Talk:Clive Barker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 2005[edit]

Move Razorline?

The comics section has a lot of interesting, pertinent background not readily found elsewhere. But should it be condensed and most of this information placed in a separate Razorline entry? There is precedent for this with other Marvel Comics imprints such as Epic, MAX and 2099. Thoughts?

Writing Career[edit]

re: When the Books of Blood were first published in the United States in paperback, Stephen King was quoted on the book covers: "I have seen the future of horror, his name is Clive Barker."[citation needed]

I have a copy of the Books of Blood (and The Inhuman Condition) where Stephen King's quote appears on the cover. So that "citation needed" can be removed, is it possible for me to provide a scan or picture? 24.207.152.255 (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)bubthezombie6@achoo.com; er yahoo.com[reply]


Cabal error?[edit]

I think there's an error concerning "Cabal". It says the novella Cabal came out in 85, but it was actually 88. Book of Blood vol.6 came out in 85, but without Cabal attached to it. When Cabal was released in 88, it had WITH it all of the rest of vol.6... but Cabal itself wasn't published until 88.

Links Clive`s Barker`s films[edit]

Should link on Salome in "Films Directed by Clive Barker" lead on actual Salome page? And link for Tortured Souls: Animae Damnatae lead on it`s novellete page?

Photo[edit]

Really, this article needs a pic of Mr. Barker. Willerror 01:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undying?[edit]

Shouldn't Clive Barker's Undying be listed? Or did the game have little to do with his work and simply carried his name?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Barker's_Undying

Jericho?[edit]

Why was the information regarding Barker's latest game project, Jericho removed?


Schools?[edit]

He brags of going to the same schools as John Lennon? How strange. There is a 12 year age difference, so he obviously went to these schools well after Lennon had left. Interesting to note that, like Lennon, he has affected an American accent. Guv2006 13:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is???? these discussions are meant for discussing changes to content, not a commentary. If someone interesting, cool, and that influential went to your school, you'd take pride in having gone to that school. And he doesn't really brag about it. Snakesamongus 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abarat?[edit]

Is this a quartet or a quintet? It is called both under the Novels section.

-it was intended as a quartet, but recently he organized his notes and discovered, there's more he needs to cover than he originally thought, so he's changing it to a quintet. it says about it soemwehere on revelations. Snakesamongus 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its been agreed that the series will just be called abarat UKbandit 14:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Barker's Real Sexuality[edit]

I can't find the source, so I realize that this cannot go in, but I feel like I should say it anyway. Clive Barker once said that he is actually bisexual, but calls himself a homosexual writer because far more people are understanding of homosexuals than bisexuals.

Hardly the philosophy of a man on the side of the monsters, is it? However, in reference to the Personal Life section, don't you think it's a bit thin? Why doesn't it mention David Armstrong and their adopted children?
Nuttyskin (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I found this on Clive's website is this what you wrote about?

"I define myself as a gay man who's had relationships with women. And considers women as a central part of who I am as a being, my relationships with women are very important to me. And my sexual relationships with women, in the past, have been very important to me. It's not now how I define myself. I think the terminology is kind of a worthlessness... "I think you can be physically homosexual and spiritually bisexual. I am completely devoted to women in my life, there are certain women who I am completely devoted to. Would I sleep with them now? No. Might I sleep with them in the future? Possibly. Have I slept with someone in the past? Yes. In other words, we live in a culture which is concerned with pigeon-holing, specialization, 'give me your description in three words', who are you in three words or less... well, I'm not three words and neither are you. And so much of that is living in a sound-byte culture. I've been on the road now, for five weeks, doing chat shows, tv shows, stuff between the cookery and the mother-daughter-make-over segment, getting three minutes to talk about AIDS, the environment, and my new novel which is only fourteen months of my life. And, so, we have that thing, constantly, about getting the information in the short tight little time now. I did "Good Morning America" and somebody says: 'You have a gay hero.' I am bound, by political reasons much than anything else, say, well, I'm a gay author. And, I'm very happy to be identified that way. Proud to be identified that way. Is it a simplification? Yes. Is it a politically useful simplification right now? I suspect it is. I suspect it's important to say that right now. Not because I have a boyfriend and he'd be really pissed off if I didn't... but, I also think it's important to say, get over it. "When the character in Imajica finds, who is very much identified as a heterosexual character in the beginning, that 'normal' passionate heterosexual finds himself increasingly drawn into the physical and spiritual embrace of a creature which is neither male or female, which defies his definition of gender. I feel that's a pretty cool place to be. I think he would be a pretty cool person to be in a relationship with." Interview By Amber Black and Tim Trautmann, Review(?), 1996 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.240.191 (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure[edit]

This article is chaotic. The introduction contains random stuff, the Movies section should be much further down. There should be a separate biographical section earlier.

