Talk:H. P. Lovecraft
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|H. P. Lovecraft is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 14, 2004.|
|H. P. Lovecraft was selected as the Portal of Horror Horror-related biography of the month for June 2006 and January 2008.|
- 1 NPOV
- 2 Removal of tag
- 3 When do you think this page is going to lose its tag and become a featured article?
- 4 Sacco & Vanzetti Allegory?
- 5 Lovecraft hating science
- 6 Citations
- 7 "Influences on Lovecraft"
- 8 Remove "The Tomb" (2007) from list of films based on HPL's works
- 9 NO EVIDENCE OF RACISM
- 10 Technical terms.
- 11 "Works based on" titles discussion
- 12 Was lovecraft dressed as a girl by his mother ?
- 13 Political alignment needs fixing.
- 14 Added Dispute Issue to All Relevant Lovecraft Articles
- 15 Return to Providence / "longest work"
- 16 Pseudonyms
- 17 References
- 18 Edit to the Copyright Section
- 19 Divorce from Sonia Greene?
- that came directly from the sources, slightly paraphrased but that word choice is supported by Joshi.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- this may be a good time to bring up that the wikipedia neutral point of view policy does not say that wikipedia articles have to be neutrally worded, rather it states that wikipedia articles have to uphold the viewpoints of the reliable sources according to the distribution of those viewpoints.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Removal of tag
Do you think this article, after 2 whole years, finally meets the requirments of the tag given to it in 2009? I certainly think it looks well put together, and it helped me a lot on my research paper.Nex Carnifex (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
When do you think this page is going to lose its tag and become a featured article?
Sacco & Vanzetti Allegory?
There was this one short story of Lovecraft written in the late 1920s that I read in the 60s when I was in high school, the title of which escapes for now, that reminded me of Sacco & Vanzetti: two Italian immigrants have a plan to burglarize this house, but are cut to pieces by the precise Yankee machine contained therein when they do it, that machine being Massachusetts justice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like you're half-remembering "The Terrible Old Man," where three burglars with Italian, Polish, and Portuguese last names break into the title character's house and are killed and mutilated horribly. Never heard it described as having anything to do with Sacco and Vanzetti (and don't see it, myself) but more as an expression of HPL's xenophobia -- he saw Poles, Italians, and Portuguese has outsiders who didn't belong in his genteel, WASP world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Lovecraft hating science
I removed this source: Wilson, Colin. The Strength to Dream: Literature and the Imagination. p. 8. ISBN 1600250203. "He hated modern civilization, particularly its confident belief in progress and science.". I am not to question the veracity of the general sentiment of the statement, but I cannot support the sentiments expressed in its unfolded state. Volume 3 of Lovecraft's Collected Essays, the volume containing his essays on science, contains an introduction by S.T. Joshi which states "In reality, Lovecraft's devotion to science is exhibited more poignantly and profoundly in his weird fiction, and perhaps also in his general philosophy, than in his actual writings on science". (p. 12). This statement clearly clashes with the Colin Wilson quotation. Very likely Wilson's opinion is notable in this article, but since it is being questioned by a statement of the most prominent Lovecraft scholar, I don't think it is fitting as a source for a general statement of Lovecraft being against science or for the lead in any circumstances. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The greatest problem with this article is the lack of citations in a number of sections. It's amazing to me that this is the case, because as S.T. Joshi has often stated, Lovecraft is: "one of the most self-documented individuals in history." There is literally so much out there written by Lovecraft himself and excellent biographers and scholars such as Joshi that this should not be the case. Many books about Lovecraft are available on Google Books for easy reference. Also, Joshi came out with a new edition of his Lovecraft biography so that is a useful source. Another good source (which I have) is the three volume Penguin Modern Classics edition of Lovecraft's fiction, which has excellent essays and notes written by Joshi. These are just some suggestions for those looking for places to cite claims about Lovecraft's life and work. Let's pull together and improve this article!
- Joshi, S.T. ""Introduction"". An Epicure in the terrible: a centennial anthology of essays in honor of H.P. Lovecraft.
