Lovecraft was considered a pulp writer, because pulps were really the only paying market for his shorter fiction. He regularly received requests from mainstream publishers for any book length manuscripts he might have. He always turned them down, when the fact of the matter was he had the perfectly publishable book length manuscript of THE CASE OF CHARLES DEXTER WARD in his draw. He did not think it was any good - he should have got a second opinion. If he had been just a little bit more astute, he could have cracked mainstream book publishing in his lifetime, and gained the artistic recognition he would have wanted.
Hey Micheal, is there any chance of a video talking more about the letters between Robert E. Howard and H.P. Lovecraft? What kind of things did they talk about in their writings? Thank you for your work, I really Love your Content.
Interesting that the work of two of the best authors from the pulp genre, Lovecraft and Howard, were both subjected to rewrites, corrections, and textual meddling by editors and pseudo-creative thieves. Proof of the power of these original texts that it was assumed they needed watering-down. But, specifically regarding Lovecraft here, to rewrite his work would be akin to rewriting the work of Edgar Allen Poe. Lovecraft was that good.
... and you're still reading Lovecraft in its original language. The problem is far more complex when you read translated stories. I read the texts of Lovecraft in French and - o God! - he has experienced a very strange editorial journey in France. In the 1960s, the texts were incredibly truncated, full of errors, but sometimes managed to find very elegant ways. And even today, each publishing house offers their own translations, sometimes deviating from the usual titles. Some translators seek fluidity, others keep at all costs the structure of Lovecraft's sentences which do not fit to the French language at all .... At the end, we find ourselves collecting 3 or 4 different translations, in addition to the American versions 😄
As a Lovecraft newbie I was gifted a hardcover copy of the complete tales of HP Lovecraft by rockpoint publishing. It's quite an enjoyable starting point for me. The white ship is still freshly in my mind weeks after reading it. Polaris and The Doom that came to Sarnath are other stories I should mentioned that I quite enjoyed as well. 🙂❤📚
Always appreciate you championing reading the original works of authors, Michael. Completely agree that it's important to read what the author wanted you to read.
I strongly agree. A writer's work is an extension of the writer, as well as a reflection on him or her. Changing their work (unless you're translating it or abridging it for younger readers) is a kind of misrepresentation (of both the author and the work).
Fantastic setting for a Lovecraft video. I’m reading Lovecraft now for the first time. 23% into my only volume of his work: “The Call of Cthulhu and other Weird Stories” (Penguin collection)
This gets really hairy when dealing with stories where no manuscript or typescript exists, the manuscript and typescript don't agree, or, as you noted, Lovecraft "corrected" a printed version after the fact. Joshi has sometimes been criticized for modifying published Lovecraft texts without a manuscript, instead performing his changes to the published version with educated guesses as to what Lovecraft would have preferred. This is somewhat simplified by the fact that Lovecraft had very strongly stated grammatical and spelling preferences which he nearly always adhered to. But ultimately there is not a "true" version of many of Lovecraft's stories, since the originals simply no longer exist.
I'm in total agreement. I have several editions, though I generally pull down the 1100+ page Chartwell. Lovecraft is one of those authors that deserves to be approached with reverence. I really should treat him better.
The Library of America is excellent for the footnotes and J. T. Joshi is the paramount Lovecraft scholar. I wish I could get a hardback copy of the stories he ghost wrote for others though. I know they're a bit cheesy but I love The diary of Alonzo Typer and MEDUSA'S coil. I'd love to read the HPL and REH letters too... If I could afford them!! Typer
It's a lot like some movies. You have the theatrical cut, which is the published version and then you have the extended director's cut, which is what the author originally intended. You can enjoy the original version as it was released, but usually the director's cut is truer to the creator's vision. I typically prefer the the director's cut myself and in this case the publisher changed parts of his story without consent, so I would definitely recommend reading the version Lovecraft preferred. But at the same time the edited version is just as old and would have been how many fans originally experienced the story to begin with, so that version shouldn't be forgotten either.
