Talk:H. P. Lovecraft/Archive 4

"La llave del abismo" ("The Key to the Abyss") by José Carlos Somoza
This is a novel originally published in 2007. It depicts a world in which Lovecraft's writings constitute the Bible. I don't know if it has been translated to English. Its concept is essentially based on the "Cthulhu Mythos". Anybody has read it yet? How about adding this one in the "Lovecraft's influence on culture" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.187.134.90 (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Cut sentence
Wrt Lovecraft's stutter: "This would follow "The Master of Horror" through his life and was oft blamed on his deep regard fro National Socalism." This is not only unsourced, but also just plain weird. I'm not denying that Lovecraft was a racist, and for all I know he was also a fan of the Nazis, but what did it have to do with his stutter, and who said so? I cut this sentence because it made absolutely no sense. Lexo (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when was Lovecraft a fan of the Nazis? He mentioned once that he "liked" Hitler but this was around the time that Hitler was Time Magazine's Man of the Year and according to H.P. Lovecraft: A Life, he doesn't mention Hitler or the Nazis after being told by a German friend what was actually going on in Nazi Germany.  He is known to have referred to himself as a "socialist facist" at one point in his life but this is not the same as National Socialism (in fact, the facism aspect would suggest a closer affinity to Mussolini - who began in politics as a socialist - than Hitler) and does in many ways appear to have meant the exact opposite.  By his death, Lovecraft's letters and the memoirs of those who knew him suggest he was far more of socialist than a right-wing aficionado. --Zoe.R (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrase "for all I know" means "let's assume something hypothetically that may or may not be true". DreamGuy (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. It is an indicator that the statement to which it relates is accurate within the boundaries of the knowledge of the person making the statement.  There's nothing hypothetical about it. --Zoe.R (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you may have that understanding of the phrase, but that's not how most people use it. For all I know it's one of those phrases that's different in the UK and the US. Either way it's very clear Lexo meant it as a hypothetical. DreamGuy (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just jumping in here, but I'd assume that Lexo meant to say "For all I know he could have also been a fan of the Nazis" which implies ignorance to whether or not it's true. The statement that would imply it's true within the bounds of his knowledge is "As far as I know he was . . ." By using "For all I know" then following up with a certainty statement "he was" is just blurring those lines a little and for some reason confused everybody. ArdClose (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's kind of a moot argument at this point, but the phrase's meaning already includes stating ignorance on whether or not it's true. "For all I know" and "could have" are redundant when used together. In fact in most uses there is a strong "probably not" implied. DreamGuy (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (Not to get too deep in this...) but I wouldn't say using "For all I know" then "could be" would be redundant. If I said "He could be a Nazi fan" tells you that the possibility exists. If I said "For all I know, he could be a Nazi fan" that tells you that the possibility might or might not exist to the limit of my knowledge. Anyway, after plunging into the realm of the utterly meaning less... ArdClose (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There is also the minor matter that he in his letters went from being "amused with" nazism (he described Hitler as a poor copy of Mussolini, whom he favoured) to being directly anti-nazi, due to events such as book-burnings, & nazi racism actually being more insane than his own. 28 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.26.238 (talk)

cultural reference in Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus
In the Video Game Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus there is a Anthropomorphic Squid enemy guard identified as HP Squidcraft. Should that be listed in Lovecraft's influence on culture? Yami (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Folklore
It seems appropriate to me to add a section on the influence of early American folklore on Lovecraft's writings, however I do not know enough about it to do it myself. If this is generally agreed upon; I propose someone with the appropriate knowledge completes the task... Wintersdoor (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds interesting (though I don't know yet how notable it'd be), but are there even any reliable sources on the topic? I'm not super on top of things like I used to when it comes to Lovecraft, but I never heard of anyone looking intot he topic. DreamGuy (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions About The Sources
The sources that are used in this entry are sometimes trying at best. E.g. the link: "http://www.mythostomes.com/content/view/51/89/1/2/" is a personal view based on a disputed story. Also his publishes under an alias. But more sources here are to be discussed. Please give some arguments why certain sources are used...

