An H. P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia

Rating:
Summary: Scholarly and excellent
Review: Both this book, AN H.P. LOVECRAFT ENCYCLOPEDIA and its companion volume issued at the same time by Greenwood, THE COMPLETE H.P. LOVECRAFT FILMOGRAPHY are highly recommended. Both books are scholarly, authoritative and well written. These two excellent works encompass the highest level of scholarship about Lovecraft and should be read by every fan and student of Lovecraft. Bravo to Greenwood for these two volumes.

Rating:
Summary: Especially for Lovecraft enthusiasts
Review: Collaborative compiled by Lovecraftian experts S. T. Joshi and David E. Schultz, An H. P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia is an exhaustive reference filled with an impressive wealth of biographical and literary lore about one of the best-known writers of supernatural horror in the 20th century. Filled cover to cover with bibliographical information, the encyclopedia lists entries in A to Z format of people Lovecraft knew, characters in his books, and much more. An extensive, scholarly reference especially for Lovecraft enthusiasts, An H. P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia is an essential, core, indispensable reference work for students of Lovecraft's life and work.

Rating:
Summary: Painstaking but idiosyncratic reference work
Review: For scholarly-minded Lovecraft readers who can manage the hefty price (this volume is put out by a publisher specializing in reference books for libraries, such books usually being very expensive because of low print runs and then storing these titles on inventory for many years rather than remaindering them), this is a "must-have" reference and research tool. Joshi and Schultz are, respectively, THE leading figure and one of the leading figures in Lovecraftian scholarship, and they've assembled something that is most helpful, that merits high praise for accuracy and assiduousness.

That said, the priorities of AN H.P. LOVECRAFT ENCYCLOPEDIA are somewhat perverse and leave something to be desired.

Astoundingly, there's no discussion whatsoever of Lovecraft's philosophical beliefs, a matter that coauthor Joshi has elsewhere written, and nearly all contemporary Lovecraftian scholars agree, is essential to an understanding of Lovecraft's works and life. Why not? In the preface, Joshi and Schultz write: "No separate entry on Lovecraft's philosophical thought is included here, as the topic is too complex for succinct discussion." (p. xi.) How "succinct" are we talking here, one wonders? General information encyclopedias manage to summarize the "thought" of the great original figures Western philosophy in articles ranging from a few sentences to a few pages. Surely something calling itself AN H.P. LOVECRAFT ENCYCLOPEDIA could muster a few paragraphs or a few pages about the nature of the "philosophical thought" of Lovecraft himself. (By such reasoning, there shouldn't even be such a thing as general information encyclopedias, since the sum of human knowledge is assuredly "too complex" to fit into a work of 30-odd volumes.)

This unwillingness here to do the obvious may be the flipside of a trait of the authors: a difficulty with being succinct when the situation calls for it (which is what encyclopedias are all about in the first place). A huge portion, if not most, of the book is occupied by astonishingly long synopses of Lovecraft's fictional works.

There is, of course, good reason to include synopses of Lovecraft's writings in an encyclopedia devoted to him: to help the scholarly-minded reader sort out his various writings, and to jog the reader's memory as to what transpires in the fictional works. But Joshi and Schultz detail so much that it's as if they're addressing those who've never read the texts and never plan to. Succinctness seems to be a hard pill indeed for the authors to swallow.

So what's the harm in long synopses? First, if the reader's goal is just to have his memory jogged, the amount of reading entailed is so great that a synopsis may be little more help than simply skimming through the text itself. Second, publishers impose page limits on a book like this, and so space used inappropriately is space subtracted from other things.

Already discussed has been how this work incongruously omits any discussion of philosophy. But also omitted are entries for the various supernatural (or, often really, alien) beings in Lovecraft's fiction, because, argue the authors, they "do not figure as 'characters' in any meaningful sense in the tales", despite the fact that fictional persons and places in Lovecraft's works receive entries. There seems to be some unexplained double-standard at work here.

I have a suspicion as to why this double-standard is there. The authors are justly contemptuous of the August Derleth-inspired "Cthulhu Mythos" bunk that so lamentably remains in circulation, and so may be revolted that any highlighting of the likes of Cthulhu, the Old Ones, etc. could be taken as buttressing the spurious notion that there's a Derlethian pantheon of "gods" on which Lovecraft and his colleagues had collaborated.

If that's Joshi's and Schultz's underlying motivation for treating these entities differently from other proper names, then they're to be faulted for letting the "Mythos" help define Lovecraftian studies. Moreover, scholarly-minded Lovecraftians should be able to use a Lovecraft encyclopedia as part of their arsenal to debunk misconceptions, and so including entries on Lovecraft's supernatural/alien entities that set the record straight as to what they're each about may be the most important components of that arsenal.