Re: New edition of HPL from Oxford University Press
Posted by:
jdworth (IP Logged)
Date: 27 April, 2014 12:33AM
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 they were superceded.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....