is an illusion, we have been fooled by science, slaves under their institution established authority, to believe and smugly behave like everything around us is now under rational observance and intellectual control. It is just idiotic. There is still room for the richly supernatural, for ghosts and "Cthulhus", if only our minds let go of their temporary collective rigidity and become more flexible. Lovecraft's tales are still appealing today (in spite of ourselves), partly because of the mental conviction they were written under. But otherwise there is a prudence and unhealthy obsession with scientifically correct realism today instead of the imaginary. When imaginary it is often tainted with self-irony, because no one wants to be seen as a genuine fantasist in a materialistically oriented society.

I downloaded "The Haunted Jarvee", which is not included in my small collection of Hodgson books, and look forward to reading it. It is annoying, I think, that most online texts are presented with blank space in-between every paragraph, even though the author did not write it like that. It fragments the reading experience. But it does unfortunately seem to have become accepted procedure today, and the new norm. Space between paragraphs should only be in those places where the author intended it, making a brief narrative stall before a change of scene. Otherwise, if this is not respected, the rhythm and time is distorted.

Minicthulhu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For me, "The Haunted Jarvee" is one of the best
> nautical stories by W.H.Hodgson, along with "The
> Derelict", "From The Tideless Seas" and "The Voice
> In the Night". "Through The Vortex Of A Cyclone"
> is also a great marine story, though it is not a
> horror one. What I do not like about Hodgson´s
> sea tales is they are very stereotyped. (A vessel
> sets sail, then there is a storm, suddenly they
> aboard her find themselves in the vicinity of an
> island, a derelict or a wreck, then they go to
> search it etc. etc.). Also the monsters are very
> conventionial and repetitive (chiefly those monstrous
> crabs and octopuses get on nerves)
> Mr. Hodgson should have been more creative in this
> respect. :-)

Well, to each his own. Maybe I'm just a small boy at heart. But some of the elements of which you complain are the elements of which I can barely get enough. To my mind, it does not hurt the sargasso sea stories that the sargasso sea is a reasonably similar place (with modest twists) every time it is encountered. It just makes the place seem more real. Stories featuring crabs and seaweed can be like stories about people. The situations and challenges faced can vary sufficiently each time.

Ships repeatedly encountering storms, monsters, islands, derelicts or wrecks, in a nautical horror tale, is to me rather like Star Trek repeatedly beginning with the Enterprise arriving on a new planet. The appeal of such stories is that you never know what you are going to find on the derelict, island, or planet.

I just read "The Find" (1947). It is not horror. At least, Carnacki himself is the only remote connection to horror or the supernatural. And I suspect it was probably Derleth who added Carnacki.

"The Find" is one of the worst stories by Hodgson I ever read. No suspense, no horror, simply nothing. An empty shell ... But give a try to "The Hog". Though you must get over what we were discussing in the previous posts - the almost ridiculous monster in it. But it is an interesting story from a certain point of view.

Minicthulhu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The Find" is one of the worst stories by Hodgson
> I ever read. No suspense, no horror, simply
> nothing. An empty shell ... But give a try to "The
> Hog". Though you must get over what we were
> discussing in the previous posts - the almost
> ridiculous monster in it. But it is an interesting
> story from a certain point of view.


I was able to find "The Hog" on archive.org, in a 1947 copy of Weird Tales. It is not bad. However, having read it, I am quite certain that Hodgson did not write it.

Apart from other reasons, the quotations from the Sigsand Manuscript give it away. The Sigsand Ms. (in the original Carnacki stories) is apparently supposed to be 14th century English. Hodgson modeled his Sigsand Ms. quotations on Chaucer (though he did not do much more than deliberately mis-spell English in a faux-Chaucerian way). But the writer of "The Hog" just replaces "the" with "ye", which is a different (and in this context, far less authentic) approach to fake archaism.

"The reason for that is the fact that this edition contained three stories that had not been included in the previous Carnacki collections of 1913 or 1921. These three stories were acquired by Derleth through H. C. Koenig (who likely had gotten them originally from Hodgson’s family). The most powerful and popular Carnacki story, “The Hog”, was one of these three stories. This means that Lovecraft likely never read this story despite the fact that it echoes many of the themes and effects Lovecraft himself used in his fiction."

