I think I'll certainly hold on for FICTION to come out then. I've been wondering why there hasn't been a collection of HP in order of that they were written like the CAS Collected Fantasies. It’s going to be huge! It seems well over due. I have some of ST Joshi’s critical work anyway (and plan to get some more along the way) so the Penguin editions don’t seem so attractive. The Arkham editions do look nice but if it looks like they’re going to be superseded then I’ll probably give them a miss.

Thanks for all the advice

It would, I guess, have been nice if Joshi had complemented the Penguin editions with some of Lovecraft's better poems (most of them, I hear, are generally of a pretty low standard). Joshi's The Ancient Track collection, despite my not inconsiderable desire to own it, does seem something of a waste considering that Joshi himself has been critical of his verse; but given that, The Ancient Track would be the definitive text for Lovecraft's poems.

Martinus wrote:

Quote:

I can e-mail them to any e-mail address of your choice.

Thank you very much. You may e-mail them to the e-mail address listed in my account, which I believe that you can access by clicking my user name.

I appreciate the caveat, as well, regarding the fact that what you have noted are merely differences, but, like you, I suspect that they are errors, as well.

I actually quite like the Penguin editions, myself, aside from Penguin's insistence upon an editorial process that introduced some new corrupt elements into Lovecraft's texts.

Due the ennui I've experienced these past few hours, I decided to quantify the explanatory notes in the Penguin editions, and was actually quite startled by what I found. There is, spread across the three volumes, roughly 190 pages of detailed notes (EXcluding introductions, and bibliographies); as you can see, this could almost constitute an entire volume of Lovecraft criticism - a damn good deal if ever there was one!

Whoa -- that's indeed a lot of pages! And it's quality in addition to quantity. As you say, a very good deal.

Too bad it's not excluding that atrocious Sterling collaboration, "In the Walls of Eryx". Actually, "Through the Gates of the Silver Key" should also be excluded and lumped in with the revisions/collaborations. Kind of funny that a fine piece like "In the Vault" can upset some by its inclusion in DH, but no one has an issue with the inferior collaborations (because they have overtones of "cosmicism") when in fact their mediocrity makes a mockery of the cosmic point of view. But that's what happens when this point of view is equated to Lovecraft's philosophical point of view (which was nothing new in the first place). Still, the Barnes and Noble omnibus of Poe is handsome, with its supplemental material by Quinn, and one can hope that this forthcoming set of Lovecraft will have material by Joshi. But it sure would be better if the Price and Sterling ennui-inducers were left out.

I think "In the Walls of Eryx" is quite an efficient little SF tale, and "Through the Gtaes of the Silver Key", while not exactly first-rate, still fits better with the other Randolph Carter stories. And "In the Vault" IS kind of commonplace horror.

"Commonplace horror"? So? The two stories in question are not pure Lovecraft, being his free adaptations of a draft by Price and, according to Joshi, some substantial notes at the least by the teenaged Kenneth Sterling. They simply should not be placed in the Barnes and Noble compilation of Lovecraft's original fiction. Lovecraft's peculiar genius was diluted whenever collaboration was involved... even "The Whisperer in Darkness," while not a collaborative effort, suffers from awkward plotting flaws due to HPL's traveling and socializing too much while in the process of writing it. His literary reputation was adversely affected by Derleth's decision to follow your "logic" by including "Through the Gates of the Silver Key" in THE OUTSIDER, against the advice of Lovecraft's close friend, W. Paul Cook. If you think the Sterling-HPL thing is good, that's too bad, but it should go in with the revisions like the Price piece because that's what it is, a revision. By definition-- materials submitted by another author were adapted by Lovecraft. You could argue that Ambrose Bierce included The Monk and the Hangman's Daughter in his own complete works, but that was translated from the German, so it's a hearse of a different color. And again, these tales detract from the cosmic horror in HPL's mature fiction, which is facilitated by but distinct from his philosopy.

And yet it is a good thing that HPL did socialize so much while writing "The Whisperer in Darkness", since without Dwyer's suggestions for a change at the end it might have been worse.

If you're worried about detracting from HPL's cosmic horror, then I think "In the Vault", "The Outsider", "The Moon-Bog", "A Reminiscence of Dr. Samuel Johnson" and "Sweet Ermengarde" are a much greater cause for worry. In such company (all of those are pretty good, but not "cosmic") the Sterling and Price pieces can't do much additional damage.

What about those cases when another author didn't submit very much for HPL to work on, such as "The Mound"? By your definition, since HPL can't be claimed to have had much to "adapt" there, it should count as an original tale.

You're right about "The Whisperer" revision... the story's remaining flaws can be fixed by some slight restructuring and editing. But the other pieces you mention don't detract from the impact of the cosmic in HPL's fiction because they weren't aimed in that direction. No, I maintain that even "The Mound," as fine as it is, was still a revision job. And the fact that he regarded it as a "job" naturally led to a difference in overall quality from comparable works in the original HPL ouvre. Differing opinions on Lovecraft's shorter works aside, wouldn't you really prefer the B&N to be as I'm suggesting it should be, with all of the fiction, excluding all collaborations or revisions, in chronological order of composition like the Clark Ashton Smith series?

Seeing the table of contents for the B&N, I'll backtrack and concede "The Mound" could or should be included as you suggested, provided that the juvenalia
(what are they doing there?) & "Through the Gates of the Silver Key" were bumped. The Sterling thing indisputably belongs with the revisions since Sterling did submit a draft of 6,000-8,000 words, so at least that was excluded.

jkh

If it's supposed to be the complete fiction, you can't exclude the juvenilia, no matter what its actual quality.

Martinus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If it's supposed to be the complete fiction, you
> can't exclude the juvenilia, no matter what its
> actual quality.


I quite agree. Having never read his junior efforts I'm looking forward to having a looksee at them. I fail to see how their inclusion could harm HP's reputation, especially as they are clearly labelled 'juvenilia' in the contence given and only included in the appendix (and lets face it, this is very much a collection for fans of HP rather than newbies). As for 'Through the Gates of the Silver Key,' I think it has to be included: if only for completions sake re: the Randolph Carter stories, even if it is pretty bad, and just as ‘Supernatural Horror in Literature’ has to be included in the appendix, even if it isn’t fiction.

Is there any more news about the release of this mighty tome?

Nope, nothing yet.

It has been released!

[search.barnesandnoble.com]