Errata for the B&N volume

[pablo]

It's quite mind-boggling how many errors were in this text. Can we expend an all-new 100% error-free edition?

 

[Ningauble]

It's quite mind-boggling how many errors were in this text. Can we expend an all-new 100% error-free edition?

Sooner or later. The more people report the errors they find, the sooner we'll get there.

 

[Fiorina161]

I haven't had to return to this thread for a long time, though I've continued making my way through this volume since my last typo discovery. Alas, after several hundred pages relatively free of errors (or ones already reported), I have one more, though it is very minor, from The Thing on the Doorstep [which seems to be disliked among readers, I thought it was pretty damn good -- but what do I know? ]:

922.24 I had seen him one or twice in my youth ] I had seen him once or twice in my youth

 

[Ningauble]

I haven't had to return to this thread for a long time, though I've continued making my way through this volume since my last typo discovery. Alas, after several hundred pages relatively free of errors (or ones already reported), I have one more, though it is very minor, from The Thing on the Doorstep [which seems to be disliked among readers, I thought it was pretty damn good -- but what do I know? ]:

"Relatively free"? "Very minor"? My dear chap, there is no such thing as "very minor" when it comes to typos! Even if it is only a quotation mark tilted the wrong way, please report it!

922.24 I had seen him one or twice in my youth ] I had seen him once or twice in my youth

Well done! I've passed it on to B&N.

 

[Fiorina161]

"Relatively free"? "Very minor"? My dear chap, there is no such thing as "very minor" when it comes to typos! Even if it is only a quotation mark tilted the wrong way, please report it!

Doing my utmost, ha! I've heard that "Supernatural Horror in Literature" still has a few, so I'll be tackling that chapter soon. Fingers crossed they are just rumors

 

[Greg8411]

Getting back to my HPL reading program, I am reporting what looks to be an unreported typo in "Herbert West--Reanimator":
186.31: sins like Ptolemaism, Calvinism, anti-Darwinisn,] sins like Ptolemaism, Calvinism, anti-Darwinism,

 

[Ningauble]

Getting back to my HPL reading program, I am reporting what looks to be an unreported typo in "Herbert West--Reanimator":
186.31: sins like Ptolemaism, Calvinism, anti-Darwinisn,] sins like Ptolemaism, Calvinism, anti-Darwinism,

Thank you! I have noted it and passed it on.

 

[perspexorange]

Hi. Hope someone can help. I've just returned to reading Lovecraft after a number of years away and decided to purchase this book as it looked rather nice. I've had the Arkham House volumes for a number of years and, although, I love them, I rather fancied having all of his fiction (minus the revisions) in one handy volume.

Luckily, the copy I received is the new printing with the majority of errors corrected.

I just had a couple of questions that I was wondering whether someone may be able to help me with:

1) Firstly, can anyone tell me if the versions of Hypnos and The Shadow Out Of Time are the new, corrected versions of the stories. I don't really know how I can tell if they are corrected or not, without comparing them directly to the AH volumes.

2) Also, although I know there is a comprehensive list of errata on the net for the first printing of the book, I wondered if there was a similar one for the second printing.

Obviously, the errors listed on the last couple of pages of this thread are still present but I think there must be others not listed on the last couple of pages, which were presumably not picked up before the book went back to be reprinted. An example of this is 1027.1: THE MYSTERIOUS SHIP] THE MYSTERIOVS SHIP, which is still present in my second printing (weirdly, the first page I randomly opened the book on highlighted this error - staring me straight in the face in block capitals ).

Randomly checking the errata list of the first printing, most appear to be corrected, but how can I tell which have been corrected without going through each one and checking to my book? At 17 pages of known errata, this would be a mammoth task to undertake, and relatively pointless to me if 99% of them have now been corrected (Kudos to the people who created this list - it must have taken some time to compile).
Would anyone have a list of the items not yet corrected in the latest printing?

Any help gratefully received.

 

[j d worthington]

I don't know if there is such a list online myself, but Martin well may, as this is his bailiwick.

As for the other query: Yes, these are the corrected versions. You can compare the older version with this one by looking it up at various sites (the H. P. Lovecraft Archive being the exception), such as the following:

The Shadow Out of Time by H. P. Lovecraft

Compare the paragraphing here with that in the B&N volume, and you'll see a vast difference (ditto with At the Mountains of Madness which, even though the older versions usually went with versions taken from HPL's corrected copies of Astounding, nonetheless contained a tremendous amount of errors, and even there the paragraphing is not the same as in his own manuscripts).