It's actually quite interesting, this subject. I think I would defer to Lovecraft in this particular matter, too, but I do also know that the editors of many pulp magazines kin of had to bend stories into shape sometimes. many of them have written about this, and many authors too. I do wonder if Lovecraft would have ended up writing anything for John W. Campbell's Astounding, had he lived a little longer (he died the year before Campbell took over editorship), and if so, what their correspondence would have been like. Campbell notoriously wrote pages and pages of editorial advice to his writers, especially if he thought they had potential. I have a feeling they might not have got on too well, but who knows? I also remember reading some of Robert E. Howard's drafts, or at least looking at them, and they did have a lot of errors in them, so the editorial work was in some cases needed for sure. This wasn't because the writers were bad or insufficient I think, but often because they had to churn out stories so quickly in order to pay the bills, especially in the 1930s. And then you get some authors from nowadays for whom I wish sometimes that an editor would just take a big knife to some of their stuff. Stephen King is for me an example of this. Anne Rice famously fired her own editorial staff. Now I realise this is different from most of the relationships authors had with the pulp magazines, but some of those guys were very conscientious editors. Say what you will about Campbell (and we sure had a lot to say about him in our last podcast), but he was one of those.
What do editors do then? I agree with another poster who compared Lovecraft's written text to the Mona Lisa. Leave the text alone. However what about writing a script for a movie or a short film? A tv series? I think there are visual interpretations of literature and there are textual interpretations of literature. That the two differ. I dont think that there is one "official", objective, reading of Lovecraft. Yes, there is one original, written, text of Lovecraft, but would such a text suffer much in a redaction, replacement, or respelling of certain words? Maybe. I would be more appalled if the "meaning" of the text was "disfigured" or altered in any way. Altered to fit a more modern sensibility or prejudice. In making a movie however there are visual interpretations that cannot be "aligned" with text. A director's version of Cthulhu may differ from any single reader of Cthulhu, that cannot be helped: reading is a subjective endeavor for all its author's arts. Unless that author writes computer algorithms. Computer algorithms are made for computer brains and are not subject to "subjective" interpretations. There are several versions of John W. Campbell's "Who Goes There?": "The Thing". Several versions of King's "Carrie" and "Salem's Lot". "Frankenstein". Which is best? Although i agree that the author's text should be left alone, the written art is different than the visual art. Unlike painters writers add color or shadow or mystery with words. Words that are parts of sentences with punctuations. Words that may or may not "evoke" the same impression to different readers. Unlike a photograph, a poem or sentence may have one language but not one interpretation. The word "scarlet" can have many interpretations depending on the other words in a sentence. The color scarlet looks the same to the eye even if it is compared side to side in a picture of a flower, a scarf, or a recently used knife. The word scarlet is imagined differently to each reader depending on the other words it is paired with in a sentence. This is the art of writing. No writer can control the reader's imagination. Whether words are left in, left out, or replaced, may have an effect on the reader. That a writer can control, completely, what effect his words have on the reader...that is not possible. If it were then no text should be altered. Because it cannot minor changes (that do not change meaning) should not be a problem. Major changes: leaving in or leaving out back stories or explanations, can add or detract from a story. Depending on the length this is where editors or self-editing come in.
Jules Verne is a good example of things going wrong in the other direction. Mistreated by English translators for years. Even a new edition of SPhinx of the Ice Realms I got has one glaring thing in it, a decision by the English translator (from some uS university) that makes Verne's book seem more racist than it does in French. Very strange. But in terms of all the old Victorian translations and even later ones of stuff like 20,000 Leagues and Journey to the Centre of the Earth, a lot was cut out -- mostly character and vaguely political stuff.
I just happened to pick up Leslie Klinger's annotated Lovecraft volumes over the weekend, not even realizing it was Lovecraft's birthday. Those editions are beautiful.
I appreciate this information and enjoy your videos very much. I have the hardcover Chartwell edition "The Complete Fiction of H.P. Lovecraft, which I plan to make my October read through. Does anyone here know what edit is used in that volume?
