A Query:

[Sephiroth]

I was discussing my ignorance of HPL's work with one of my friends yesterday, and she handed me a book from her bookcase entitled New Tales of the Cthulhu Mythos, edited by Ramsey Campbell. Looking at the contents, it has nine stories in it, only one of which is by HPL himself (although I know already that many other authors have written in, or been influenced by his mythology.

This publisher (Grafton) has a Tales of the Cthulhu Mythos, too, which I gather from the title is an earlier work.

My question is this: as someone with no prior experience reading HPL, and who knows nothing of his mythology, is this an okay place to start? Or should I put off reading this until I have read more of the man's own work?

And if you had to recommend a place for me to begin, what would it be?

Thanks in advance for any comments or suggestions.

 

[Ningauble]

I was discussing my ignorance of HPL's work with one of my friends yesterday, and she handed me a book from her bookcase entitled New Tales of the Cthulhu Mythos, edited by Ramsey Campbell. Looking at the contents, it has nine stories in it, only one of which is by HPL himself (although I know already that many other authors have written in, or been influenced by his mythology).

Actually, "The Black Tome of Alsophocus" is not by Lovecraft. It was written by Martin Warnes, based on a fragment by Lovecraft.

This publisher (Grafton) has a Tales of the Cthulhu Mythos, too, which I gather from the title is an earlier work.

Yes, Tales of the Cthulhu Mythos was put together in 1969 by August Derleth. I think it was the first Cthulhu anthology. Please note that there are two versions of this book; a new one with slightly different contents was assembled for the 50th anniversary of Arkham House (although IIRC it actually appeared one year late). The Grafton edition has the original contents.

My question is this: as someone with no prior experience reading HPL, and who knows nothing of his mythology, is this an okay place to start? Or should I put off reading this until I have read more of the man's own work?

I'd say yes, read some more by the man himself. But if you then want to read Cthulhu Mythos stuff by other writers, then I think Tales and New Tales might be good places to start (I actually haven't read the latter myself, but I've read all the included stories except two).

And if you had to recommend a place for me to begin, what would it be?

The Call of Cthulhu and Other Weird Stories, published by Penguin. Whatever you do, shun the Omnibus volumes (white spines, ugly covers) like the plague -- they're riddled with typos.

 

[HoopyFrood]

The Call of Cthulhu and Other Weird Stories is quite a good place to start, I reckon. It was where I began, anyway; indeed, "The Call of Cthulhu" was the first story I read. I love that story, the description of R'lyeh is just fantastic!

 

[j d worthington]

Well, as Ningauble has said, the single story in New Tales isn't by HPL, but it does use a fragment ("The Book") of his as a starting point, albeit there are some editorial changes even there, as I recall.... Tales of the Cthulhu Mythos... well, it's the place I started, many years ago; I'm just not sure how some of the other writers of the mythos will appeal to newer readers now, tastes having changed so.

I think I'd begin with either the Penguin set (The Call of Cthulhu and Other Weird Stories, The Thing on the Doorstep and Other Weird Stories, The Dreams in the Witch House and Other Weird Stories) despite typos (which I must admit irritate me too), as they collect together nearly all of his stories except his revision tales and a few oddities and are rather more accessible than many others for new readers. (Plus, if you're so inclined, the annotations by S. T. Joshi add several fascinating insights concerning the tales, as well....)

As for the quality of New Tales... I'd put it at about half-and-half. Some of the stories, though quite unconventional approaches to HPL's ideas, are quite good. Others are pretty standard. Some entertaining work in there, some that's rather forgettable. And one or two (such as T.E.D. Klein's piece) are truly remarkable -- despite (as Nesa has pointed out) some terrible geographical gaffes..... Altogether, a fun book, but by no means an indication of what Lovecraft is like.....

 

[Connavar]

Im wondering similer thing.

I have The Call of Cthulhu and Other Wierd Stories and also H.P Lovercraft Omnibus 2 Dragon and Other Macabre Tales.

Are there some stories in those you would really recommend for someone that havent read HP before ? Something really spooky that can hook you on HP.

 

[Ningauble]

Im wondering similer thing.

I have The Call of Cthulhu and Other Wierd Stories and also H.P Lovercraft Omnibus 2 Dragon and Other Macabre Tales.