[williamhopehodgson.wordpress.com]

Minicthulhu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The reason for that is the fact that this edition
> contained three stories that had not been included
> in the previous Carnacki collections of 1913 or
> 1921. These three stories were acquired by
> Derleth through H. C. Koenig (who likely had
> gotten them originally from Hodgson’s family).
> The most powerful and popular Carnacki story,
> “The Hog”, was one of these three stories.
> This means that Lovecraft likely never read this
> story despite the fact that it echoes many of the
> themes and effects Lovecraft himself used in his
> fiction."
>
> [williamhopehodgson.wordpress.com]
> th/

Well, somebody wrote the thing between 1918 and 1947. I don't know if it was Derleth, or if it was Koenig, or if it was whoever Koenig got it from. But it wasn't Hodgson.

Even without the Sigsand Ms "ye" gaffe, I would find it almost impossible to believe that Hodgson died in 1918 with no less than 3 unpublished Carnacki manuscripts in his drawer, all of which are mashups of his previous work. One such story I could maybe believe. But if there was a demand for Carnacki stories, why not publish? And if there was no demand, why write three and throw them in the drawer?

Interest in Carnacki would not have revived until after the war. I have no doubt Hodgson would have responded to the demand, and written more stories then, had he been still alive. But he wasn't

The Carnacki stories were republished in 1947. But the 6 original stories were all public domain by then (or close to it). The publisher would have needed new material in order to protect its investment.

But I'm not sure I can identify Lovecraftian themes in "The Hog" that were not found in the original Carnacki stories.

Re: "The Hog" and other Carnacki stories

Platypus wrote:

>Well, somebody wrote the thing between 1918 and 1947. I don't know if it was Derleth, or if it was Koenig, or if it was whoever Koenig got it from. But it wasn't Hodgson.

I wish such uninformed speculation could be dropped. The truth is that 1) Hodgson's own manuscript survives (I've held it in my hands). 2) There is contemporary evidence, in Hodgson's own writing logs (held in the Eaton Collection at UC Riverside), that the story was offered for sale in 1917. (It presumably didn't sell to a magazine because it's too long for most magazines.) 3) There is considerable evidence in the latter of Hodgson's sister Lissie and H.C. Koenig and Derleth that the manuscript was sent by Lissie to Koenig, who then sent it to Derleth, who paid Lissie for the publicaiton in Werid Tales and in the 1947 Carnacki book. 4) Lots of Hodgson stories didn't sell to magazines in his lifetime. That's where the contents of the three Moskowitz-edited collections come from, published in the 70s-90s. 5) The idea that some usage in a manuscript differs from that found in a copyedited and published story means nothing.

Douglas A. Anderson Wrote:
> I wish such uninformed speculation could be
> dropped.

Caveat Emptor. Let the buyer beware. The uninformed public has the right to be skeptical when people try to sell us stuff, even when the salesman claims to have inside knowledge about the excellence and bona fides of the product.

I am only a member of the public. And you (apparently) are a salesman. So don't get all high and mighty with me. You may have inside knowledge. But I am not required to trust you. And if you try to bully or talk down to me, I am ESPECIALLY not going to trust you.

> The truth is that 1) Hodgson's own
> manuscript survives (I've held it in my hands).

I'm sure that a manuscript exists. It is even possible that various people, perhaps even you, have held it in their hands. I just don't think Hodgson wrote it.

> 2)
> There is contemporary evidence, in Hodgson's own
> writing logs (held in the Eaton Collection at UC
> Riverside), that the story was offered for sale in
> 1917.

And what exactly is this contemporary evidence? What exactly does Hodgson say in these logs?

> (It presumably didn't sell to a magazine
> because it's too long for most magazines.)

Presumably? You're not going to convince me with flights of fancy.

For whatever reason, Hodgson did not sell ANY weird tales during the war.

Nor have you presented any evidence of the nature, content, summary, or title of the alleged story that allegedly got rejected.

> 3)
> There is considerable evidence in the latter of
> Hodgson's sister Lissie and H.C. Koenig and
> Derleth that the manuscript was sent by Lissie to
> Koenig, who then sent it to Derleth, who paid
> Lissie for the publicaiton in Werid Tales and in
> the 1947 Carnacki book.