- For what it's worth, I'd like to point out that this is still a major issue. The introduction and "Early life" section contains only 3 citations in total. -Tremendousswan 23:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
"Influences on Lovecraft"
A couple of quibbles: first this section includes much more than "Influences on Lovecraft"; it seems to be combined with opinions about and analyses of his writing style... that may be all right unless his style deserves a section of its own, which perhaps it might. The link "crescendo" goes to the article about crescendo in music, which seems wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescendo#Gradual_changes) I didn't find a "crescendo" in the article about literary techniques or I would have redirected it. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Eric
Remove "The Tomb" (2007) from list of films based on HPL's works
The Tomb (2007)directed by Ulli Lommel is not based on the story of the same name by Lovecraft. It is, in fact, a Saw rip-off. The only thing in common is the title, and that it is advertised on the box as "H.P. Lovecraft's "The Tomb". Listing this film on the "works by Lovecraft" section is inaccurate, and is aiding and abetting the producers in their false claim that this film has something to do with Lovecraft. I understand that many adaptations are indeed very loose, but...something seems wrong about this. Very unsavory. At least Re-Animator is a film with some critical, even academic, discussion and recognition, for example, in the book "Let's Pretend We're Dead: Capitalist Monsters in American Pop Culture " by Annalee Newitz. The Tomb (2007) is, well, ignored, except a handful of universally negative reviews. I feel uncomfortable with Wikipedia being used to promote the cynical lie that this film in fact has something to do with the famous horror writer. And even Re-Animator had the taste to merely use the name of the short story, not to slap the author's name on the cover, which, to me, suggests a closer relationship with the original story than just using the title (i.e., this isn't just any narrative called "The Tomb," this isn't someone elses retelling or re-interpretation of the same story, but is in fact the author's version). What can be done about this? Isn't it inaccurate and wrong, and thus grounds for fixing, to say that this film is "based on" a work of Lovecraft when they actually don't have a single d__n thing in common? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
NO EVIDENCE OF RACISM
|This close request has been reviewed.|
I guess it's not commonly known, but the style of the lead section is different to the rest of an article. The lead section should be written in a style that is accessible to anyone; not just enthusiasts for an article's subject.
Someone reading a lead hasn't yet made any commitment to study a subject in detail, and therefore hasn't yet reached a point where they're willing to follow trails of wikilinks to get a deeper understanding of the subject. It is unreasonable to rely on wikilinks to provide a necessary definition.
It's better not to use technical terms at all in the lead, and on the occasions that you do, you need to provide a translation in brackets.
More information is here: Wikipedia:EXPLAINLEAD#Lead section
Another way of putting this: The lead section is soley for expanding a reader's understanding of what a subject is. It's not for expanding their vocabulary.
"Works based on" titles discussion
Was lovecraft dressed as a girl by his mother ?
There are some stories of lovecraft being dressed as a girl till he was 6 by his mother. Is this a fact or a rumour?
- Are you f***ing kidding me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- At the time he lived, boys and girls were generally dressed almost identically in early childhood, so I'm not sure how you'd even tell if his mother had tried to do that. This sounds like someone saw a picture of him as a child and didn't realize that all children wore long shirts/dresses in that time and place. SarahTheEntwife (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, this was an extremely common tradition for boys to wear dresses and gowns until a time between the ages of two and eight, so this story is most likely a fact. However, this process, covered more in-depth in the Wikipedia article for breeching, would have been so common that it doesn't nearly warrant a mention in the article, if that's what you're trying to get at. A bit like writing about whether a celebrity was breast- or bottle-fed as an infant for their article—so trivial that it wouldn't make much sense to include it! Hope this helps, cheers ~Helicopter Llama~ 21:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Political alignment needs fixing.
