Sue,

I'm not sure what to make of Lupov's review, as it is the first that I've seen. They say there's no such thing as bad publicity, but I thought the show's criticism (mocking laughter, no less!) was a bit beyond the call of duty. If you don't like the book, it's your right. To berate me without offering me the courtesy of a response (as they do when interviewing famous authors like Rushdie) is just unprofessional.

Richard A. Lupov is a Hugo-award winning science ficiton author, but it was clear from his review that he had only read the *uncorrected* galley proofs of my book, not the published work. It isn't quite nice to criticize me for mistakes that were corrected before publication. I admit (and on my website I list all the errata I've found) that there is a typo for August Derleth's death date, but I've been through the printed text twice, and I couldn't find the mistake of "Joseph Campbell" for "John W. Campbell," though it is quite possible it's in there somewhere. But a keyword search of the uncorrected manuscript didn't turn it up, either. I hardly think, though, that a couple of typos undermine the whole thesis of the book.

Actually, it was clear from Lupov's discussion that he only read selected chapters of the book and in fact cribbed the rest of his review from the press release. I know this because I also wrote the press release and recognize the language. For example, I do not argue that von Daniken "cribbed" his thesis from Lovecraft; rather that Lovecraft was the ultimate origin of it through many intermediaries. Von Daniken never read Lovecraft.

In sum, I think that Lupov resents Lovecraft for eclipsing his favorite authors, and he took it out on me. Lupov is an expert in 1930s science ficiton, and obviously I am not. It is quite possible my sources for the period--Lovecraft scholar S.T. Joshi and sci-fi author L. Sprague de Camp--were wrong about some details, and I feel awful if I repeated any of their mistakes. However, if Lupov could find only three minor errors in a book of 400 pages, I feel a bit upset that he considers that "shoddy" scholarship. A new study of Louis XIV I just read confidently asserted that Louis fought a battle in 1974. Nobody accused the professor who wrote *that* of "shoddy" scholarship.

Anyway, I'm sure this will be more humorous after I'm done being sad that all of southern California heard this review.

Jason