Jason Colavito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

Yes indeed. You should have been allowed to respond.
Lupov did sound a bit OTT.

> 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.

This amuses me a bit because I had never heard of Lupov
until now. hoho .. And of course I had no idea that he had
read an uncorrected galley and even then only certain parts.

I do, however, think that every publisher should be held accountable
for typos and fix them. Anyhow...

I had a feeling that his OTT review couldn't be completely
trusted; and as I said, I would never rely on only one review
anyway.

> 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.

Thank you for explaining the ins and outs of your thesis.
This is prolly the kind of thing that would make useful
and interesting info in a preface or forward.

> In sum, I think that Lupov resents Lovecraft for
> eclipsing his favorite authors, and he took it out
> on me.

That could very well be true. I don't understand the
popularity of Lovecraft myself, but I hardly think that
authors of the stature of Asimov, Bradley, Clarke, or
Heinlein will just go blank in the annals of scifi. I read
Bradley with my students now and then; and I've reread
Clarke's _Childhood's End_ in the last year. I looked up
and read Heinlein's great story "They" recently as well.
That story really bends the mind and gets you thinking.

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.

Well, you know, you can always do further research and
make corrections. I say, go for it!

> 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.

As I said before, these kinds of mistakes should be caught
before publishing... esp. if they're so minor. But I don't think
they are.

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

Have you thought about writing or airing a rebuttal response?
Have you called the radio station or emailed Walinski or Lupov
to ask for a chance to talk with them again on air?

Anyway, good luck!

Sue