Talk:H. P. Lovecraft

Template:Horror-related article

NPOV

"while race is definitely an unfortunate theme" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.46.136.52 (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

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?

Its so huge and its edited ever minute!Nex Carnifex (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

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 173.20.226.163 (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 68.9.50.240 (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)

Citations

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! -AlexRUofT (talk), September 22, 2011

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. 24.27.31.170 (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 99.30.247.77 (talk) 06:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

NO EVIDENCE OF RACISM

The only "evidence" linked are scenes in his FICTIONAL works. Are these editors insane? These are FICTIONAL works with aliens and demons.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.21.157 (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ermmm... you haven't read many of his letters, have you? Or his works, where almost all non-Aryans tend to come off less than flatteringly, if I may euphemize? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

His letters can get very racist, one of the worst bits being his opinion that the entire subcontinent of India should be cleared of inhabitants so decent people could live there. His attitude towards other races was paternalistic at best, such as complimenting a black cook.Saxophobia (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The section on Racism is not a personal essay but a collection of what reliable sources say about the issue. If you want to take it up with the major scholars of the field be my guest, they are listed in the citations.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Technical terms.

Hi guys,

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.

InternetMeme (talk) 08:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"Works based on" titles discussion

CHTULU CHTULU CHTULU HE CRAVES YOUR SOULS ft_works Here. --Niemti (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

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 82.128.246.133 (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2013 (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."[14] 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. 174.50.171.199 (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."

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 75.52.186.148 (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Where do I begin, Wikipedia? I am at your service. I am a passionate Lovecraft academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)