Talk:H. P. Lovecraft

Template:Horror-related article

/archive1

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)

POV: Racism / Sexism / Class .. uh, ism?

It has been discussed in depth in the white supremacy article and various others on the topic of racism, et al, that discussing such subjective matter for figures in history of this time period is moot.

Thus I call into question the POV of this articles dealing with it. 'racism', 'sexism', et al is covered numerous times through this article, which I believe, is pushing the point of view of contemporary observers who do not comprehend the cultural or sociological issues of the time.

Whilst I am not saying that to hold such iron clad views on the subject of race, class or sex is the correct thing to do, I am saying that I believe the individuals who have incessantly inserted these words seem to be pushing their own agenda / pov on the matter and not dealing with it in a holistic approach.

I thereby wish to recommend that we attempt to swing the article around to a more NPOV attitude. Any objections, contributions, addendums would be appreciated. Jachin 06:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where the white supremacy article says anything like that. This article has to deal with the attitudes people have towards Lovecraft, and the attitude of Lovecraft. This article's discussion of Lovecraft's racism has gone through many editors who understand some of the cultural and socoiological issues of the time.

As much to the point, it's not like Lovecraft is the only author from the period still read. There are reasons why people call Lovecraft racist and not Carroll, Twain, Dickens, Verne or H.G. Wells. Lines like

"Ghosts," by Mrs. Renshaw, well illustrates the vague superstitions of the negroes, those strange creatures of darkness who seem never to cross completely the threshold from apedom to humanity.

(from the United Amateur, in the late 1910s or early 1920s) just aren't found in the writings of most people from the time. Other authors, if they were as racist, didn't feel a need to express it in their writings.--Prosfilaes 02:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not see a problem with discussing a common modern POV of Lovecraft's work. NPOV means simply recording all POVs (and clearly labelling them as such). It does not mean completely excluding any information that is POV. That there are many modern readers who are shocked at Lovecraft's various overt -isms is beyond dispute. They hold that POV, and the article needs to document that fact — clearly marked as such, of course.

In general, I see no particular problem with the NPOVness of the current article. Are there any particular passages you can draw our attention to? Kwertii 20:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I Really think everyone need to sit back and take a breather! Why are you all using your 2005 looking glass to judge some 80 year old books?? in that time the political correctness of our time didnt exist. Nonwhite (asians, africans, russians, and so on), Women, beggers, gypsies and people with "defects" (diabetes, epilepsy and such) where all seen as lesser races of the human race. That Lovecraft shared these views dont really make it special, it would if he didnt though. Many state that all are white in his books, well so were they in other classic novels, but that really dont prove much do it? in "the color purple" all actors are african and in "the last emporer" all actors are chinese, does that make them racist? Lovecraft was as most other white of that time a social racist nothing more and nothing less, but is there a need to mention it? no dont think so, just as little as it is need to mention his views on women as a lead character or hero, if we did we might as well start editing all autors (from all over the world) adding racist to their title if their books are older than 70 years or there is a all monoraced envioment (or if the evil has another color than the hero)... well lets just write racist on everyone in the writing and movie industry :o) Sneaking Viper 01:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me repeat again, Lovecraft's views were not typical. Go ahead and show me text from Dickens or Twain or Verne that reads like the quote I used above. There is a reason that Lovecraft is called as racist and any number of other authors of the same era aren't. Furthermore, we discuss Bertrand Russell's racism, despite the fact we're quoting from material of the same period. Mentioning one book or one movie doesn't show anything; you have to show a pattern.

