I thought S. T. told me that The Variorum Lovecraft will be publish'd in three volumes this summer, but he may have meant next summer, at which time we celebrate the 125th anniversary of Grandpa's birth. From Hippocampus:

"In the multi-volume edition of THE VARIORUM LOVECRAFT, wjich will be published in celebration of the 125th anniversary of H. P. Lovecraft's birth, editor S. T. Joshi presents all the relevent textual variants from all the stories that Lovecraft wrote over his short literary career. One phase of that project includes the printing of passages from handwritten or typed manuscripts (chiefly the former) that were excised, either as Lovecraft was writing the story or as he performed a subsequent revision of it."

I saw the amazing files for this in S. T.'s office, and he has since sent me a pdf of one volume, and it is an extremely fascinating, impressive and authoritative work of research.

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

jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The difficulty here is that Lovecraft himself did
> not have his manuscript to hand for referral,

That's not a difficulty at all. HPL is the author, and is in charge of the creative process. He chose to create the situation by giving away the manuscript. He decided he did not need it any more. That was his choice! It was actually HPL's practice many times to DESTROY early drafts when they were superceded. It was his RIGHT as author to do this. But in this case decided to give the old draft away as a gift to the fan/friend who had typed the latest draft for him. If he ever changed his mind, he could have asked to borrow it back, and I am sure Barlow would have complied. But HPL never did ask for it back. That was his right and choice as well. HPL has no obligation to feel bound by his first-draft scribblings; he can trust his own judgment in the here and now.

You seem to have some bizarre idea that an author has no authority to say how he wants a story to read, unless he carefully checks all earlier drafts to make sure they are absolutely consistent. But why on earth should HPL feel bound by his first-draft scribblings? It all came from his own brain anyway, the brain he still has! It is obviously more important to HPL that he have a LEGIBLE draft so he could more easily read it, revise it, and assess its flaws.

> nor was he a particularly good proofreader; hence even
> obvious misprints would not be corrected, while at
> other times he was particularly keen on searching
> them out.

Are there any such "obvious misprints" in the Luckhurst texts? If so, what are they? If not, then how is this even remotely relevant?

Pro-Joshi advocates are hilarious. Their first line of attack is to try to convince the public that Joshi is a knight in shining armor come to save the purity of HPL's texts from the interfering arrogance of obnoxious editors. But when you push them to defend the texts, they end up arguing that HPL cannot be trusted either. If we cannot trust HPL the bad proofreader, and we cannot trust the editors who he worked with when alive, then obviously our only choice is to trust the newly-copyrighted text of ST Joshi. What a crock! But if HPL needs an editor because he was such a bad proofreader, then who has more authority? The editors he chose to work with while alive? Or the editor he never chose to work with, who tinkers with texts after he is in his grave and can no longer object?

> He was certainly intensely angry about
> what happened to "Mountains" in Astounding,
> calling poor Tremaine (who really wasn't behind
> the problem) all sorts of names;

This is beside the point, because Luckhurst does not follow the ASTOUNDING text; rather, he follow HPL's extensively hand-corrected copies of the ASTOUNDING text (probably via Derleth).

> he also made it
> quite clear that his own typescript was his
> preferred text, one which he spent infinite pains
> on.

Do you have a source for this, or did you make it up? I believe that what you are saying is not true. HPL made quite clear that his hand-corrected copy of ASTOUNDING was his preferred text. He made this clear by the infinite pains he spent hand-correcting it; a pointless operation if he did not intend it for his latest draft.

As for the typescript, even Joshi acknowledges (in his essay, "Textual Problems in Lovecraft") that it does NOT reflect HPL's final wishes; since there are revisions in the published ASTOUNDING text, not reflected in the surviving typescript, that Joshi feels MUST have come from HPL. In essence, Joshi admits he does not actually have a typescript that reflects the text that HPL authorized it for publication; and cannot possibly know for certain which changes were originally authorized and which were not.

Faced with such uncertainty (or even without such uncertainty), the only honest solution is to follow the author's final instructions. Joshi instead decides to create his own unique text, by combining elements from (1) the hand-scribbled manuscript; (2) the surviving typescript; (3) the ASTOUNDING STORIES text. He may even have given some small weight to (4) HPL's final wishes as reflected in the corrected copy -- I forget now if he says he did.