ChKa 18:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New catagory Clive Barker Characters[edit]

I have created a new category, Category Clive Barker characters. many other authors have a character category, so why not clive?! hopefully i have not missed any, but if i have please add them in. I was not sure whether the cenobites artivle should be categorised as such, but i have done each of the cenobites as individual characters UKbandit 14:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

What is the correct pronunciation of his name? (me and some other latin-language speakers tend to say "clEEve", I would like to be sure that this is in fact totally wrong...) -- NIC1138 (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It rhymes with "alive" and "strive". The "i" sound is the same as in "eye", "lie", or "try".

Hope that helps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.92.7 (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His first name actually comes from the surname of a well-known British Empire figure, Robert Clive, 1st Baron Clive.
Nuttyskin (talk)

His belief in a god..[edit]

I watched the video twice and he does not quite say he has a belief in a loving god as stated on the page 

"Barker has stated his belief in a loving God.[3]"

While he says he does believe in something bigger than humans he doesn't claim nor say "God" (the assumed god people believe in these days). In fact, he jokes and says "there has got to be something better than 'our president'"....

Please notice the captialized G as I would be referring to any/all modern gods worshiped... IMO, he doesn't refer to any modern god.

This should be changed to reflect his belief. To say he believes in "God" is to say he's christian, that which he is not (unless he's admitted to being christian)...

Am I wrong or should I watch it a 3rd time? Ateo (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To believe in "God" makes you a Christian? I'll pass that on to my Rabbi.

Here's a collection of his comments on spirituality and religion, found of his official website: http://www.clivebarker.info/religion.html It seems that Barker does believe in both God and the Bible. It seems to me that he's a Christian, just not a traditional one.Ash Loomis (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think one can see a Christian influnce in his work, but in hellraiser I ponder if was rasie a catholic or went to catholic school.(Danny Boy 20:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)) Oh looking forward to hycrites that tell me it wrong for to write questions in talk, but other all around me. I will not stop until do the same to others. I do not mean to be rude to by bying rat. It just i am tired of being the one harrsh by these so called writers among us. (Danny Boy 20:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC))

