Well, the first volume of the collected Clark Ashton Smith from Night Shade is doing rather well, and there is even some discussion of a second printing. In anticipation of such a contingency, I'd like to invite any of you who have found any typographical errors to pass them along so that we may correct the reprint. So far neither Ron nor I have found any, but I attribute that to the fact that after all that we've been through as of late, we see corrected text before our eyes when we sleep! So...help a brother (in Almonsin-Metraton, natch!) out, hokay?

Best,
Scott

Will do! I'm obsessed enough to have done textual comparisons between the Penguin versions of Lovecraft (well, at least two-and-a-half volumes of them!) and the Arkham House versions and spotted lots of new errors (this work will eventually result in errata lists for the Penguins, to be published in the EOD). I'll be all too happy to "proof" Smith as well.

Yrs
Martin

P. S. Speaking of the Penguins, one of the changes (and this is a new, deliberate correction, not an error; I've checked with Master Joshi) is that it's now "Almousin-Metraton". :-)

Martinus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Will do! I'm obsessed enough to have done textual
> comparisons between the Penguin versions of
> Lovecraft (well, at least two-and-a-half volumes
> of them!) and the Arkham House versions and
> spotted lots of new errors (this work will
> eventually result in errata lists for the
> Penguins, to be published in the EOD). I'll be all
> too happy to "proof" Smith as well.
>
> Yrs
> Martin
>
> P. S. Speaking of the Penguins, one of the changes
> (and this is a new, deliberate correction, not an
> error; I've checked with Master Joshi) is that
> it's now "Almousin-Metraton". :-)

I'm the same way about comparing different editions. I was stupefied to find that in the Library of America edition of Lovecraft's works, most of the dialogue that Harley Warren relates to Carter as he rambles in the underground pit are in italics whereas my beloved Del Rey editions just print the text straight! Oh, well...

By the way, Martin, has shewing your friend some of Clark Ashton Smith's comely photos helped in any way in getting her interested in reading some of his works? ^_^

We have seen the darkness
Where charnel things decay,
Where atom moves with atom
In shining swift array,
Like ordered constellations
On some sidereal way.
--from Nyctalops

Quote:

I'm obsessed enough to have done textual comparisons between the Penguin versions of Lovecraft (well, at least two-and-a-half volumes of them!) and the Arkham House versions and spotted lots of new errors (this work will eventually result in errata lists for the Penguins, to be published in the EOD)

I am a little puzzled. Joshi writes that the Penguin editions represent more up-to-date texts than the Arkham House versions. So, while I realize that the Penguin editions of Lovecraft are supposed to contain errors, it still seems to me that a textual discrepancy between the Arkham House editions and the Penguin editions does not necessarily mean that the latter are in error.

By the way, what/where is the "EOD"? I'd still like to see these errata lists, when they appear. Thanks.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I am a little puzzled. Joshi writes that the
> Penguin editions represent more up-to-date texts
> than the Arkham House versions. So, while I
> realize that the Penguin editions of Lovecraft are
> supposed to contain errors, it still seems to me
> that a textual discrepancy between the Arkham
> House editions and the Penguin editions does not
> necessarily mean that the latter are in error.

I know what it says in the Penguins, and I thought it was true for quite some time. I used the Penguins as my pattern when I checked my e-texts of Lovecraft. This was when there were only two Penguin volumes, so for the rest of the stories I had to use the Arkhams. Then when The Dreams in the Witch House and Other Stories was published I went over those particular stories again, and that's when I discovered the discrepancies. I was shocked! I started compiling lists, which I've sent to S. T.; so far he has confirmed only my partial list for Witch House, but of all those I found, only a few were deliberate corrections.

Here's a sample -- the error list for "Through the Gates of the Silver Key" and "The Shadow Out of Time" in Witch House (numbers refer to page and line):

THROUGH THE GATES OF THE SILVER KEY
268.9: his language was easy,] his language was as easy,
268.17: Churchward declared it] Churchward declares it
270.12: full of strange magic] full of a strange magic
270.30: countryside, of winding] countryside of winding
273.24: the most Ancient One] the Most Ancient One
275.16: though long-delayed.] though long delayed.
280.5-6: ages of earthy entity] ages of earthly entity
284.34: his ego amidst myriads] his ego amongst myriads
287.6: was not time] was no time
287.8-9: Carter knew that this terrible] Carter knew that his terrible
287.39: than otherwise . . .] than otherwise. . . .
298.39: De Marigny and Phillips scarcely knew what] De Marigny and Phillips scarcely know what

