Talk:H. P. Lovecraft/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Gravesite

I once read in this article - it seems to have since been removed - that Lovecraft's gravesite marker is commonly defaced with the words 'That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons even death may die'. Does anyone have any more information about this? I always found it the best part of this article, and really, really fitting. Hewhorulestheworld (talk)

New Lovecraft Documentary

I was recently on you tube which showed a few trailers for a new Lovecraft documentary: "Lovecraft: Fear of the Unknown", a 'Wyrd' documentary. The trailers featured notable participants such as Ramsey Campbell, Peter Straub and Neil Gaiman. Does anybody know any more about this programme, and when it comes out? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Eam91 21:45, 5 November, 07. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eam91 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

NEW PICTURE IS TERRIBLE

Who is responisibe for that odious new picture of Lovecraft? GET THE OLD ONE BACK ON!! EAM91 20:00 (GMT) June 20th, 2007.

He's just not a great looking person. --NEMT 18:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it was killed by Wikimedia Commons themselves because whomever uploaded it never included the Source (see this article's history for edit notes). If you can find a better one that is in the public domain, or is otherwise free to use, please feel free to fix it. However, don't forget to list sources or it will end up deleted like the last one.--MonkeyTimeBoy 18:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks exactly as I imagined him to look, given the subject of his work. The stark white background and the black frame. It seems perfectly appropriate. -Ashley Pomeroy 17:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the Weekly World News's 'Batboy' is based on this picture. (my apologies if I'm not editing this correctly)24.84.112.64 (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

With the right angle, lighting and a right hat, he can look a lot like Sherlock Holmes.Zubbus (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Lovecraft's forbidden knowledge and its possible ΰβρις connections

Ok, I acknowledge that it was a bit hasty on my part to connect H.P.'s characters with the concept of ΰβρις with no source at hand to sustain it, but I guess some other asserts in this article are essentialy factual, lacking a minimum of critical references about Lovecraft stories. I'am basically pointing out to the Themes section. DagosNavy 11:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that there is way too much original research in this article--particularly in the Themes section. It's true that your point about hubris is not any more OR than a lot of other stuff already in there--but I'm hoping to keep the article from becoming more unsourced. Nareek 12:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Gothic Horror

Just wondering whether we should assign Lovecraft to the genre of Gothic fiction. If we add up the supposedly unique Lovecraftian blend of Horror+Fantasy+Science Fiction doesn't that add up to 'Gothic Horror'? He was certainly very well read on the subject as his book 'Supernatural Horror in Literature' proves.Colin4C 19:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Gothic horror was the kind of horror that Lovecraft was reacting against, trying to replace the stock supernatural props (ghosts, vampires, werewolves) with more modern terrors. Judging from "Supernatural Horror in Literature", at any rate, Lovecraft saw the Gothic as something other than what he was doing. I see that Lovecraft is mentioned in passing in the Gothic fiction article but his inclusion there seems poorly justified. Nareek 22:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the trouble is that most Lovecraft fanatics have never read much of the older Gothic fiction and vice versa. The science-fiction element in Gothic Horror was present from the time of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1819), it was not an invention of Lovecraft, and the resemblances between Lovecraft and Poe (another who mixed science-fiction with horror) are enormous. I am not convinced by perennial claims that every new horror trend on the block has outmoded the Gothic. Gothic has been proclaimed dead and outmoded so many times (starting circa 1800) but everytime fails to lie down in the grave. Also I have seen Lovecraft stories included in anthologies of Gothic fiction, such as 'The Oxford Book of Gothic Tales'. Colin4C 09:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No one, least of all Lovecraft, would deny that he was indebted to writers who came before, Poe in particular. But if everything is Gothic, then nothing is Gothic. Nareek 12:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not assert that everything is Gothic, rather that Lovecraft could be regarded as Gothic. As for ghosts, werewolves and vampires, and the supernatural they are not essential to the Gothic. In the classic Gothic work of Radcliffe, for instance, the seemingly supernatural elements are explained away at the end, in Sheridan Le Fanu's Uncle Silas there is nothing supernatural and there is nothing supernatural about Shelley's Frankenstein. And Lovecraft's terrors are anything but modern: the Yuggoth-Suggoth gang are very ancient (and evil) indeed, even older (and eviller) than Count Dracula. The classic Gothic scenario, which Lovecraft follows, concerns the revelation of ancient, evil, and often, unearthly forces - forces which sometimes beyond comprehension (i.e. the Sublime).