Conflict with Deities and Demigods entry
This entry states that the Deities & Demigods book had a section on the Cthulhu Mythos, and that "TSR, Inc. later agreed to remove this section at Chaosium's request." According to the Deities & Demigods article, TSR was required to credit Chaosium, but later decided to remove the entries themselves. I don't know what the truth is, but I think these need to be reconciled. Dcwaterboy (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No!
"Lovecraft lived at a time when the eugenics movement, anti-Catholicism, nativism, and strict racial segregation and miscegenation laws were all widespread in the United States and the Protestant countries of Europe" needs changing. Strict racial segregation and miscegenation laws may have been common in apartheid-USA (so much for the "greatest democracy in the world"!), but certainly there was never anything of the sort in the UK or liberal Northern European/socialist countries (I'm excluding Germany and Austria for obvious reasons). This sentence has been written by a USA-er who is imposing his/her "America is the world and the world is America" view on the article. Even the racial segregation and miscegenation laws in proto Nazi Germany only came about at the last few years of Lovecraft's life - and was he writing much then anyhow? 86.148.48.6 (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that the original author(s) didn't intend to impose anything on anyone, but I'll agree that that paragraph could use some better sourcing. Quietmarc (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's split some hairs, shall we? The reason the UK didn't have a segregation problem is because they didn't allow any of their colonial holdings to immigrate and kept them under white rule overseas.  So before the UK gets all holier-than-thou about apartheid-USA they might do well to remember their empire days.  You'd think the innovators of the "concentration camp" would be a little less judgmental.  YES - Western Europe was a fairly "whites only" place during that time. In fact, Francis Galton, one of the key pioneers of the eugenics movement, was British.  Germany was unquestionably eugenics-crazed.  I'm fairly certain that is the bulk of the Protestant population of Western Europe at the time, though someone might want to recount. 166.94.128.10 (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Syphilis ?
The statement that "it is now almost certain' Winfield Scott Lovecraft's illness was general paresis of the insane is not supported by an informed and qualified opinion such as a M.D. who had examined the relevant medical records.  The same speculation was once widely accepted about Friedrich Nietzsche but modern researchers have looked at his medical records; while they suggest various  causes for his illness there is agreement he did not have syphilis.Overagainst (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Fix the copyright link
You can add this link to investigation of copyright reference 35 - http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecap (talk • contribs) 16:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Race, ethnicity, and class
This section is WAY too long and puts UNDUE WEIGHT on beliefs that weren't particularly different from most people alive at the time. The extended quote from Rafael Llopis adds absolutely nothing of any value, and that's the bare minimum that needs to be removed from that section to start getting away from slanting the thrust of the article from Lovecraft the racist and back to Lovecraft the author, which is what he is famous for. DreamGuy (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Joshi (whose quote you didn't troll out) his beliefs went beyond the average of most people alive at the time. The quote by Llopis complements the rest of the section, however, by proving that his beliefs were more complex than most people, including Joshi, might suggest. People who know about Lovecraft know who Llopis is (same as Houellebecq, Wetzel, Joshi or De Camp) and it is you, not Llopis, who needs to do some extra studying in order you garner the moral and intellectual authority to decide who is notable and who isn't. So far, Llopis is notable. You're not. As of today, you're just a troll. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * first off lets not use "troll" "vandal" etc. as those are weighted terms and demonstrate a predisposition to avoid consensus, this is a content dispute not a trolling activity or vandalism (you should probably do some extra studying on internet terminology before misuse phrases like vandal or troll). you took the comment on Llopis awfully personally, do you have a conflict of interest which should be disclosed?  additionally this does demonstrate undue weight.  as of now the racism and class section take up a much larger section of the article than anything else with the exception of the description of his life...which it is approx. equal in length, and the "examples" section demonstrates WP:SYNTH and possibly WP:OR.  for these reasons I am removing the section.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * first off, you've answered none of my message to DreamGuy except for these two words. Second of all, racism or racist themes or comments are a substantial part of Lovecraft's legacy, even if he didn't hurt or insult anyone personally in his life. I'm not saying this, Houellebecq says so. So does Joshi. Yeah, the two guys mentioned in the section as it is now. Third of all, I'm defending the Llopis excerpt not only because I took the extra effort to translate it myself (I don't know about you but I have an AWFUL lot of things besides this), but I did so to end up finding it erased on a whim under some bullshit excuse, by a couple of, er, individuals (let's not avoid consensus) masquerading as "master editors" whose mere intention is to downplay this aspect of Lovecraft's personality.