Are there some stories in those you would really recommend for someone that havent read HP before ? Something really spooky that can hook you on HP.

I'd suggest the ones that HPL himself was the least dissatisfied with: "The Colour Out of Space" and "The Music of Erich Zann".

But you really need to update that Dagon, IMO...

 

[Connavar]

I'd suggest the ones that HPL himself was the least dissatisfied with: "The Colour Out of Space" and "The Music of Erich Zann".

But you really need to update that Dagon, IMO...

Update Dagon? Why? is something wrong with my version?

 

[Ningauble]

Update Dagon? Why? is something wrong with my version?

As has been discussed in some other thread, the Omnibus volumes are based on old magazine appearances that were flawed to begin with, and over the years more and more misprints have crept in and become fossilized.

A couple of examples, taken from all the Omnibuses:

* In "The Other Gods", "the seven cryptical books of earth" should be
"the seven cryptical books of Hsan".

* In "the Call of Cthulhu", the subtitle, "Found among the Papers of
the Late Francis Wayland Thurston, of Boston", is missing.

* In "The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath" all "Zoogs" should be "zoogs"
and "Inquanok" should be "Inganok". In one place "beings" have become
"priests" (or maybe it was the other way around -- I forget).

* In "The Quest of Iranon", "and thou wouldst" should be "an thou
wouldst" (Shakespearean "an" meaning "if"). Correct in the Penguin
edition but nowhere else.
* The correct title of "Arthur Jermyn" is "Facts Concerning the Late Arthur Jermyn and His Family".
* The correct title of "Imprisoned with the Pharaohs" is "Under the Pyramids".
* The fragment "The Thing in the Moonlight" is a fake.
* Of the "Early Tales", only "The Alchemist" and "The Beast in the Cave" are actually early. All the others were written after "The Tomb" and "Dagon".
* The introduction to Dagon by August Derleth, with the "bibliography" concocted by Derleth, s-u-c-k-s. (At least I think it appeared in Dagon.)
* "The Doom That Came to Sarnath" is an older version -- HPL revised it slightly later, and these changes are not in the Omnibus Dagon.
* The text of "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward" as it appears in the Omnibus At the Mountains of Madness is severely flawed. Not only is the text off in many places, but there's also a bad misprint that replaces the first line of one chapter with the first line of another chapter. This misprint has been around since at least the 1970s and the publisher has not bothered to correct it (I found it in 1992 and I can't believe I'm the first.).


And what really annoys me is that Gollancz had every chance in the world to publish a good Lovecraft collection with their upcoming Necronomicon, but what do they do? They will use the old texts and not HPL's originals because they already owned the rights to the old texts, and because August Derleth was such a brilliant editor (see Joshi's "Textual Problems in Lovecraft" for a different view; Joshi's opinion is that Messrs. Wandrei & Derleth had an uncanny knack for picking the very worst textual versions almost evey single time). I suppose I'll get it anyway, but only to have the flawed versions available.

 

[j d worthington]

I had understood that "The Thing in the Moonlight" isn't entirely spurious, but only the central section is HPL's writing... from a letter (I forget to whom), and J. Chapman Miske(?) added the other sections in order to give it more the feeling of a story when he published it... or is my memory failing me on this? At any rate, it's not "straight" Lovecraft, but about 50/50 at best.... If i remember correctly, the paste-up problem with the opening sentence is in The Case of Charles Dexter Ward; and yes, it's very annoying....

For the time being, the best low-price edition of Lovecraft will be the Penguin volumes (which include the recovered full text of "The Shadow Out of Time", among other things). Even the Arkham House editions, though wonderful books and otherwise the standard in many ways, don't have that last....

As for which stories to try... I'm a bit reluctant to suggest trying those he thought his best, myself; I think a mixture would be a good idea. Otherwise, you may get "spoiled" and miss the really good points in his lesser work. Contrariwise, if you read nothing but his lesser work to begin with, you won't be quite "getting" HPL... what makes him unique, that is.

