The first two sections of the third part have concerned themselves with those responsible for the initial images of HPL in both France and the United States. It is unfortunate that Derleth’s misinterpretations of HPL have affected the reception of HPL in France and in America. Although in France there was an almost immediate scholarly acceptance of his work, in America it was not truly until the 1980s that Lovecraft scholarship gained a steady following. Our exploration in support of the theory that France’s acceptance of Lovecraft on the literary scene influenced, in some part the development of American Lovecraft scholarship.
In American Lovecraft Studies, Derleth’s shadow has been almost entirely exposed. Scholarly journals, recent books and essays have more than provided ample evidence of Derleth’s misinterpretation of Lovecraft’s œuvre. The same cannot entirely be said of more recent Lovecraft criticism in France.
There are at least three reasons that Derleth’s shadow has yet to be entirely dispelled in France. First, the availability of critical works disputing “Derleth’s Mythos” may be unavailable in French, or no longer in print. Second, the French Lovecraftian scholar is more concerned with correcting the Bergian image of HPL. Indeed Derleth’s influence may be unseen and therefore not addressed. Lastly, publishing houses in France are not entirely shedding any clarity on the separation between “Derleth’s Mythos” and “Lovecraft’s Cthulhu Mythos.” The difference between the two is simply that
“Lovecraft’s Cthulhu Mythos” are the tales that HPL himself wrote, whereas the “Derleth Mythos,” implies Derleth’s own tales and “collaborations” with HPL, incorporated alongside HPL’s own tales.
On the surface, the most plausible of the three is simply the unavailability of certain articles and scholarship (in France) that is focused on clearing away the Derleth misconception of Lovecraft. With a little effort and time, one discovers that two English- language articles which discuss directly the “Cthulhu Mythos” are available in France. Dirk Mosig’s “H. P. Lovecraft: Myth-Maker” was translated into French in 1976 by Esther Rochon as “H. P. Lovecraft, créateur des mythes” and published in Requium number twleve in the same year. It was not reprinted after this initial appearance. Under the direction of S. T. Joshi, the very question of the “Cthulhu Mythos” was explored in French under the title Qu’est-ce que le Mythe de Cthulhu, first appearing in 1990, followed by three revisions in 2000 and 2007. Qu’est-ce que le Mythe de Cthulhu incorporates articles translated by Philippe Gindre on the “Cthulhu Mythos” by D.R. Burleson, S. T. Joshi, Will Murray, Robert M. Price and David E. Schutlz, a vertible tour de force in Lovecraft studies then and now. The goal of this work is to explore and reveal
the “Cthulhu Mythos” in terms of Lovecraft’s own production and philosophy, and to reveal the influence Derleth had after HPL’s death. Robert M. Price’s 1986 article “What is the Cthulhu Mythos” published in the magazine Dagon in 1986 was translated and made available to the French public under the title “H. P.L et le mythe de Cthulhu” first published by Phénix in its 6th issue under the title H. P. Lovecraft, in 1986 and reprinted in a Super Phénix edition in 1988 under the title Lovecraft. Robert M. Price’s articles help to clear away the last vestiges of “Derleth’s Mythos.” These articles were translated to French, but have not been reprinted since. The issues can be found online, but the elevated price at which they can be bought may discourage scholars from truly being educated on the matter.
Nevertheless, there have been a number of French scholars who have pursued this subject. The most recent edition of Bifrost number 73, features an article by Raphaël Granier De Cassagnac titled “Lovecraft et son mythe.” Rather than focusing on Derleth’s manipulation of the “Cthulhu Mythos,” De Cassagnac is more interested in exclusively documenting Lovecraft’s tales that treat the aforementioned mythos. However, prior to this article and the S. T. Joshi reprints of Qu’est-ce que le Mythe de Cthulhu, there is very little French scholarship on the matter. Jacques Van Herp published “Naissance du mythe” in Lovecraft, in the Super Phénixedition in 1988, and in 1986 his article “La mythologie de Cthulhu,” was serialized in Phénix’s H. P. Lovecraft numbers 5 and 6. In 1994 Frank Brénugat published an essay in Parallèles number 1, entitled Le mythe, “H. P. Lovecraft: le mythe de Cthulhu,” and in 2009 Patrick Marcel published “Chronologie d’un mythe” in Les nombreuses vies de Cthulhu printed by the publishing house Les Moutons Electroniques. Therefore, despite the small number of articles available in the
French language, there is French scholarship which endeavors to explore the “Cthulhu Mythos,” which invariably involves a separation between Derleth and Lovecraft.
French scholars have indeed spent more time correcting the Bergian image of HPL than that of Derleth. Michel Meurger’s article which appeared in Etudes
Lovecraftiennes over the course of 2 issues, from 1988 to 1989 is perhaps the most comprehensive essay that deals with the initial introduction of HPL and Bergier’s hand in disseminating it to the greater French public. Jean-Luc Buard’s article “Jacques Bergier, correspondant de Lovecraft? De la légendé à la réalité” published in Etudes
Lovecraftiennes in numbers 9 and 10 (1990-1991) explores the fiction of Bergier’s claim of having communicated directly with HPL via letter. Simon Lequeux published
“Lovecraft et Bergier: Le larcin des Magiciens” which appeared over 5 issues of Etudes Lovecraftiennes (1991-1994) and explores Bergier’s hand in stealing Lovecraft’s work, in other words, misinterpreting it and presenting it under a different form.45 Meurger, Buard, and Lequeux among others have helped the French Lovecraftian scholar to explore a new image of Lovecraft that seems to coincide more with the American Lovecraft scholar’s “post-Derlethian” image. Michel Houellebecq’s H. P. Lovecraft contre le monde, contre la vie is a prime example of the new direction and image that French Lovecraft scholars have explored since Bergier’s image of HPL has been ousted. This will be explored in chapter three.
Despite the efforts of scholars and the availability of translations, there is still some confusion as to where Derleth’s and Lovecraft’s “Cthulhu Mythos” separate. Some publishing houses in France, and in America, have gone so far as to introduce the
of just such collaborations appeared in 1969 under the title Tales of the Cthulhu Mythos published by Arkham House. Not only do Tales include Lovecraft’s own stories, but they include stories written by Derleth, Clark Ashton Smith, Frank Belknap Long, Robert Bloch and Brian Lumely, among others. In 1989, the French publishing house Pocket released a translation of Tales under the title Les choses des ténèbres (it was reprinted in 1994 and 2001).
Academically speaking, it appears that both English and French speaking Lovecraft scholars are aware of Derleth’s manipulation in organizing the “Cthulhu Mythos,” but by and large the general public is probably not aware of Derleth’s
involvement. To make matters worse, one of the most recent French critical books on H. P. Lovecraft by Didier Hendrickx titled H. P. Lovecraft: le dieu silencieux (2012), opens up with the infamous “black magic” quote, right after Henrickx reveals to the reader his exhaustive scholarship on HPL. It is a wonder that any scholar of HPL would still be unaware of the now clear manipulation of HPL’s œuvre by Derleth.
The three hypotheses suggested as to the persistence of such misconceptions do not, in the end, help us understand the extent to which Derleth and Bergier influenced Lovecraft scholarship. Perhaps a more neutral approach to Derleth and Bergier’s involvement should be considered. Yes, they misinterpreted Lovecraft’s œuvre, both in distinctive ways, yet scholarship did not stagnate. It refracted into different directions. If anything it morphed into something new and their interpretations offered dynamic ways of perceiving HPL’s work. Their interpretations also presented themselves as targets to the French and American Lovecraft scholars who would eventually dig through the layers of misinterpretation in order to discover the true Lovecraft below.