craft ▁and ▁August ▁Der le th ", ▁with ▁Der le th ▁calling ▁himself ▁a ▁" post hum ous ▁collabor ator ." ▁This ▁practice ▁has ▁raised ▁ob jections ▁in ▁some ▁qu arters ▁that ▁Der le th ▁simply ▁used ▁Love craft ' s ▁name ▁to ▁market ▁what ▁was ▁essentially ▁his ▁own ▁fiction ; ▁S . ▁T . ▁Jos hi ▁refers ▁to ▁the ▁" post hum ous ▁collabor ations " ▁as ▁mark ing ▁the ▁beginning ▁of ▁" per haps ▁the ▁most ▁dis re put able ▁phase ▁of ▁Der le th ' s ▁activities ". ▁ ▁A ▁significant ▁number ▁of ▁H . ▁P . ▁Love craft ▁fans ▁and ▁critics , ▁such ▁as ▁D irk ▁W . ▁Mos ig , ▁S . ▁T . ▁Jos hi , ▁and ▁Richard ▁L . ▁Tier ney ▁were ▁diss atisf ied ▁with ▁Der le th ' s ▁in vention ▁of ▁the ▁term ▁C th ul hu ▁M yth os ▁( L ove craft ▁himself ▁used ▁Y og - S oth oth ery ) ▁and ▁his ▁presentation ▁of ▁Love craft ' s ▁fiction ▁as ▁having ▁an ▁overall ▁pattern ▁reflect ing ▁Der le th ' s ▁own ▁Christian ▁world ▁view , ▁which ▁they ▁contrast ▁with ▁Love craft ' s ▁dep iction ▁of ▁an ▁am oral ▁universe . ▁However ▁Robert ▁M . ▁Price ▁points ▁out ▁that ▁while ▁Der le th ' s ▁tales ▁are ▁distinct ▁from ▁Love craft ' s ▁in ▁their ▁use ▁of ▁hope ▁and ▁his ▁dep iction ▁of ▁a ▁struggle ▁between ▁good ▁and ▁evil , ▁never theless ▁the ▁basis ▁of ▁Der ler th