THE SHADOW OUT OF TIME
336.8-9: before sailing because] before sailing, because
337.19: slumped down unconscious] slumped down, unconscious
340.26: all recollections] all the recollections
342.13: thinking of periods of events] thinking of periods and events
344.16-17: during the past half-century] during the past half century
348.8: stone in the glades] stone in glades
349.16: psuedo-memory] pseudo-memory
350.10: have bought] have brought
353.25: from ages past,] from past ages,
359.35: in A.D. 5000, with] in A.D. 5000; with
360.11: named Pierre-Lous] named Pierre-Louis
360.12: Crom-Ya, and Cimmerian] Crom-Ya, a Cimmerian
360.12: Cimmerian chieftan of] Cimmerian chieftain of
365.33: what they had looked like.] what they looked like.
366.14: the fleeting minds] the fleeing minds
376.2-3: and psuedo-memories.] and pseudo-memories
376.27: shards of unguessed past.] shards of an unguessed past.
379.19: traces of the carving] traces of carving
384.5: As I wiggled] As I wriggled

The last one requires an explanation: I checked my e-library, and Lovecraft's preferred usage is obviously "wriggle". There's only one "wiggle" that appears in both Arkhams and Penguins, and that's in The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath. THIS particular case of "wiggled" also appears in the text that was the source for the Penguin (the Hippocampus Press edition of the corrected text of "The Shadow out of Time"), but the Arkham text has "wriggled" here, which is also backed up by another instance of "wriggled" in the same text in all sources, so I concluded that this "wiggled" is a typo, and S. T. has confirmed it.

"His" becoming "this" and "that" becoming "this", and the other way around, are quite common in the books.
This seems to have happened when Penguin insisted on re-transcribing the texts.

>
> By the way, what/where is the "EOD"? I'd still
> like to see these errata lists, when they appear.
> Thanks.

No worries -- if Boyd doesn't mind, I can publish them here when they're done. In the meantime, here's a sample above.

Yrs
Martin

P. S. To get back to the topic: I've already spotted one certain and one almost-certain typo in "The Abominations of Yondo".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20 Apr 07 | 03:04PM by Martinus.

ArkhamMaid Wrote:
>
> I'm the same way about comparing different
> editions. I was stupefied to find that in the
> Library of America edition of Lovecraft's works,
> most of the dialogue that Harley Warren relates to
> Carter as he rambles in the underground pit are in
> italics whereas my beloved Del Rey editions just
> print the text straight! Oh, well...

Sorry, but I have a MUCH dimmer view of the damn'd Del Rey editions. Do you have The Case of Charles Dexter Ward in the Del Rey edition? If so, compare the first lines of parts 3 and 4 (I think it was) of the chapter "An Antecedent and a Horror". I'd be very surprised if that error has been corrected since I found it 15 years ago. I know the British haven't corrected it in their Omnibus volumes.

Other errors: "Lopex" for "Lopez" in "The Picture in the House", "earth" for "Hsan" in "The Other Gods", "Inquanok" for "Inganok" in "The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath", "dholes" for "bholes" in "The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath", no sub-title for "The Call of Cthulhu".

But Tales is worse. It CLAIMS to be based on the Arkham House editions, yet it has the same new errors as the Dell volumes, The Annotated Lovecraft and More Annotated Lovecraft. Those books are definitely worse than the Penguins.

BTW, compare how many times Warren tells Carter to "beat it" -- Tales v. Del Rey. I haven't had this confirmed, but I wouldn't be surprised if Tales is wrong there.

>
> By the way, Martin, has shewing your friend some
> of Clark Ashton Smith's comely photos helped in
> any way in getting her interested in reading some
> of his works? ^_^

:-) Haven't had the opportunity yet.

Yrs
Martin

What you've told me is horrifying! Because...because...I only have the Del Rey versions. Blast it -- now I'm going to have to buy new copies of all Lovecraft's works too?! ;)

We have seen the darkness
Where charnel things decay,
Where atom moves with atom
In shining swift array,
Like ordered constellations
On some sidereal way.
--from Nyctalops

You'll get used to it after a while -- buying new editions of Lovecraft, that is. :-) I've got most editions of the past few years (except those that I know beforehand are useless to me), and I have my eyes on yet another.

BTW, was I right regarding Ward? (I hope I wasn't.)

Yrs
Martin

Thanks, Martinus, for the explanations, and for the (dreadful and disappointing) examples. I really would have thought better of Penguin, and I now look at that publishing house with a much more jaundiced eye.

Just to be clear, what I meant was not that I assumed the Penguins to be flawless, but that Joshi claimed to have corrected in them some additional errors that had appeared in the Arkham House editions. Therefore, I wasn't certain how you were able to tell from the discrepancies which ones were Joshi's later corrections and which ones were not (except in egregious cases, of course). Now I understand. You seem very knowledgeable, and, since you are in contact with Joshi himself about the matter, he can certainly act as the final arbiter.

Even though they are a bit off topic, I hope that you'll be able to publish the final errata lists here; that would be great.

As for the Del Rey editions of Lovecrat's tales, I suspect that many have a sentimental attachment to them because, for a good deal of us, myself included, they were the first editions of the Old Gent's work that we owned--that, and because of the wonderfully creepy Michael Whelan cover artwork. I can't say that I ever had any great illusions about their textual accuracy, though. The fact of the matter is that finding (and creating) textually accurate editions of writers, such as Lovecraft and Ashton Smith, who first published their writings in the notoriously poorly edited pulps of that time, is like trying to find Diogenes' honest man.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20 Apr 07 | 05:45PM by Kyberean.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks, Martinus, for the explanations, and for
> the (dreadful and disappointing) examples. I
> really would have thought better of Penguin, and I
> now look at that publishing house with a much more
> jaundiced eye.