And David Punter, for one, in his standard book on the subject of Gothic, puts Lovecraft in that category. See his The Literature of Terror (1996) Vol 2 'The Modern Gothic', Chapter 2: 'Later American Gothic, Ambrose Bierce, Robert W. Chambers, H. P. Lovecraft. Punter asserts that Lovecraft's work, rather than being anything new, represents a reversion to an older tradition i.e. the Gothic. Lovecraft embodied that longing in his own life and opinions: he hated the modern world and hankered for the olde (Englishe) order. He was not a modernist Americanist cheerleader for Science and Progress and Democracy and Soap Powders which wash whiter- he was the very reverse.Colin4C 16:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I get the ghosts, vampires, etc. thing from the Wikipedia article on Gothic fiction:

Prominent features of gothic fiction include terror (both psychological and physical), mystery, the supernatural, ghosts, haunted houses and Gothic architecture, castles, darkness, death, decay, doubles, madness, secrets and hereditary curses.

The stock characters of gothic fiction include tyrants, villains, bandits, maniacs, Byronic heroes, persecuted maidens, femmes fatales, madwomen, magicians, vampires, werewolves, monsters, demons, revenants, ghosts, perambulating skeletons, the Wandering Jew and the Devil himself.

Lovecraft certainly saw himself as following a tradition in his writing, and so elements of Gothic fiction can definitely be found in his work. But is there any horror writer whom that would not be true of? That's what I mean by saying if everything is Gothic, nothing is Gothic--there's a danger of treating it as synonymous with horror fiction, which takes away the ability to talk about it as a separate and distinct stage in the evolution of fear-producing literature.

I have to say that the idea that there isn't "anything new" about Lovecraft's work is distinctly a minority critical opinion. From Carter's Lovecraft: A Look Behind the Cthulhu Mythos:

The secret of Lovecraft's successs, and perhaps that of his popularity as well, lies in innovation. Where Coppard, James, and many of the other perhaps more gifted macabre writers of the century were, in the main, content to rework the familiar themes of ghosts, werewolves, vampires, hauntings, and so on, Lovecraft struck boldly into fresh new paths.

Nareek 02:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Carter uses some interestingly optimistic Americanist advertising language in your critiques: 'innovation', 'fresh new paths'. I don't see what supposed newness and 'progress' has to do with literary value. Maybe the reverse is true, that by going backwards you arrive at something fundamental. For instance are modern writers 'better' than Shakespeare or Homer? I get the feeling from much Lovecraft 'criticism' that it is the products of the kind of cultism, particularly with regard to Cthulhu mythos, that you find with Tolkein's Middle Earth - i.e. that it is an extra-literary indulgent fantasy...Colin4C 10:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely originality has been cited as a literary virtue since the time of Aeschylus. I dare say even Gilgamesh was admired because it did things that had never been done before. Nareek 13:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely it's a bit unfair to pick possibly the two most major writers of Western literature from three thousand years of writing and demand that modern writers match up to them. I'm not sure if over the course of writing history, that Shakespeare is not a modern writer. Most of the authors who wrote Greco-Roman-style epics after Homer and Virgil have been forgotten. Most of the poets who wrote Victorian-style poetry after the start of the 20th century have been forgotten.--Prosfilaes 13:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Just had a look at the broadcasting schedules for UK radio and noticed a programme on at 9.30 tonight on Radio 3 called 'Weird Tales - the Strange Life of HP Lovecraft' presented by Geoff Ward, Professor of Literature at Dundee University. Might be worth tuning in for...Colin4C 10:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Lovecraft as a fictional character

There is the excellent Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture but what about Lovecraft himself as a fictional character? I have started a couple of entries along similar lines: Nikola Tesla in popular culture and Mark Twain in popular culture and have proposed others: Harry Houdini, Thomas Edison and Robert E. Howard. So with exmaples like Necronauts in mind I was wondering what people thought about H. P. Lovecraft in popular culture? (Emperor 20:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC))

Influenced by?

The article is lacking of information on who H.P. Lovecraft was influenced by. For instance, his influences from M.R. James? --Barberio 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Forerunner of "Cosmic Horror" is the Author named William Hope Hodgson. "The House on The Borderlands" is a among the first writings to be considered a "Cosmic Horror" novel. It is written in the form of a lost, but found manuscript and is a decade or two before Mr. H.P. Lovecraft. William Hope Hodgson hails from the UK and was a Merchant Marine before becoming an Author. It is in Jacket-Liner Notes in some editions speaking of William Hope Hodgson's influence on Lovecraft. If not "influenced by" it should at least be looked at in the section about "Related Persons". 24.245.118.236 (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Jeremy Yachimowski

I see it has been added (William Hope Hodgson). Thank you. 75.104.153.38 (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Jeremy Yachimowski

Adding a movie

Anyone saw the terrible movie "alone in the dark" featuring Christian Slater? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369226/ That movie is... sadly based on H.P Lovecraft story.