> The major differences between that and his
> later corrections which he does make clear were
> intentional alterations involved revising the
> portions of the novelette concerning his theory
> about the Antarctic landmass; these were
> corrections based on the scientific data which had
> arisen since... things which Joshi also included
> in his corrected editions.

These are not new to his corrected copy. They were present in the ASTOUNDING STORIES text. They were NOT present the surviving typescript. And they presumably come from HPL. According to Joshi, anyway,

> As for "Shadow"... he didn't abandon the original
> manuscript; it was a gift to Barlow in thanks for
> his typing it up...

What's your point? He decided to give it away, because he decided he did not need it any more. And there is no evidence he ever regretted that decision.

> yet HPL also remarked on the
> problems with that typescript.

So what? It was typos, wasn't it? He presumably fixed them to his satisfaction.

> He didn't find
> Astounding's handling of it as bad, certainly not
> enough to go into extreme detail as he did with
> the earlier story, but it was more a matter of
> degree, not kind, of reaction.

It was a matter of both degree and kind. HPL declared outright that the ASTOUNDING text of "Shadow..." had not been "intentionally" butchered, unlike "... Mountains". In short, he believed its errors were unintentional, and that ASTOUNDING had at least tried to honor his wishes this time. He also objected to its "crazy style sheet": He did not object to them having a style sheet, but he thought that some of their rules, like the capitalization of "Moon" and "Moonlight" were a little crazy; and fixed them in his hand-corrected copy.

Since the typescript HPL submitted for publication does not survive, HPL is obviously in a better position than any of us (including Joshi) to know that no intentional excisions were made.

> So yes, any edition which uses the original pulp
> versions of these without taking all this into
> consideration, is something to be viewed with
> caution (to say the least), as Lovecraft was
> certainly not at all happy with either of them as
> they appeared there.

Are you accusing Luckhurst of using the "original pulp editions" without applying HPL's corrections? Isn't that a lie? Can you name a single example of a textual variant that is contrary to HPL's final wishes? If you could name a specific example, perhaps we could discuss it.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 26 Apr 14 | 05:13PM by Platypus.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's not a difficulty at all. HPL is the
> author, and is in charge of the creative process.
> He chose to create the situation by giving away
> the manuscript. He decided he did not need it any
> more. That was his choice! It was actually HPL's
> practice many times to DESTROY early drafts when
> they were superceded. It was his RIGHT as author
> to do this. But in this case decided to give the
> old draft away as a gift to the fan/friend who had
> typed the latest draft for him. If he ever changed
> his mind, he could have asked to borrow it back,
> and I am sure Barlow would have complied. But HPL
> never did ask for it back. That was his right and
> choice as well. HPL has no obligation to feel
> bound by his first-draft scribblings; he can trust
> his own judgment in the here and now.

To begin: I'm afraid that, with time constraints (and the fact I've just come off a 17 hour work day and am frankly bushed), my reply to your post will likely be in more than one installment; so bear with me.

I would not disagree that HPL, as author, should have final say. What I am saying is that here it is not such a simple matter to decide which was actually the final say. You question my statement later about him remarking on the manuscript being the preferred text -- I should have specified typescript rather than the holographic manuscript, just for clarity's sake. It's fine to ask, but your manner here is deliberately insulting, which is neither necessary nor helpful. Kindly rein that in, and a more fruitful discussion is likely to result.

Now... I would have to look up my source on that as it has been some time since I last read the letter(s) in question, but as I recall, this was something he did refer to on more than one occasion. Changes he made to the copies of Astounding, therefore, have to be taken with that consideration in mind. Nor did Lovecraft destroy that many of his manuscripts; many of them continued to be used, passed around, etc., until they literally fell apart, at which time he would recopy. At other times, he did make alterations, as with "The Picture in the House" -- which Joshi's texts, by the way, incorporate. I'd like to continue the discussion a bit later, when I've had some rest and am a bit more clear-headed; but for the moment I would caution drawing such simplistic views of the matter as expressed above.

