Goto Thread: PreviousNext
Goto:  Message ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: The English Assassin (IP Logged)
Date: 24 May, 2008 08:05AM
Hello all,

I'm wanting to update my tatty old Derleth edited Lovecraft omnibuses to some shinny new definitive Lovecraft texts, but I'm at a loss as to which way to go.

n the one hand there are the current Arkham Press hardbacks, which look rather splendid but are a bit pricy OR should I go for the Penguin Books, which are also edited by ST Joshi and also seem to claim to be definitive.

Does anyone know what the difference is between these two versions? Which is better? Or are they just the same thing under different publishers?

Thanks

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: jimrockhill2001 (IP Logged)
Date: 24 May, 2008 08:35AM
You may just want to wait a few months - this Fall, Barnes and Noble will be publishing a one volume, very reasonably-priced collection of ALL the fiction edited by Joshi (including the prose poems, stories buried within letters, and the juvenilia: but excluding all the revisions except those with Houdini, Price, and Sterling).

Jim

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: garymorris (IP Logged)
Date: 24 May, 2008 02:34PM
This sounds like a huge book. Anybody know the title? Hardback/paper?

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: jimrockhill2001 (IP Logged)
Date: 24 May, 2008 02:41PM
It will be a huge hardcover like the volumes they compiled for Dumas, Hugo, Bronte, Verne, Wilde, Wharton, etc.

Jim

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: jimrockhill2001 (IP Logged)
Date: 24 May, 2008 02:55PM
I think the title is going something like H. P. Lovecraft FICTION.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Martinus (IP Logged)
Date: 25 May, 2008 03:50AM
And I might add that there are... ideas for the revisions and collaborations. More than that I don't think I'm at liberty to say. Please be patient and something might materialise eventually.

While waiting for my obscure prediction to be fulfilled, I can recommend the Del Rey tpb of The Horror in the Museum and Other Revisions. It's got the corrected texts. However, it doesn't have ALL the collaborations; there are a couple buried in Eyes of the God, which is, however, fairly cheap and highly recommended since it contains all the weird fiction of R. H. Barlow.

And the complete text of "The Challenge from Beyond" might still be available from Necronomicon Press (not very good, but if you're a completist you may want it anyway).

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Martinus (IP Logged)
Date: 25 May, 2008 04:07AM
The English Assassin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n the one hand there are the current Arkham Press
> hardbacks, which look rather splendid but are a
> bit pricy OR should I go for the Penguin Books,
> which are also edited by ST Joshi and also seem to
> claim to be definitive.
>
> Does anyone know what the difference is between
> these two versions? Which is better? Or are they
> just the same thing under different publishers?

To answer the original questions:

The Arkham House volumes -- the three "basic volumes", that is -- have some more stories, such as "The Transition of Juan Romero" and "The Alchemist" and "In the Walls of Eryx" with Kenneth Sterling.

The Penguin volumes have slightly fewer stories, but on the other hand, they correct some errors that crept into the AH volumes. For example, in "The Quest of Iranon" "and thou wouldst" has been corrected to "an thou wouldst", and in "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward" "Almonsin" has been corrected to "Almousin".
AND the Penguin has something that the AHs lack: the corrected texts of "The Shadow Out of Time" and "Hypnos". In fact, the corrected text of "Hypnos" (although admittedly the differences are VERY small) has been published nowhere else so far.

The problem is that the Penguin people insisted on re-transcribing the texts, so some NEW errors have been introduced: missing words (usually small ones like "a" and "the"), added words, errors of punctuation, etc. In "The Statement of Randolph Carter", one of Harley Warren's "Beat it!" has gone AWOL.
I have sent S. T. Joshi lists of all instances where the Penguins differ from the AHs, so hopefully these errors won't appear in the B&N volume.

Yrs
Martin

P. S. I should add a qualifier to my previous answer: you will of course miss "Poetry and the Gods" if you settle for the forthcoming B&N volume, The Horror in the Museum and Other Revisions, and Eyes of the God.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: jimrockhill2001 (IP Logged)
Date: 25 May, 2008 08:28AM
Here is the table of contents given us on the All Hallows group by the series editor, Stefan Dziemianowicz:

H.P. Lovecraft THE FICTION - Jacketed HC - $12.95

The Beast in the Cave (21 April 1905)
The Alchemist (1908)
The Tomb (June 1917)
Dagon (July 1917)
A Reminiscence of Dr. Samuel Johnson (1917)
Polaris (May? 1918)
Beyond the Wall of Sleep (1919)
Memory (1919)
Old Bugs (1919)
The Transition of Juan Romero (16 September 1919)
The White Ship (November 1919)
The Street (late 1919)
The Doom That Came to Sarnath (3 December 1919)
The Statement of Randolph Carter (December 1919)
The Terrible Old Man (28 January 1920)
The Tree (1920)
The Cats of Ulthar (15 June 1920)
The Temple (1920)
Facts Concerning the Late Arthur Jermyn and His Family (1920)
Celephaïs (early November 1920)
From Beyond (16 November 1920)
Nyarlathotep (early December 1920)
The Picture in the House (12 December 1920)
Ex Oblivione (1920/21)
Sweet Ermengarde (1921?)
The Nameless City (January 1921)
The Quest of Iranon (28 February 1921)
The Moon-Bog (March 1921)
The Outsider (1921)
The Other Gods (14 August 1921)
The Music of Erich Zann (December 1921)
Herbert West—Reanimator (September 1921–mid 1922)
Hypnos (March 1922)
What the Moon Brings (5 June 1922)
Azathoth (June 1922)
The Hound (September 1922)
The Lurking Fear (November 1922)
The Rats in the Walls (August–September 1923)
The Unnamable (September 1923)
The Festival (1923)
Under the Pyramids (ghostwritten for Harry Houdini; February–March 1924)
The Shunned House (16–19 October 1924)
The Horror at Red Hook (1–2 August 1925)
He (11 August 1925)
In the Vault (18 September 1925)
Cool Air (March 1926)
The Call of Cthulhu (Summer 1926)
Pickman’s Model (1926)
The Silver Key (1926)
The Strange High House in the Mist (9 November 1926)
The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath (Autumn? 1926–22 January 1927)
The Case of Charles Dexter Ward (January–1 March 1927)
The Colour out of Space (March 1927)
The Descendant (1927?)
History of the Necronomicon (September? 1927)
The Very Old Folk (2 November 1927)
Ibid (1928?)
The Dunwich Horror (Summer 1928)
The Whisperer in Darkness (24 February–26 September 1936)
At the Mountains of Madness (February–22 March 1931)
The Shadow over Innsmouth (November?–3 December 1931)
The Dreams in the Witch House (January–28 February 1932)
Through the Gates of the Silver Key (with E. Hoffmann Price; October 1932–April 1933)
The Thing on the Doorstep (21–24 August 1933)
The Evil Clergyman (fall 1933)
The Book (late 1933?)
The Shadow out of Time (November 1934–22 February 1935)
The Haunter of the Dark (November 1935)


APPENDIX

I. Juvenilia

The Little Glass Bottle (1897)
The Secret Cave or John Lees Adventure (1898)
The Mystery of the Grave-Yard (1898)
The Mysterious Ship (1902) Short version & Long version

II. Discarded draft: “The Shadow over Innsmouth”

III Supernatural Horror in Literature

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: LurkerintheDark (IP Logged)
Date: 25 May, 2008 10:38AM
First Post - ever.

Well, I own the Penguin editions, primarily due to their availability in Britian; the lovely Arkham House editions are somewhat scarce here (like all Lovecraft - related books, unfortunately), and so these are the ones I would recommend. However, I think some emphasis should be placed on the scholarly material which accompanies the Penguin editions; despite the inferiority of their paperbound presentation, each edition (there are 3 in total) contain illuminating introductions, annotated further reading lists (but these aren't complete bibliographies), and, best of all, a healthy wad of brilliant notes at the back, which really do enhance the stories trmedously. I don't think the AH editions contain detailed text notes.

So if you're interested in reading into the background surrounding Lovecraft's seminal works, the Penguin editions are your best bet (all the notes, intos. , and reading lists are authored by S.T. Joshi).

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Martinus (IP Logged)
Date: 25 May, 2008 10:39AM
That's so effing sweeet, Jim! Even his childhood stuff is included -- and it's got the OTHER version of "The Mysterious Ship" which I have never seen before (I don't think it has been published before, in fact)!

Thanks a million!

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: jimrockhill2001 (IP Logged)
Date: 25 May, 2008 11:12AM
You are welcome. The longer version of "The Mysterious Ship" is appearing in print for the first time, I believe, and only readers who have made some attempt to keep up on the miscellanies should have everything else in the book. I was very tempted by the Penguins when they appeared (the annotations and introductions to these novels tend to be excellent), but having invested in the corrected AH volumes as well as the restored, annotated texts to "Innsmouth" and "Shadow out of Time" from Necronomicon and Hippocampus not all that long before these appeared, I could not justify to myself the extra expenditure. They do, however, continue to beckon . . .

Jim

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: LurkerintheDark (IP Logged)
Date: 25 May, 2008 02:12PM
Yeah, Jim, it depends wether you have any other critical studies on Lovecraft by Joshi; if you do, then the necessitude for the Penguin editions depletes futher; although the notes in them do go into the specifics of the story that a book like (for instance) A Subtler Magick may not provide in its discussion of any one tale. The notes are very good, comprehensive, and informative - a dedicated disciple of Lovecraft would lap them up with vigour, I'm sure. It depends on how far you're willing to pursue the author - I can see the dilemma you're in.

A word of warning - if anyone is new to Lovecraft's tales, then I would advise reading them through prior to reading them with notes, as they can interrupt the flow of the stories first time round.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: jimrockhill2001 (IP Logged)
Date: 26 May, 2008 07:19AM
That is one of the reasons I have not yet bought the Penguins - I have quite a bit of Joshi's HPL criticism on the shelves already.

Jim

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Kyberean (IP Logged)
Date: 26 May, 2008 01:33PM
Quote:

Martinus:

"I have sent S. T. Joshi lists of all instances where the Penguins differ from the AHs".

Is there anywhere online to get these lists, or can one get them from you privately? I'd rather mark up my Penguins than buy yet another volume of Lovecraft (with all due respect to the old gent!).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 26 May 08 | 01:33PM by Kyberean.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Martinus (IP Logged)
Date: 26 May, 2008 03:18PM
Sure, I can e-mail them to any e-mail address of your choice. But mind you, it's just a list of differences; I don't know whether they are errors or not, although I suspect that many of them indeed are errors.

Yrs
Martin

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: The English Assassin (IP Logged)
Date: 27 May, 2008 07:41AM
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

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: LurkerintheDark (IP Logged)
Date: 27 May, 2008 01:21PM
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.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Kyberean (IP Logged)
Date: 28 May, 2008 08:04AM
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.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: LurkerintheDark (IP Logged)
Date: 28 May, 2008 10:51AM
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!