You don't exactly describe this evidence. You just say it is "considerable". Like a salesman selling a product.

Lissie may have a financial interest in the project. You even say she got paid? But regardless of how much Lissie got paid, you have presented no evidence that Lissie ever vouched for the authenticity of the manuscript, or was even capable of doing so.

> 4) Lots of Hodgson stories
> didn't sell to magazines in his lifetime. That's
> where the contents of the three Moskowitz-edited
> collections come from, published in the 70s-90s.

Some of that might be genuine. Especially the uninteresting unpublishable fragments that nobody deemed worth publishing before. Any other stuff we should be skeptical of. But the only actual opinions I have ventured are about "The Find" and "The Hog", both of which I have now read, and neither of which are likely to be genuine, in my opinion.

> 5) The idea that some usage in a manuscript
> differs from that found in a copyedited and
> published story means nothing.

That was not MY idea. That is apparently YOUR idea. And you have presented no evidence that the usage in the Ms differs from the copy-edited and published story. The only claim you made is that you held the Ms. in your hands.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 17 Mar 19 | 05:05PM by Platypus.

For what it's worth, Plat, you haven't provided any evidence of your assertion aside from a gut-level feeling that it couldn't possibly be from Hodgson. While I'd love to see an academic article on the subject, I find your effort at point-counterpoint disingenuous. There's plenty of writers that have sat on stories, for any number of different reasons, not all of them rational (cf. H. P. Lovecraft and "The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath.") Unless you've got proof that Hodgson didn't write the thing, you don't have any strong arguments aside from your gut.

Ancient History Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For what it's worth, Plat, you haven't provided
> any evidence of your assertion aside from a
> gut-level feeling that it couldn't possibly be
> from Hodgson.

Well, that is certainly not a fair summary of my position. I gave specific reasons for my opinion, which you have made no attempt to counter. But yeah, since you bring it up, and in addition to the other reasons I gave, the story just did not feel like Hodgson to me. And even if that were all I had, I would still be entitled to my opinion, just as you would be entitled to yours. My gut versus your gut.

Funny how you're trying to move the goal-post. So now, somehow, my burden is to prove that it could not POSSIBLY be by Hodgson??? Well, two can play at that game. Why don't you prove that it could not POSSIBLY be by someone else?

> While I'd love to see an academic
> article on the subject, I find your effort at
> point-counterpoint disingenuous.

LOL on the "academic article". Possibly, one is being commissioned by the publisher right now, to be published in the next newly copyrighted edition of CARNACKI THE GHOST FINDER. And I'm sure it will support the publisher's position. Too bad it does not exist yet, and you cannot cite it as an authority. I suppose you have mentioned it only to imply that lowly members of the public like myself, have no right to think for ourselves, when publishers try to sell stuff to us.

In the meantime, while we are waiting for this "academic" article to appear, what do you have to contribute to the discussion? Calling me "disingenuous" is just hurling mud.

> There's plenty of
> writers that have sat on stories, for any number
> of different reasons, not all of them rational
> (cf. H. P. Lovecraft and "The Dream-Quest of
> Unknown Kadath.")

Why are you pretending I took the position that no posthumously-published work is ever genuine? Is that not disingenuous?

> Unless you've got proof that
> Hodgson didn't write the thing, you don't have any
> strong arguments aside from your gut.

LOL. No middle ground, huh? Either I must provide "proof" (that meets YOUR standards, I suppose, or the publisher's), or I must accept on faith the self-serving claims of the copy-right holders and publishers, who are playing the old game of reclaiming public domain works by putting out new and 'improved' editions. THEY don't have to prove anything. How convenient for them.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 17 Mar 19 | 08:04PM by Platypus.

Wow, you took the train straight to conspiracy-laden crazy-town, huh?

Ancient History Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, you took the train straight to
> conspiracy-laden crazy-town, huh?


Lol. Now you're calling me crazy and a conspiracy theorist. Another non-argument.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17 Mar 19 | 08:27PM by Platypus.

Sad to see nothing around here ever changes...