Moreover, issues of interest should be covered in the article. If Lovecraft is percieved as racist, it is our obligation to respond to that in the article and explain the issues for the readers. --Prosfilaes 02:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I dont really see that extreme racism in Lovecrafts work, not if compared to Sax Rohmer and Doyle. (from Rohmer: "Invest him with all the cruel cunning of an entire Eastern race, accumulated in one giant intellect, with all the resources of science past and present... Imagine that awful being, and you have a mental picture of Dr. Fu-Manchu, the yellow peril incarnate in one man."—The Insidious Dr. Fu Manchu, Doyle also often referred to asians as "the yellow peril or yellow menance" in Sherlock Homes). Dickens and Twain didnt share the ignorance of the common public, or at least in their books, they placed themself very neutral. And Verne, being a french scifi writer, was less intrested in races, however Nemo DID change from being a Polish to being a Hindu noble (british colony) not to a Zulu tribesman. i think you can always, if you have the desire, find racism in books, deliberate or undelibrate from the autor, do anyone here actually believe that Lovecraft politically and intentionally placed his racism in his text? Think of the context, the time and the atmosphere. its not like he can write in Shadows.. that the religion came from seattle or rome. He had to find some place that people didnt know much about (including himself) and hence he choose the South China Sea. For a small town citizen as Lovecraft (and many others in that time) asians and africans symbolized the different and strange, hence their role as evil was very easy to add, the same goes for most books from asia and africa, the white were the symbol of different and at times harsh rule, so white people are often pictured as evil there. Sneaking Viper 05:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that he was a propogandist for any cause; I fail to see why it's relevant whether or not he "politically" placed his racism or not. I'm not talking about the South China Sea; "vague superstitions of the negroes, those strange creatures of darkness who seem never to cross completely the threshold from apedom to humanity" is talking about people who had been in America and New England specifically almost as long as white people.--Prosfilaes 08:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

So in your view racial remarks about africans is racism but racial remarks about asians is not? i already made it very clear that white people in that time had a strong attitude about all non white. The Shadows over Innsmouth was a good example of that attitude, I know very well that racism flurished in the industrial age, but pointing out that one writer shared the views of many is a mute point. Since racism was so dominant in all countries (yes Africa, middleeast and Asia had their share of racism also) we might as well start adding that title to everyone. But i actually are quite suprised about your anger about the negroes remark and your indifference with the yellow peril remark. I always thought racism was wrong and horrible no matter if the target is black, white, yellow, blue, green or polka dotted. And by the way no, African slaves was not in America before long time after the europeans had driven the native americans back and claimed the country for them self. Sneaking Viper 08:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Funny, now you're putting words into my mouth that came out of yours. You claimed that it was all right because he was talking about distant Asians; he was talking about people who lived in the same city and had for centuries (ever heard of Crispus Attucks?) It's better to consider someone a peril than to consider them subhuman.

Why does this page have huge arguments on Lovecraft's racism? Do you think that everyone randomly picked Lovecraft to single out? Where there's smoke, there's fire. It's insulting to accuse everyone who thinks Lovecraft was particularly racist of being ignorant; many of us read books from that era. In a time of racism, he stands out. Perhaps he was just more vocal about his racism, but that statement stands out to me as a step beyond what most would have said at that time.

And by the way, the first African slaves were in the US in 1526 (c.f. History of slavery in the United States), prior to the first permanent European settlement in the US. --Prosfilaes 10:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I dont know why this argument is here either, I actually think we agree on that he and others had racist views, however it seems we disagree on the severity of his racism, no i do not think it is nice or ok that asians or africans are being talked down to/looked down upon, i just said that it was the times of that arrogant attitude and that it was to be expected, i however agree that the quote you came with is very strong and should even in that time have created a reaction but i doubt it would have since even researchers from that period came with similar demining outbursts.

I didnt know the African slaves that came on the first spanish ship, i knew the spanish brought alot of horses from europe that fled captivity and slaves from the caribbians and south america in the early times, but not from africa. Also Wikipedia is wrong, the first permanent settlement from Europe was in 700 by the Vikings :o) Sneaking Viper 10:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, the quote you used doesn't seem to me to be insulting to black people. It looks familiar, but I can't remember exactly which story it's in, so I can't look to see what was said before or after the quote you used. However, in the quote given,

"Ghosts," by Mrs. Renshaw, well illustrates the vague superstitions of the negroes, those strange creatures of darkness who seem never to cross completely the threshold from apedom to humanity.

, the 'strange creatures' refers to the 'vague superstitions', not to the 'negroes'.

Secondly, I think it's worth remembering that these so-called themes are in his writing. We can't assume that he held any such belief dear to his heart at all, even if it's popular knowledge that most people of his age did. I know the current 'Race' paragraph does start out by making this distinction, for which I'm grateful, but it does end up presuming to know his mind from what he merely wrote.

Heavens To Betsy 10:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Superstitions "seem never to cross completely the threshold from apedom to humanity"? That seems a most unusual interpretation of that sentence. It's used in a review, not fiction. I wish Distributed Proofreaders could finish processing it for Project Gutenberg, but that will still take a while.