Speaking of which -- there is some confusion here. I was referring to the "Mountains" manuscript, not "Shadow". The latter he felt so discouraged about that he came close to destroying that text altogether; and when it comes to the alterations in Astounding, they were much less, save for the choppy paragraphing -- something which he did complain about with the pulps in general, because he despised the way that broke up the text. And yes, I'll have to look up that citation as well, though if memory serves, it was in a letter to Barlow. He simply did not like such short paragraphs because they interfered with the creation of a particular impression which he was attempting, something which, as he put it, required "old fashioned, leisurely prose" rather than "eckshun"-oriented writing (including the breaking up of paragraphs).
>
> You seem to have some bizarre idea that an author
> has no authority to say how he wants a story to
> read, unless he carefully checks all earlier
> drafts to make sure they are absolutely
> consistent. But why on earth should HPL feel
> bound by his first-draft scribblings? It all came
> from his own brain anyway, the brain he still has!
> It is obviously more important to HPL that he
> have a LEGIBLE draft so he could more easily read
> it, revise it, and assess its flaws.
>
> > nor was he a particularly good proofreader;
> hence even
> > obvious misprints would not be corrected, while
> at
> > other times he was particularly keen on
> searching
> > them out.
>
> Are there any such "obvious misprints" in the
> Luckhurst texts? If so, what are they? If not,
> then how is this even remotely relevant?

It becomes relevant because it serves as an indication -- one of long standing with his proofreading from the teens on at least -- that he often overlooked things which, had he been a bit more cautious, were the very sorts of things which he complained about, things which changed the sense and altered a reading in such a manner that it sometimes becomes self-contradictory on subtle grounds; one such being "inhuman" rather than the original "unhuman" in describing the Old Ones -- an important alteration, as "inhuman" carries with it a tone of moral censure, something quite at odds with the intent of the text otherwise at that point, where HPL is "reforming" the Old Ones from apparent monsters to beings with which we can sympathize. "Unhuman", on the other hand, indicates alienness, but there is no moral obloquy involved.
>
> Pro-Joshi advocates are hilarious. Their first
> line of attack is to try to convince the public
> that Joshi is a knight in shining armor come to
> save the purity of HPL's texts from the
> interfering arrogance of obnoxious editors. But
> when you push them to defend the texts, they end
> up arguing that HPL cannot be trusted either. If
> we cannot trust HPL the bad proofreader, and we
> cannot trust the editors who he worked with when
> alive, then obviously our only choice is to trust
> the newly-copyrighted text of ST Joshi. What a
> crock! But if HPL needs an editor because he was
> such a bad proofreader, then who has more
> authority? The editors he chose to work with
> while alive? Or the editor he never chose to work
> with, who tinkers with texts after he is in his
> grave and can no longer object?

You've quite badly distorted the facts here. For myself, while I am, I suppose, largely a "Joshi-supporter", I by no means agree with him all the time; I frequently disagree. But this is a case where I do not, in that he has conscientiously taken all the various factors into consideration when making choices. This is a difficult thing to do, and here he deserves kudos for the effort as well as the result. HPL the "bad proofreader" I address briefly above. As far as the editors he "chose" to work with -- it was sure as hell not that simple. He worked with editors who were available; but he bitched about them almost incessantly. It was a matter of necessity, not choice. He didn't "work with" Wright; much of what he wrote about him should really have been written on asbestos paper given its incendiary nature. Ditto with the Astounding editors, and his distaste for Harry Bates he makes abundantly clear, even though here his manuscript was turned down. Joshi, at the very least, has been kinder to the intent Lovecraft describes in his letters than any of the editors he was forced to work with during his lifetime.
>
> > He was certainly intensely angry about
> > what happened to "Mountains" in Astounding,
> > calling poor Tremaine (who really wasn't behind
> > the problem) all sorts of names;
>
> This is beside the point, because Luckhurst does
> not follow the ASTOUNDING text; rather, he follow
> HPL's extensively hand-corrected copies of the
> ASTOUNDING text (probably via Derleth).

I would call to your attention Derleth's notoriously lax editorial approach, given his frequent misreading of Lovecraft's manuscripts (typescript as well as AMS), something which at times made hash out of the text, whether stories, essays, or letters.