You're welcome. However, I still thinks that the Penguins give you the best deal for your money, so I still recommend them.

>
> Just to be clear, what I meant was not that I
> assumed the Penguins to be flawless, but that
> Joshi claimed to have corrected in them some
> additional errors that had appeared in the Arkham
> House editions. Therefore, I wasn't certain how
> you were able to tell from the discrepancies which
> ones were Joshi's later corrections and which ones
> were not (except in egregious cases, of course).
> Now I understand. You seem very knowledgeable,
> and, since you are in contact with Joshi himself
> about the matter, he can certainly act as the
> final arbiter.

In my lists of differences, I simply omitted the ones that I know are deliberate corrections, such as "an" for "and" in "The Quest of Iranon". And thanks for the compliment about me seeming knowledgeable -- I'd describe myself as "slightly crazy", but that's just me. :-)

>
> Even though they are a bit off topic, I hope that
> you'll be able to publish the final errata lists
> here; that would be great.
>
> As for the Del Rey editions of Lovecrat's tales, I
> suspect that many have a sentimental attachment to
> them because, for a good deal of us, myself
> included, they were the first editions of the Old
> Gent's work that we owned--that, and because of
> the wonderfully creepy Michael Whelan cover
> artwork. I can't say that I ever had any great
> illusions about their textual accuracy, though.

Yes, the cover art is great. BTW, I checked the latest version of [i9The Case of Charles Dexter Ward[/i] from Del Rey (in one of their new collections), and they've repeated the error of the same first line for two chapters again.

My first Lovecraft editions were the British Omnibus volumes. However, the ugliness of the covers were a major fact in me not forming an attachment to them.

> The fact of the matter is that finding (and
> creating) textually accurate editions of writers,
> such as Lovecraft and Ashton Smith, who first
> published their writings in the notoriously poorly
> edited pulps of that time, is like trying to find
> Diogenes' honest man.

True. That's why I've created my personal e-library of all of Lovecraft's fiction and compared it against all available sources. My dream is to print and bind my personal copy of the Ultimate H. P. Lovecraft, with the stories arranged chronologically and with as accurate texts as possible.

Apologies for the late reply, Martinus. I was busy at the bookstore picking up my copy of CAS's The End of the Story and didn't have time to check my copy of The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. However, if the later editions of it still have that error (and seeing as how my copy belonged to my dad back in the early 1990's), it would probably be a safe bet to say that my copy has that problem as well. Thank Heaven I have the Library of America complilation of Lovecraft's works!

We have seen the darkness
Where charnel things decay,
Where atom moves with atom
In shining swift array,
Like ordered constellations
On some sidereal way.
--from Nyctalops

No problem -- you spent your time wisely!

You know, using the Del Rey texts and Tales, you should be able to come up with perfect text versions. But the work involved...!

Yrs
Martin

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> As for the Del Rey editions of Lovecrat's tales, I
> suspect that many have a sentimental attachment to
> them because, for a good deal of us, myself
> included, they were the first editions of the Old
> Gent's work that we owned--that, and because of
> the wonderfully creepy Michael Whelan cover
> artwork.

You're quite right, Kyberean; that's why I like them so much, at any rate.

We have seen the darkness
Where charnel things decay,
Where atom moves with atom
In shining swift array,
Like ordered constellations
On some sidereal way.
--from Nyctalops

Martinus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True. That's why I've created my personal
> e-library of all of Lovecraft's fiction and
> compared it against all available sources. My
> dream is to print and bind my personal copy of the
> Ultimate H. P. Lovecraft, with the stories
> arranged chronologically and with as accurate
> texts as possible.

It's surprising enough that we don't already have such an edition of HPL. I've wondered about that recently -- the still current Arkham House collections should be replaced by an omnibus (divided to as many vols as necessary), containing in chronological order all of Lovecraft's fiction (well, the juvenilia could be in an appendix), including all of the existing fragments, story notes and drafts. Possibly the primary revisions should be integrated as well.

Juha-Matti

I am now on p. 130 of The End of the Story, and while I enjoy the book immensely, it is very difficult to keep an eye out for typos (I'm not helped by the fact that I'm a foreigner, but with Smith it may not be a help to be a native speaker).
Many a time I have rushed in triumph to my computer to note a typo, only to discover in some online dictionary or other that no, this is a real word. (However, maybe "neuclei" isn't. I'm including it on the list just to be safe.) Most of the potential ones I've found (and let me tell you there are damned few of those -- hats off to the proofreaders!) could as easily be stylistic finesses (such as the doubling of the word "thousand" on p. 96). I'll keep looking, but as I said, I can already tell that the proofers have done a very good job of a level of quality that is rare these days.