jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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 -- [...]

I have acknowledged the early Arkham House editions contained errors (though usually not for the most important tales, such as those being discussed here, which were treated more carefully). However, if it is really true that they were "riddled" with errors, and that Luckhurst relied to a significant extent on the 1939 text (as Luckhurst admits, and both Joshi and I agree), then why are you guys so unsuccessful in identifying a single significant error in Luckhurst's texts. Or Derleth's for that matter.

I have found some errors in Luckhurst. But so far, none of them seem to derive from following Derleth. The ones I have found arise from erroneously diverging from Derleth. He ought to have followed Derleth's paragraphing, which follows HPL's explicit final instructions. Unfortunately, Joshi cannot throw stones here, since he also ignores these instructions.

> things which HPL himself
> mentioned as being wrong, such as the infamous
> "Akley"/"Akeley" bit.

Some comments.
[1] You should clearly identify the error you are talking about, and state what editions it appears in, rather than pretending it is infamous (it isn't).

[2] Since you force me to guess, I am guessing that you are referring to Akeley's name being printed correctly (rather than being misspelled) in the first Akeley telegram in THE WHISPERER IN DARKNESS ("... ONLY HARM BOTH WAIT FOR EXPLANATION / HENRY AKELEY").

[3] I do not have THE OUTSIDER AND OTHERS (1939), but I can confirm it appears this way in BEST SUPERNATURAL STORIES OF H.P. LOVECRAFT (1945).

[4] The text actually reads fine this way. The telegram is spelled correctly, and a misspelling is noticed only when Akeley himself examines the handwritten note upon which the telegram was based. It is possible that the telegraph clerk knew Henry Akeley, and therefore fixed the spelling.

[5] If this is an error, HPL never complained about it, because it did not appear this way until after his death. In the WEIRD TALES printing, the name appears on the telegram as "AKELY". If he DID complain about it (perhaps not - your claims in this thread so far have not been very reliable), he must have preferred it the way Derleth had it, with the telegram itself (but not the note) spelled correctly.

[6] Luckhurst renders it as "AKELY" in the telegram, agreeing with WEIRD TALES and Joshi.

> I had the
> pleasure to at least read The Outsider and Others
> in the original (rather than a "books for
> libraries" Xerox print)

Personally, I'd be perfectly happy to get my hands on a semi-legible Xerox print or scan, for textual research purposes.

> 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.

Take your time. However, I hope you stay focused on pointing out the errors you claim exist in Luckhurst, rather than some other desperate distraction or irrelevancy. It seems your "Akely" example does not count.

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

Not many. A few. Not enough to generate new copyright, which is the goal of the Joshi-text project. New copyright requires creativity and/or originality, with a slight boost from the "sweat of the brow" doctrine (ie. it helps if you have a LOT of corrections, though, without creativity or originality, that by itself will not be enough).

Hence, Joshi's goal was to create as many changes as possible, for as many creative justifications as he could find. Part of this involved the raiding of early (non-final) drafts in search of new variants and text to reinsert. His variants include the reversing of HPL's own revisions; as well as the reinsertion of passages, from their nature, look like material that HPL excised from the text for good reason.

> (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.)

In that case, THIS editor should definitely be named. These are not the Lovecraft texts; these are the Joshi texts. This is the editor who knows better than Lovecraft. Lovecraft thought he knew what he wanted, but Joshi knows better.

> My interpretation of why the debate has become so
> infected, is that it basically is a political one.

Should it not be about what Lovecraft wanted? A historical question. That's the only issue I see.

Platypus, those are some serious claims. I hope this will be thoroughly investigated and resolved.

It may not be possible to ever set Lovecraft's texts in a definite way.

Sounds as if, in several cases, the editorial choices must come down to a subjective judgment.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Platypus, those are some serious claims.