Despite the fact that they're both among my personal favorites, I don't think a newbie should usually tackle either The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath or At the Mountains of Madness, for various reasons. Those should probably come later, once you've had a chance to acclimatize to his style. I think I'd probably suggest (since you're asking about the two volumes you have):

"Polaris"
"The Cats of Ulthar"
"Nyarlathotep"
"The Rats in the Walls"
"The Festival"
"The Call of Cthulhu"
"The Strange High House in the Mist"
"The Colour Out of Space"
"The Whisperer in Darkness"
"The Shadow Over Innsmouth"
"The Haunter of the Dark"

These are pretty much in chronological order, so you can see different themes, etc., developing, as well as getting something of a cross-section of HPL's work, from his traditional to his Dunsanian to his mythos tales....

 

[Connavar]

Thats why i asked i dont wanna happen to choose stories that are his lesser work and dont give HP a real chance to show me his skill.

Polaris it is then.

 

[Ningauble]

I had understood that "The Thing in the Moonlight" isn't entirely spurious, but only the central section is HPL's writing... from a letter (I forget to whom), and J. Chapman Miske(?) added the other sections in order to give it more the feeling of a story when he published it... or is my memory failing me on this? At any rate, it's not "straight" Lovecraft, but about 50/50 at best....

Correct. The greater part of the text was taken from a November 1927 letter to Donald Wandrei, and Miske added the opening and closing sections. I still consider the fragment a fake -- it wasn't intended as a story, and the addition of a narrator named "Howard Phillips" living at 66 College Street is just wrong (especially since the real HPL didn't move there until 1933). And Miske had told Derleth about his little deception as soon as Derleth himself published the "fragment" in 1948 (?), but Derleth still continued to include it.

 

[Pyan]

For the time being, the best low-price edition of Lovecraft will be the Penguin volumes

That's how I started....
The key words here are "low priced" - you get an awful lot of HPL for about £20, so if you really decide he's not for you, you haven't invested too much in monetary terms. Nothing worse than spending lots of money on a book or series you find you don't actually like, as I found out with The Wheel of Time.....

 

[j d worthington]

Correct. The greater part of the text was taken from a November 1927 letter to Donald Wandrei, and Miske added the opening and closing sections. I still consider the fragment a fake -- it wasn't intended as a story, and the addition of a narrator named "Howard Phillips" living at 66 College Street is just wrong (especially since the real HPL didn't move there until 1933). And Miske had told Derleth about his little deception as soon as Derleth himself published the "fragment" in 1948 (?), but Derleth still continued to include it.

Ah, thanks for the refresher on that.... I'd started to put Wandrei, but didn't trust my memory (which seems of late to want to imitate a sieve to begin with).... My only point where this is concerned is that, if any newcomer to HPL gets bitten by the bug the way I did, they'll want every scrap of his imaginative material, including the fragments from letters and such (though having them without the spurious material would be much, much better). Hmmm.... about time, methinks, for someone to once again publish a volume bringing all this sort of work together; it might just be the right time for such a volume to catch the Lovecraft readers' eye.....

 

[mortbury]

This publisher (Grafton) has a Tales of the Cthulhu Mythos, too, which I gather from the title is an earlier work.

This is my favourite CM anthology. I believe this edition is out of print.

 

[Sephiroth]

Thanks for the advice and opinions, everyone, and especially to Ningauble and J.D. for the wealth of information you have provided.

Oh, and sorry I missed out a bracket in my original post. (I really am.)

I see now that The Black Tome of Alsophocus is not by Lovecraft; that was my mistake, I saw his name there and just assumed he had written it.

As you have suggested, then, I shall not read this one now. First, I'll seek out The Call of Cthulhu and Other Weird Stories, and then read more of HPL's own work, before I move on to the Mythos stuff.

Pity, though, because I can't afford to buy books very often, and our library sucks, and I have this one staring me in the face. Never mind. I like to approach things 'properly'.

I don't really consider myself to have 'modern tastes', although I will admit that I haven't read a great deal of old fantasy/sf, (the oldest being The Hobbit. Actually that's a lie, I read Brave New World at school. But I enjoy all manner of writing from earlier times, and differences in style fascinate me, so I am looking forward to broadening my horizons.

Pyan, tell me about it. I own the first ten (yes, I know). Didn't buy the last one.