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Martinus (IP Logged)
Date: 28 May, 2008 01:39PM
Whoa -- that's indeed a lot of pages! And it's quality in addition to quantity. As you say, a very good deal.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Kipling (IP Logged)
Date: 18 July, 2008 12:18PM
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.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Martinus (IP Logged)
Date: 18 July, 2008 03:46PM
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.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Kipling (IP Logged)
Date: 21 July, 2008 12:32PM
"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.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Martinus (IP Logged)
Date: 22 July, 2008 04:13AM
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.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Kipling (IP Logged)
Date: 22 July, 2008 10:50AM
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?

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Kipling (IP Logged)
Date: 25 July, 2008 03:52PM
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

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Martinus (IP Logged)
Date: 25 July, 2008 04:47PM
If it's supposed to be the complete fiction, you can't exclude the juvenilia, no matter what its actual quality.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: The English Assassin (IP Logged)
Date: 30 July, 2008 04:50AM
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?

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Martinus (IP Logged)
Date: 30 July, 2008 02:38PM
Nope, nothing yet.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Martinus (IP Logged)
Date: 10 October, 2008 09:48AM
It has been released!

[search.barnesandnoble.com]

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Eldritch Frog (IP Logged)
Date: 10 October, 2008 11:17AM
Martinus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It has been released!
>
> [search.barnesandnoble.com]-
> Lovecraft/e/9781435107939/?itm=3

That is one amazing deal. Hardcover! Great dust-jacket! Tons of Mythos fiction! And a really cheap price!!! Even though I have all his fiction in Arkham editions, it's really tempting to pick this up!

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Martinus (IP Logged)
Date: 10 October, 2008 11:31AM
Eldritch Frog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> That is one amazing deal. Hardcover! Great
> dust-jacket! Tons of Mythos fiction! And a
> really cheap price!!! Even though I have all his
> fiction in Arkham editions, it's really tempting
> to pick this up!

Actually you don't -- the long version of "The Mysterious Ship" has never been published before. It probably doesn't amount to much, but you definitely haven't read it before. :-)

And besides, the Arkham House books don't have the original versions of "The Shadow Out of Time" and "Hypnos".

Come on... you know you want it... ;-)

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Eldritch Frog (IP Logged)
Date: 10 October, 2008 01:29PM
Martinus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eldritch Frog Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > That is one amazing deal. Hardcover! Great
> > dust-jacket! Tons of Mythos fiction! And a
> > really cheap price!!! Even though I have all
> his
> > fiction in Arkham editions, it's really
> tempting
> > to pick this up!
>
> Actually you don't -- the long version of "The
> Mysterious Ship" has never been published before.
> It probably doesn't amount to much, but you
> definitely haven't read it before. :-)
>
> And besides, the Arkham House books don't have the
> original versions of "The Shadow Out of Time" and
> "Hypnos".
>
> Come on... you know you want it... ;-)

In that case for a mere $13 how can I pass this bye?

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Radovarl (IP Logged)
Date: 15 October, 2008 07:12AM
I just received mine yesterday (for 13 bucks I figured why not?), and have to say I'm pleasantly surprised. The materials are of course on the cheap side (cardboard rather than cloth boards, lightweight paper, etc.), but overall it's a handsome book. The dustjacket is attractive, and the binding looks remarkably solid for the price; I was half expecting it to be a "book club" style glued binding, but it's somewhat nicer than that.

Of course the contents need no review, and it is nice to have most of HPL's fiction between two covers.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Gavin Callaghan (IP Logged)
Date: 15 October, 2008 07:25PM
"Walls of Eryx" is interesting in that it's one of the few Lovecraft works, aside from certain of his early Hellenic/Classicist works, to have something of a progressive viewpoint. Although Lovecraft is generally thought to have become less conservative with time, and this true to some extent for his economic viewpoint, in actuality the apocalyptic and xenophobic hysteria of his works actually increased in his later writings, rather than decreased, although he learned to disguise it better within the symbology of his inverted Cthulhu "Mythos" polemic.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: sverba (IP Logged)
Date: 16 October, 2008 11:43AM
Exactly why I wanted to get the complete collected works (hopefully they are in chron order) - HPL has such a peculiar POV it will be interesting to see how it developed. Certainly CAS and REH seemed less out on a cosmic limb. Interesting that our three big supernatural horror writers today, Stephen King, Clive Barker and Anne Rice, kept their scope far more personal and psychological. I am not sure anyone really carries the mantle for HPL's cosmic dread since that time (pastiche and tribute work notwithstanding).

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Jojo Lapin X (IP Logged)
Date: 16 October, 2008 01:17PM
"Cosmic dread" is something Lovecraft theorized about a lot, and he felt it had been achieved by authors such as Blackwood, but it is not clear that he actually produced any himself. He certainly did not think so. I do not think so, either, but there are other qualities to be enjoyed in Lovecraft.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: sverba (IP Logged)
Date: 16 October, 2008 01:29PM
Jojo,

You don't think the mood and atmosphere of sections of Whisperer in Darkness or Call of Cthulhu hit that mark? My impression is that HPL felt it and strove to capture it, but was self-deprecating and always thought he missed.

I can't think of anything more unique to HPL than this striving. Or more precisely, this peculiar cosmic angst is what holds most of his major work together. One may admire his atmosphere and mood, precision and careful narrations or interesting prose style, but without the focus of his dread of our place in the universe the other qualities would not be sufficient I think.

With CAS it is the beauty of the language ahead of the narrative or any vision. With REH it is the power of the narrative ahead of everything else.

But if you find otherwise it is just more fascinating.

steve

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Jojo Lapin X (IP Logged)
Date: 16 October, 2008 02:25PM
sverba Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You don't think the mood and atmosphere of
> sections of Whisperer in Darkness or Call of
> Cthulhu hit that mark?

No, not really. What Lovecraft meant by "cosmic" seems to be essentially the suggestion that reality is something altogether other than what it normally appears to be. Both of the stories you mention are straightforward science fiction tales in which plausibility may be stretched but no laws of nature are necessarily broken. The monsters involved are definitely material beings. While great in their own right, of course, neither of the stories bear any resemblance to Blackwood's subtle and perplexing "The Willows," cited by Lovecraft himself as the epitome of the "cosmic." There is a curious tension between the ideals Lovecraft set down for the weird tale and what he himself wrote.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: J. B. Post (IP Logged)
Date: 16 October, 2008 03:02PM
I thought the focus here was CAS, but can't sort him out from HPL for some things. Years ago, a [London] TIMES book reviewer expressed fascination that even Lovecraft's monsters had their own monsters. As to cosmic vision, I suggest Olaf Stapledon's STAR MAKAER as matching HPL's cosmic vision. Stapledon might be viewed as an optimist and HPL as a pessimist when looking at humanity's place in the Universe. Both use musical metaphors with Stapledon's "brave music" and HPL's idiot flute players and cacophony.

J. B Post

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: sverba (IP Logged)
Date: 16 October, 2008 03:06PM
OK, Jojo, I am going to have to dust off my old Algernon Blackwood books and give that story a read. I appreciate your insight.

I am reminded here of Harold Bloom's comments on "the necessity of misreading" ...he posits "a poet is strong because poets after him must work to evade him".

Maybe HPL, while admiring Blackwood and others, had to evade them. hence the curious tension you observe.

Just as writers now must evade HPL.

Steve

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: sverba (IP Logged)
Date: 16 October, 2008 03:09PM
"...With CAS it is the beauty of the language ahead of the narrative or any vision. With REH it is the power of the narrative ahead of everything else...."

I can't help triangulating CAS between HPL and REH. They took up such a large space together.

steve

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Gavin Callaghan (IP Logged)
Date: 16 October, 2008 07:44PM
I agree with Jojo Lapin X; Lovecraft's cosmicism has been overstated. Although theoretically he was overtly or ostensibly concerned with cosmicism, most of his actual works dwell upon the bestial/hybrid/animalistic/degenerative/
cannibalistic/ghoulish aspects of caricatural human degeneration -far more than is purely attributable to that "piquancy" which Joshi says that Lovecraft found in such subjects.

I agree with J. B. post as to Lovecraft's pessimism, to a degree; Lovecraft was basically a Roman or 18th-century English satirist. He only truly found his voice as a writer when he decided to invert and satirize the Hellenic images and classical conventions of his earlier works via his later Cthulhu "Mythos". Joshi, too, would seem to imply this; simply count the number of times Joshi uses the word "satire" or "satirical" to refer to Lovecraft's fiction in his Lovecraft: A Life.

Lovecraft's use of "idiot flute players and cacophony" is yet another aspect of his inversion of Hellenic mythology as a symbol of chaos, authocthonous modernism, and decay/degeneracy. For the puritan/traditionalist Lovecraft, the pagan/Dionysian/Bacchanalian/
sensual Pan was a perfect image of degeneracy.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 16 Oct 08 | 07:46PM by Gavin Callaghan.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Kyberean (IP Logged)
Date: 17 October, 2008 09:20AM
There are two separate but related issues regarding Lovecraft and cosmicism.

First is the degree to which Lovecraft himself claimed to hold a cosmic viewpoint. That, it seems, is not open to question, although, given his emotional investment in the "human aquarium", how consistently he held that perspective in his personal views is very questionable. In fairness to Lovecraft, however, the cosmic perspective is difficult, indeed, for us mere mortals to sustain (see, for instance, Marcus Aurelius's Meditations).

Second is the degree to which Lovecraft embodied the ideals of cosmic horror in his fiction. This question is a very complex one, in my view, and I don't have time at the moment to write in detail about it. The short answer is that, while I agree with Gavin and JoJo Lapin X that much of Lovecraft's horror is not cosmic, I also feel that one cannot overlook the fact that Lovecraft considered his two best tales to be "The Colour Out of Space" (it's quite surprising that no one has mentioned this tale, so far) and "The Music of Erich Zann", both of which are clear exemplars of cosmic horror. Undiluted cosmic horror may be difficult to find in Lovecraft's fiction (as it is in anyone's, I should add), but I would argue that it is present to some degree or other in most of his work, and it is an ideal to which Lovecraft aspired.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 17 Oct 08 | 10:23AM by Kyberean.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: sverba (IP Logged)
Date: 17 October, 2008 10:46AM
a.) Where would we put the infamous Mythos, perhaps HPL's most singular contribution, if not in the realm of cosmic horrors?

b.) I am having trouble reconciling the stance of recent posts (that HPL did not really deal with cosmic horror) with the way so much of his work is studded with quotes like the following:

Life is a hideous thing, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous. Science, already oppressive with its shocking revelations, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species -- if separate species we be -- for its reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world.
I have harnessed the shadows that stride from world to world to sow death and madness...

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents.

We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far.

The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.