Not really. Rape and murder are serious charges. I am merely accusing Joshi of being a salesman selling a product, and employing sales puffery. He claims it is "new and improved", but it is really just "new and different". If I were to drag Joshi before a judge to answer for his crimes, the judge would probably shrug and say "caveat emptor" which is Latin for: "Its your own fault for being so gullible -- next time apply a few grains of salt before you swallow the words 'new and improved'."

Well, as I see it, nothing can be more serious than the integrity of Art.

Have Robert M. Price, Stephen Mariconda, and David E. Schulz, reevaluated their positive views back in the days of Crypt of Cthulhu over the 'corrected' editions?

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, as I see it, nothing can be more serious
> than the integrity of Art.
>
> Have Robert M. Price, Stephen Mariconda, and David
> E. Schulz, reevaluated their positive views back
> in the days of Crypt of Cthulhu over the
> 'corrected' editions?


You are correct that nothing is more serious than the integrity of Art, especially with an artist as unique, as original, as H. P. Lovecraft. No, Price and Mariconda and Schultz have not reevaluated their positive views over the Corrected Texts, as they understand that S. T.'s labors have tried to restore the writings to the texts as Lovecraft wished them to be read. S. T., on the other hand, has continually reevaluated his texts, returned to them and made further corrections, most recently for THE VARIORUM LOVECRAFT, which will stand as S. T.'s final work on the project for all time.

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

wilum pugmire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . S. T., on the other hand, has continually reevaluated his
> texts, returned to them and made further
> corrections, most recently for THE VARIORUM
> LOVECRAFT, which will stand as S. T.'s final work
> on the project for all time.


That sounds rather definite, to say the least.

If it is possible for The Variorum Lovecraft to present all variations of the texts, including changes made in handwritten and typewritten scripts, and handwritten changes in magazines, this will certainly be an interesting publication. Then every reader can use his own judgment to edit his own definite Lovecraft canon.

No one understood the importance of a correct text more than Lovecraft, who knew that only by way of textual purity can a writer's style be critically analyzed. This is perhaps why he insisted, when first submitting his stories to WEIRD TALES, that the stories be printed EXACTLY as Lovecraft wrote them. Now Whelan has this ignorant idea that because the WT texts were printed during Lovecraft's lifetime, they represent absolutely his wishes. Whelan took Ramsey Campbell to task for Ramsey's electric edition, THE RATS IN THE WALLS AND OTHER STORIES, for which Ramsey selected the stories and wrote an Introduction, but had nothing to do with choice of text. Whelan chastised Ramsey thus: "It's a bit sad that your version of 'The Rats in the Walls' improperly anticipates the climax by having its modern American narrator resort to archaisms (like 'shew' and 'daemon') PRIOR to his climatic regression to archaic British speech. In the original, that was meant to come as a shock." When I pointed out that "shew" was Lovecraft's consistent choice of spelling, Whelan screamed, "Lovecraft's choice was 'show' and 'demon'. Lovecraft's habit was to throw out draft texts when he was satrisfied with printed texts. He was satisfied with the printed texts [sic] of 'The Rats in the Walls' and those are what he kept. That was his choice. #It's not about Lovecraft's narrative voice, but that of his protagonist. And his protagonist is a modern American, until his shocking regression. #Nothing was 'retained'. The source texts [sic] say 'show' and 'demon'. Nothing but speculation supports any conclusion that the 'original' texts (ie. the early drafts) say any differently." This shews the inability of an amateur mind to comprehend Lovecraft's texts, Lovecraft's narrative style, Lovecraft's intentions. The narrator for "The Colour out of Space" is also an American, yet he uses "colour," "shewn," "meagre," "greying/greyish" and "shewed" in his narrative, including the final speech of the simple American farmer, Nahum. The consistency of this preference for British spelling is one of the aspects retained in all of Joshi's Lovecraft texts.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 30 Apr 14 | 11:26AM by wilum pugmire.

wilum pugmire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is perhaps why he insisted, when
> first submitting his stories to WEIRD TALES, that
> the stories be printed EXACTLY as Lovecraft wrote
> them.

