Erroneous claim in B. Murphy's Flame & Crimson

[freelance]

In chapter one "What is Sword and Sorcery?" Murphy makes the erroneous claim that "Prior to "Call of Cthulhu" Howard had not assembled all the elements of a classic sword and sorcery story". Murphy ascribes undue influence to Lovecraft by confusing the publication date of "The Shadow Kingdom" with its actual genesis (1926 - 1927), which of course is prior to the publication of "Call of Cthulhu" (Feb. 1928). Surprising that the editors at DMR did not catch this prior to publishing!

[freelance]

As late as August 1930, in a letter to Lovecraft, REH confessed of his "not being aware at the time of any legendary character named Cthulhu". The Barbaric Triumph by Don Herron p. 167

[bobbyderie]

REH wrote a letter to the Eyrie praising "The Call of Cthulhu," it was published in the May 1928 issue.

The August 1930 letter to H. P. Lovecraft is asking about the origin of the Cthulhu Mythos:

But the questions. I have noted in your stories you refer to Cthulu, Yog Sothoth, R’lyeh, Yuggoth etc. Adolph de Castro, I note, mentions these gods, places, or whatever they are, only the spelling is different, as Cthulutl, Yog Sototl. Both you and he, I believe, have used the phrase fhtaghn. A writer in the Eyrie, a Mr. O’Neail, I believe, wondered if I did not use some myth regarding this Cthulhu in “Skull Face”. The name Kathulos might suggest that, but in reality, I merely manufactured the name at random, not being aware at the time of any legendary character named Cthulhu—if indeed there is.

Would it be asking too much to ask you to tell me the significance of the above mentioned names or terms? And the Arab Alhazred, and the Necronomicon. The mention of these things in your superb stories have whetted my interest immensely. I would extremely appreciate any information you would give me regarding them.

So yes, you can still argue that Murphy was ascribing undue influence to Lovecraft, but the August 1930 letter is not the evidence you're looking for.

[freelance]

Hi Bobby! Thanks for posting. It is clear from the chronology alone that Murphy's claim doesn't stand. I just thought it interesting that REH, over a year after he was supposedly influenced by HPL, was largely ignorant of the mythos, as evidenced by the letter.