Never was a sane man more dangerously close to the arcana of basic entity -- never was an organic brain nearer to utter annihilation in the chaos that transcends form and force and symmetry.

We were not, as I have said, in any sense childishly superstitious, but scientific study and reflection had taught us that the known universe of three dimensions embraces the merest fraction of the whole cosmos of substance and energy. In this case an overwhelming preponderance of evidence from numerous authentic sources pointed to the tenacious existence of certain forces of great power and, so far as the human point of view is concerned, exceptional malignancy.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Gavin Callaghan (IP Logged)
Date: 21 October, 2008 05:30PM
Re.: Lovecraft and Blackwood; Blackwood, like the early/youthful Lovecraft, was a convinced pagan, but whereas for Lovecraft this early tentative Hellenism was replaced almost immediately with a cynical/satirical Roman conservatism, for Blackwood this paganism was deep, mystical, and abiding. According to Blackwood biographer Mike Ashley, Blackwood’s “The Willows” had its roots in Blackwood’s superstitious belief, expressed in his essay “The Psychology of Places”, that he always found it necessary while traveling to go “through a ritual-like process when establishing camp as if to appease the gods”. And while Blackwood’s menacing atmosphere in “The Willows” -particularly the idea of the threatening/otherworldly aspects of foliage- will likewise pass directly into Lovecraft’s fiction (i.e., in the form of the revenge-device of the falling branch in “The Tree“, and the vampiric/seemingly-conscious foliage in “The Hound“, “The Lurking Fear“, and “The Colour Out of Space“), in Lovecraft, this idea of the alien menace and the pagan sovereignty of nature will be transformed instead into one of the inherent corruption and decadence of nature, and the related corruption of those who would, in the form of Bacchanalian/Herm/fertility rites, attempt to propitiate it.

Re.: “The Colour Out of Space“; “The Colour Out of Space” is, along with “The Shadow Out of Time” and “Dagon”, one of Lovecraft’s premier cosmic works, it is true. But even here you can see inverted examples of Lovecraft’s earlier Hellenism, and evidences of his overriding concern with the topics of "hybridism" or animalistic degeneration: the ostensibly “cosmic” degeneration which affects the Gardner family, for example, manifesting itself in imagery of female corruption, speechlessness, and walking “on all fours” -all aspects of Lovecraft’s “loping”, semi-lycanthropic, cannibalistic ghouls- while the initial vegetative fecundity of the Gardner farm is revealed, in an inversion of pagan fertility imagery, to contain nothing but decay and corruption. It is this overriding -one might say “morbid”- concern with decadence and decay, which reveals the ostensibly “cosmic” Lovecraft as a direct, if unacknowledged, forerunner of such “mundane” horror writers as Robert Bloch and Stephen King.

It is interesting to note that several classical features are also found in Lovecraft’s forerunner to “The Colour Out of Space”, namely “The Green Meadow”, which also features a meteor coming down to earth -this meteor, however, not bringing corruption, per se, but rather a prehistoric “rock-book”, written in Greek of the “purest classical quality”. It is also interesting to note that Lovecraft’s “collaborator” on this tale, Winifred Jackson, was also married to a black writer, and that Lovecraft himself was, it seems, somehow involved with Jackson, whether platonically or romantically. This fact may have some bearing, one thinks, on Lovecraft’s later association of “blacks” with “women” throughout his written corpus -whether in his view of “blacks” and “women” as twin “troubles”, which infested/corrupted the colonies after their introduction to America (“In 1619, wives were sent out for the colonials, and in the same year the first cargo of African blacks arrived-- proving that troubles never come singly” [MW 336]); his association of the “screaming” of “women” with the “howling and praying” of “Negroes” in the context of the destruction of a Southern plantation at the hands of Northern soldiers in “The Rats in the Walls” (“The Federal soldiers shouting, the women screaming, and the Negroes howling and praying”); his association of sexually-active “women“, here described, as Lovecraft was often wont, as “nymphs”, with “a Harlem flat”, in his “humorous” poem, “The Nymph’s Reply to the Modern Businessman” (1917); Lovecraft’s personification of this “blacks”/“women” relation in the person of the “negress” Madeleine de Russy, in his collaborative “Medusa’s Coil” -and his ultimate linkage of “blacks” with “women” in the form of the black/eye-filled (i.e. feminine) Shoggoths, which are responsible for the corruption and Palmyrean decay of the Old Ones’ civilization in Lovecraft’s parable for Western racial/societal decay, “At the Mountains of Madness.” (Lovecraft’s father, too, seems to have been overtly concerned with “blacks” and “women”, cf. Lovecraft’s father Winfield’s bizarre hallucinations that “’three men-- one a Negro-- in the room above [were] trying to do violence to his wife’”. [JOSHI 14])

Re.: “Life is a hideous thing”; To consider only Lovecraft’s statement,

“Life is a hideous thing, and from the background behind what we know of it peer demoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousand fold more hideous. Science, already oppressive with its shocking revelations, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species--if separate species we be-- for its reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world.”

The context in which we find this statement -Lovecraft’s loathsome, extremely xenophobic/racist story of feminine/Eastern decay, “Arthur Jermyn”- is very telling, the “shocking revelations” which Lovecraft hints at, above, not being cosmic at all, but rather mundane- being related solely to the origins of the human species, “if separate species we be”. Lovecraft expressed a similar idea in a 1923 letter of his to Frank Long, in which Lovecraft is discussing the “anthropological background” of Lovecraft’s cannibalistic story of feminine decay, “The Rats in the Walls”:

“No line betwixt ‘human’ and ‘non-human’ organisms is possible, for all animate Nature is one-- with differences only in degree; never in kind… I know that the tendency is to give a separate classification to the Neanderthal--Piltdown-Heidelberg type-- using the flashy word ‘Eoanthropus’-- but in truth this creature was probably as much a man as a gorilla. Many anthropologists have detected both Negroid and gorilla resemblances in these ‘dawn’ skulls, and to my mind it’s a safe bet that they were exceedingly low, hairy Negroes existing perhaps 400,000 years ago and having perhaps the rudiments of a guttural language. Certainly, it is not extravagant to imagine the existence of a sort of sadistic cult amongst such beasts, which might later develop into a formal Satanism. It is all the more horrible to imagine such a thing, on account of the intimations of extra physical malignancy in such a thought. Indeed, I think that certain traits in many lower animals suggest, to the mind whose imagination is not dulled by scientific literalism, the beginnings of activities horrible to contemplate in evolved mankind….” (SL I 258)

Lovecraft’s reference to a “sadistic cult amongst such beasts”, is recapitulated elsewhere, viz. Lovecraft‘s “apes danced in Asia” image in “The Horror at Red Hook”. The phrase, meanwhile, “activities horrible to contemplate in evolved mankind…”, in his letter to Long, above, is directly paralleled by his language in the “Arthur Jermyn” passage also quoted, where he writes of a “reserve of unguessed horrors“ -the phrases “activities horrible to contemplate” and “reserve of unguessed horrors” being equivalent to each other, and both referring, apparently, to sadistic/cannibalistic and/or sexual activities. This cannibalistic concern is reinforced by the initial words in Lovecraft’s “Arthur Jermyn” declaration itself, namely, that “Life is a hideous thing, …”, phraseology which directly parallels that other “hideous thing” referred to in the sub-human and cannibalistic climax of “The Rats in the Walls”, where it functions as a circumlocution for the degenerate de la Poer’s apparent eating of the "plump" Corporal Norrys.

A similar, and closely related, confounding of the cosmic and the mundane, can be found in Lovecraft’s earlier story of mundane cannibalistic devolution/decay, “The Lurking Fear”, in which Lovecraft refers, however incongruously, to “demon scratchings we sometimes hear on the farthest rim of space, yet from which our own finite vision has given us merciful immunity” -language which prefigures both the “rat”/“scratching” language of Lovecraft’s cannibalistic Atys/Cybele story, “The Rats in the Walls”, as well as the much-celebrated and supposedly “cosmic” introduction to Lovecraft’s (xenophobic/racist) “The Call of Cthulhu“, where Lovecraft writes,

“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.”

Indeed, whereas as a child I had always been inclined to think of Lovecraft’s “Call of Cthulhu” as the summit of cosmicism, I was shocked upon rereading it as an adult to find less of cosmicism than I remembered, the story instead being more in the vein of a paranoid/xenophobic/racist rant, a Conservative apocalypse, an aristocratic lament for Western and racial decay. And it is a striking aspect of Lovecraft’s fiction that his earlier work “Dagon” -which in many ways is a forerunner in several respects of “Call of Cthulhu”- is also far more cosmic than its successor; and this is due, primarily, to the absence of Lovecraft’s distracting socio-racial conservative/white supremacist polemic from the narrative.

Cthulhu himself -although ostensibly a cosmic entity, he apparently has a gender- has his origins in Lovecraft’s earlier story of cannibalistic, rural decay, “The Picture in the House” -more specifically, in Thomas Huxley’s erroneous description of Pigafetta’s Regnum Congo, which Lovecraft himself had never seen, Huxley describing a “winged, two legged, crocodile-headed dragon” in the woodcut illustrations, language which parallels Lovecraft’s later description of Cthulhu himself, as being bi-pedal (a ”human caricature“ with “vaguely anthropoid outline“), with “rudimentary wings” or with “long, narrow wings behind“. Significantly, as in Huxley’s original description and in Lovecraft’s later redaction, where they both speak, respectively, about “the imagination” of the cannibalistic plate’s illustrators, Lovecraft will likewise, in “The Call of Cthulhu”, call attention to the “somewhat extravagant imagination” of the narrator in his description of Cthulhu. Noteworthy, too, is the presence of this “proto-Cthulhu” sysygy in relation to the White/Black/Indian-like men and half-man/half-monkey-like creatures in the cannibalistic woodcuts -all images, again, which will be recapitulated in the hybrid/syzygies symbolic of human devolution/decay found throughout the Lovecraftian canon.

Cthulhu’s “hybrid” nature (Cthulhu being described as being akin to “an octopus, a dragon, and a human caricature”, possessing “vaguely anthropoid outline”) functions both as a caricature and projection of his equally “hybrid”/“mongrel” orgiastic/Bacchanalian/ animalistic followers -as well as a reflection of the traditionalist Lovecraft’s favoring of the Roman, the ordered and the Classical to the chaotic modernism of the early 20th century -Lovecraft using the word “autochthonous” in 1935, in his essay “Heritage or Modernism: Common Sense in Art Forms” (MW 194), to describe the “error” made by modernists in supposing that the “ordered” art of past ages was an artificial construct produced by the genius of each age from modern materials, Lovecraft contrasting modern forms, unrooted in tradition (i.e., “autochthonous”), with Greek art, which “possessed root in Cretan, Egyptian, Persian, and Mesopotamian art.” For Lovecraft, in other words, unrooted, untraditional, and autochthonous art was symbolic of Western modernism and therefore decay.