 

[perspexorange]

Thanks J. D. I'll definitely check that out when I get back home.
Am I right in thinking that the Arkham House ST Joshi hardbacks contain the older versions of The Shadow Out Of Time and Hypnos? Presumably he revisited the manuscripts after the AH books were released?

Many thanks once again.

 

[j d worthington]

Thanks J. D. I'll definitely check that out when I get back home.
Am I right in thinking that the Arkham House ST Joshi hardbacks contain the older versions of The Shadow Out Of Time and Hypnos? Presumably he revisited the manuscripts after the AH books were released?

Many thanks once again.

Not so much "revisited" as had access to previously unavailable material. With "Hypnos", a typescript with the ascription "To S[amuel] L[oveman]" in Lovecraft's hand had surfaced since, and so that source was also included in making editorial decisions about the final text. "The Shadow Out of Time" is a bit more complicated, as what finally surfaced there was the original autograph manuscript, which Robert Barlow had given to a student of his. There are differences between this and the published appearance, one of the major consistent things being the breaking up of Lovecraft's longer paragraphs into shorter, fragmentary paragraphs (for the sake of white space and to suit the magazine's style sheet); something Lovecraft lamented heavily in his letter to Barlow when it came to At the Mountains of Madness -- where he spent most of his efforts in dissecting what was wrong with that appearance -- but also "The Shadow Out of Time", as he made it clear he intensely disliked these "short, choppy" paragraphs... and rightly so, as they break up the flow of the prose terribly.

So it isn't simply a revisiting, but consultation with new sources, which has prompted the changes with these tales.

 

[Ningauble]

1) Firstly, can anyone tell me if the versions of Hypnos and The Shadow Out Of Time are the new, corrected versions of the stories. I don't really know how I can tell if they are corrected or not, without comparing them directly to the AH volumes.

The versions in the B&N volume are the new ones, yes. Extremely minor differences in the case of "Hypnos".

2) Also, although I know there is a comprehensive list of errata on the net for the first printing of the book, I wondered if there was a similar one for the second printing.

Alas, no. And I won't be doing another list. Any "new" errors I find end up in this thread, and eventually in the errata list at The H.P. Lovecraft Archive. At the moment, there are about 15 errors that weren't corrected in the first corrected printing. Many of these (but not all) should have been taken care of in later printings.

Unfortunately, I learned the other day that several of my corrections have been incorrectly entered (see, for example, "History of the Necronomicon" where the birthplace of Alhazred should be "Sanaá", not "Sanna").

Obviously, the errors listed on the last couple of pages of this thread are still present but I think there must be others not listed on the last couple of pages, which were presumably not picked up before the book went back to be reprinted. An example of this is 1027.1: THE MYSTERIOUS SHIP] THE MYSTERIOVS SHIP, which is still present in my second printing (weirdly, the first page I randomly opened the book on highlighted this error - staring me straight in the face in block capitals ).

I don't get it. I have the first corrected printing, and it (correctly) says "MYSTERIOVS" there.

Randomly checking the errata list of the first printing, most appear to be corrected, but how can I tell which have been corrected without going through each one and checking to my book? At 17 pages of known errata, this would be a mammoth task to undertake, and relatively pointless to me if 99% of them have now been corrected (Kudos to the people who created this list - it must have taken some time to compile).

That would be me, with some help from other posters in this thread, and it did. I think I spent all of my spare time for three months on this. And thanks for the kudos!

Would anyone have a list of the items not yet corrected in the latest printing?

Any help gratefully received.

I'd suggest going backwards up this thread.

 

[perspexorange]

Not so much "revisited" as had access to previously unavailable material. With "Hypnos", a typescript with the ascription "To S[amuel] L[oveman]" in Lovecraft's hand had surfaced since, and so that source was also included in making editorial decisions about the final text. "The Shadow Out of Time" is a bit more complicated, as what finally surfaced there was the original autograph manuscript, which Robert Barlow had given to a student of his. There are differences between this and the published appearance, one of the major consistent things being the breaking up of Lovecraft's longer paragraphs into shorter, fragmentary paragraphs (for the sake of white space and to suit the magazine's style sheet); something Lovecraft lamented heavily in his letter to Barlow when it came to At the Mountains of Madness -- where he spent most of his efforts in dissecting what was wrong with that appearance -- but also "The Shadow Out of Time", as he made it clear he intensely disliked these "short, choppy" paragraphs... and rightly so, as they break up the flow of the prose terribly.

So it isn't simply a revisiting, but consultation with new sources, which has prompted the changes with these tales.

Ah - that makes sense. Thanks for that.
I've noticed that there is a new publication for the Shadow Out Of Space that appears to include an explanation as to how the original manuscript was located years later. I might have to treat myself to that book, as it sounds rather interesting. I've been buying a lot of HPL recently though, so may have to wait until after my next payday before I can purchase. Sounds worth it though.