Anyone agree with me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nullentropy (talk • contribs) 14:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

The movie was based on the video game of the same name, which was based (somewhat loosely) on Lovecraft's work.

General cleanup

I'm going to go slowly through this article and start fixing some of the grammatical errors and comma overusage. I won't change the meaning of anything nor delete anything, just clarify. Some of the sentences are currently bordering on unreadable. Capeo 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've touched up the first four paragraphs of the bio section. Let me know if folks find this agreeable and I'll continue. Thanks Capeo 22:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I went through the entire bio section and cleaned up some of the GA concerns. I also added some detail. To me it would seem we could add more, as I think the article should be mostly biographical and explore the themes of his writing as they relate to him and maybe the section on the disputes over his estate. A problem I always see in these types of articles is the ever present "popular culture" sections. Since there are already articles about this and it's one of the more disorganized sections, excising it and leaving just a small paragraph and a redirect to the main "influence" article could go a long way to getting GA status. I won't make such sweeping changes without input though. Thoughts? Capeo 15:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Lovecraft in Popular Culture seems to repeat what is written in the Background of Lovecraft's work section. It needs to be cleaned it up. Azn Clayjar 20:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also regarding the Lovecraft in Popular culture under "Video Games" it lists the "Shin Megami Tensei" series as "heavily based on Lovecraft lore, especially the spin-off Persona".This is completely wrong.The series NEVER based it's story on any of the Lovecraft works.A handful (no more than five Cthulhu demons used,out of 500+ demons used in the series)appeared in all of SMT games.

Check the MegatenWiki:

http://www.popanime.net/megami/wiki/index.php?title=Demonic_Compendium

And the Persona series completely built it's story on Jungian Psychology.

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Heidijane 12:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

the Complete works website

Isn't the Complete works of H. P. Lovecraft website worth including as an external link, or even in the body of the article? Is it legal?

It is possible that the complete works of H. P. Lovecraft are in the public domain; the vast majority of them certainly are. However, I doubt that the creator of the website has dotted every i and crossed every t as to whether the versions he posted are in the public domain, as the originals are very hard to get a hold of and the edited versions available quite possibly have new copyrights. Whether we give the author the benefit of the doubt is a good question. It's also true that there are claimants to the copyright who have been known to get aggressive.--Prosfilaes 13:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of the copyrights question, are there any of Lovecraft's works that he published in his lifetime that will not be definitively in the public domain on January 1st 2008? Gabrielbodard 09:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What's special about January 1st 2008? If you want a definitive answer about copyrights, ask a lawyer, not Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes 12:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Not after a "definitive answer about copyrights", but the legality of a link from Wikipedia had been questioned. January 1st 2008 was the day on which all works by authors who died in 1938 came into the public domain, and so I assumed the works of HPL would be included. (It seems that the copyright on some of his works was owned by a publisher and won't come into the public domain until 2016, or at least so it has been argued.) This question is not irrelevant to the editing of the HPL article, and those interested in the article may have information/opinions on it. (Good luck finding a lawyer to give you a definitive answer to that question, by the way.) Gabrielbodard (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

But see, the reason it confused me is because works by HPL only left copyright on 1/1/2008 in a small part of the world. I, along with the majority of humanity, live in parts of the world where life+70 just isn't relevant. In the US, where these works originate, some of them are clearly in the public domain, some of them aren't (and generally won't be for a long time), and some of them are in question--and some of the last may depend on the text of contracts and agreements that no longer exist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Another problem: the text of a Lovecraft tale published in a 1920s in a pulp magazine, cut or paraphrased to fit space available, might be public domain due to copyright status; a restored text prepared by a scholar with access to Lovecraft's manuscript or notes might have a different copyright status. Naaman Brown (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Cosmic Pessimism

Where did this phrase come from? Can anyone tell me more about it? Thanks, friend. --'oac' (old american century) | Talk 04:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it was 'coined' due to Lovecraft's pessimism of the cosmos, which features prominatley in some of his fiction. Who originally thought of this appropriate phrase, I don't know. Perhaps Lovecraft himself thought it up, one of his correspondants, or a Lovecraft scholar (ST Joshi, for instance). Or perhaps the phrase was applied to somebody else before Lovecraft - another author or astronomer, for example. - Eam91 12:35 (GMT) 11 April 2007.

