This is a fine example of Lovecraft's pure literary genius.It is as if each and every word is meticulously thought out before he puts it to paper.His story telling ability is purely astonishing.
To AdamBMorgan: I used my print of "Dagon" to verify the mistakes. The text on Wikisource may be copied from Project Gutenberg, which would explain they having the two mistakes, too, although I wasn't even able to find "Dagon" on Project Gutenberg. Could you provide my with a link so we can notify them to correct their data, too?
- Link as requested. Sorry if the corrections were valid but I've seen a few other attempts to improve texts on wikisource. (Attaching a scanned copy of The Vagrant would be the best solution to problems like this but I don't expect that to happen in the near future.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm going to write to Project Gutenberg to have those typos removed. Yeah, I've encountered the problem of 'improving' existing works, too, guess we'll just have to cross-check on a more regular basis. The best way to verify is to go to the local library, though most people don't have the time for that... 126.96.36.199 18:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd note that Project Gutenberg and Project Gutenberg Australia are pretty different projects, and it's a touch confusing when you conflate them. I don't know where Project Gutenberg Australia's Dagon came from, but I am at least passively concerned with the copyright status of this work, as there are probably three editions of varying copyright status. The original in The Vagrant is clearly public domain, but if the changes in the Derelth and Joshi editions are major enough, they could qualify for their own copyright, possibly even if the changes derive from the original manuscript. So comparing against the volumes that the local library will have may not be what we should do here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)