 * Just to clarify, let's remember that you erased the excerpts but not the neutrality tag. Does that mean the section should be even shorter than it is now?


 * I'm sorry, but I wasn't born yesterday. Keep pushing coffee, leave this to the grownups. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * oh no...some anonymous user called me a child...what ever should I do, wherever should I go...*sigh* do you have anything but ad-hominims and an inflated ego to contribute to this discussion, you will notice I understand fallacies in argumentation, and you have not addressed anything which we have pointed as a problem with this section, but attempted to distract from the discussion by personal attacks and fallacies which I am ok with because it is very transperant. go ahead and call me a child, call us uneducated, call us whatever you want... but in the process if you don't address certain issues then the section will not remain.  again WP:WEIGHT, which you haven't addressed at all...WP:OR again not addressed...WP:SYNTH again it was not addressed.  and all of these are violations of the policies the community has agreed upon when editing this encyclopedia, either you are part of that community or you should edit elsewhere.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No offense, but you epitomize the failure of the educational system of whatever country you're from.


 * WP:OR: the excerpt is from a paragraph originally written by Llopis, not by me. He's an expert, a secondary source. Not to mention that he's the guy who introduced Lovecraft to most of the European audience. And this text was written and published in the 60s. Look up "original research" again if you please.
 * WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Where on earth did I do such thing? Did I contradict Llopis' conclusions, or those of any other author quoted in that section?
 * WP:WEIGHT: in its most recent form (i.e. before you intervened), race and ethnicity, along with the examples, accounted for about one-ninth of the whole body of text. Just take any word editor and perform a word count. I think devoting one-ninth of Lovecraft's entry to this issue is a fairly restrained proportion.Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:UNDUE says, that "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." HPL is best known as fantasy writer and even 1/9 is too much for his personal views. In H.P. Lovecraft in popular culture: the works and their adaptations in film is nothing about racism. In An H.P. Lovecraft encyclopedia is racism mentioned only one time, in context of different author. In Lovecraft: disturbing the universe, Discovering H.P. Lovecraft and The Lovecraft Necronomicon Primer: A Guide to the Cthulhu Mythos is nothing about racism. In An Epicure in the terrible is racism mentioned one time and really marginally. We must conclude, that racism in works of HPL is marginal and not notable. --Yopie (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "I have found six references where Lovecraft's racism is either ignored or only spoken about in short terms, hence Lovecraft's racism deserves less space". Is that your notion of logic? It's like saying "Paul di Giacomo, Sharleen Spiteri and Tom Conti are Scottish, hence if I meet a Scottish person chances are he or she will have an Italian surname".


 * Incidentally, you failed to mention Joshi's or Sprague de Camp's biographies, where racism is mentioned A L-O-T. At least you didn't come up with some role game...


 * Oh, and at least three of the books you mention focus mainly on the literature, not the man AND the literature (as opposed to this wiki entry), hence it's natural for racism to occupy less than 1/9 of them. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflictx2)you are actually constitutionally incapable of engaging in civilized discussion without attempting personal attacks. This demonstrates you recognize a weakness in your argument because you attempt to anger your opponents to distract them from the argument itself.  again, an anonymous user from Spain said I was uneducated based on a few paragraphs of text...OH NOES!!!!! WHATEVER SHALL I DO!!!!  I DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE OF (insert whatever country I come from) EDUCATION SYSTEM!!!!! THANK GOD THE OTHER USER DIDN'T MEAN ANY OFFENCE OTHERWISE I WOULD BE SO OFFENDED (sob horribly into computer keyboard).  Grow up kid.  anonymous personal attacks hold no weight with me and I need no abstraction to deduce that it is indicative of your personal character.