I'm not entirely certain where the term comes from, but it seems unlikely to me that Lovecraft himself used it to describe himself. He was a cosmic indifferentist, if anything: the universe cares nothing either way about humanity. That doesn't sound like pessimism; pessimism would be that the universe is deliberately violent towards mankind (and cosmic optimism would, likewise, be that the universe is inclined to make things work out in our favour). Ours18 22:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

One thing I found particularly disturbing is his vision of a future where technology advances but evil & chaos rule. We usually think of technology freeing us from tyranny of natural forces so we can live in a well-fed democratic society devoted to improving the human condition, exploring space, etc. In the visions of post-nuclear holocaust, we imagine that if chaos advances, it would deprive us of our technological gains. We also imagine that a crazed mind would be unable to maintain any level of creativity, that it would burn out, or be defeated by ultimately superior technology of a "good" society, or somehow be destroyed by its own creations. Lovecraft, on the other hand, conjures up images of a future of tall buildings pointed toward the sky in crazy angles, with priests performing profane rituals. So society advances in some technological way yet is ruled by madness at the same time. Carl Ponder (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Reception

I might have missed something in the archive, but I think paragraph two ("Lovecraft's readership was limited during his life...") is out of place. I think it should be dropped down into the body of the article or, at least, below paragraph three. Paragraph three is why anyone would want to read an article about HPL - not the fact that he wasn't widely read or renowned during his lifetime, etc. Jordansc 03:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Influenced in infobox

I removed the influenced in the infobox but was reverted. The way it looks now it is too big and unpractical. It actually should only mention a few really obvious cases, but the problem with putting things in an infobox instead of prose in the article, is that people keep adding their favourite authors to it. In February there were 10 people on the list, now there are 21. Wouldn't it be more practical to have a separate (sourced) section instead of this list? Also, per the comment, I want people to read this article, not only casually glance at a stupid (IMO) infobox. :) Garion96 (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And now there are 22. I removed it again. Another reason why this should go is that you can't source practically in an infobox. All those influenced people do need a source. Garion96 (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. If we could work out consensus on a few major entries of each type, that would be fine, but long lists of individual names are only going to clutter the infobox, which would seem to defeat its purpose. As "Supernatural Horror in Literature" suggests, Lovecraft had a great knowledge of previous writers, all of whom might be influences; and he has probably influenced most major writers of horror in the past fifty years. But these can't all be listed in an infobox. I welcome discussion of what, if anything, to put there. Brendan Moody 23:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the "Influence" section in the article covers enough. They just need to be sourced, which most of them presently are not. Ours18 22:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Relations with occultists

Did Lovecraft know of Aleister Crowley and other occultists? Did he meet with them, or did he have no interest in such matters in reality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeZ9Alt (talk • contribs)

I don't think so. Everything I've read says he didn't believe in the occult at all. It's part of why he wrote the way he did, since he looked at such things rather clinically. His circle of friends consisted primarily of other horror and sf writers. People like Clark Ashton Smith, Robert E. Howard, Robert Bloch, to name but a few. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ebyabe (talk • contribs) 20:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

According to The Necronomicon Files by Daniel Harms & John Wisdom Gonce III Lovecraft did do some research on the occult, largely by writing to Clark Asthon Smith and asking him for pointers; apparently mention of books he used for study can be found in his letters. But he remained an atheist and a materialist for his entire life. The book also quotes a letter from Lovecraft to Emil Petaja that mentions Crowley, somewhat disparagingly:

"In the 1890s the fashionable Decadents liked to pretend that they belonged to all sorts of diabolic black mass cults & possessed all sorts of frightful occult information. The only specimen of this group still active is the rather over-advertised Aleister Crowley... who, by the way, is undoubtably the original of the villainous character in H.R. Wakefield's 'He Cometh and He Passes By'."