HP was not just an author of fiction; he wrote volumes of letters, where he expressed his personal opinion quite clearly. Even his fiction was not commercial fiction; given that he wrote what he wanted, I think it not unreasonable to think that what he wrote would come from close to his heart.--Prosfilaes 19:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

His racist tendencies seem to have influenced his pantheon as well... can anyone really say "Shub-Niggurath" without cringing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.100.199 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

In an essay written by Robert Price called "Lovecraft's Artificial Mythology" (covered in 'An Epicure in the Terrible), he suggests that the name is probably based off of (or a tribute to) Dunsany's Sheol Nugganoth. Even if the similarity to "nigger" is not coincidental (odds are it is), it could be a reference to her being the "black goat of the woods with a thousand young", possibly used in a similar way to his black cat "Nigger-man".Cameron 23:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Heavens to Betsy, your using a false positve to make your argument regarding Lovecraft's beliefs. The facts show that both in his writings and in his personal letters of communication (Letter 648), Lovecraft held racist veiws. The fact that this is a negative trait will not disavow all of his works in the eyes of literary admirers, nor will it excuse racism's existence retroactively, but at the same time it cannot be 'ignored' for the sake of not smearing his image. Lovecraft was human, and therefore had personality flaws (obviously). Racism was one of them. It demeans any biography of him to ignore his faults, or attempt to retroactively spin the bad parts to the man for excusive purposes. -Loonster

Lovecraft was such a creep... Probably he did not stand out as much in his days, but still. I noticed it even when I was a teenager, reading one of his stories (can't remember the title) about some murderous, in-breed, inferior race of humanoids, dwelling below the peaceful rolling hills of some country, just waiting to devour its inhabitants. I mean, I was 14 and knew basically nothing, but even then it struck me that Lovecraft had some distorted, malicious, hideous perception of the world. But geez, that guy could write. He took his immense paranoia and hate and malevolence and put it into this brilliant little cosmos of nightmare and terror. Comparing him to, say, Stephen King is a little like comparing Adolf Hitler to Charles Manson, no offense meant, and in terms of maliciousness only! -- 790 06:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't think that's very relevant, but anyway. For reference, the story was "The Lurking Fear". --Sir Ophiuchus 00:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a registered user and thus can't contribute (I think) but this site http://www.noveltynet.org/content/books/lovecraft/H.%20P.%20Lovecraft%20-%20Dagon.pdf seems to authoritatively claim that Dagon was first published in 1919 in 'The Vagrant' and not in 1923 in 'Weird Tales' as claimed in the article. Perhaps someone could confirm/deny this with a third source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.8.213.141 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that what disturbs people the most about Lovecraft's racism is how profoundly it affected his work, and how essential it is to his innovations. Lovecraft's concept of biological, scientific horror is pretty clearly a product of his racism. I think that in this day and age we don't like to acknowledge the fact that an author's racism can sometimes be the source of his greatness. Celine is another case in point. At any rate, I think we can appreciate the greatness without approving of the ideology.--ben-ze'ev 10:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't accept that at all. If anything, Lovecraft's (evident) racist views allowed him to take shortcuts - rather than describing a man's regression to savagery he could liken him to what he considered to be "savages". For example, all cultists mentioned in "The Call of Cthulhu" are "degenerate Eskimos", "hybrid spawn", "mongrels" or "negro sailors". That was lazy - Lovecraft could simply have detailed "civilised" man's regression instead, and in fact increased the horror (certainly in his worldview). "The Rats in the Walls", quite possibly his most horrific story, does just that. Also, "At the Mountains of Madness", arguably his most "biological, scientific" work, contains no racist references whatsoever. Therefore, I would conclude that Lovecraft obviously does display his racist tendencies in his work, but they act as shortcuts for him, rather than as inspiration. Sir Ophiuchus 22:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"The Mountains of Madness" is a very late work. I would say that by that point that issue of biological horror had completely subsumed its racist origins. However, I don't think it could have reached that point had it not been developed over a decade of writing. Certainly, the racist inspiration fell away as Lovecraft's concepts became more fully developed, but I think they are fairly clearly inspired by his racism. I don't think they are shortcuts, or the sign of a lazy writer, "The Shadow Over Innsmouth", for instance, which is also considered one of his best, is pretty clearly a fantasy of miscegenation. I think it is also important to note that Lovecraft was a fairly bizarre fellow who was not immune to paradox. He married, for instance, a Jewish woman, despite his antisemitism. Michel Houellebecq's essay, "Against the World, Against Life", makes a very good case for the importance of racism in Lovecraft's work. Check it out.--ben-ze'ev 08:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"At the Mountains of Madness" is an interesting piece to mention because as it begins, the reader is inclined to regard the tall tentacled vegetable Elder Things as the evil creature(s) at the heart of the story's horror but then begins to tell their tale through their remaining hieroglyphs and builds up a layer of sympathy by sharing their great culture with the human characters and therefore the reader. In the end, the Elder Things are regarded as "the men of their time" and equal if not better than us humans, and the true monster is the poor ol' stupid Shoggoths who developed minds and realised they didn't like being slaves. Their Frankenstein rebellion against their creators and masters is condemned by the narrator in much the same way I'm sure Lovecraft might condemn the liberation of a certain other group of slaves from the "men of their time". D Boland 01:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if in marrying Sonia Greene he didn't envision a sort of conversion and redemptive process- that by taking her under his wing, so to speak, he would infuse her with some of his New England upbringing. In the DeCamp biography its reported that after hearing his say something she reminded him that she was a Jew, and he patted her hand and said "No, you're a Lovecraft now". He later noted that their surface attraction hadn't been enough to overcome their differences. I think the best thing that can be said is that he dealt better with people on a personal basis than in the abstractSaxophobia 00:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, that relativist approach - Lovecraft was a racist in a time when many people were, so his racism doesn't stand out - quite frankly, just sucks - his racism would be, or is disgusting, anyway, and of course it can be judged from our modern day politically correct perspective, because we (like any age) are writing our history by our standards and moral norms - what else would we do? And, yes, he was an outspoken racist - it's just that he had very few opportunities to speak out that particular thing. The man was painfully isolated for the most part of his life - about all critics going into that detail note the point, Airaksinen does, deCamp does, even Joshi does: his deeds, his racist acts, just didn't have any consequences because his social world, his circle was painfully small. Sure, he had an immense circle of correspondents, and many of his letters are stupidly full of all kinds of racist slurs, but there was only a very, very limited circle of people that he had to justify his positions to in person, face to face, with no paper to mediate inbetween. He was not, to be fair, a rabid fanatic - in the final years of his life, he started travelling a lot, socialized a lot, went out to see and meet people - and in the process he certainly did soften up. Some time in the early 1930s, he started dropping his racist prejudices, if slowly, and there seems to have been some insight into the foolishness of his previous behavior. In short - he was racist to the same degree that he was egocentric.