On that site I gave a link to earlier, he mentions that he goes to Church for weddings, funerals, and Baptisms which implies that his family probably has Catholic roots. However, in a book I've read (I'm sorry to say I can't recall which one,) he says that his parents never really raised him with any religion, and that he read the Bible on his own when he felt that he needed to. All the weird kinky stuff in his ficition also doesn't seem like the work of a Catholic. Since he came to religion on his own terms, I think it would be best just calling him a non-traditionalist Chistian. Ash Loomis (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the edit by Ash Loomis and the reductive statement which makes Barker sound like a Christian. He has given exact quotes that are opposite to that (e.g. my edit you deleted). The linked reference page has dozens of long excerpts on religion, taken over the course of a 20 year career. If you read Barker's authorized biography, it's crystal clear he is not a Christian in the traditional sense, and he is no more influenced by the Bible than any other English writer of the supernatural. If you have a specific source, please quote it or revert the edit. Bregence (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything he says in each of those quotes is consistant with what he says in the other quotes. He is a man of faith (he specifically says he believes in God multiple times,) however he is very critical of organized religion. Your edit only quoted part of what Barker said, the full quote is
I consider myself a man of faith but the conventional Christian structures of belief - which value a male and judgmental god above a more protean vision of the divine, is for me, too simple, too crude, and frankly, too suspiciously like a notion whipped up by a male priest-class obsessed with keeping itself in power. So...I critique the God of Israel at the same time as conceding His extraordinary power over our imaginations.
In the Confessions quote he says:
The distinction I make between the message-carriers and the message itself is very strong. Priests don't come out very well in my books, but the underlying mythologies - the idea of redemption, the idea of having someone to die in order to save, the idea of non- judgmental love and so on - are themes that come up over and over again in my work. But I don't write cynically about the message. I write cynically about the agents.
I'm a believer in the sense that I take the Bible as something which is available for very private interpretation, and that interpretation may not sit well with conventional interpretations. The material is there for investigation and investigation on an intimate level. Its lessons, its wisdom, its serenity, its good sense, its absurdities and malice - it's very malicious at times - are all part of what makes it remarkable. So I suppose my reading of it means I've ended up as a strange kind of believer.
There many other quotes in that section where Barker makes his belief in God clear and critiques organized religion, you can read through it yourself. The article currently reads "While Barker is critical of organized religion, he has stated that he is a believer in both God and the Bible, and that the Christian message influences his work." I think that's an accurate summary of what he's said. Ash Loomis (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barker has never said anywhere he is a Christian. You are distilling thousands of words from a selection of old and new quotes into an overly broad statement that Barker himself never made. Just to focus on the sentences you listed, how does an interpretation of the Bible that he states "may not sit well with conventional interpretations" match the statement that "he is a believer in both God and the Bible" without any disqualifiers? His biography is more recent (2002) than most of those quotes and it never states what you are claiming. In the absence of evidence, either quote the man directly or stay silent on the matter rather than just making something up that is unsupported by the facts. Bregence (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He says he's a Christian flat-out in the 10th episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. This was broadcast on April 25, 2003, which is even more recent than his biography. Here's a YouTube link to where he says it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSYSR0Y_VSI Is this good enough for you, or do I have to find a quote where Barker claims to be a Roman Catholic nun? And just for the record, I'm sure that the Jehovah's Witness interpreatation of the Bible also "may not sit well with conventional interpretations." But the Jehovah's Witnesses are still Christians.

Ash Loomis (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the Jehovah's Witnesses are still Christians
I think that's a matter of opinion. Like saying ISKCON are still Hindus.
Nuttyskin (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace Jehovah's Witnesses with whatever denominations you consider to be legit then, the point still stands. Ash Loomis (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam-Webster defines a Christian as "one who professes belief in the teachings of Christ" or better yet, a "disciple" of those teachings - not "one who fits the image or practices people think all Christians should be defined by". JWs, Latter-Day Saints, non-denominational Christians and others would fit into that definition. Whether Barker does, I can't say - the video is gone and I haven't found anything in print saying he is Christian or a "disciple" of Christ (he may be, but I haven't found documentation.) He is certainly a theist, and if a published statement or replacement video can be found, it should be added to the article prior to the addition of Christian categories. LovelyLillith (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sighes* Alright, bad analogy, sorry. Anyway, I've cited the episode, so I'm done discussing this now. As much as I hate to encourage this, anyone who has not seen the episode can easily find it in a torrent or online somewhere on their own.Ash Loomis (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an encyclopedia entry I don't think it's relevant or necessary to have to pin down Clive Barker's religious beliefs. The fact that there is debate over the issue suggests to me that it is a subject that he has offered a clear and unambiguous comment on. He does however talk a lot about the themes and influences in his writing. Calindreams (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. But at the same time, if he clearly stated it, then I think it's best to add. 74.5.111.155 (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would conjecture that Barker isn't so much discussing his personal religious beliefs as his cultural background. I'm reminded of the joke about a man who is washed up on a beach who doesn't know what country he is in or what kind of culture they have. Suddenly he sees two men putting up a gallows, and falls to his knees, shouting, "Thank God, a Christian country!"
Nuttyskin (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third Book of the Art[edit]

Unless someone's got a reference for this, it should not be in the bibliography. As far as I can tell, so far it hasn't even been written yet. 70.107.0.34 (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scarlet Gospels[edit]

This forthcoming novel is listed in the article as having a publication date of 2008. However, in a recent interview (April 2008), he says it won't be out for 3 or 4 years. Perhaps create a Future Works section, and move this item there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.35.193 (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Quotes About...?"[edit]