So Lovecraft definitely knew of Crowley, but the odds of them meeting are very slim. He knew about the occult, but only utilised it for his fiction and was never a believer.Pearce.duncan (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Lovecraft was Harry Houdini's ghost writer for awhile and, at the time of Houdini's death, was working on a book for Houdini entitled "The Cancer of Superstition" (first rough chapters and notes published the the Arkham House collection "The Dark Brotherhood"): the work was pretty much anti-occultism, and reflects opinions expressed by Lovecraft in his letters. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Link to Novel

Apparently, I went about this the wrong way previously, and just added a link. My apologies, especially since it was regarded as spam. Nick Mamatas' 2004 novel, Move Under Ground, was released under a Creative Commons online a few months ago, and a link to that novel would be valuable here, I think. It's been very well received, translated into a few languages, now, and Mamatas is notable enough to have his own article, as does the novel. More to the point, the novel's a pastiche of H.P. Lovecraft and Jack Kerouac, with other Beat Generation notables as primary characters.

http://www.moveunderground.org is the link, but a link to the internal article would suffice, I'd think. (The CC version of the novel is already linked there.) Geotaylor 14:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please help me!

I am trying to find a comprehensive photo gallery of Lovecraft, and I can't find one anywhere! I looked on the H.P. Lovecraft Archive website, and on the home page, under the sub-title 'His Life', it reads: "provides information on Lovecraft's life, family, correspondents, interest and a PHOTO GALLERY", and yet, upon inspection, there is no Photo Gallery to be found! Does anybody know of a photo gallery of Lovecraft? I have tried typing his name into google, but It does not show all of the photographs taken of him. Please direct me to a photo gallery. Thank you. EAM91 21:38 (GMT) 21st May 2007.

Public domain!

As of January 1, 2008 all of H. P. Lovecraft's works will enter the public domain! bd2412 T 17:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not in the US. H. P. Lovecraft#Intellectual_property talks about why some of it has fallen into the public domain in the US, and why most of it may have. For what's left (and for more certainty), US copyright law is based on publishing date for works published before 1978, and anything still under copyright in the US will leave copyright 95 years from publishing.--Prosfilaes 18:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Lovecraft Comics

There's actually a Vertigo graphic novel titled "Lovecraft", written by Hans Rodionoff; adapted by Keith Giffen; art and Cover by Enrique Breccia (http://www.dccomics.com/graphic_novels/?gn=1635) which, in a rather Lovecraftian nature, tells the tale of H.P's twisted life. in a way.

ade 80.179.37.23 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Complete Edition?

Hello Experts!
I was searching for a complete edition of H. P. Lovecrafts work, but only found a german one, which is still not complete, afaik. Maybe one of you could tell me if there is one, and where I could find it.
Thank you in advance,
CT --84.191.66.65 15:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts... Please feel free to voice your opinion.

I know this may seem a little out of place, but hear me out. For those whose interest goes beyond mere fandom, you will inevitably hear much about the formidable S.T. Joshi: Lovecraftian pioneer extraordinaire. For example, on the Lovecraft page S.T. Joshi is listed 22 times and is called a “prominent scholar.” I don't want to just flame this guy or change the page just yet, but I would like to raise a voice of concern about Joshi being called a "scholar” of Lovecraft—which is dubious at best. Here’s my thesis: by still claiming (and including in the article) that Joshi is the foremost scholar of Lovecraft, or whatever it is he is referred to these as these days, it does a disservice to current Lovecraft research which has moved far beyond Joshi and his book-review style criticism. In a nutshell, I would argue that this article about Lovecraft would be more accurate if the word “scholar” is removed from before Joshi’s name. I know it’s just semantics but here’s my logic.

1) Joshi does not have a PhD and is not a professor.

Not that this necessarily precludes him from the world we call “scholarship” but the entry for “scholar” (which redirects to Academia in Wikipedia) says without hesitation:

“An academic is a person who works as a researcher (and usually teacher) at a university or similar institution in post-secondary (or tertiary) education. He or she is nearly always an advanced degree holder who does research. In the United States, the term academic is approximately synonymous with that of the job title professor.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholar)

Wikipedia really needs to get over itself. A teaching assistant or and instructor can also be considered an academic. Guess what? Most professors don't do research. Too much Asperger's up in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.252 (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Whereas Joshi in his autobiography does not meet the above requirements.

"I had graduated from Brown University in 1980 (in the department of classics) and had gained a master's degree from Brown in 1982. I was accepted for a Ph.D. program at Princeton University, where I received the Paul Elmer More fellowship in classical philosophy, but left after two years there; I had come to believe that the academic arena was not where I belonged." (http://www.necropress.com/stjoshi/biography.html)

According to the definition above of academic this would also preclude him as a “scholar.”