As for his stories - when racist slurs occur in his stories, this is not Lovecraft speaking, of course. Most of these slurs happen along a rather dumb racial stereotyping - as far as humanity goes. The real conflict, the real tension is not between black and white, or white and asian: for that, he just doesn't explore that dimension of American history and culture thoroughly enough. The racial conflict that is productive on a narrative level is going on between humankind and aliens, humans and Old Ones, and Cthulhu and the gang don't care at all just what ethnic group they are wasting. --virinluster 20:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Lovecraft was pretty much undeniably racist, it's not hard to infer that from his work, and I don't think anyone is claiming that he isn't. However, he seems to get singled out for his racist views a lot more than many of his peers. As it was pointed out, his racist views appear more extreme than other writers of his time, but still by no means were they uncommon, just less often commended to written word. I admit that, as a fan of his work, I find how often and extensively his racist views are mentioned to be more of an attack of his character than a proper discussion of his work. I think, however, that the article does a good job discussing his views as well as putting them into the context of Lovecraft's era.

There is definitely someone trying to push an agenda if they bother to argue for this long that the racism part of the article should not exist. Lovecraft was a racist -- plain and simple. Was it a fashionable and socially acceptable idea back in the day? Yes, it was, and that is why the article exists there. Someone tried to reference "The Last Emperor" having an all Asian acting cast as an example of erroneously perceived racism. The difference with "The Last Emperor" was Bernado Bertolucci wasn't writing correspondences talking about how seeing a black man immediately brought images of voodoo and gorillas to mind. So SneakingViper, why don't you "take a breather" and stop the tired defense of "oh well he was just a man of his time". So was Hitler and everyone in Nazi Germany. Are we supposed to omit their racist ideas in their own respective articles and brush it off as a simple, understandable trend? He was racist, it is an interesting addition to the article and all of it is from verifiable sources. It is NPOV and it stays. With all the wealth of information we have of very obvious racial leanings from his friends, wife and his own LETTERS there is absolutely no question to where he ranked himself in the racial ladder set up inside of his own mind.