The “rectangular block or pedestal”, meanwhile, upon which the hybrid/caricatural/ chaotic syzygy Cthulhu “squatted evilly” in “The Call of Cthulhu“, is earlier found, too -this time in a firmly Classical, feminine, and cannibalistic context - in the form of the “carved golden pedestal” upon which the nude sea-nymph Lilith likewise and similarly “squats” in “The Horror at Red Hook” (Cf. “..naked phosphorescent thing which swam into sight, scrambled ashore, and climbed up to squat leeringly on a carved golden pedestal in the background…”; and Cf. “by the abominable naked phosphorescent thing that had squatted on the carved golden throne, and that now strode insolently,….” ). Predictably, Lovecraft has this Lilith -the female prototype for those feminine and corruptive “witches” who carry on her traditions- preside over an cannibalistic ceremony of “Dionysiac fury” involving the slaying of the corpulent occult scholar Suydham -a counterpart to the sacrifice of the "corpulent" Cpl. Norrys in “The Rats in the Walls”, and the killing of the fat cook by Cybele in “The Moon Bog”. Needless to say (although I do try to, at length, in my Dark Arcadia), the xenophobic nature of Lovecraft’s narrative in “The Horror at Red Hook” is as implicit and central to Lilith’s Bacchanalia, as it is to Cthulhu’s “hybrid” orgy in the later “Call of Cthulhu”. Lovecraft has simply learned to better disguise the polemical and caricatural origins of his Cthulhu “pantheon” in the latter narrative.

This nude Lilith with her pedestal, is probably another variation on “Shub-Niggurath”, who Lovecraft describes, I think in “The Mound”, as “the All-Mother and wife of the Not-to-Be-Named” -i.e., a consort of Cthulhu -this “Not-to-Be Named” terminology being yet another variation, it would seem, on Lovecraft’s “unnamable” or “hideous thing” terminology used in relation to cannibalistic/Bacchanalian rites. Analogous examples of this male/female consort relation can be found throughout the Lovecraft canon in relation to Bacchanalian/cannibalistic rites, whether the Pharaoh Kephren and his Ghoul Queen Nitocris, the Atys/Cybele myth in “The Rats in the Walls”, the female witches and masculine ghouls of Arkham, the pairing of the Black Man of Arkham with the female witch Keziah Mason, etc., etc., etc. Significantly, Lovecraft, in “The Mound”, refers to Shub-Niggurath as “a kind of sophisticated Astarte”, whose worship, Lovecraft goes on, consists of “subtle orgiastic rites” -i.e. the same cannibalistic/sexual Bacchanalia which we find in "Call of Cthulhu".

Ultimately, then, Lovecraft’s ostensibly “cosmic” entities are less cosmic than caricatural, rooted in the teetotaler/White supremacist Lovecraft’s conservative/anti-Bacchanalian socio-/racial polemic. Earlier and similar examples of such attempts at caricatural transformation -by which Lovecraft attempted to elevate mundane, lycanthropic, or cannibalistic horror to a cosmic/trans-dimensional form- can be found in the early stories “The Shunned House” and “The Unnamable”, stories which reveal the caricatural/ polemical origins of his Cthulhu “pantheon.” The “unnamable” entities in “The Unnamable”, for example, are actually “psychic projections” of hybrid/“sub-human” individuals, described as “apparitions of gigantic bestial forms sometimes visible and sometimes only tangible.” This psychic projection of the horned, cloven-hoofed creature in “The Unnamable”, is doubly significant, since the creature is a clear caricature/inversion of the Hellenic Pan -a caricature which Lovecraft will build upon via Wilbur Whately in “The Dunwich Horror”. Lovecraft is slowly learning, here, in "The Unnamable”, finding his true idiom of horror in an inversion of his previously beloved Bacchanalian/sensuous Hellenic deities. ( I go ad nauseum into the slow degrees by which he completed this process of polemical/ symbolic inversion in my [in progress] essay, Dark Arcadia: From Arcadia to Arkham.)

I think it is a testimony to Lovecraft’s power as a writer that he was able to communicate his own xenophobic fears and paranoia so seamlessly to the reader without the reader even being aware, and that he was able to elevate that mundane horror which he felt at foreigners and so-called “mongrels”/"hybrids" etc. to a seemingly cosmic level. Indeed, some readers (Anton La Vey, Darrick Dishaw, the Cult of Cthulhu, et al.) have even found themselves able to create an actual “religion” from Lovecraft’s caricatures. But simply because Lovecraft was able to transform his obsession with cannibalism and his Puritan teetotalerism to the rim of infinity, does not mean that they belong there.



Edited 26 time(s). Last edit at 21 Oct 08 | 06:12PM by Gavin Callaghan.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Jojo Lapin X (IP Logged)
Date: 22 October, 2008 12:36PM
Yes, like I said.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Kyberean (IP Logged)
Date: 22 October, 2008 01:20PM
Gavin:

This is a fascinating post. I am guessing from both its length and from the number of edits that it is at least a partial preview of the Lovecraft essay you are writing.

1. While I agree with you that Lovecraft's horror fiction is itself largely a "hybrid" of pure cosmic horror and horror of degeneracy, I do not agree that one can discount the former in favor of the latter. Of course, one element or the other may predominate in a given tale, but I am leery of stating that Lovecraft is "primarily" this or that, or that his concerns are "primarily" this or that. I believe that one reason why Lovecraft endures as a major author who transcends genre (pace Edmund Wilson and others of that ilk) is because of the irreducible complexity of his outlook and concerns.

On the other hand, you seem to be making a case--a good one--for your particular reading of Lovecraft's principal themes and concerns, and that is fine, so long as that case does not reduce Lovecraft to a one-dimensional figure ("Puritan teetotaler", or the like).

2. In your portrayal of Lovecraft as a xenophobe, rather than a cosmicist, I think that you should be wary of reading too much into the themes of degeneracy and xenophobia, or of trying to stretch their definitions too far. Horror, by definition, requires something to be afraid of. To introduce the element of fear into his cosmic conceptions, Lovecraft drew on his own deepest fears. While I would agree that this choice might vitiate the purely cosmic aspect of Lovecraft's horror, I am not sure how else an evocation of horror would be possible. If I understand your argument, however, you question critically the form that Lovecraft's particular mingling of the cosmic and the horrific assumes. Still, isn't the foundation of almost all horror a fear of that which is alien and other, on some level?

3. Although I might draw different conclusions from yours, I like the way that you explore the relationship between Lovecraft's boyhood paganism and his later views. I am hardly expert on Lovecraftian scholarship, but this aspect of his life and thought seems to me to have been somewhat neglected.

4. It is not apparent to me that you give sufficient weight to the aspects of the cosmic and the alien that attract and fascinate Lovecraft on a personal level. Examples abound in the letters. Forgive me for not providing specific references (I am at work and at lunch), but I am sure that you know the passages that I mean: Those that refer to his desire for cosmic detachment, for an over-arching view of the universe from a non-human perspective, as well as those that allude to the "allure of unplumbed space and unfathomed entity" [quoting from memory], etc. A mere provincial, racialist xenophobe would not, I think, express such sentiments, nor would he reflect those aspects of the theme in his fiction.

5. Finally, as an indication of what Lovecraft himself considered to be cosmic horror (and to bring the discussion back in a roundabout way to the subject of this very forum), let's read what Lovecraft himself has to say on the subject:

"A certain atmosphere of breathless and unexplainable dread of outer, unknown forces must be present; and there must be a hint, expressed with a seriousness and portentousness becoming its subject, of that most terrible conception of the human brain -- a malign and particular suspension or defeat of those fixed laws of Nature which are our only safeguard against the assaults of chaos and the daemons of unplumbed space".

"Of younger Americans, none strikes the note of cosmic horror so well as the California poet, artist and fictionist Clark Ashton Smith [...]. Mr. Smith has for his background a universe of remote and paralysing fright-jungles of poisonous and iridescent blossoms on the moons of Saturn, evil and grotesque temples in Atlantis, Lemuria, and forgotten elder worlds, and dank morasses of spotted death-fungi in spectral countries beyond earth's rim. His longest and most ambitious poem, The Hashish-Eater, is in pentameter blank verse; and opens up chaotic and incredible vistas of kaleidoscopic nightmare in the spaces between the stars. In sheet dæmonic strangeness and fertility of conception, Mr. Smith is perhaps unexcelled by, any, other writer dead or living. Who else has seen such gorgeous, luxuriant, and feverishly distorted visions of infinite spheres and multiple dimensions and lived to tell the tale?".

The extent to which Lovecraft's own fiction embodies these stated concepts of cosmic horror will, I think, be a subject for endless debate. After all, some even question Ashton Smith's cosmicism. See, for instance, Steve Behrends' interesting but, in my opinion, ultimately misguided article "Clark Ashton Smith: Cosmicist Or Misanthrope". As I mentioned in my previous post, I suspect that critiques of the cosmicism of others simply reflect the difficulty that we poor, pathetically conditioned and socialized creatures experience when we try to exit "the human aquarium", even conceptually, and for a moment.

Still, based upon Lovecraft's own "canonical" statement regarding cosmic horror, above, mightn't one interpret interspecies breeding, for instance, as a violation of a law of nature, and therefore to embody at least an aspect of cosmic horror, as Lovecraft defines it?

Anyway, to conclude.... For my part, and with all due respect, I am wary of any critical position that creates dichotomies and then demands that we choose between them, however well they articulate the case for their particular view of the matter. That said, I hope that you have found, or will find, a publisher for your stimulating and interesting essay.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22 Oct 08 | 01:56PM by Kyberean.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: sverba (IP Logged)
Date: 22 October, 2008 03:40PM
Here, here!..I agree.

There is much to be gleaned by deeper analysis of the themes Mr. Callaghan highlights for us, and I look forward to seeing such. To that end it may be worth (if I recall correctly) examining Octavio Paz work on Eroticism and Gastrophony. A more methodical exploration using structuralist or semiotic oppositions would be fascinating.

I am working my way through the essays in the Lovecraft Annuals (Hippocampus Press) and the related Primal Essays, and have recently revisited Mosig's Psychological portrait and Mariconda's Reader Response study. I agree that the theme where "pagan sovereignty of nature will be transformed instead into one of the inherent corruption and decadence of nature, and the related corruption of those who would, in the form of Bacchanalian/Herm/fertility rites, attempt to propitiate it..." is not well explored and deserves to be so.

Peculiarly though, the argument that HPL's cosmicism is somehow a clever means to further a socio-/racial polemic feels like the pot calling the kettle black here. At least the way it is argued above lends itself to that possibility, if Mr. Callghan is indeed the Gavin Callaghan at MySpace with the enormous blog on judeo-christian terrorism (which I found curious). If not, it may simply be that the case for abandoning the cosmicism in HPL needs further development as it is close to a staple of Lovecraft scholarship.