Joshi-ites like to say this as though it somehow proves that Lovecraft hated the WEIRD TALES versions, and was therefore eager for Joshi to make changes to them. Sounds like a non-sequitur to me.

What Pugmire does not tell you is that WEIRD TALES printed this letter in their letters column, announced to their readers that they would comply with HPL's conditions. After DAGON appeared in the next issue, HPL wrote another letter to WEIRD TALES stating that he was "exceedingly pleased" with it. WEIRD TALES printed that letter too.

Then, after telling them he was "exceedingly pleased" with DAGON (shortened American spellings and all) he continued to submit many many tales to them thereafter.

> Now Whelan has this ignorant idea that
> because the WT texts were printed during
> Lovecraft's lifetime, they represent absolutely
> his wishes.

Pugmire means me, Platypus. However, I have never held such an idea. In many cases the pulp printings are NOT his final wishes, and he made later corrections and/or revisions to them, either because of mistakes, or because he changed his mind. Derleth often had access to these corrected copies, which is why I take Derleth's texts seriously as sources. Derleth may have had information that we now lack.

> Whelan took Ramsey Campbell to task
> for Ramsey's

It is really poor form to import disputes from another forum.

> "It's a bit sad that your
> version of 'The Rats in the Walls' improperly
> anticipates the climax by having its modern
> American narrator resort to archaisms (like 'shew'
> and 'daemon')

Actually, the only corruption of this type in "THE RATS IN THE WALLS" is "shew". The other word is rendered in WEIRD TALES as "dæmon" (with a conjoined "æ" or "ash-symbol). I had momentarily confused the tale with THE MOON-BOG, another tale featuring a modern American narrator, which uses "show" and "demon". Both stories survive ONLY through the WEIRD TALES printings (yes, even the Joshi texts are based on them, and hence, when they use "shew" it is an innovation).

I don't think British versus American spellings is usually an issue. However, "shew" and the like are archaisms, and it should always be the authors choice whether to use them or not - because they have an artistic effect. For instance, in this case, it is supposed to come as a shock to the reader when the narrator (a modern American businessman) suddenly starts using archaic British idiom during the climax of the story. Having him say "shew" throughout dilutes this.

A possible explanation of the absence of surviving manuscripts or typescripts for certain tales may comes from the following letter to Barlow, dated [Nov 13] 1933: "I haven't originals of 'Pickman', 'Cthulhu' & 'Colour', for I've always torn up rough draughts as soon as I get a printed copy of the equivalent text for my files."

> When I pointed out
> that "shew" was Lovecraft's consistent choice of
> spelling, , Whelan screamed

LOL!! I am surprised that you could hear me screaming from so far away!

Anyhow, after I had finished screaming, I did point out that you were incorrect. Lovecraft used both "show" and "shew", and usually reserved "shew" for archaic contexts. For instance, in his writings in the UNITED AMATEUR, a magazine which HE EDITED HIMSELF, the verb "show" & its variants appear 72 times, and the verb "shew" etc. appear only 7 times, at least 5 of which are in an archaic or poetic context.

> The narrator for "The
> Colour out of Space" is also an American, yet he
> uses "colour," "shewn," "meagre,"
> "greying/greyish" and "shewed" in his narrative,
> including the final speech of the simple American
> farmer, Nahum.

Several points to make:

[1] The narrator is never identified. We never even learn his name. He is an out-of-towner, come to Arkham and New Hampshire for a surveying job. In the source texts, he uses a mix of British and American spelling (see below).

[2] I do not think that British versus American spellings is an issue. I never claimed that Joshi's RATS IN THE WALLS was corrupt for using British spelling. I objected to imposing an archaism ("shew") on a text where HPL had evidently chosen not to use it.