I read At the Mountains of Madness years ago (the only Lovecraft I had read before this past May) and I loved it. I wonder if it was an “accurate” version 🤔
Now you've made me feel ripped off for buying the Gollancz editions, which otherwise seem really nice presentations; lightweight and I really like the art and the essays included - but now there's a taint that could drive me mad, not knowing how mad I'd be driven with authorial editions. 😱 At least the italics seem to still be there! I wonder how many editorial restorations Joshi made to the stories, if it's really something I would fuss over if I knew the details.
Joshi documented all of his changes. I admittedly haven't looked at them too deeply, and maybe I should look at his notes for the two stories publishedin Astounding that Michael mentioned. But in my opinion, all of the ones I have seen him note in the few stories I've checked so far have been extremely minor...a few spelling changes and slight word alterations. Definitely things a fan would want to know about, but probably of little concern to most people.
@@DamnableReverend Thanks! I guess I can relax and enjoy my purchase and find out how big a fan I really am, but it's good it sounds like the changes are few. I'll keep my eyes out for some cheep Joshi editions, and maybe I'll invest in that beautifully illustrated Mountains of Madness book - assuming it's got the corrected text - since it's supposed to be one of the more egregiously altered.
I think no one with a right mind would come to the idea of changing a painting (i.e. the mona Lisa) and add something that wasn't intended by Leonardo DaVinci. I think literature should be respected in the same matter.
....I mean that's true, but the Mona Lisa is so insufferably basic as far as 'high art' is concerned. If da Vinci was alive to ask how he felt about the world conflating a commission painting he did for some merchant's mistress, I think he'd be a little annoyed we had so little to say about the leftover invention concepts he worked so hard on.
Integrity matters. I was put off of Lovecraft by others' opinions. I will endeavor to look into his works myself, especially on your recommendation, Michael.
Sorry, Mike, but I believe it's more important that people read Lovecraft than which version they read. The fact that there are cheap (almost free) versions means more people have the opportunity to become Lovecraft fans. This has to be a good thing.
If not for my crappy $1 kindle edition, I probably would never have read a Lovecraft story. I’d be open to seeing whether the corrections made a difference that mattered to me, but I’m highly skeptical. How else are you going to classify someone as a pulp writer than by where his stuff was published? Harlan Ellison didn’t consider himself a science fiction writer, and was adamant about his stuff not being put on the SF shelves. He was wrong. Furthermore, I think you, of all people, would be sympathetic to the idea that a writer can be both a pulp writer and an artist.
Not sure that ST Joshi would have just given a publisher the right to publish his corrected texts free of charge. In fact, the argument can be made that the whole business of the corrected texts was more an attempt to get Lovecraft out of the public domain and back into copyright.
I have mostly consumed Lovecraft through audiobooks, I wonder which version I'm hearing. 😏 (Though this solves the problem of italicization, I suppose.)
I have read The Dunwich Horror and Others from Arkham House. But now I think I might get Tales (2005) from Library of America. Is that a good selection of the most up-to-date corrected texts?
Always buy an edition edited by S.T. Joshi, you get the correct original text.
Lovecraft was considered a pulp writer, because pulps were really the only paying market for his shorter fiction. He regularly received requests from mainstream publishers for any book length manuscripts he might have. He always turned them down, when the fact of the matter was he had the perfectly publishable book length manuscript of THE CASE OF CHARLES DEXTER WARD in his draw. He did not think it was any good - he should have got a second opinion. If he had been just a little bit more astute, he could have cracked mainstream book publishing in his lifetime, and gained the artistic recognition he would have wanted.
Hey Micheal, is there any chance of a video talking more about the letters between Robert E. Howard and H.P. Lovecraft? What kind of things did they talk about in their writings? Thank you for your work, I really Love your Content.
I'm very interested in this also, I suppose I should just get the books.
I will get to it eventually!
Interesting that the work of two of the best authors from the pulp genre, Lovecraft and Howard, were both subjected to rewrites, corrections, and textual meddling by editors and pseudo-creative thieves. Proof of the power of these original texts that it was assumed they needed watering-down. But, specifically regarding Lovecraft here, to rewrite his work would be akin to rewriting the work of Edgar Allen Poe. Lovecraft was that good.