A possible means to avoid "reducing Lovecraft to a one-dimensional figure" , as Kyborean suggests, is to treat the problem at a higher level. If I recall correctly, Tristan Todorov's The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre has much to offer in this regards. Surely violating or exceeding boundaries unifies both the generally accepted role of cosmicism in Lovecraft and the understudied (perhaps underlying?) theme of corruption.

Just today I read the essay on Astronomical Motiffs in HPL's work (Lovecraft Annual 2) and note HPL himself struggled with accepting Relativity precisely because it exceeded the boundaries of day-to-day experience of time and space. Gradually he came to understand and accept the implications and we see them emerge in his work. I don't suspect though that the underlying purpose of incorporating relativity into his later writings was to support xenophobia (especially since "cultural relativity" is denounced today by xenophobics).


Steve

PS. In respect for, and support of, underlying aspects of Mr. Callaghan's premise, I do admit that the work of Garcia Lorca "Poet in New York", written just two years after HPL left NYC, reminded me of HPL's reactions (e.g. Landscape of the Urinating Multitudes)...again there is much to be explored in a multi-dimensional view of HPL. I also have a suspicion HPL was familiar with the Prolegomena To Greek Religion. There are several interesting possibilities here such as the notion of the blood curse and the physical infection of the earth, the relationship of the keres to disease and ghosts (and connections to the flesh), treatment of violations of law and curses, and a wealth of material worthy of further investigation of corruption themes in Lovecraft.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Gavin Callaghan (IP Logged)
Date: 22 October, 2008 07:24PM
Some great responses here. Am too numb/brain-dead from cashiering all day at work to respond, will write more later...

>>"Peculiarly though, the argument that HPL's cosmicism is somehow a clever means to further a socio-/racial polemic feels like the pot calling the kettle black here."

You are very right.... I think I'll have to tone down my ascerbic reaction to some (or all) of HPL's ideas; after all, the fact that HPL has a polemic (or so I argue) gives me something to write about! But I don't agree with HPL at all. One might say I disagree strongly.

I put up that myspace essay because I was sick of it, and couldn't stand writing it anymore; it's nowhere even near good writing. I wrote it as a response to the anti-Islamic Clarion Fund DVD ("Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West") that I was sent through the mail, and the essay just snowballed. I thought it important to temper all the recent Islamo-Terrorism rhetoric with some notice of Judeo-Christian terrorism through the ages. These things ebb and flow....

A good counter to HPL's reaction to NYC is Vincent McHugh's novel I Am Thinking of My Darling. McHugh was the same generation as Lovecraft, actually kind of resembled him in a way: same pale looks, neat hair, somber black dress. Like HPL, McHugh had dietary issues, too (he seems to have survived purely on milkshakes -surely an analogue to HPL's ice cream fetish) and, like HPL, McHugh was a Providence, RI native. Unlike HPL, though, McHugh was a devoted fan of every aspect of NYC and NYC-life. There are some lovely passages in I Am Thinking of My Darling devoted to that love, which I can't quote from, because my Dad sold the book, unfortunately.

I'm a big fan of Lorca; his NYC poems are noted for their Surrealism. Haven't done a sustained reading of them, though.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: sverba (IP Logged)
Date: 23 October, 2008 08:05AM
Ahh, thanks for the clarification on MySpace content. Out of context it looked a bit like its own polemic.

There are three aspects of your original post that stick with me: HPL's treatment of purity and corruption deserves more attention, it has antecedents and linkages with his classical interests, and the perceived cosmicism may be a technique for furthering an agenda emerging out of his xenophobia which informs his classical/corruption interests and themes.

It is only the latter that seems a stretch - but forge on, by all means. That is how new scholarship emerges.

I enjoyed the McHugh reference.

Lorca - genius. Worth studying in terms of the concept of Duende "The duende that I speak of, shadowy, palpitating, is a descendant of that benignest demon of Socrates, he of marble and salt, who scratched the master angrily the day he drank the hemlock; and of that melancholy imp of Descartes, little as an unripe almond, who, glutted with circles and lines, went out on the canals to hear the drunken sailors singing."


Steve

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Gavin Callaghan (IP Logged)
Date: 23 October, 2008 08:09PM
>>"A more methodical exploration using structuralist or semiotic oppositions would be fascinating."

My main model in my Lovecraft research has been Robert Eisenman's work, particularly his reading of the polemical inversion of the Dead Sea texts in the Pauline New Testament.

>>"but I am leery of stating that Lovecraft is 'primarily' this or that, or that his concerns are 'primarily' this or that. "

My division of Lovecraft's work into "cosmic" vs. "mundane" actually derives from the earlier work of Joshi, who is quick to differentiate between "cosmic" and "mundane" in his reading of the Lovecraft canon, Joshi usually preferring those stories which fall on the "cosmic" side. My research actually began as a study of Lovecraft's use of the "werewolf" motif in his tales, and, as I became increasingly aware of how central the werewolf/lycanthropic/cannibalistic was to Lovecraft's fiction, I began to see my essay as a way to perhaps redress the balance between "mundane" and "cosmic", and to tilt the scale more to the "mundane" side. I'm now convinced, however, that most of Lovecraft's work is non-cosmic/"mundane", concerned with biological (racial) aspects of his socio-political polemic.

>>"I am wary of any critical position that creates dichotomies and then demands that we choose between them, however well they articulate the case for their particular view of the matter."

Of course, we are free to ask the question: can't the mundane itself be cosmic? And that, of course is a philosophical/aesthetic discussion. But strictly in terms of Lovecraft's own definition of the cosmic, the greater balance of his work did not fit his own definition -and so in that sense, if there is a dichotomy in Lovecraft's work, it is Lovecraft's own.

For my part, I do not see Lovecraft's work as dichotomous, but rather revealing a slow progression between two extremes: Lovecraft beginning as a far more cosmic, even progressive, writer ----his fictional polemic, however, gradually increasing as his own fictional and symbolic skills increased in sophistication. His earlier works were more cosmic, in other words, because he had not yet learned to fully integrate his fictional and his political polemics. That is why, in "The Beast in the Cave", Lovecraft is able to declare the loping, lycanthropic hybrid to be "a man!!" -whereas in his later dystopian parable, "At the Mountains of Madness", this recognition is reserved for his civilized Old Ones alone, and not their maleable and bestial slaves.

Don't forget, too, that HPL himself was quick to divide his early stories thematically, lamenting, "These are my Poe pieces, these are my Dunsanian, pieces, but which are my Lovecraft pieces?" (Rough paraphrase from memory.) For my part, in my essay, I tend to divide Lovecraft's writings into two halves: his "white" writings (his early, pro-Hellenic and "poetic"/Dunsanian pieces) and his "black" fiction (his morbid, anti-Hellenic, lycanthropic, and Cthulhu stories). There are of course many tentative steps between these two extremes. I do think, for the record, that Lovecraft's most "Lovecraftian" pieces will someday be found to be those pieces in which one finds an inversion/reversal of Hellenic figures and myths, which seems to be something unique to Lovecraft, and not his cosmic works, which have clear antecedents.

>>"Horror, by definition, requires something to be afraid of. To introduce the element of fear into his cosmic conceptions, Lovecraft drew on his own deepest fears. While I would agree that this choice might vitiate the purely cosmic aspect of Lovecraft's horror, I am not sure how else an evocation of horror would be possible. "

In my essay, I try to introduce examples of horror/weird writers whose choices of symbols and topics mirrors/parallels HPL's own, and yet whose fictional polemic is completely opposite. A good example in Jack Williamson's Darker Than You Think, which is written from a bestial/pagan/Dionysian point of view, as well as Dion Fortune's theosophical stories of the occult. But you're right, science fiction/horror does have a strong xenophobic/sexual element. I haven't even begun to analyze the whole field yet.

>>"'Puritan teetotaler'"

I use those words not satirically or nastily, but quite strictly, in reference to HPL's sexual and anti-Bacchanalian/anti-alcohol views, which (I think) are essential to his stories. Wine, as well as cannibalism, as well as lascivious women (and men!) underlay that Bacchanalia which HPL made the summit of degredation in his fiction.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 23 Oct 08 | 08:15PM by Gavin Callaghan.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Kyberean (IP Logged)
Date: 24 October, 2008 09:47AM
Quote:
"Puritan teetotaler": I use those words not satirically or nastily, but quite strictly, in reference to HPL's sexual and anti-Bacchanalian/anti-alcohol views, which (I think) are essential to his stories. Wine, as well as cannibalism, as well as lascivious women (and men!) underlay that Bacchanalia which HPL made the summit of degredation in his fiction.

I understand. My point was merely that Lovecraft should not be reduced to such a figure. I realize that that was not necessarily your intention, but I wanted to be clear.

As an aside, Lovecraft remarks somewhere in a letter that he is able to accept Ashton Smith as a social equal, despite the latter's fondness for wine and women. From the tone of the remark, it sounds as if, for Lovecraft, that was quite a magnanimous concession!

For the rest, my view is that the main difficulties and areas of disagreement turn on the definition of "cosmic", in general, and of "cosmic horror", in particular. Having looked again at Lovecraft's comments regarding cosmic horror, and having given the matter more thought since the beginning of this thread, I am less certain than ever that, even using Lovecraft's terminology, the "cosmic" and the "mundane" are rigidly separable in Lovecraft's work. To put the matter differently, I think that the two blend into one another in ways that are messy and difficult to dichotomize (even for Lovecraft himself, who, as we know, was not a very objective or reliable commentator on his own work). Again, for me, that (Dionysian? ;-)) "messiness" merely adds to the richness, complexity, and inherent interest of Lovecraft's fiction.

Of course, that is not to say that it is unworthwhile to try to untangle the skein, a bit, and that is what I gather you are trying to do in your essay. Of course, as you know, I do differ with you in your emphases and your ultimate conclusions. I side rather with Joshi in emphasizing the originality and worth of Lovecraft's more explicitly cosmic pieces, and I remain wary of attempts at a posthumous psychoanalysis of Lovecraft via his tales, a method that veers too closely to Sprague de Camp's techniques to suit me.

That said, I do think that your work is very thought-provoking, and, again, I wish you well in placing it. Let us know where it ends up being published.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 24 Oct 08 | 10:01AM by Kyberean.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Stan (IP Logged)
Date: 24 October, 2008 11:18AM
If I may digress back to the Barnes & Noble edition for a moment:

The book was out of stock in my area, with no telling when or if it would be back in, so I bought it through the B&N website, since shipping was free. I'll never make that mistake again. They sent it in a plain cardboard box with no padding/wrapping whatsoever. Corners were bumped, top of some pages bumped, dust jacket bumped and dirty...they're worse than Amazon. Luckily, the book was restocked at my local store and I was able to exchange it for a pristine copy, no questions asked. Just a word of warning if you're thinking of buying online.