 * now on to the actual argument: WP:OR the Llopis text isn't the original research, but the paragraph written goes beyond that text and abstracts examples Llopis didn't use.  The paragraph above the Llopis text not only elaborates but goes beyond what Llopis said engaging in original. research


 * WP:WEIGHT Racism is a theme of Lovecrafts work, no one is denying that. However it isn't either significant enough or complex enough to dedicate 1/9 of the time talking about it. as I already stated, right now it takes up the same amount of space as his biography in this article...Lovecrafts life is way wwwaaaayyyyy more important to understanding his works (unless you are a Foucaultian in which case you can just discard the information on his life entirely) than understanding the racist themes in his works.  right now as this article reads racism is the most important factor to understanding Lovecraft.  personally, with my education and understanding of Lovecraft, I call bullshit.


 * WP:SYNTH the entire examples section is synth, plain and simple.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

as a capstone, I thought I would leave what Walter placed on my personal talk page...it is a classic...
 * "Please don't get me wrong. When I said you were uneducated I meant it as a description, not as an insult. Anyway, you don't have to worry, everything's under control: you might not be aware of your limitations, but I am so I guess it's my moral responsibility to step back and let you have it your way. See, I'm actually a busy guy, and I can't afford retro-nurturing your inferiority complex any further. I think we can leave it there, I basically made the point I wanted to make, so if you really wanted to make this a personal issue, then go ahead and relish on your triumph, little fella! Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)"
 * as I said...classicCoffeepusher (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I was paying attention to something else and my synthesis abilities clearly faltered here. I used a murky, convoluted paragraph to convey what could have been said in a single sentence. To wit, that people like you are a stain in Wikipedia. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. See new version. I've adjusted it so it'll be more academically neutral. In doing this I had to cut certain unfair and bias statements that were unfounded and cast an unreasonably harsh light on Lovecraft. I've also added some very brief commentary that explains some points of how he used elements of race, culture, and society in his story telling that will help balance the previously ill-weighted section. While not perfect, my changes are a vast improvement to the ridiculously bias way it was written before. Vance Mortelli (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Vance. I'm going to tinker with it a little more.  I think the problem is that while there are a number of people who want to passionately accuse Lovecraft with being a racist, or defend him from those accusations, most people don't care.  Even if we all agreed that Lovecraft was 67.3% racist, except on weekends, and we give a list of references to prove it, that's not especially useful.  What readers of the article should expect, though, is a treatment of race in Lovecraft's works (which is clearly a constant and major theme). Ethan Mitchell (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Did some more work on it. I like what you did with it Ethan. However, I did have some serious problems with the mentioning of Eugenics. I did not like it how the beginning sentence was stated as fact, and not stated as merely the opinion of a select sensitive few. My changes were quite minor. In an attempt to let the reader see more clearly the nearly invisible line which distinguishes reality from the unreal in respect to Lovecrafts true opinion on the matter, I added the following statement: "As with any long-dead and mysterious writer as prolific as Lovecraft, it is truly to the interpretation of any given reader to decide Lovecraft's actual views on racial and social topics." Anyway, I think we've made a lot of progress on this very important(at least to me) section. Can we agree that this dispute is resolved? That is, unless anyone still has a problem with the current version.Vance Mortelli (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Vance, I don't see your edits and I don't see where they got reverted. But based on your comment above, I think I would be opposed.  I feel like it's awkward to add our own justification for facts or critiques about historical figures.  If there is a notable criticism (as there is in this case) we should mention it.  If there is a notable response to that criticism, we should mention that too.  In this case, I'm not aware that there is a notable response.  Too often, I think WP articles discard the criteria of notability in some attempt to present controversies even-handedly. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Right now the entire section reads as original research with only one citation of a criticism present.  This is disappointing especially when a topic that actually has reliable sources which give detailed criticism.  Now I am not disagreeing with the information, but to be encyclopedic instead of saying "Lovecraft's racism is most especially present in X" it should read "according to (mention reliable source) Lovecrafts racism is especially present in X" or just cite it.  Writing a good encyclopedia article can be infuriating at times, because every sentence needs to be cited with a reliable source no matter how true you believe that sentence is (think of all the times a student has said "that is a truism" or the like whenever you asked them for the source of their statement...and don't be that student).