Under the Return to Providence section it says, "Lovecraft considered himself a "New Deal Democrat," and was an ardent supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt. His political views can be considered as "moderately socialist." This is false. Although the editor does provide a source, we must ask ourselves the authenticity of such a claim. Where does this author prove HP Lovecraft was a Moderate Socialist/Democrat? Does he provide evidence from HP Lovecraft's letters, or his works? In the meantime of you people figuring this out, I also have a source: http://www.arktos.com/h-p-lovecraft-the-conservative.html This journal, written by Lovecraft himself, proves quite the contrary to the claim that he was a Socialist, but in fact a Reactionary. I'm removing the edit that makes the claim that he was a New Deal Democrat and a Socialist, but I will not add any information on his political views. If you wish to disagree with me at least confront me before adding back the edit. 126.96.36.199 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
This is undoubtedly true. Yet no one shall hear it today, I imagine. Lovecraft only agreed to Roosevolt's policies "provisionally" in order to evade worse chaos, not out of pure principle of political philosophy. A temporary neo-aristocratic socialism of Platonic type was Lovecraft's idealistic, unrealistic wish, nothing like what modern people understand when they hear the word, "socialism". Lovecraft scientifically can be described as a "reactionary individualist anarchist" in one sense, -- NEVER a "(social/socialist) democrat" as modern people understand democracy, but definitely not a barbarian Fascist-Nazi either; his empathy-based concern with the welfare of the lower stations of human society is abundant in his letters... As with everything else, simplism only ruins our presentation of "lovecraft as he is/was."
Lovecraft's [i]The Conservative[/i] proves that he was a conservative in his youth. However, in the mid-30s he did shift toward the New Deal, and he notes in one letter that he was probably the first person in his family to vote for the Democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Added Dispute Issue to All Relevant Lovecraft Articles
The modern consensus on Lovecraftian "metaphysics" is not absolute and S T Joshi is not an absolute monarch of cognitive prowess, folks. It is time to PROFESSIONALLY and DISPASSIONATELY address the issue of Lovecraft and metaphysics/religion/spirituality, without any pre-fabricated assumptions. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Return to Providence / "longest work"
The section below needs clarification:
The same address is given as the home of Dr. Willett in Lovecraft's The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. The period beginning after his return to Providence — the last decade of his life — was Lovecraft's most prolific; in that time he produced short stories, as well as his longest work The Case of Charles Dexter Ward and At the Mountains of Madness.
Specifically, what does "his longest work" refer to? Is "his longest works" intended (that is, including ATMOM)? If it's only TCOCDW, it could perhaps be reworded as follows:
in that time he produced short stories, At the Mountains of Madness, and his longest work, The Case of Charles Dexter Ward.
Alternatively, the two sentences could be reorganized to avoid the repetition of the title of TCOCDW or to put the reference to "his longest work" before the first mention rather than the second. 850 C (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
ISFDB gives "Used These Alternate Names: Albert Frederick Willie , John J. Jones , Lewis Theobald, Jr. , Robert H. Barlow , Ward Phillips , Zealia Brown Reed , Part Pain , Howard Phillips Lovecraft , Marcus Lollius , Percy Simple , L. Theoboald, Jr. , H. Lovecraft , Howard P. Lovecraft , Sally Theobald , Henry Paget-Lowe , Howard Philips Lovecraft , H.-P. Lovecraft" --of which seven (bold) are neither versions of his real name nor listed by LC.
Thus we may have from these two sources 22 distinct pseudonyms. We list four of them in the infobox.
What are the so-called References? There are seven listings. At a glance I find only two S. T. Joshi 1996 and Joshi, Schultz 2001 cited in the Notes.
Edit to the Copyright Section
Lovecraft Holdings LLC is apparently now the official HP Lovecraft literary estate. Robert C. Harrall is the administrator. See:
Divorce from Sonia Greene?
I think that this article would benefit from any information about Lovecraft's divorce from Sonia Greene. I, for one, would like to see it. If anyone has the source, I highly recommend putting it in the appropriate section of his biography. If I ever find a free source that is adequate, I'll put it in, but just a thought for something that would make this article a bit better. Thanks. Lighthead þ 04:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)