That's my little rant, now back to the show...

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Gavin Callaghan (IP Logged)
Date: 24 October, 2008 07:37PM
I ordered a book of Jules Laforgue's poetry from Amazon.com once, and I came home from work when it was raining and found the package lying in a puddle of water on the front steps, and the book inside hadn't been wrapped in plastic, either. The book turned out all flooby.

>>"Having looked again at Lovecraft's comments regarding cosmic horror, and having given the matter more thought since the beginning of this thread, I am less certain than ever that, even using Lovecraft's terminology, the "cosmic" and the "mundane" are rigidly separable in Lovecraft's work."

Perhaps that's true. I'll have study HPL's own definitions of the cosmic. I was thinking that the cosmic in Lovecraft was intended purely as a study of cosmic scale- as in certain poems, like "Nemesis", or the depiction of the grand sweep of time in "Shadow Out of Time." Did he really think of his ghouls as being portents of cosmic horror? Or were they a digression/distraction? I'll have to think about that.

But ultimately my instinct is that this dichotomy in HPL's fiction, between HPL's expressed intentions to create a feeling of the cosmic, and his actual writings, which deal more with the "mundane" topics of cannibalism, etc., is not a dichtomy which I or any other critics are imposing on Lovecraft, but rather something which is implicit in his works -often obviously so.

>>"Lovecraft remarks somewhere in a letter that he is able to accept Ashton Smith as a social equal, despite the latter's fondness for wine and women. From the tone of the remark, it sounds as if, for Lovecraft, that was quite a magnanimous concession!"

That's just exactly the passage I was thinking of (with regard to HPL's sexual Puritanism)!! In my essay I try to relate HPL's further description of sexual libertines as "amoebas" or "neanderthals" in this same passage to HPL's related use of hybrid/subhuman and amoebic motifs elsewhere in his works, particularly the scene in Herbert West: Reanimator, where reptilian cell cultures (equivalent to the aforementioned "amoebas"?) are used to grow protoplasmic (proto-Shoggothian) tissues.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 24 Oct 08 | 07:54PM by Gavin Callaghan.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Kyberean (IP Logged)
Date: 24 October, 2008 09:34PM
One final point/clarification: I think the problem is that sometimes there is, or appears to be, a dichotomy between the cosmic horror and the visceral or "mundane" horror, and sometimes not, and that's where the complexity in Lovecraft's fiction lies. Just my perspective, though.

I feel that Lovecraft's own ambivalence about his work stems from his self-perceived inability to achieve the level of cosmic and suggestive horror to which he aspired.

I hope that you are going to deal in your essay with the interesting subject of Lovecraft and his extremely admiring, but at times also scathing, view of Algernon Blackwood's fiction. I've long suspected that part of the reason for the simultaneous fascination and irritation Blackwood held for HPL lies in the fact that both began life as pantheistic pagans, of a sort, but Blackwood, unlike Lovecraft, never "outgrew" it.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: sverba (IP Logged)
Date: 25 October, 2008 10:09AM
Hmm...I am thinking there is a line of investigation here on the "sacred" vs. the "profane", with Lovecraft's brand of the sacred being a sort of negative mysticism (per Lacy and Zani study) and the corruption theme dealing with the profane. The binary opposition of the sacred and profane are a staple of structuralist studies going back to Claude Levi-Strauss. I don't think a parallel really exists in the writings of REH or CAS. Speaking of which, this is a nice site with an orderly forum, I hate to be filling it up HPL centered posts.... Does anyone know a better place (different site) for us to continue pure HPL discussions?

I've been getting books from Amazon for a decade or so. Never a problem, I get maybe 20 per year from them. All of the ones shipped and supplied from them directly are shrink wrapped and have survived rain and snow on our porch. However, sometimes the books are actually supplied and shipped from third parties and these may be have different standards. So far though I have had no problems with either.

Steve

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: sverba (IP Logged)
Date: 25 October, 2008 09:39PM
Just reading the study “Queer Tales? Sexuality, Race, and Architecture in The Thing on the Doorstep ", Joel Pace, Lovecraft Annual No. 2, 2008, Hippocampus Press

Lays out a great deal of content on the xenophobic views of HPL and their impact in his work, particularly The Thing on the Doorstep. Builds a pretty convincing case for some of the same points you were making earlier, Gavin. Takes in in some interesting directions beyond what we have discussed here, by pursuing the demonizing of the Other and how it plays out (uniting the cosmic with the mundane).

Lest we treat all this as academic, I have to tell you that I cringed as I read this and I began to wonder how much demonizing of the Other I've fallen into in the heat of the current presidential race.

Steve

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Gavin Callaghan (IP Logged)
Date: 6 November, 2008 08:27PM
sverba Wrote:
> I do admit
> that the work of Garcia Lorca "Poet in New York",
> written just two years after HPL left NYC,
> reminded me of HPL's reactions (e.g. Landscape of
> the Urinating Multitudes

Just copied out some passages from Ian Gibson’s account of Garcia Lorca in New York in 1929; Lorca’s experiences, and his reactions to them, were very different from Lovecraft’s, at least in Gibson's recounting of them. From Gibson's Federico Garcia Lorca: A Life:

“Fernando de los Rios, without whose friendly concern Lorca would not have crossed the Atlantic, must have told the poet about his experiences in the United States, which he had already visited twice, and what he might expect to find in New York. The famous socialist professor, considered by the Primo de Rivera regime one of its most dangerous enemies, had stayed at Columbia, whose size made Madrid’s Central university look like a village school, and knew Harlem and the problems of its Black population. Like all good Andalusians, Don Fernando loved the cante jondo of his native South, and as a result was appreciative of the Black music he had heard in Cuba and New York, which seemed to him to have affinities with it. We may assume that he and Lorca discussed these matters and that, before he landed in new York, the Grenadine poet was already eager to visit Harlem for himself…. (…)

“Lorca always vibrated at great speed, and soon adapted himself to the vertiginous pace of New York, living his first weeks there with great intensity, as his letters home (the only ones we have) demonstrate. The variety of races and religions flourishing on all sides fascinated him as much as they had done Paul Morand and, perhaps not surprisingly, he felt himself not only profoundly Spanish but profoundly Catholic as he strolled down the canyons of New York, between the skyscrapers….

“…..the poet blamed ‘the odious Methodist church’ for the horrors of Prohibition, and came to the conclusion that for him ‘the word Protestant is a synonym for absolute idiot.’… (…)

“As for the Sephardic Jews of New York, that was another matter, and in the synagogue of Shearith Israel (on the corner of Central Park West and 70th Street), with its impressive music and liturgy, the poet saw faces that reminded him strongly, and pleasantly, of various acquaintances back in Granada, where Semitic traits are not uncommon. The service was moving and dignified, but none the less the poet left the building, he told his parents, with the conviction that the figure of Christ was ‘too strong to be denied.’

“Lorca lost no time in starting to penetrate the world of the New York Blacks. Shortly after his arrival he met Nella Larsen, the daughter of a Black father and a Danish mother, who had just published her second novel, Passing. This likeable woman had taken the Spaniard under her wing and together they had visited Harlem. Federico had written home ecstatically on 14 July:

“‘This writer is an exquisite woman, full of kindness and with the deep, moving melancholy of the Blacks.

'She had a party at her house and there were only Negroes. It’s the second time I’ve been with her, because it interests me very much.

'At the party I was the only White. She lives on 2nd Avenue, and from her windows you could see the whole of New York lit up. It was night and the sky was criss-crossed with searchlights The Blacks sang and danced.

'What marvelous songs! Only our Andalusian cante jondo could be compared to them.
There was a boy there who sang religious songs. I sat down at the piano and also sang. And I don’t need to tell you how much they enjoyed my songs… The Blacks are a great people. When I took my leave, they all hugged me and the writer gave me copies of her books, effusively signed, something that the others considered a special favor since she doesn’t usually do it for them. At the party there was a black woman who, without exaggeration, is the most beautiful woman I have ever seen. There just couldn’t be greater perfection of features or a more perfect body. She danced by herself a sort of rumba accompanied by the tom-tom (an African drum), and seeing her dance was such a pure, such a tender, sight, that it could only be compared to the moon coming out over the sea or something simple and eternal in Nature. As you can imagine I was thrilled with the party. With the same writer I went to a Black night-club, and I remembered Mother, because it was a place like the ones you see in the cinema and which frighten her so much.’

“…Perhaps remembering De los Rios’s account of his visit to a Harlem church, the poet quickly made a point of attending a service in the Black quarter, accompanied by Sofia Megwinoff, and maybe by then had begun to frequent Small’s Paradise- this was Scott Fitzgerald’s Jazz Age- one of Harlem’s leading clubs, with the Mexican graphics designer Emilio Amero and Gabriel Garcia Maroto. The urge to express poetically the predicament of the American Black, as Lorca understood it, soon made itself felt, and he told his mother and father on 8 August that he had begun to write. ‘They are typically North American poems,’ he explained, ‘and almost all of them have a Black theme.’…

“’The King of Harlem’ was one of these early compositions, although perhaps not the first, and is dated 5 August 1929. The manuscript of the great poem is a labyrinth of crossings out and emendations, and gives the impression of high-speed composition under the impact of intense inspiration. The poem suggests that Lorca had perceived a connection, not only between Black music and cante jondo, but between the predicament of the Blacks, condemned to third-class citizenship in a situation of virtual apartheid- they were not even allowed into the Cotton Club, despite the fact that its best performers were Black- and the Gypsies of Andalusia, harassed by an intolerant society. It seems possible, moreover, that in his invention of the mythical King of Harlem Lorca may have had at the back of his mind the ‘King of the Gypsies’, Chorrojumo, who as an old man could still be seen around the Alhambra when the poet was a child….

