A Sherlock Holmes specialist named Leslie S. Klinger has reportedly announced he is working on a New Annotated H.P. Lovecraft volume, for mainstream publisher W.W. Norton, due out in 2015. He’s a U.S. lawyer who has previously crafted The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: Vols. 1 & 2, The Short Stories, and Vol. 3, The Novels (2004), and The New Annotated Dracula (2008), both published in sumptious-but-affordable doorstopper editions by W.W. Norton. I’m a fan and not a scholar of the Holmes stories, and I have little interest in vampires, so I have to say that Klinger is a name that has passed me by until now. I haven’t delved into it very deeply, but there appears to be some controversy around his annotated volumes. Wilum Pugmire reports on Facebook that… “S.T. [Joshi] figures that most of the annotations in the [Klinger] Lovecraft volume will be culled from his own commentary”.
New Annotated H.P. Lovecraft announced for 2015
24 Tuesday Jan 2012
Posted in New books
I’m a bit surprised at the expectation that most of the notes will be culled from the fine work of S.T. Joshi. While I certainly expect to make use of his work (and that of the dozens of other scholars in the field), my aim is to make the annotations more in the nature of the “bonus tracks” on most DVD’s, providing added enjoyment for the reader, aiding them to discover the richness of Lovecraft’s work, the history of New England, and the broad range of Lovecraftian scholarship.
I do not intend to duplicate the excellent biographical work of Joshi, but for most readers, in my humble opinion, the wealth of biographical detail in the Joshi annotations is not particularly interesting. I have an A.B. in English but I have no desire to produce what I think of as the “English major’s annotated version.” My approaches to Sherlock Holmes, Dracula, and now Neil Gaiman’s Sandman speak for themselves regarding my style. Also, I expect that the book will be heavily illustrated with relevant period photographs, etc.
I do expect that my approach is likely to play the Sherlockian “game” with Lovecraft’s stories, which may not please everyone. The “game” is to adopt the gentle fiction that Lovecraft was recording the truth in his stories, that these are historical documents, and therefore it is my job to verify or correct the historical details. For example, where is Arkham? Kingsport? What can we state factually about the Miskatonic River or Miskatonic University? What evidence is there of the case of Charles Dexter Ward? I hope that this approach will make the book original, enjoyable, but wholly accurate–I never make up any facts.
Hi, I do look forward to the book! The idea of copious illustration (most historically illustrative material from the 1920s will be public domain by now, I would imagine) sounds very welcome – especially in a book which is likely to have high production values.
But I would strongly advise you against the “assume it’s all real” approach, with Lovecraft. Apart from a few ‘black magic is real’ idiots, it really won’t endear you to 98% of the fan base. Plus, having looked into some of the geographical matters myself, I can vouch that they are often incredibly complex and sometimes subject to misinformation from authors in previous decades.
Far more interesting is relating Lovecraft’s fiction to the wider historical context and to his sense of how his present inter-played with the tangible past. Also his intellectual life as lived through his engagement with books and ideas. You are dealing with an intellectual in Lovecraft, which seems to me a radically different proposition than dealing with Conan Doyle or Stoker, despite the similarities between the fictions.