I'll try to get back to this tomorrow. At the moment, I'm falling asleep here at the table; time to get some rest....

So then, all in all, if you will forgive my unacademic ignorance, which are the preferred Arkham House versions to read? The three volumes Arkham House printed in the 1960's? Or the 'corrected' volumes printed in the 1980's?

I can only say that I deeply regret selling my original volumes, simply because I miss Lee Brown Coye's old covers. The new harshly colored covers completely missed the spirit of Lovecraft's atmosphere (I had to get rid of them, and use the books without dust wrappers, or have a nervous breakdown). The title typography is awful. And the photograph of Lovecraft in the first volume is no longer sharp, but fuzzy, as if taken from a second generation xerox. Such things matter, to me at least.

jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I am saying is that here it
> is not such a simple matter to decide which was
> actually the final say.

In the case of MOUNTAINS and SHADOW, it is very simple. HPL's final say is his hand-corrected copies of the ASTOUNDING texts. However, that text was published by Derleth in 1939, and has already entered public domain as a result of the failure of heirs to renew the copyright. Hence, that text is, from the perspective of the "Newly-copyrighted definitive Joshi texts Project", completely unusuable.

> You question my statement
> later about him remarking on the manuscript being
> the preferred text -- I should have specified
> typescript rather than the holographic manuscript,
> just for clarity's sake.

You DID refer to the typescript. However, there is (according to Joshi) no surviving typescript that adequately reflects HPL's wishes for "...Mountains". Joshi's solution is "reconstruct" HPL's wishes using a combination of the written manuscript, the (non-final) typescript and the ASTOUNDING text, which Joshi believes butchers a different typescript (non-extant) which DOES (Joshi presumes) reflect HPL's final wishes, but unfortunately does not survive. Please see his essay "Textual Problems in Lovecraft".

Joshi nonetheless regrets that "In the end there shall always remain doubt as to what Lovecraft's final wishes were for the novel were ...."

Joshi faces this dilemma, of course, because he has chosen to ignore HPL's final wishes, as reflected in his hand-corrected copy of the ASTOUNDING text. Because that would result in a text no different from Derleth's, which may already be public domain. AND WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!

> "Shadow". The latter he felt so discouraged about
> that he came close to destroying that text
> altogether; and when it comes to the alterations
> in Astounding, they were much less, save for the
> choppy paragraphing --

HPL eliminated a grand total of one (1) paragraph break on his hand-corrected copy of the ASTOUNDING STORIES text of "Shadow". I interpret this as an instruction to rejoin only that paragraph. Is this paragraph not rejoined in Luckhurst's text?

> something which he did
> complain about with the pulps in general, because
> he despised the way that broke up the text.And
> yes, I'll have to look up that citation as well,

Please do. Sorry, but I'm not willing to trust your memory on this.

> > Are there any such "obvious misprints" in the
> > Luckhurst texts? If so, what are they? If not,
> > then how is this even remotely relevant?
>
> It becomes relevant because

I noticed you skipped to the "If not..." question. But let's move on.

> it serves as an
> indication -- one of long standing with his
> proofreading from the teens on at least -- that he
> often overlooked things which, had he been a bit
> more cautious, were the very sorts of things which
> he complained about, things which changed the
> sense and altered a reading in such a manner that
> it sometimes becomes self-contradictory on subtle
> grounds; one such being "inhuman" rather than the
> original "unhuman" in describing the Old Ones --
> an important alteration, as "inhuman" carries with
> it a tone of moral censure, something quite at
> odds with the intent of the text otherwise at that
> point, where HPL is "reforming" the Old Ones from
> apparent monsters to beings with which we can
> sympathize. "Unhuman", on the other hand,
> indicates alienness, but there is no moral obloquy
> involved.

That's an "obvious misprint"?? HPL's own hand-corrected copy says "inhuman", and you don't want me to trust this based on some theory of what he WOULD have wanted? This is why Luckhurst's texts are "butchered" because they follow HPL's final draft?