THIS IS LUDICROUS! Excuse me, but that definition is for academic, not for "scholar." Just because the Wikipedia entry redirects to a page about "Academia" doesn't make "scholar" synonymous with "academic." Many a scholar has established his/her scholarly credentials without (or prior to) obtaining an academic post. One has to (ideally) be a scholar to become an academic in the first place! There's nothing wrong with your "just semantics", but really, that's a sleazy move, simply transferring the definition of one word to an entirely different one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.62.47 (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

3) The nature of his writing.

This one is a little bit sticky as I am not worried about this issue enough to take the time to cite my sources. If anyone has actually sat down and read any of Joshi’s writing you will rapidly notice that most of it is deeply concerned with establishing a hierarchy of “good” and “bad.” He routinely judges stories or authors as “inferior” and spends great amounts of energy informing his reader which text is “best.” Last time I presented at an academic conference these are all strictly verboten and get you, at best, utterly shunned as a hack. Now I don’t want to try and undermine Joshi’s work—what he has done for Lovecraft, the genre, and it’s criticism is highly commendable—but I think enough dissertations have been written about Lovecraft that we need to, at the very least, reevaluate this new god of the Weird Tale. What does this mean? Well let’s look at is this way:

Is Joshi’s work still important and relevant. Certainly. Is Joshi a tremendous fan of the genre? Of course. Is Joshi a remarkably well informed and articulate historian? Absolutely. Does Joshi spend a lot of time “reviewing” texts and authors like it was for a book club? You bet. So is he a “scholar” in the way that modern English uses the word? Not really. Should we call any fan or book reviewer a scholar if they know their history and philosophy? I don't think so.

As much as we may like them, articulate fans and biographers are not scholars and play by different sets of rules than those within the academic community. Precision demands that the word "scholar" be removed from before Joshi's name in this article as his qualifications and style of writing do not fit the denotation or connotation of the word.

Academic and scholar don't mean the same thing. Wordnet (from dict.org) gives us this definition for a scholar: a learned person (especially in the humanities); someone who by long study has gained mastery in one or more disciplines [syn: scholarly person, student]. I have no clue what you mean by academics don't consider good and bad; I just read through a bibliography of English translations of Dante, which, just like the one of Beowulf before it, took the time to criticize quite a few translations as worthless. The Poems of Philip Freneau, edited by Fred Lewis Pattee of Pennsylvania State College, gives a list of poems not included in this edition at the end and dismisses them as without poetic or historical interest. Many scholars spend a great deal of time establishing which text best reflects the intent of the author; that's what a critical edition is. Even if he doesn't follow the trends of current academia, that does not discredit him as a scholar.

To me, Joshi has done the prototypical act of a scholar when he wrote the bibliography of Lovecraft. It's a tedious act of knowledge collection, only recognized by scholars. That almost alone would earn him the title of scholar.--Prosfilaes 08:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to Wikipedia to determine what a scholar is or is not. We are supposed to reflect the general consensus. Joshi is almost always referred to as a "Lovecraft scholar." Google "S.T. Joshi" and "scholar" and you will come up with tons of references. Here's a few:

http://alangullette.com/lit/hpl/

http://www.amazon.ca/Annotated-H-P-Lovecraft-H-P/dp/0613226771

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/j/s-t-joshi/annotated-supernatural-horror-in-literature.htm

http://www.necropress.com/index.cgi?product=onhl&cart_id=526592.8579

And on and on and on. Designating him a scholar is common practice. It is not even remotely controversial. If you can find any reputable reference that suggests that he should not be called a scholar, then the dispute might be worth mentioning in the S.T. Joshi article. Otherwise, questioning his status as a scholar is original research, and has no place in Wikipedia.NoahB 11:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Reading the (unsigned) post above once more, I am more convinced than ever that this is original research. Your arguments are interesting, and I'd urge you to try to get them published in some other publication. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal or a newspaper. It isn't designed to be a forum for original, controversial theses. See "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research" NoahB 11:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"Anther me theethe queshthions three." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is Robert C. Hall ?