Love the mood lighting
... and you're still reading Lovecraft in its original language. The problem is far more complex when you read translated stories. I read the texts of Lovecraft in French and - o God! - he has experienced a very strange editorial journey in France. In the 1960s, the texts were incredibly truncated, full of errors, but sometimes managed to find very elegant ways.
And even today, each publishing house offers their own translations, sometimes deviating from the usual titles.
Some translators seek fluidity, others keep at all costs the structure of Lovecraft's sentences which do not fit to the French language at all ....
At the end, we find ourselves collecting 3 or 4 different translations, in addition to the American versions 😄
As a Lovecraft newbie I was gifted a hardcover copy of the complete tales of HP Lovecraft by rockpoint publishing. It's quite an enjoyable starting point for me. The white ship is still freshly in my mind weeks after reading it. Polaris and The Doom that came to Sarnath are other stories I should mentioned that I quite enjoyed as well. 🙂❤📚
Always appreciate you championing reading the original works of authors, Michael. Completely agree that it's important to read what the author wanted you to read.
I strongly agree. A writer's work is an extension of the writer, as well as a reflection on him or her. Changing their work (unless you're translating it or abridging it for younger readers) is a kind of misrepresentation (of both the author and the work).
Fantastic setting for a Lovecraft video.
I’m reading Lovecraft now for the first time. 23% into my only volume of his work:
“The Call of Cthulhu and other Weird Stories” (Penguin collection)
This gets really hairy when dealing with stories where no manuscript or typescript exists, the manuscript and typescript don't agree, or, as you noted, Lovecraft "corrected" a printed version after the fact.
Joshi has sometimes been criticized for modifying published Lovecraft texts without a manuscript, instead performing his changes to the published version with educated guesses as to what Lovecraft would have preferred. This is somewhat simplified by the fact that Lovecraft had very strongly stated grammatical and spelling preferences which he nearly always adhered to. But ultimately there is not a "true" version of many of Lovecraft's stories, since the originals simply no longer exist.
I'm in total agreement. I have several editions, though I generally pull down the 1100+ page Chartwell. Lovecraft is one of those authors that deserves to be approached with reverence. I really should treat him better.
I’m reading ST Joshi and Lovecraft at the same time. I’m really enjoying your Lovecraft videos to go along with. Thank you Michael!
Oooo... Lovecraft creepy. Love it. Thanks for ordering my Book. Hope you enjoy it.
The Library of
America is excellent for the footnotes and J. T. Joshi is the paramount Lovecraft scholar. I wish I could get a hardback copy of the stories he ghost wrote for others though. I know they're a bit cheesy but I love The diary of Alonzo Typer and MEDUSA'S coil. I'd love to read the HPL and REH letters too... If I could afford them!!
Typer
I have the Barnes-Noble Version of his stories and essay.....Excellent version.
It's a lot like some movies. You have the theatrical cut, which is the published version and then you have the extended director's cut, which is what the author originally intended. You can enjoy the original version as it was released, but usually the director's cut is truer to the creator's vision. I typically prefer the the director's cut myself and in this case the publisher changed parts of his story without consent, so I would definitely recommend reading the version Lovecraft preferred. But at the same time the edited version is just as old and would have been how many fans originally experienced the story to begin with, so that version shouldn't be forgotten either.
This is spooky 👻
I wonder which versions I have 🤔
I wish Clark Ashton Smith never changed his work for editors and publisher's... But I think he was desperate for the money.
Yeah it’s pretty sad honestly.
Wow, thanks for the info!!, What about the Barnes and Nobles complete collectible edition?
That is an excellent edition that uses S. T. Joshi’s corrected texts and even has an introductory note for each story by Joshi.
@@michaelk.vaughan8617 Nice, Thanks
Excellent question.