Anyhow, you have forgotten, or are misrepresenting the context. If "inhuman" does vaguely imply moral censure, then it is not reasonably appropriate in the context I think you are referring to. The narrator says he seeks to prevent human explorers from "prying too deeply beneath the surface of that ultimate waste of forbidden secrets and inhuman, aeon-cursed desolation" and that if his warning are ignored, "the responsibility for unnamable and perhaps immeasurable evils will not be mine." The word does not specifically refer to the Old Ones (who are essentially gone) but to the land itself, a land that humans should not visit. Note however that the Old Ones were described as "hellish Achaean organisms" only a few paragraphs earlier. But of course the Shoggoths are even worse, and whatever Danforth glimpsed immeasureably worse still.

Or is there another inhuman/unhuman variant you have in mind?

Here's a radical idea for you. If HPL minded when busybody editors changed unhuman to inhuman, or vice versa, perhaps he would not like Joshi doing it either.

Or perhaps I just have no idea what your point is.

> You've quite badly distorted the facts here. For
> myself, while I am, I suppose, largely a
> "Joshi-supporter", I by no means agree with him
> all the time; I frequently disagree.

I am not interested in discussing whether you sometimes disagree with Mr. Joshi. I am interested in whether anything in Luckhurst's texts can be shown to be contrary to Lovecraft's withes, as you have charged.

> HPL the "bad proofreader" I address briefly above.

It does not seem to me you have shown any errors in Luckhurst's text.

> As far as
> the editors he "chose" to work with -- it was sure
> as hell not that simple. He worked with editors
> who were available; but he bitched about them
> almost incessantly.

If you allege an error in Luckhurst's texts is the result of interference by an editor, identify the error, and otherwise explain your case.

> I would call to your attention Derleth's
> notoriously lax editorial approach, given his
> frequent misreading of Lovecraft's manuscripts
> (typescript as well as AMS), something which at
> times made hash out of the text, whether stories,
> essays, or letters.

Please say where such an error resulting from Derleth's laxness was incorporated into Luckhurst's texts.

There is nothing to stop Platypus or any other exotic animal from publishing his own definitive Lovecraft edition. If he insists on using the last pulp appearance in HPL's lifetime, with chopped-up micro-paragraphs due to the columns of the magazines and amusing spellings like "surprize" due to WT's style sheet, it should be good for a few laughs.

Martinus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is nothing to stop Platypus or any other
> exotic animal from publishing his own definitive
> Lovecraft edition.

An odd distraction. The discussion is about Luckhurst's texts. Joshi supporters, in this thread and elsewhere, a are (falsely) claiming that Luckhurst's texts use the "original pulp texts" and contain the same errors. This is a lie. If it is not a lie, Joshi and his supporters who are spreading this tale can defend their collective honor by showing an actual error.

> If he insists on using the last
> pulp appearance in HPL's lifetime,

I do not insist on this. If I did, I would hardly defend the Luckhurst texts, which do not do this either. Why the straw man? The issue is to respect the author's final wishes, which might or might not be the last pulp appearance, depending on circumstances.

> with chopped-up
> micro-paragraphs due to the columns of the
> magazines and amusing spellings like "surprize"
> due to WT's style sheet, it should be good for a
> few laughs.

We were discussing Luckhurt's texts. Is Martinus trying to insinuate that Luckhurst's texts use the spelling "surprize"? Isn't that dishonest?

I don't agree that WT uses "microparagraphs". The only place "microparagraphs" were used was in the newspaper article. That was clearly an artistic decision for purposes of verisimilitude (an attempt to mimic the look of a real newspaper article), and probably approved, and perhaps even originated, by HPL.

The paragraphs in ASTOUNDING tended to be a little shorter, and HPL did indeed rejoin some of them in his hand-corrected copies. Luckhurst's texts seem to follow these corrections. This is the same paragraph scheme used by Derleth for decades, and I don't recall anyone finding that particularly laughable.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 27 Apr 14 | 05:42PM by Platypus.

Thank you, J. D. for your extremely patient and informed replies to Whelan. I consider him an anti-Joshi troll and thus have as my rule to try and never read or reply to what I see as his lunatic ravings. Yet, although I consider him a fool, I know that he is a sincere fool. The discussion of Lovecraft's texts is important. S. T.'s work, magnificent as it is, is not the final word, and especially with THE VARIORUM LOVECRAFT, S. T. is paving the way for the authentic textual scholars who will come after him, and who may establish definitive texts of H. P. Lovecraft that differ from S. T.'s.