What relevance do these biased quotes have? No matter who said them, they are OPINIONS, one and all. They're also laughably one-sided, every one of them slobbering with praise for Clive Barker's work. If mere opinions are to be included in Wikipedia entries now, then let's at least be fair and unbiased about it: I'll go find an equal number of negative reviews to balance it out. Otherwise, this whole section should be removed. FireHorse (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The only value I see in this section would be a discussion of how the Stephen King quote helped out his career.Pdarley (talk)

Move paragraph to different section?[edit]

The paragraph that begins "I want to be remembered as an imaginer ..." appears under the "Personal Life" section. Perhaps this belongs in some other section? To my thinking, it's not really about his personal life -- certainly, the paragraph doesn't flow naturally from the preceding paragraph (about his sex life).

I also find it somewhat intrustive for the sex paragraph to appear so early in the article. I'm not against the sex paragraph, but it seems to make the article emphasize sex at the expense of art. Personally, I'd rather that the "Writing Career", "Film" and other art-related sections comes first, then the personal life.

I'm not very familiar with the man or his work, so I'll leave revisions to someone else.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very funny. We've all seen "Darkplace".[edit]

I'm removing "Dreamweaver" and "Visionary" from listed occupations. This isn't ED. 67.142.174.27 (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC) predcon[reply]

Erotica[edit]

This author is categorized in a number of erotica categories, but there's no mention of erotica in the article's body. Per WP:BLPCAT, categories must be supported by the article text and reliable sources. Without such support, the categories could be considered contentious and should be removed. Pburka (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emilian David Armstrong[edit]

Clearly it would be better to have a more suitable source: http://www.tmz.com/2012/12/28/clive-barker-hiv-aids-lawsuit-dismissed-ex-boyfriend/ But it is a relevant story... =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Influences/influenced[edit]

{{Infobox writer}} no longer supports the fields influences and influenced. Its template documentation now instructs (twice): "No longer supported. Please move cited/citable instances into prose."

Here are the current parameter values (cut and paste except bullet points):

See Talk: Ray Bradbury#Influences/influenced for some more explanation with cross-references.

--P64 (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Barker at WorldCat[edit]

WorldCat uses the LCCN id from Library of Congress Authorities but there is some mixup in its use here.

n85374880

Those are the records for our Clive Barker.

nb90140785

LC delivers the record for Clive Baker with note "Invalid LCCN" (and valid LCCN in line one).

The latter WorldCat page is the one we have previously provided in External links (it remains but I added the first pair). This page delivers more data for our Clive Barker, perhaps mixed with other stuff. Can anyone discern whether all of the WorldCat data is for our Clive Barker, or there is some other stuff (maybe, maybe not for Clive Baker, 1941)?

--P64 (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous link was broken and had a redirect to the wrong person, so for now I just put in a link to search results on WorldCat to all items related to the correct person. If the site ever gets things sorted, feel free to put in a better link. LovelyLillith (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Clive Barker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Clive Barker/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs more references, and it needs organization. The info is all over the place.--Wizardman 14:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 14:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clive Barker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Critical studies of Clive Barker's work"?[edit]

I must say I've never seen a section like this. What's the reasoning for them being there? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Collections" vs "Books of Blood"[edit]

In the U.S. , "In The Flesh" & "The Inhuman Condition" were released as paperbacks , but , they are merely variations of the "Books of Blood" ( Even their hyperlinks go to the appropriate "Books of Blood". ). So , I guess the question is , do "In The Flesh" & "The Inhuman Condition" need their own mention? Or perhaps something like: "In The Flesh" ( U.S. version of "Books of Blood Vol.IV" ) ? Admittedly , the cover art to the U.S. releases is unique , but , the hyperlink(s) don't go to separate entries , where you could display them. 75.104.163.77 (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Born" in preproduction for 13 years?[edit]

The filmography mentions a movie TBA called Born. The first mention of this was added without citation or explanation in 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clive_Barker&oldid=232392049. It's just been sitting there in the TBA pile ever since. I'm removing it now, but feel free to re-add it if sources can be provided demonstrating that this movie really is still in development (if it ever was.) Cryptarch (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clive_Barker&oldid=1194717056"