It's actually quite interesting, this subject. I think I would defer to Lovecraft in this particular matter, too, but I do also know that the editors of many pulp magazines kin of had to bend stories into shape sometimes. many of them have written about this, and many authors too. I do wonder if Lovecraft would have ended up writing anything for John W. Campbell's Astounding, had he lived a little longer (he died the year before Campbell took over editorship), and if so, what their correspondence would have been like. Campbell notoriously wrote pages and pages of editorial advice to his writers, especially if he thought they had potential. I have a feeling they might not have got on too well, but who knows?
I also remember reading some of Robert E. Howard's drafts, or at least looking at them, and they did have a lot of errors in them, so the editorial work was in some cases needed for sure. This wasn't because the writers were bad or insufficient I think, but often because they had to churn out stories so quickly in order to pay the bills, especially in the 1930s.
And then you get some authors from nowadays for whom I wish sometimes that an editor would just take a big knife to some of their stuff. Stephen King is for me an example of this. Anne Rice famously fired her own editorial staff. Now I realise this is different from most of the relationships authors had with the pulp magazines, but some of those guys were very conscientious editors. Say what you will about Campbell (and we sure had a lot to say about him in our last podcast), but he was one of those.
What do editors do then?
I agree with another poster who compared Lovecraft's written text to the Mona Lisa. Leave the text alone. However what about writing a script for a movie or a short film? A tv series?
I think there are visual interpretations of literature and there are textual interpretations of literature. That the two differ.
I dont think that there is one "official", objective, reading of Lovecraft. Yes, there is one original, written, text of Lovecraft, but would such a text suffer much in a redaction, replacement, or respelling of certain words? Maybe. I would be more appalled if the "meaning" of the text was "disfigured" or altered in any way. Altered to fit a more modern sensibility or prejudice.
In making a movie however there are visual interpretations that cannot be "aligned" with text. A director's version of Cthulhu may differ from any single reader of Cthulhu, that cannot be helped: reading is a subjective endeavor for all its author's arts. Unless that author writes computer algorithms. Computer algorithms are made for computer brains and are not subject to "subjective" interpretations.
There are several versions of John W. Campbell's "Who Goes There?": "The Thing". Several versions of King's "Carrie" and "Salem's Lot". "Frankenstein". Which is best?
Although i agree that the author's text should be left alone, the written art is different than the visual art. Unlike painters writers add color or shadow or mystery with words. Words that are parts of sentences with punctuations. Words that may or may not "evoke" the same impression to different readers. Unlike a photograph, a poem or sentence may have one language but not one interpretation. The word "scarlet" can have many interpretations depending on the other words in a sentence. The color scarlet looks the same to the eye even if it is compared side to side in a picture of a flower, a scarf, or a recently used knife. The word scarlet is imagined differently to each reader depending on the other words it is paired with in a sentence. This is the art of writing. No writer can control the reader's imagination.
Whether words are left in, left out, or replaced, may have an effect on the reader. That a writer can control, completely, what effect his words have on the reader...that is not possible. If it were then no text should be altered. Because it cannot minor changes (that do not change meaning) should not be a problem. Major changes: leaving in or leaving out back stories or explanations, can add or detract from a story. Depending on the length this is where editors or self-editing come in.
I do got my copy of the Necrenomicon.
Jules Verne is a good example of things going wrong in the other direction. Mistreated by English translators for years. Even a new edition of SPhinx of the Ice Realms I got has one glaring thing in it, a decision by the English translator (from some uS university) that makes Verne's book seem more racist than it does in French. Very strange. But in terms of all the old Victorian translations and even later ones of stuff like 20,000 Leagues and Journey to the Centre of the Earth, a lot was cut out -- mostly character and vaguely political stuff.
I just happened to pick up Leslie Klinger's annotated Lovecraft volumes over the weekend, not even realizing it was Lovecraft's birthday. Those editions are beautiful.
This episode directed by the same guy who did the GoT night episode.
I appreciate this information and enjoy your videos very much. I have the hardcover Chartwell edition "The Complete Fiction of H.P. Lovecraft, which I plan to make my October read through. Does anyone here know what edit is used in that volume?
I’m pretty sure that one uses Joshi’s corrected texts.
@@michaelk.vaughan8617 - Thank you very much, good sir!