I have added to the article a quote about Lovecraft's racism by S.T. Joshi, the premier Lovecraft scholar. It makes it very clear that Lovecraft's racism is an accepted and important topic of discussion in scholarly circles. Furthermore, Michel Houellebecq in "H.P. Lovecraft: Against the World, Against Life' insists that Lovecraft's racism was the source of inspiration and power for most of his major works. There is absolutely no question that a discussion of Lovecraft's work *requires* a discussion of his racism, as the Joshi quote makes clear. (incidentally, suggesting that Lovecraft was no more racist than Sax Rohmer is like saying that Bill Russell was no better a basketball player than Michael Jordan....it's arguable, but hardly a reason not to discuss basketball in an article about Bill Russell!

Apologies; the above comment is by me. NoahB 15:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I know I am a lately to thsis controversy but I felt that the section on Lovecraft's racism should read as just that. There were also a lot of minced words and statements that I think arose from wezelly re-edits by apologists for him. BTW, I am rather fond of Lovecraft's writing but its easy to see that he has a hysterical animosity and fear of people of colour, particularly black people, and that this was bolstered by a Darwinian/eugenicist/white supremacists ideology. Horror is about what frightens and disgusts and clearly black people did both for Lovecraft. I think that is a very unfortunate aspect of his writing, I dear say, even a failing. However, he is dead now so I don't think I need to forgive him and certainly no one needs to defend him or feel defensive about liking him. I think Lovecraft's racism needs to discussed in plane language since it is not even a matter of debate that he held such views, which were quite reactionary, even for his time and quite central to his art and thought. There is much to be learned from Lovecraft about the nature of horror and the psychology of racism. Please let's not "sanitize" him.--70.48.20.121 08:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that what appears to be racism in Lovecraft's writing is actually a reflection of his deep identification, as an "Outsider", with other "Outsiders"? Consider, just hypothetically, that Lovecraft was a narcissist: Lovecraft is a narcissist and Lovecraft created Cthulhu. Lovecraft worships himself and his creations, therefore, Lovecraft worships Cthulhu. He describes the worshippers of Cthulhu as mongrels, therefore Lovecraft is a mongrel(the first apostle, heh,heh) and he knows it. Lovecraft has tricked you(and possibly himself). Lovecraft is the "Whisperer in Darkness", an alien speaking behind a white mask.Cbaldw 03:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbaldw (talk • contribs) 03:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me worth noting that "degeneracy" in Lovecraft is very often seen among people descended directly from Anglo-saxon New England settlers: e.g. "Shadow over Innsmouth," "The Dunwich Horror," and the early, more genuinely Lovecraft parts of "The Lurker at the Threshhold." (My list may not be entirely correct or complete, but I believe my point is valid.) It's not that he's not a racist; it's just that he didn't consider people of "aryan" descent to be automatically and always better. His concept of the human species, as expressed in his work, is that its diversity is much greater than we currently believe, and that was a common belief among intellectuals of his time: i.e. that H. sapiens included highly degenerate elements, some of which were white and some not. ````Paul J Gies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.111.83.188 (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I once read somewhere that Lovecraft actually recanted his racism in his later life -- I forget where exactly, but I think it was in the notes section of a collection of his stories. There is no mention of anything like that in the article though, but if that were true, wouldn't it serve as an explanation regarding one point of contention in the above discussion, namely the fact that, while there are many quotes which clearly demonstrate his racism to be found in his works, there are also a number of others (a short paragraph from At the Mountains of Madness was cited, I believe) which seem to run counter to that theme, and that those just so happen to mostly come from some of his later works? Well, as I don't have any source for this claim right now and also am not a registered user anyway (the only edits I have ever made on Wikipedia so far have been minor corrections of misspellings and the like, and I don't intend on going very far beyond that or registering an account for that purpose any time soon) it's pretty much a moot point, but, unless the whole thing is just a figment of my imagination, which I admit is possible -- the memory of what I believe I've read or heard that I am talking about is quite hazy -- maybe it's something that someone might find worth looking into and, if true, incorporate into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.67.28.203 (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2007 (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)

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)

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)

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 "Influene" 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).

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)

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.”

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)

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)

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

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 belifes he held wich would eventually shape his work. As somebody mentioned above, Joshi's seminal biography points out that Lovecraft's scorn for foreigners has beem 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 seriousley 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 invisioned 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.