cation.
In his essay on Lovecraft, "Tales of the Marvellous and the Ridiculous", which originally appeared in "The New Yorker" and was later reprinted in his book, "Classics and Commercials", Edmund Wilson states flatly: "Lovecraft was not a good writer." (Before Lovecraft admirers reach for their shotguns, I might point out that Edmund Wilson also refers to no less a literary figure than Somerset Maugham as "second-rate" and "a half-trashy novelist.") Even though his criticism is far too severe--too much of a generalization--Wilson does call attention to two Lovecraft faults which I must reluctantly acknowledge: his frequent prolixity and his tendency to lean on shopworn adjectives such as "terrible", "horrible", "hellish", etc. to achieve eerie effects. In a good horror story, adjectives such as this are best omitted or at least introduced very sparingly. Beyond these criticisms, Wilson emphasizes the essential weakness and lack of verisimilitude of the "Cthulhu Mythos" episodes. With this, too, I must grudgingly agree. And at this point I would like to call attention to the fact that the two specific faults mentioned immediately above--prolixity and adjectivitus--are more frequently encountered in the "Mythos" stories than in any others.
The "Cthulhu Mythos" has raised a great commotion. Over a period of years, enthusiastic collaborators, imitators, friends and admirers have elevated the Cthulhu myth to a pedestal of importance which it scarcely deserves. The "Mythos" did indeed become the frame for Lovecraft's later tales, but they were not his best tales. Lovecraft also amused himself by employing Cthulhu terminology in some of his huge correspondence, but it now seems doubtful that he at-