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

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So then, all in all, if you will forgive my
> unacademic ignorance, which are the preferred
> Arkham House versions to read?

Probably the originals, from the 30s and early 40s. But you'll need $2,000 to $3,000 per volume. The only one I have is MARGINALIA (1944).

> The three volumes
> Arkham House printed in the 1960's? Or the
> 'corrected' volumes printed in the 1980's?

In my opinion, the 60s versions are usually better than the 'corrected' volumes. However, there are a few tales for which Joshi's versions are, on balance, slightly better.

wilum pugmire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought S. T. told me that The Variorum
> Lovecraft will be publish'd in three volumes this
> summer, but he may have meant next summer, at
> which time we celebrate the 125th anniversary of
> Grandpa's birth.

He definitely had announced that it would be this summer, perhaps with later volumes appearing next summer (in time for the 125th anniversary). There has evidently been a change of plans.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Probably the originals, from the 30s and early
> 40s. But you'll need $2,000 to $3,000 per volume.
> The only one I have is MARGINALIA (1944).
>

Um, no. These were riddled with errors. Not as bad as the first printings of the B&N edition, but still full of misreadings, typos, and reliant on flawed WT printings -- things which HPL himself mentioned as being wrong, such as the infamous "Akley"/"Akeley" bit.

Don't get me wrong... they're beautiful books in many ways, and I'd love to own them. I had the pleasure to at least read The Outsider and Others in the original (rather than a "books for libraries" Xerox print) some years ago, and it was an interesting experience. Had it not been for the textual problems, this and Beyond the Wall of Sleep would have been thoroughly admirable, given the broad amount of his material included.

On another matter: For what it's worth, I'm working on that reply to you, but yesterday (to put it mildly) did not go well at all here; and that was my only day off, so given the necessary length of the reply, it may take a day or two longer to get it all together.

Wilum: Thank you for the kind words. Whether or not this is the case, I think it is a subject worth discussing and at least attempting to thrash out, as a lot of misconceptions are about concerning this, and they really do need to be addressed; if not for his benefit, then perhaps for the benefit of others who are curious what all the fuss is about, and what is entailed in putting together a "definitive" or "authoritative" set of texts....
> > The three volumes
> > Arkham House printed in the 1960's? Or the
> > 'corrected' volumes printed in the 1980's?
>
> In my opinion, the 60s versions are usually better
> than the 'corrected' volumes. However, there are
> a few tales for which Joshi's versions are, on
> balance, slightly better.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So then, all in all, if you will forgive my
> unacademic ignorance, which are the preferred
> Arkham House versions to read? The three volumes
> Arkham House printed in the 1960's? Or the
> 'corrected' volumes printed in the 1980's?

Contra Platypus, I would most definitely go for the 1980s volumes, if you're going for the AH edition. While I, too, have a great fondness for those odd Coye jackets, the texts were often, as with the earlier Arkham House volumes, riddled with errors; in fact, each generation tended to add new ones, rather than simply setting the type from the old (in most, not all, cases). Which makes for some very peculiar things creeping in here and there, as well as older errors not being corrected, and sometimes making nonsense of the text.

Whatever one may think of Joshi's texts, they at least are much more conscientious about following Lovecraft's actual manuscripts (or, where such are not available, the best source during his lifetime). However, odd as it seems, the new printing of the B&N Complete Fiction is (so far) the closest to a textually sound edition one is likely to find -- in some ways, better than the Penguin editions; still has typos and occasional small elisions, but a darned sight better than almost any other edition of Lovecraft... which is a sad comment on the state of the textual transmission of his works....

Surely the 'corrected' texts in the 1980's volumes have mended many errors and restored missing sections. (I prefer not to ue the name of the editor, since it is my firm belief that an editor, in that specific role, should always work backstage and not step out in the limelight alongside the author.)