I read At the Mountains of Madness years ago (the only Lovecraft I had read before this past May) and I loved it. I wonder if it was an “accurate” version 🤔
What edition was it in?
@@michaelk.vaughan8617 It’s a 2007 Del Rey mass market
only watched in the mouth of madness movie. movie end seem rush too.
Now you've made me feel ripped off for buying the Gollancz editions, which otherwise seem really nice presentations; lightweight and I really like the art and the essays included - but now there's a taint that could drive me mad, not knowing how mad I'd be driven with authorial editions. 😱 At least the italics seem to still be there! I wonder how many editorial restorations Joshi made to the stories, if it's really something I would fuss over if I knew the details.
Joshi documented all of his changes. I admittedly haven't looked at them too deeply, and maybe I should look at his notes for the two stories publishedin Astounding that Michael mentioned. But in my opinion, all of the ones I have seen him note in the few stories I've checked so far have been extremely minor...a few spelling changes and slight word alterations. Definitely things a fan would want to know about, but probably of little concern to most people.
@@DamnableReverend Thanks! I guess I can relax and enjoy my purchase and find out how big a fan I really am, but it's good it sounds like the changes are few. I'll keep my eyes out for some cheep Joshi editions, and maybe I'll invest in that beautifully illustrated Mountains of Madness book - assuming it's got the corrected text - since it's supposed to be one of the more egregiously altered.
I think no one with a right mind would come to the idea of changing a painting (i.e. the mona Lisa) and add something that wasn't intended by Leonardo DaVinci. I think literature should be respected in the same matter.
Agreed 😊
....I mean that's true, but the Mona Lisa is so insufferably basic as far as 'high art' is concerned. If da Vinci was alive to ask how he felt about the world conflating a commission painting he did for some merchant's mistress, I think he'd be a little annoyed we had so little to say about the leftover invention concepts he worked so hard on.
@@mc_zittrer8793It was just an example for an popular painting.
If davinci had painted the mona lisa in black face, you better believe people would have something to say about it.
That is a good thing.
Integrity matters. I was put off of Lovecraft by others' opinions. I will endeavor to look into his works myself, especially on your recommendation, Michael.
I agree, I think it matters, especially if the author thinks it matters.
How can you hold that huge book up with one hand for so long? Anywho, have a great day!
Strongman😊😊😊😊
It’s my Kryptonian heritage.
I’d love to get my hands on some facsimile manuscripts!
Sorry, Mike, but I believe it's more important that people read Lovecraft than which version they read. The fact that there are cheap (almost free) versions means more people have the opportunity to become Lovecraft fans. This has to be a good thing.
How weird would it be, to be known by your last name?
If not for my crappy $1 kindle edition, I probably would never have read a Lovecraft story. I’d be open to seeing whether the corrections made a difference that mattered to me, but I’m highly skeptical.
How else are you going to classify someone as a pulp writer than by where his stuff was published? Harlan Ellison didn’t consider himself a science fiction writer, and was adamant about his stuff not being put on the SF shelves. He was wrong. Furthermore, I think you, of all people, would be sympathetic to the idea that a writer can be both a pulp writer and an artist.
Agreed he was wrong😊
Not sure that ST Joshi would have just given a publisher the right to publish his corrected texts free of charge. In fact, the argument can be made that the whole business of the corrected texts was more an attempt to get Lovecraft out of the public domain and back into copyright.
I have mostly consumed Lovecraft through audiobooks, I wonder which version I'm hearing. 😏 (Though this solves the problem of italicization, I suppose.)
I have I have "H.P. Lovecraft: The Complete Fiction" from Barnes & Noble. Do you know how good the texts in it are?
That is probably the best complete edition, in my opinion. Great book.
I have read The Dunwich Horror and Others from Arkham House. But now I think I might get Tales (2005) from Library of America. Is that a good selection of the most up-to-date corrected texts?
Yes. Great book.
Hey, I just had that question on discord regarding the Stephen Jones edited Complete ghost stories by m.r. James… Is that a good edition?
May I ask what your recommendation for the complete works of H P Lovecraft is.