Thanks for your help J.D. - much appreciated,

 

[perspexorange]

The versions in the B&N volume are the new ones, yes. Extremely minor differences in the case of "Hypnos".



Alas, no. And I won't be doing another list. Any "new" errors I find end up in this thread, and eventually in the errata list at The H.P. Lovecraft Archive. At the moment, there are about 15 errors that weren't corrected in the first corrected printing. Many of these (but not all) should have been taken care of in later printings.

Unfortunately, I learned the other day that several of my corrections have been incorrectly entered (see, for example, "History of the Necronomicon" where the birthplace of Alhazred should be "Sanaá", not "Sanna").



I don't get it. I have the first corrected printing, and it (correctly) says "MYSTERIOVS" there.



That would be me, with some help from other posters in this thread, and it did. I think I spent all of my spare time for three months on this. And thanks for the kudos!



I'd suggest going backwards up this thread.

Thanks for the explanation, Ningauble. That makes sense. I'll track back through this thread. I just want to keep a note on a piece of paper of the errors, so that, when the next print comes out, I can compare and see if the errors have been corrected.

Even though there sounds like there won't be much point in upgrading (if there's only a few errors in the current printing), I probably still will. I can then give my 'old' copy to someone not yet familiar to HPL's work - I might be able to convert them into an admirer.

As regards MYSTERIOVS, I'm sorry - I'm a little confused. Are you saying that this spelling is 'correct' (i.e. as detailed in Lovecraft's manuscripts), and B&N therefore altered it correctly from 'MYSTERIOUS' to 'MYSTERIOVS'?
Sorry - I'm probably just misunderstanding.

Once again, it is very much appreciated the amount of hours that you and other knowledgeable posters have spent reading, checking and reporting on the errors in the first and subsequent printings. This work will greatly improve my reading experience when revisiting these stories over the next few weeks (not to mention the experience of the thousands of other readers' that have also picked up, or will be picking up, this volume).

Thanks once again.

 

[j d worthington]

First: You're welcome.

Second: If you refer to the Hippocampus Press edition of The Shadow Out of Time, then yes, it is worth getting hold of, as it has quite a nice lengthy intro explaining all the vicissitudes of this particular story, the corrected text itself with numbered paragraphing for easy reference, and a lengthy errata list comparing the alterations/mistakes between the AMS, Astounding appearance, etc..

As regards MYSTERIOVS, I'm sorry - I'm a little confused. Are you saying that this spelling is 'correct' (i.e. as detailed in Lovecraft's manuscripts), and B&N therefore altered it correctly from 'MYSTERIOUS' to 'MYSTERIOVS'?
Sorry - I'm probably just misunderstanding.

I think what Martin is referring to there is the fact that, at this point in his writing, Lovecraft was still often imitating either the Georgian or Latin orthography (intermittently rather than consistently within a work), hence "MYSTERIOVS" (Latin use of "V") rather than "MYSTERIOUS" with the short version (p. 1027), whereas he spelled it "MYSTERIOUS" with the long version (p. 1030), which he also, incidentally, signed as "By Anonymous". This is speculation on my part, based somewhat on the descriptions of the actual physical items elsewhere, but my understanding is that Lovecraft had produced little booklets with these, including a cloth cover for at least one of them, painstakingly imitating the look of a published book (to the best of his ability).

(Correct me if I'm wrong about all this, Martin.)

 

[Ningauble]

(Correct me if I'm wrong about all this, Martin.)

You're right!

(I just arrived in Ireland, BTW, for another two weeks of paper excavation at Dunsany Castle. )

 

[perspexorange]

Thanks both. That makes sense. I can see how I got a bit confused though.

 

[perspexorange]

Think I've found another one. I don't think it's been previously spotted (or, at least, isn't on the errata list).

From The Call of Cthulhu:

361.6: that only a miracle can have stopped he medical fraternity] that only a miracle can have stopped the medical fraternity

 

[j d worthington]

You're right!

(I just arrived in Ireland, BTW, for another two weeks of paper excavation at Dunsany Castle. )

Good luck, and enjoy!

 

[Fiorina161]

A new "Complete Fiction" edition (ISBN: 9781631060014) has been released as part of the "Knickerbocker Classics Series". The ISFDB lists its contents as being identical to the Barnes & Noble volume, complete with the same S.T. Joshi introduction. I cannot however find any other details about the contents. My copy should be arriving in a day or two and I will confirm if it is indeed a dupe of the B&N volume and check for the infamous typos.