“‘The King of Harlem’, written little more than a month after Lorca arrived in New York, constitutes a ferocious attack on the materialistic values of contemporary capitalist society and an impassioned plea on behalf of the Blacks. In its anger and denunciation it goes further than any of the poet’s previous work. Back in Spain Lorca was to say that he believed that being from Granada gave him ‘deep fellow feeling for all those who suffer. The Gypsy, the Black, the Jew…the converted Moor, that we all carry inside.’ This feeling pervades ‘The King of Harlem’ and gives it its power. And when Lorca foresees the day in which Blacks will rise against their oppressors and nature reassert her claims to the land usurped by the city we feel that he is talking not just about the liberation of the Blacks, but about that of all oppressed minorities, including his own homosexual one:

‘Oh Harlem! Oh Harlem! Oh Harlem!
There is no anguish comparable to your oppressed reds,
To your blood trembling within the dark eclipse,
To your vermillion violence deaf-mute in the shadows,
To your great King, prisoner in a janitor’s suit.’…”
(pp. 247-57)

As we can see, whereas Lorca’s reaction to prohibition was that it was "Protestant" and stultifying, Lovecraft was an enthusiastic advocate for Prohibition and a lifelong teetotaler. Wheras Lorca reacted with amusement and rejected his own Mother’s racial fears and racism, Lovecraft not only did not reject his mother’s views, but embraced them for the entirety of his life, making them the basis of his fictional polemic and his scientific and social philosophy. Wheras Lorca reacted with sympathy to the Jew, the Black, the Gypsy, etc., Lovecraft regarded both the Black and the Jew as profoundly corruptive influences in the American social, racial, and political fabric. As for Lorca's reaction to the Black woman dancing to the tom-tom drums, ....one can easily imagine what a cannibalistic revel HPL would have made of such an image(as indeed he in fact did --in the form of the dances of Madelaine de Russy which "made all the yaps stare" in "Medusa's Coil".) And whereas Lorca reacted to NYC and America by writing poems composed in an apparent fit of profound and heated inspiration, Lovecraft reacted to the city with profound disgust and loathing -only afterward, when he had finally left the city, composing stories like “The Call of Cthulhu” and others, in which he could embody his paranoid cosmic vision of racial corruption and xenophobic/conservative apocalypse.

True, there is a similarity between Lorca and Lovecraft's mutually antagonistic view of materialism and commercialism, but Lorca was writing from a progressive perspective, while Lovecraft was writing from a conservative/aristocratic one, lamenting the end of royalty and the king. But I've got to read Lorca's poems firthand, my copy of Poet in NY is missing.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 6 Nov 08 | 08:29PM by Gavin Callaghan.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: wilum pugmire (IP Logged)
Date: 26 January, 2009 05:24PM
Do not discard those old Arkham editions because they are becoming valuable. I really HATE the stupid dust jacket art on the new Arkham editions (except for THE HORROR IN THE MUSEUM) and the newly publish'd editions lack the recently-discovered definitive text for whut many consider Lovecraft's finest tale, "The Shadow out of Time," which corrected text (from the MS that HPL gave to Barlow) is now included in the Penguin edition THE DREAMS IN THE WITCH HOUSE, in the Library of America edition and the lovely (though filled with new misprints, which will be corrected in the 2nd edition) Barnes & Noble. I shall soon be ordering the super-luxurious Centipede Press edition, which is now on sale for only $325, I believe.

The definitive text of "The Shadow out of Time" was first published as single volume (with extensive introduction and notes and a jacket reproduction in colour of the art from Astounding) by Hippocampus, and it is such a wonderful wee book. I highly recommend it.

S. T. told me that he hopes the Barnes & Noble edition will, in time, become the "popular" edition, and because of its low price it is ideal for placement in libraries and schools. I wish that Arkham House would reprint their three editions with new jackets. I'd love to see some imaginative Harry O Morris Jr or Jeffrey K Potter art on the cover, each one in which there is featur'd a photo of HPL that has been aesthetically tweak'd.

My favourite editions are the Penguins. When I went on my first journey to Providence, I carry'd all three editions as S. T. gave us a walking tour of Lovecraftian sites. I held those books in my trembling claw as I stood before #10 Barnes Street as S. T. declaimed, "This should be an American literary monument site" or some such thing. I also had my wee Ballentine pb editions of FUNGI FROM YUGGOTH & OTHER POEMS, in which I wrote, "4.33 p.m., 23 Oct. 1707, standing with S. T. Joshi in front of 10 Barnes St, where HPL wrote ye FUNGI." It was a magical moment which comes back to me whenever I open yem Penguin editions, with their autumn in Providence leaves of red and amber stuck between ye pages. Ah, what a great time it is, now, to be a Lovecraftian.

"I'm a little girl."
--H. P. Lovecraft, Esq.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 26 Jan 09 | 05:27PM by wilum pugmire.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Martinus (IP Logged)
Date: 27 January, 2009 11:58AM
wilum pugmire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do not discard those old Arkham editions because
> they are becoming valuable. I really HATE the
> stupid dust jacket art on the new Arkham editions
> (except for THE HORROR IN THE MUSEUM)

Yes, they aren't much to write home about, IMO. I'm glad that I managed to snag one of the printings that had the Raymond Bayless covers.

> and the
> newly publish'd editions lack the
> recently-discovered definitive text for whut many
> consider Lovecraft's finest tale, "The Shadow out
> of Time," which corrected text (from the MS that
> HPL gave to Barlow) is now included in the Penguin
> edition THE DREAMS IN THE WITCH HOUSE, in the
> Library of America edition and the lovely (though
> filled with new misprints, which will be corrected
> in the 2nd edition) Barnes & Noble.

Working on it! I don't think I posted a link to my list of textual differences in the B&N volume (most of them are probably errors, but I can't say either way before Joshi has looked at them) -- anyway, here it is: [www.sffchronicles.co.uk]

> I shall soon
> be ordering the super-luxurious Centipede Press
> edition, which is now on sale for only $325, I
> believe.

I am so terribly tempted by that book, but only because it is supposed to have the largest collection of Lovecraft photos ever gathered in one place.

>
> The definitive text of "The Shadow out of Time"
> was first published as single volume (with
> extensive introduction and notes and a jacket
> reproduction in colour of the art from Astounding)
> by Hippocampus, and it is such a wonderful wee
> book. I highly recommend it.

I second that!

>
> S. T. told me that he hopes the Barnes & Noble
> edition will, in time, become the "popular"
> edition, and because of its low price it is ideal
> for placement in libraries and schools.

It will get there eventually. At the moment it is a somewhat painful read.

> My favourite editions are the Penguins.

Yes, they're nice -- I use them as travel reading, and they're excellent as presents. If only they didn't introduce new typos. :-( Many of the ones I've found in the B&N book appeared in the Penguins first.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Kyberean (IP Logged)
Date: 31 January, 2009 01:02PM
Martinus: This is off the immediate topic, but have you posted or otherwise made available errata lists for the Nightshade volumes of CAS's tales? If not, then that would be valuable, assuming you've done so (I seem to have some recollection of your doing this, but I could be mistaken). Perhaps it could be posted as a "sticky" thread in this forum?

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Martinus (IP Logged)
Date: 31 January, 2009 02:17PM
Yes, my errata lists (or rather, my lists of SUSPECTED errata) for vols. 1 & 2 are somewhere in this forum. I never posted my list for vol. 3, since that ended up being longer than the other two combined (!), I'm sorry to say, and I didn't have the time or the energy to convert the formatting (all those italics and underlinings) for posting in the forum.

However, Scott Connors should have all the lists, since I've e-mailed them to him AND to Night Shade, just to be on the safe side (Scott? Did you get them?).

(BTW, I just finished "The Dreams in the Witch House" and have now hit "Through the Gates of the Silver Key". I think I'll finish in about two more weeks.)

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Martinus (IP Logged)
Date: 31 January, 2009 02:21PM
P. S. I also have a list of suspected errata for the Complete Poetry and Translations, but that's also a bit on the long side (in printed form it would take up about 8 pages), and it ignores the texts in Spanish and French. Joshi & Schultz have both received copies, though.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Kyberean (IP Logged)
Date: 31 January, 2009 04:21PM
Thanks, Martinus.

It would be great if the publishers, after verifying the errors, would make the errata lists freely available to those of us who have purchased the books. I, for one, would much rather mark my current texts (as I've done with the Penguin Lovecrafts, thanks to your efforts) than purchase revised and corrected printings of the Night Shade and Hippocampus volumes--assuming there ever are any, which would actually surprise me.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Radovarl (IP Logged)
Date: 20 February, 2009 01:21PM
wilum pugmire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I shall soon
> be ordering the super-luxurious Centipede Press
> edition, which is now on sale for only $325, I
> believe.

I just received my copy today, so if anyone has questions about this edition (contents, physical quality, etc.), I'd be more than happy to fill you in. The Centipede website is kind of light on detail. Haven't had a chance to do much more than unpack it yet, but first impressions...huge (really huge), superb materials, and nicely constructed. I've gone through the photo volume, and was not especially impressed, but that was not a selling point for me anyway. I haven't yet compared the table of contents to the Barnes & Noble or Library of America editions. From a quick scan it appears that all of the major tales are included, along with (at least) two collaborations, "The Horror in the Museum" and "The Mound" (my personal favorite).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20 Feb 09 | 01:22PM by Radovarl.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: wilum pugmire (IP Logged)
Date: 20 February, 2009 08:55PM
I am so excited about getting it. It will probably contain errors, but Jerad's books are beautiful. I'm hoping to have the boards of my omnibus yellow with black design, and it's almost definite that Harry O. Morris Jr will be illustrating my book. I hope to be able to order the Lovecraft volume within ye next two months. Sorry to hear you found the photo volume disappointing, I was looking forward to its collection of photos of Providence. Now that I've been there, on a tour with S. T., every time I see a photo of Providence I gets all dreamy....

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Martinus (IP Logged)
Date: 21 February, 2009 04:54AM
I hope that someone will release a Lovecraft photo collection someday...

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Radovarl (IP Logged)
Date: 21 February, 2009 08:58AM
Maybe "disappointing" wasn't the best choice of words. The photo album is nice enough as a physical object, and the portraits and other shots of HPL all in one place are great to have, though there are a few shots I've seen online that were not included. There are fewer shots of Providence than I had hoped, and there is no indication anywhere (at least that I noticed, but only leafed through it the one time so far) what each photograph is of. Although a couple are immediately recognizable as HPL's old haunts (houses and such), others are not. A list of contents, which I might have missed and will check again, would have been useful.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: OConnor,CD (IP Logged)
Date: 24 February, 2009 07:21AM
I've seen the Definitive text in my local B&N, but to me the paper seems too fragile. Anyone see this as a problem?

Very awesome book though.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Martinus (IP Logged)
Date: 24 February, 2009 03:21PM
OConnor,CD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've seen the Definitive text in my local B&N, but
> to me the paper seems too fragile. Anyone see this
> as a problem?

It's a problem only if you intend to lug it around with you, but if you're careful, it should be fine.
>
> Very awesome book though.

Yes; and it'd have been even more awesome if it had been proofed! Wait for the second printing!

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Radovarl (IP Logged)
Date: 24 February, 2009 03:21PM
The paper is a tad flimsy, true, but you can't go wrong for the price. It's about the same as a trade paperback, has pretty much every HPL story one could ask for, and doubles as a paperweight. Buy two :). Seriously, though, I'm surprised how nice the book is for being so inexpensive.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Radovarl (IP Logged)
Date: 24 February, 2009 03:24PM
Martinus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes; and it'd have been even more awesome if it
> had been proofed! Wait for the second printing!

I wish I had. I wasn't aware of these issues when I purchased mine, and I'm still working my way through the LoA edition so wouldn't have noticed for some time. How bad is it?