 

[j d worthington]

Pity, though, because I can't afford to buy books very often, and our library sucks, and I have this one staring me in the face. Never mind. I like to approach things 'properly'.

Sephiroth -- have you checked to see if your library has an interlibrary loan service? If they do, you can order books from a much, much broader area (depending on the service, and your abilities to pay, quite possibly from around the world -- though that's not going to be necessary in this case.....)

 

[Sephiroth]

I haven't, I wasn't aware that such a thing existed. I'd have to re-register now, my last membership lapsed because I got tired of going down there and coming away empty-handed, or at least without the title I went for.

But it is worth finding out about. Cheers for the heads-up.

 

[Connavar]

As has been discussed in some other thread, the Omnibus volumes are based on old magazine appearances that were flawed to begin with, and over the years more and more misprints have crept in and become fossilized.

A couple of examples, taken from all the Omnibuses:

* In "The Other Gods", "the seven cryptical books of earth" should be
"the seven cryptical books of Hsan".

* In "the Call of Cthulhu", the subtitle, "Found among the Papers of
the Late Francis Wayland Thurston, of Boston", is missing.

* In "The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath" all "Zoogs" should be "zoogs"
and "Inquanok" should be "Inganok". In one place "beings" have become
"priests" (or maybe it was the other way around -- I forget).

* In "The Quest of Iranon", "and thou wouldst" should be "an thou
wouldst" (Shakespearean "an" meaning "if"). Correct in the Penguin
edition but nowhere else.
* The correct title of "Arthur Jermyn" is "Facts Concerning the Late Arthur Jermyn and His Family".
* The correct title of "Imprisoned with the Pharaohs" is "Under the Pyramids".
* The fragment "The Thing in the Moonlight" is a fake.
* Of the "Early Tales", only "The Alchemist" and "The Beast in the Cave" are actually early. All the others were written after "The Tomb" and "Dagon".
* The introduction to Dagon by August Derleth, with the "bibliography" concocted by Derleth, s-u-c-k-s. (At least I think it appeared in Dagon.)
* "The Doom That Came to Sarnath" is an older version -- HPL revised it slightly later, and these changes are not in the Omnibus Dagon.
* The text of "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward" as it appears in the Omnibus At the Mountains of Madness is severely flawed. Not only is the text off in many places, but there's also a bad misprint that replaces the first line of one chapter with the first line of another chapter. This misprint has been around since at least the 1970s and the publisher has not bothered to correct it (I found it in 1992 and I can't believe I'm the first.).


And what really annoys me is that Gollancz had every chance in the world to publish a good Lovecraft collection with their upcoming Necronomicon, but what do they do? They will use the old texts and not HPL's originals because they already owned the rights to the old texts, and because August Derleth was such a brilliant editor (see Joshi's "Textual Problems in Lovecraft" for a different view; Joshi's opinion is that Messrs. Wandrei & Derleth had an uncanny knack for picking the very worst textual versions almost evey single time). I suppose I'll get it anyway, but only to have the flawed versions available.

Is my penguin collection from 1999 The Call of Cthulhu and Other Wierd Stories with many mistakes as the omnibus? Or is it fine?

can i read it without worrying about it being full of mistakes or stories not written by HPL but edited and realesed way after him?

 

[j d worthington]

Is my penguin collection from 1999 The Call of Cthulhu and Other Wierd Stories with many mistakes as the omnibus? Or is it fine?

can i read it without worrying about it being full of mistakes or stories not written by HPL but edited and realesed way after him?

I'm not Ningauble, but I can give you a fairly useful answer on this one. No, the number of mistakes is vastly reduced... quite minor, in fact, amounting to the nearly inevitable sort of things that creep in during the production of any book. And none of the stories are by anyone else... S. T. Joshi, certainly one of, if not the foremost Lovecraftian textual scholar, edited the book and wrote the introduction and notes. So you've got one of the best low-price Lovecraftian volumes there is. (The others would be the two remaining volumes in the Penguin set. His revision tales -- also worth reading, in some cases just below his best original work itself -- is unfortunately only available currently in the Arkham House hardbound volume, if you want a good edition.)

 

[Connavar]

Ah good to know.

Now i can read HP with my mind at ease.