Robert C. Hall is described as "Administrator of the Literary Estate of Howard P. Lovecraft" in the 2000 edition of "Tales of H.P. Lovecraft" Selected by J.C. Oates (originally published by Ecco in 1997). Who on earth is this person? I can't find any information on him. Other's who've tried writing Oates for info on him haven't gotten anywhere. If he's not related in anyway to Arkham House then it suggests that the stories contained in this volume may all be in the public domain, as there is no notice of copyright claim by Arkham house or Derleth. Anyone? FourtySixNtwo 18:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Robert C. Harrall is the great-grandson of Lovecraft's second cousin Ethel Phillips Morrish. IIRC (and I might be wrong, let's be clear on that), he's a lawyer specialising in intellectual property.62.88.198.50 12:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I corresponded briefly with relative & remaining family descendant Robert C. Harrall regarding the Lovecraft copyright issues while writing a screenplay. If I remember correctly he is a retired Judge. (My memory could be mistaken about that as well...) [[User: 208.74.107.254 (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)MBD208.74.107.254 (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC) ]] 10:14, PM May 08 2009(UTC)

Adaptations section

The Adaptations section is getting rather long, and many of the items listed are Lovecraft/Cthulhu-inspired works or merely allude to Lovecraft rather than adapting works by Lovecraft himself. (This is particularly true of the sections on music and video games.) If no one objects, I will be removing some of the more tenuous items. They could probably be added to Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture or Lovecraftian horror if people like. Brendan Moody 22:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done those removals. Brendan Moody 20:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Imbalance

This article has 1287 words of biography and 1365 words about racism. In an article about someone who came to attention for his literary fantasies rather than his social opinions, is this good balance? Does wikipedia have any guidelines about length or proportion? Hodgson —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:30, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

I should add that I am looking for a justification of the ratio between the discussion of his literary career that of his racial views--not requesting that the section on race be cut--not asking for argument about the extent of his racism or how profoundly anyone imagines it informed his work. I want to know about the balance of commentary. Thank you. Hodgson

I'll have a go. It looks justified to me because we are here for information, not word counts. I have read both sections and I found them both informative. We are not here to see whether racism-fans or anti-racism-fans beat biography-fans by achieving a larger number of words. Or the short answer is, it's just really really not the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubbus (talk • contribs) 10:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A little more food for thought

Joshi (whose name appears 18 times in this article, not counting footnotes) made clear in his biography of Lovecraft that he believed Lovecraft's atheism, not his racism, was of central importance to his outlook and the nature of his stories. This may or may not be. But it is the interpretation of the author on whose work this article rests on most.

For every reference to race in his stories, at least as many can be found to the discoveries, apparatus and possible future of science. The same is true of his interest in antiquarian and architectural matters. These points are given short shrift. If I produce sections for them of 1300 words each, will there be any objection to their adoption?

The wikipedia article on Adolf Hitler, a man whose racial views certainly influenced his work, has no separate section detailing his racist utterances. By contrast, the article on Lovecraft--who as far as I know never committed genocide or advocated it--and who was the friend of Samuel Loveman (a Jew) throughout his life, details those things at length. How would it be if I went to the Martin Luther King article and created a long section detailing his extramarital affairs? No one could say that it was irrelevant. But what would you think?

Again, I am not calling for the elimination of the section but a shortening of it, something more summary, so that the article does not give the impression that racism was a more significant component of his life and work than it was. Hodgson —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:04, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

I agree that the section's length is somewhat unbalanced. If you want to shorten it yourself, I have no objection; otherwise, I may take a look at it in the future as time permits. Brendan Moody 20:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the section on Lovecraft's infamous racial attitudes is far too long and places far too much emphasis on one facet of his personality; there is little on his antiquarianism, which had a far greater effect on his work than his xenophobia, and a myriad of other ideas and beliefs he held which would eventually shape his work. As somebody mentioned above, Joshi's seminal biography points out that Lovecraft's scorn for foreigners has been given far more attention than it deserves. Quoting the entirety of 'On the Creation of Niggers' and large, racist excerpts from his stories is a step too far. This section seriously needs to be cut down to size. - Eam91 3rd September 2007 09:39 (GMT)

Let me go over the article and see if I can't produce an acceptable revision. The points made in the section on racism might be retained and expressed more economically, and I might make sections on his antiquarianism and interest in science.Hodgson 12:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you make these edits? Because the racism section is still disproportional large -- Uselesswarrior (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What really needs to be cut is the "Examples" section. One or two is OK, anything past that is "We get the point" territory. There's no avoiding the issue, and it definitely pertains to themes of genetic deterioration (his concept, not mine) in stories like "Arthur Jermyn" and "The Lurking Fear", but I don't think this is the place to list every mention of a "swarthy mulatto" in his stories.GuySperanza (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A capital idea. I think a special mention of his initial discovery of the township Marblehead, Massachusetts on December the 17th, 1922 would be appropriate; indeed Joshi aptly described it as 'the most powerful emotional climax he had ever experienced'. This would be an essential contribution to a proposed section under 'antiquarianism'. A section detailing scientific pursuits would perhaps be less essential (but certainly not entirely inappropriate), since much of his experiments in chemistry and astronomy were conducted in his adolecent years and didn't amount to a great deal except for astronomy columns in local newspapers. However a mention that his so called 'cosmic pessimism' stemmed from his astronomical studies would be a very welcome addition to the article. I still think that the racism section is far too long, and may present a deeply unfavorable picture of Lovecraft to somebody new to him; it detracts from the fact he was (despite some dubious views on society) a genuinely decent man. Eam91 3rd Semtember 2007, 18:30 (GMT). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eam91 (talk • contribs)