[3] The narrator never uses "shew" or its derivatives in any of the source texts for "The Colour out of Space". Note that the Derleth text closely follows the WEIRD TALES texts with some errors corrected, and must be based either on a corrected copy of the magazine print, or on the same typescript that the magazine print was prepared from. Derleth's text never says "shew" either, though it was his habit to preserve such variants when he found them. The only possible conclusion is that "show" was HPL's choice here. To my knowledge, "shew" never appeared in any version of "The Colour out of Space" until Joshi came along. If it appeared in earlier drafts, HPL himself destroyed these drafts deliberately. As HPL told Barlow, he tore up the manuscript (and probably the typescript) once he had a printed copy.

[4] The narrator actually uses a mix of spellings in the Derleth and magazine texts. Yes, he uses "meagre" and "colour" and "grey"; also "recognize", "analyze", "connection", "fetid", and "demon". He uses both "realise" and "realize", "neighbour" and "neighboring". Neither Derleth nor the magazine seems to have standardized the spelling - both merely seemed to have followed their source, resulting in an inconsistent, pattern very similar to that we see in HPL's own writings in THE UNITED AMATEUR, which he edited himself. But it is always "show"; never "shew".

> The consistency of this preference
> for British spelling is one of the aspects
> retained in all of Joshi's Lovecraft texts.

Consistency of spelling is an aspect of the Joshi texts. However, HPL, rather like a true man of the 18th century, did not seem to give a darn for consistency of spelling.

He may have been a bit embarrassed by his tendency for inappropriate archaism. He wrote to Barlow in 1927: "The earliest tale that I continue to take seriously - The Beast in the Cave was written at the age of fourteen; & even this will have to be revised extensively before it can be published. My style in those days was a pompous Johnsonese, for I am an antiquarian by nature, & never used to read a modern book if I could possibly find anything with long S's to take its place".

Joshi, of course, decided to remove the revisions HPL had already made, in an attempt to reconstruct the version he wrote when he was 14.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 30 Apr 14 | 07:23PM by Platypus.

Ah, S. T. cares only for owning a product and getting his "cut," I see. Which is why he didn't ask for any payment from The Library of America, W. W. Norton or Modern Library. He obviously cares nothing for Lovecraft. Indeed, he must, as you have insisted elsewhere, dislike Lovecraft. And we, who love and admire S. T., who have found in him the finest of friends, are merely his apes. I see...

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 30 Apr 14 | 08:48PM by wilum pugmire.

wilum pugmire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah, S. T. cares only for owning a product and
> getting his "cut," I see. Which is why he didn't
> ask for any payment from The Library of America,
> W. W. Norton or Modern Library.

I pretty much believed Joshi when he said that, if push came to shove, he would have let Oxford Press use his texts for free. Prestige and the appearance of legitimacy means money, in the long run, because of the other fish in the pond.

A better defense might be addressing the facts. If you know Joshi's private finances, you must know what you both meant when you claimed Luckhurst's texts were butchered and corrupt. Were you really both lying? Come on. Come up with a few good errors. Something a little juicier than extra paragraph breaks.

Platypus doesn't seem like a troll to me. He presents some seemingly well considered valid points about Lovecraft's spelling.

If we can just lay aside Joshi's person for a moment, please! And stop being emotional about all this! And just concentrate on the texts, and look at them objectively.

Maybe, just maybe, Platypus has something to contribute to the integrity of the Lovecraft canon.

If we sit down both editors to dinner, with armed guards standing behind the chairs to see that no fight ensues, perhaps they will find a chemistry and make friends after a glass of wine, in spite of all, and we can look forward to a future edition of Lovecraft that will be a joint effort.

Okay, I'm gonna bow out cos I get too angry when people attack S. T. At one point Whelan posted, in alt.horror.cthulhu, that S. T.'s annotations in the Penguin editions prove that S. T. actually dislikes Lovecraft. When I read something like that, I cannot help but consider the poster a troll. I know John is sincere in his thinking that S. T.'s texts corrupt the pure Derleth texts of the early Arkham House books, but I also know that such a position is false. It's an important topic, certainly, and I wish ye well in discussing it. Goodbye.

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