Reviews for Lovecraft: A Biography

The average rating for Lovecraft: A Biography based on 2 reviews is 2 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2007-09-12 00:00:00 Jeanine Stewart I remember reading this soon after discovering Lovecraft, and it really pissed me off. It is the most judgemental biography I've ever read. You might be thinking L. Sprague de Camp went after Lovecraft for his notorious racism, but that isn't what he harps on. No, this author criticizes Lovecraft for writing too many letters, and never learning to type. That really is my main memory of this book; De Camp bitching about how Lovecraft could have written more fiction and finished novels if he hadn't wasted so much time corresponding and writing by hand. It is ridiculous. Also, the book is a bit of bore. There is nothing too juicy to write about a borderline shut in who lived with his aunts most of his life and traveled little. The main interest in the book actually came from Lovecraft's letters, which were often about his mythos. Interesting topics like HP's attitudes about sex (for example his short-lived marriage in New York) and his racist viewpoints are glossed over and excused. At least, that was how I felt when i read this book. Just stick to reading Lovecraft, and wait for a smarter biography to come out. Everything you need to know is probably on the wikipedia entry anyway:

Review # 2 was written on 2019-01-01 00:00:00 Nicholas Guarino While this is indeed H.P. Lovecraft's first biography (first published in 1975, and only because of August Derleth's sudden death, who had initially planned the biography), I believe that de Camp made some poor choices in the writing of it. The emphasis in his central argument, which he carries throughout the 450 page tome, is that Lovecraft was a man of contradictions. While all well and good, the fact that there is even an argument or thesis present within a biography is a cause for concern from the onset--and as I expected, the book is full of de Camp's snide comments, opinions, and recommendations of how Lovecraft should have lived his life. What really gets me about this is the fact that a) this is a biography, and b) Lovecraft had been dead thirty or so years before this was even being written, how on earth is he possibly going to be able to take de Camp's suggestions at living more effectively and profitably? Lovecraft lived the life he wanted; he knew the choices he made. Berating him for his failures isn't going to change anything, and really detracts from what is an informative narrative into an opinion-laced pulpit. What absolutely grinds my gears is de Camp's complete inability to list the citations for many of the letters and correspondence that he is quoting from--many of the largest and most important passages that he includes lack a reference to a letter, year, point of contact, anything, without even a footnote. Sure, he does include references to his notes pages for some of the small asides, but when there is something that I see he has quoted that is absolutely essential to my professional research, and I look, and lo and behold, there is no citation anywhere on the page or in the notes, I lose my mind. Of less import, he sets aside multiple pages interspersed within the biography to discuss his own views on fiction (in what it is and on the writing of it), as well as his own experiences and techniques; completely unnecessary in any biography, especially one of someone that you had never even heard of until after his death. Nonetheless, I respect de Camp for at least making the first steps towards informing the populace of his life fifty years ago, and it was indeed informative. However, I'm sure that there is a reason that S.T. Joshi's work is considered the go-to biography of today. Review may change contingent upon my opinion of Houllebecq's and Joshi's biographies, but my expectation is that Joshi's will be far more reserved, and thus, palatable.