The decision to sell my 1960's copies, and get the 1980's instead, was solely based on the reviews I read back then in Crypt of Cthulhu. Those reviews were overall positive, written in a non-affected, detached, objective tone. This was before Joshi had developed into a super megastar editor, . . . and some people started developing emotional attachment to his name, making objective viewpoints (of something that should be free from emotions) nearly impossible.

My interpretation of why the debate has become so infected, is that it basically is a political one. Those who are liberals and multiculturalists, tend to be drawn towards Joshi's person and his opinions, and those who share Lovecraft's more culturally conservative views, tend to be provoked and oppose.

As to the 'corrected' texts, some readers say that they "leave them cold". I have not experienced this myself. I believe it may be that they feel so because the corrections and added lines have disturbed the rythm they have grown accustomed to in the corrupted texts. I wouldn't want to be without the elements that have been added, even if it bumps the old rythm sometimes.
Neither does it seem that Joshi, based on his own political opinions, in any way has censored Lovecraft's texts, which I am very thankful for.

One thing can be said about the publication of the 'corrected' editions. That they follow a very academic scholarly path, that has continued to this day. Derleth created his Arkham House books from the sensitive poet's and artist's perspective. And I think this difference also inevitably becomes reflected in the designs of the books.

Lastly, let me quote some interesting thoughts about Lee Brown Coye and the contrasting newer designs, by Druidic over at the Ligotti.net website:

"The Coye illustration of The Dunwich Horror was my favorite. In my mind, that animalistic giant is Wilbur. And the lashed sticks and congeries of spheres floating like balloons attached to Wilbur...what a wonderful cover!

The new ones are technically good but sterile and generic, and they leave me cold...

. . . there is a good collection of Coye’s work in the Metropolitan Museum, hardly a warehouse for hacks! And since we just had an exchange regarding Michael Shea’s brilliant story “The Autopsy,” it’s probably appropriate to point out that Coye was also a medical illustrator and attended many autopsies to enhance his knowledge of human anatomy. In the ‘80’s I drove to Syracuse University to view their collection of Coye’s art. He worked in many mediums and Wiki has a good albeit brief entry that mentions all this plus the fascinating stick figures that haunt some of his work. (If you’ve read Wagner’s “Sticks” the basic story told of how the artist found these things is quite true.) The new covers are fine for what they are but face it: there are dozens, if not hundreds of equally good illustrations of Cthulhu and Friends on the ‘net alone. Coye’s work was stripped down to the essentials; it was primitive and unsettling and it caught the dark and unique soul of Lovecraft’s fictions like some wonderful and sinister folk art. The new books are pretty though, I’ll certainly give them that LOL. (Actually, The Bayless illo of "The Lurking Fear" which provides the cover for the latest AH Dagon isn't half-bad, even if seemingly more reminiscent of Machen's horrors, but the others miss the mark completely... for me at least.)"

Once again, please excuse my non-academic approach.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29 Apr 14 | 06:06AM by Knygatin.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Surely the 'corrected' texts in the 1980's volumes
> have mended many errors and restored missing
> sections.

Overall, yes, they did. But there are some unintentional problems which entered in with the actual production of the volumes (as has increasingly become the case with publishing over the past 40 years), and some things have had to be corrected from that.

On the subject of Joshi... I'd agree that his personality has contributed to his anomalous position. Editors vary in their impact; Groff Conklin, for instance, largely effaced himself, yet his anthologies still bear the mark of his personality. Harlan Ellison, on the other hand, practically dominates that which he edits (with the possible exception of something such as Nightshade and Other Damnations). Both have their value. My problem with Joshi is that he can come off as dogmatic at times, and I often disagree with his critical opinion on things (e.g., Le Fanu's non-ghost stories).

You may be right that the problem is political but, frankly, I think that's a stupid approach to judging a writer's or editor's work. That says more against the critic lodging complaints than it does about the actual value of the supposed subject.

As for Coye: I've always enjoyed his blending of bizarre humor and genuinely chilling effects. He walked a fine line, and managed to pull off work which is, if not unique, certainly quite extraordinary....

jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You may be right that the problem is political
> but, frankly, I think that's a stupid approach to
> judging a writer's or editor's work. That says
> more against the critic lodging complaints than it
> does about the actual value of the supposed
> subject.

Naturally.