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: wilum pugmire (IP Logged)
Date: 24 February, 2009 03:47PM
For travel, I always take the three Penguin Classic books, which have not only the fiction but the fascinating S. T. Joshi notes. I have three sets of the Penguins, one at bedside, one kept in pristine condition and then the three that I took with me on my trip to New England and New York, which are beat-up, filled with notes and leaves from Providence in October and postcards from Boston (one from Copp's Hill graveyard for the edition that contains "Pickman's Model", with the postcard taped to ye inside cover with clear packing tape). They are wonderful editions and easy to carry about. The Second Edition Barnes & Noble will be the book I keep here at my writing table, and I'll also buy a second copy for bedside. I need lots and lots of copies of Lovecraft because I am always returning to him due to my full-time profession as a full-time Cthulhu Mythos writer. Because I am always returning to HPL, it helps keep it interesting to have as many different editions as possible. Can't wait until I can afford the magnificent Centipede Press edition!

"I'm a little girl."
--H. P. Lovecraft, Esq.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Jojo Lapin X (IP Logged)
Date: 24 February, 2009 04:20PM
wilum pugmire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> my full-time profession as a full-time Cthulhu
> Mythos writer

I suppose such a thing is just barely possible if one adopts a lifestyle similar to Lovecraft's own. Perhaps leaving out some of the luxuries he permitted himself, such as cheese.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: wilum pugmire (IP Logged)
Date: 24 February, 2009 05:43PM
It's easy for me cos I moved in with my mother, who is crippled with age and cannot live alone. Too, I am being supported by extremely generous Patrons who are paying me to stay home and write weird fiction full-time. I'm one of Ye Lucky Ones. & this is good, because I have now entered a new phase of extreme excitement about writing Mythos fiction, much of it inspir'd by my current reading of S. T. Joshi's THE RISE AND FALL OF THE CTHULHU MYTHOS, which is affecting me just as Lin Carter's A LOOK BEHIND THE CTHULHU MYTHOS did thirty years ago -- filling me with an ache, a passion, to write Mythos fiction. And the new editions of Lovecraft's texts that have been publish'd over ye last few years have added fuel to this creative fire. I want my fiction to be inspired by LOVECRAFT -- not his imitators; & thus I am forever returning to Lovecraft's poetry & prose, reading it, studying it, relishing it as never before. The more I mature, the more I love HPL's work. As a Mythos writer, he is the inspirational font that never dries, into which I soak my wither'd brain for more and more nameless Baptism By Ichor!

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Radovarl (IP Logged)
Date: 24 February, 2009 05:54PM
Jojo Lapin X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wilum pugmire Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > my full-time profession as a full-time Cthulhu
> > Mythos writer
>
> I suppose such a thing is just barely possible if
> one adopts a lifestyle similar to Lovecraft's own.
> Perhaps leaving out some of the luxuries he
> permitted himself, such as cheese.

LOL, and no ice cream, definitely no ice cream. Baked beans all the way. I imagine canned goods aren't quite as detrimental to one's health these days as they were in the 20s/30s, but still doesn't me strike me as a wise diet. Paraphrasing H. O. Fischer's statement to Leiber, "We need to get this man some fresh veggies."

Good luck to you Wilum, and let us know where we can read the results of your total Lovecraft immersion when they're available.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 24 Feb 09 | 06:00PM by Radovarl.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Martinus (IP Logged)
Date: 25 February, 2009 11:06AM
Radovarl Wrote:
> How bad is it?

This bad: [www.sffchronicles.co.uk]

The LoA volume is also pretty badly proofed. Keep an eye out for the "silent stutterer" in "The Horror at Red Hook".

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Radovarl (IP Logged)
Date: 25 February, 2009 03:27PM
Wow... That's a boatload of errors. I'd probably have missed more than half of them on a casual reading, but others are obvious. I scanned through all 7 pages of the forum, and I'm dumbfounded. Even if many were already present in the text(s) the B&N volume was proofed against, some of them are pretty glaring and could/should have been caught anyway. Kudos to you for your thoroughness and dedication. I guess I'll be picking up the 2nd printing when it's released later in the year.

My personal fave was this one:

"23.22: us as navel prisoners. So] us as naval prisoners. So"

"Navel prisoners". That evokes quite an unpleasant image.

I'm going to my LoA right now to find the "silent stutterer" :). I think I skipped over "The Horror at Red Hook" (as I often do, not my favorite of his). I believe the LoA volume, correct me if I'm mistaken, has been through several printings already, so maybe they've corrected some of the problems by now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25 Feb 09 | 03:29PM by Radovarl.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Martinus (IP Logged)
Date: 25 February, 2009 03:44PM
Radovarl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow... That's a boatload of errors. I'd probably
> have missed more than half of them on a casual
> reading, but others are obvious. I scanned through
> all 7 pages of the forum, and I'm dumbfounded.
> Even if many were already present in the text(s)
> the B&N volume was proofed against, some of them
> are pretty glaring and could/should have been
> caught anyway.

I think that it is a case of combinations of worst possible alternatives coming together: Texts that were scanned ("unnarnable" is a classic OCR error), file formats that were changed (as when coöperate turns into co"perate), and on top of this very mixed proofing (some texts are perfect, others... aren't).

> Kudos to you for your thoroughness
> and dedication.

Thanks! Much appreciated!

> I guess I'll be picking up the 2nd
> printing when it's released later in the year.

Good idea! I will be getting an unspecified number for free for my services, but I'll most likely end up buying it for a lot of friends as well.

>
> I'm going to my LoA right now to find the "silent
> stutterer" :).

142.26-27. It's a dear old friend, that error. I have followed it from More Annotated Lovecraft over From the Pest Zone and Tales to The Fiction. In fact, the only post-Arkham-House-corrected-editions publication of the story that has the correct "strutter" is The Dreams in the Witch House and Other Weird Stories.

> I think I skipped over "The Horror
> at Red Hook" (as I often do, not my favorite of
> his). I believe the LoA volume, correct me if I'm
> mistaken, has been through several printings
> already, so maybe they've corrected some of the
> problems by now.

I would be extremely surprised if they had corrected anything in that book. Several of the errors on my list you will find in Tales as well.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Radovarl (IP Logged)
Date: 25 February, 2009 03:57PM
Now that I've had a few minutes to reflect, I recall being confused by the "silent stutterer" in the past and just putting it out of my mind and forging onward. I never could figure out what it was supposed to mean (or if an error, how it should have read). "Silent strutter" makes much better sense, thanks!

Martinus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would be extremely surprised if they had
> corrected anything in that book. Several of the
> errors on my list you will find in Tales as well.

Almost makes me want to hang it all and just go back to my tattered, trusty old Del Rey paperbacks from the '80s (still have them). They were good enough when I first encountered HPL, and evidently they're still about par for the course..

I also checked out the Barnes & Noble website, to see if they have a release date posted the next printing (they don't). I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw how much resellers are asking for the few available copies. $75 for the cheapest, up to $89! I should've ordered a half dozen back in November, and sold a few to defray the cost of my Centipede edition, LOL.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: wilum pugmire (IP Logged)
Date: 25 February, 2009 04:53PM
Part of what has me all on-fire-Lovecraft is listening to all six if the DARK WORLDS OF H. P. LOVECRAFT volumes from Audio Realms -- really wonderful readings by Wayne June -- BUT, ye texts are quite corrupt. Imagine my nameless horror, upon listening to him read the final sentence in "The Haunter of the Dark," to hear this:

"I see it--coming here--hell-wind--titan blue--black wings..."

Titan "blue"!! Sadder still, Audio Realms have decided to give Grandpa the P.C. treatment, and in "The Rats in the Walls," Nigger-Man is renamed "Black-Man"!! I shall listen to-night for ye silent stutterer!

"I'm a little girl."
--H. P. Lovecraft, Esq.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Martinus (IP Logged)
Date: 26 February, 2009 12:00PM
Radovarl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Almost makes me want to hang it all and just go
> back to my tattered, trusty old Del Rey paperbacks
> from the '80s (still have them). They were good
> enough when I first encountered HPL, and evidently
> they're still about par for the course..

Good heavens, no! Just look at the first line of chapters 3 and 4 of the section "An Antecedent and a Horror" of "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward". Del Rey has been lovingly reprinting that particular error -- consistently -- since the early 1970s, at least. And that's just ONE thing.

>
> I also checked out the Barnes & Noble website, to
> see if they have a release date posted the next
> printing (they don't). I couldn't believe my eyes
> when I saw how much resellers are asking for the
> few available copies. $75 for the cheapest, up to
> $89! I should've ordered a half dozen back in
> November, and sold a few to defray the cost of my
> Centipede edition, LOL.

Dammit, I should have ordered more -- especially considering how far the Krona has fallen compared to the USD in the past few months.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Radovarl (IP Logged)
Date: 26 February, 2009 12:32PM
Martinus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good heavens, no! Just look at the first line of
> chapters 3 and 4 of the section "An Antecedent and
> a Horror" of "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward".
> Del Rey has been lovingly reprinting that
> particular error -- consistently -- since the
> early 1970s, at least. And that's just ONE thing.

Okay, I've read them and confess that I cannot find the errors. Here's the first sentence of section 3 of Chapter Two (An Antecedent and a Horror) in my copy (evidently the same text as the 1971 Ballantine edition):

"By the autumn of 1770 Weeden decided that the time was ripe to tell others of his discoveries; for he had a large number of facts to link together, and a second eye-witness to refute the possible charge that jealousy and vindictiveness had spurred his fancy."

....AH! Never mind, I've got it. The section breaks are significantly different in the LoA edition than in the Del Rey.. I think you were referring to the first line of section 2 of the Del Rey, which is 3 of LoA (1st Del Rey, then LoA, below):

"By the autumn of 1770 Weeden decided that the time was very sudden, and gained a wide notice amongst..."

"In 1776 came the final change in Joseph Curwen. It was very sudden, and gained wide notice amongst..."

For cryin' out loud, how do these things happen? I of course noticed that the Del Rey version was nonsensical when I first read it, but what's a body to do?

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Martinus (IP Logged)
Date: 26 February, 2009 02:12PM
Radovarl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> "By the autumn of 1770 Weeden decided that the
> time was very sudden, and gained a wide notice
> amongst..."
>
> "In 1776 came the final change in Joseph Curwen.
> It was very sudden, and gained wide notice
> amongst..."
>

Yup, that's the one... Lovingly preserved by Del Rey in the US and Grafton in the UK... I discovered the same kind of error in The King of Elfland's Daughter by Dunsany, and a friend of mine has tracked it as far back as at least the Ballantine edition of 1969. I had to ask a friend with access to the 1st ed. for the right line. Terribly annoying.

Re: Lovecraft: definitive texts?
Posted by: Radovarl (IP Logged)
Date: 26 February, 2009 02:25PM
Thank you Lin Carter ;). Well, at least there has been some progress.



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Top of Page