friend of Samuel Loveman Lovecraft actively promoted Loveman's poetry, which was in a genre not particularly popular at the time, mentored Robert "Author of Psycho" Bloch and married Sonia Haft Greene. Strange behaviour for an anti-semite. Lovecraft's quirky Anglophilia and racial views a part of his personality, but ultimately a small part. When a friend came back from Germany about 1935 and told him what was really going on there, Lovecraft went from being an apologist for Hitler to an ardent anti-Nazi. Naaman Brown (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

By comparison, there is no section on race, class, etc, in the pages on F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemmingway (who uses the "n word" in his fiction), Sherwood Anderson, or even Ezra Pound (there is discussion of his political and social views dispersed through the article). The article on T.S. Eliot has a section on his anti-semitism. It seems that, given the coverage of these other writers, the amount of attention given to Lovecraft's more dubious opinions seems excessive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgcnow (talk • contribs) 00:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

more games influenced by H.P. Lovecraft

the first Alone in the Dark and Clive Barker's Undying

I'm certain there's more but I can't remember atm --shodan 207.253.74.149 07:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The last paragraph, Lovecraft and gaming, is just wrong. Right now it says "The Lovecraftian world has also made its mark on gaming. The board game, Arkham Horror, is in its fourth edition and a steady stream of expansions 22 years since its initial release. Chaosium first made its mark as a publisher of games based on Lovecraft's Mythos." First of all; Arkham Horror is at its second edition, the first edition was published in 1987 and the second in 2005. Currently there IS a steady stream of expansions but where was a 18 year hiatus. Second: While Chaosium was the first company to publish a Lovecraft inspired RPG they had been active publishers for some time. Lovecraft and his connection to the gaming world is rather special and while I think that it should be mentioned in wikipedia it really needs a better approach. If I knew how I'd do it but I'm removing the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.150.250.194 (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Locations featured in Lovecraft's stories...

The list of locations is lacking. I know this only because it doesn't list Brattleboro, VT which is prominently featured in The Whisperer in the Darkness. Newfane and Rutland are mentioned, but part of the story actually takes place in Brattleboro. Perhaps we should discuss a criteria for how these locations should be chosen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.68.118 (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are the real locations called "historical"? What is the significance of that word? 213.122.42.244 (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Cthulu religion

I've met a lot of people who believe that Cthulu is real and that they worship him as a god. When I point out that Cthulu was invented in the 1930s by HP Lovecraft, they claim that Lovecraft channeled the truth in his fiction. How widespread is this belief? Serendi^podous 17:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You're joking, surely? "I've met a lot of people who believe that Cthulu is real and that they worship him as a god." Snigger. Do you mind me asking where on earth you found these people? In some sort of institution? You must be having a laugh. Seriously, however, though I've yet to meet an individual who actively worships Cthulhu (note spelling), I have heard that some (uninformed) people believe H.P.L. derived the idea of his mythos from some obscure sect. I am not aware if there is any documentary evidence to support this claim, but suspect there isn't. These are usually conjectures made by people who know very little of Lovecraft's fiction. Cthulhu is a figment of Lovecraft's imagination; a fictional deity which partly convays his bleak philosophical outlook. By the way, Lovecraft had envisioned Cthulhu long before the '30s, the actual story 'The Call of Cthulhu' was penned in 1926. Eam91 17/12/07. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eam91 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Popular culture" cleanup

Just moved a lot of cruft over to Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture.

The reason that page exists is to keep an already overlong bio page from becoming cluttered with instances of every Scandanavian metal band, RPG, webcomic and Family Guy episode that ever mentioned anything vaguely Cthulhian.

Please keep the "popular culture" section for references to Lovecraft-the-man in pop culture, and Mythos references in pop culture to the burgeoning Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture. That's what it's there for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.129.135.114 (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)