 * No, we don't need to cite every sentence. It's fine to run for a paragraph or so with a single citation, if that citation actually contains the information in those paragraphs.  Indeed, in academic writing, the assumption is that every factual claim between two citations is referenced by the subsequent source.  What I think is more tricky is the use of Lovecraft's own texts as a source for his views on race, class, etc.  Clearly, Lovecraft never lays out "this is my opinion on race."  At the same time, his texts are a more direct source of his opinions than any given critic.  If I were to trying to demonstrate that Lovecraft was a racist, and I had only one text to use, I would much rather have "On the creation of Niggers" than Houellebecq.  Right? Ethan Mitchell (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * actually no. if you read WP:OR you will find out that if you say "lovecraft was blah blah blah as seen in X text" that is original research and not admissible in the encyclopedia, however the same sentence cited with a reliable source that says the same thing becomes a defend-able statement within an encyclopedia.  Two factual claims between two citations that is not referenced by a subsequent source is known as  synthesizing two sources which is also against the rules.  Now you are right, that is more tricky, but this is not the forum for such writing, please see WP:NOT.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ok, so I am really getting off on the wrong foot here, no one likes having policy quoted to them. The problem is that while I understand that the issue of race et al. needs to be addressed in this article, people have been forgoing using existing criticisms and instead have been using this as a forum for original research.  The last edition took up over 1/9th of the space of this article because people kept adding examples and examples...and the entire section got completely away from what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish.  My point here is that you have good ideas and examples, ideas that have been published in reliable sources.  why don't we find those sources and cite them instead of breaking wikipedia's rules for inclusion.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Coffepusher is actually making a good point. The section is good, but perhaps it is necessary to find the sources, for the good of the readers. This will not be too difficult due to the extensive amount of letters and essays Lovecraft wrote. However, I agree that using characters's words in Lovecraft's stories to prove a viewpoint of Lovecraft is extremely deceptive and fallacious. Instead, let us use examples to prove the diversity in his works--for every major race and social class is used at some point in a negative light. Perhaps we must make this more clear. Clarity is key, after all. Thanks again Coffepusher for reigning us back into the true light of the Wikipedia project and away from our our own bias viewpoint which seems to have consumed us.Vance Mortelli (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if I am being clear...this section needs secondary reliable sources not primary sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced most of this section with a section that more accurately reflects the context and secondary criticism of Lovecrafts racist theme.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent dates?
The article begins

'Howard Phillips "H. P." Lovecraft (August 20, 1890 – March 15, 1937) was [...]. As early as the 1940s, Lovecraft had developed...'

which makes no sense to me. 81.131.12.221 (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Read it more carefully. The following developed in the 1940s, after his death. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edit
I have edited out a section of the article dealing with Lovecraft's supposdely "archaic" prose. It was an entirely subjective and opinion based paragraph, with zero sourcing or factual representation. I personally regard the idea that his prose were antiquarian as ridiculous anyway. Writing with words such as "noisome" and "eldritch" does not make you an antiquarian writer, especially in 1925, or thereabouts. For consideration, I just got done reading some of Alexander Hamilton by Chernow(2004). He uses noisome several times in the second chapter entitled "Hurricane". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Scipio (talk • contribs) 01:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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

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)

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)

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: EXPLAINLEAD

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
Here. --Niemti (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2013 (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 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)

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)


 * 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)

Pseudonyms
The Library of Congress lists 18 name "Variant(s)" of which only three are versions of his real name.

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.

--P64 (talk) 20:47, 14 August 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."[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."

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 62.88.254.62 (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2014 (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)

[i]The Case of Charles Dexter Ward[/i] is his longest work [i]of fiction[/i]. His longest work (all categories) is his travelogue on Quebec.62.88.254.62 (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit to the Copyright Section
Lovecraft Holdings LLC is apparently now the official HP Lovecraft literary estate. Robert C. Harrall is the administrator. See:
 * http://books.google.ca/books?id=nT3eBlU9YbUC&pg=PP4&lpg=PP4&dq=Lovecraft+Holdings,+LLC&source=bl&ots=RNItOXZFV5&sig=aniD3gyuo3Jip-A61ZHwKYErbdk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zfd4VI29NIeoogSCjYC4CA&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Lovecraft%20Holdings%2C%20LLC&f=false


 * http://books.google.ca/books?id=9rF-BAAAQBAJ&pg=PT1523&lpg=PT1523&dq=Lovecraft+Holdings,+LLC&source=bl&ots=WlFOzPQB7D&sig=D9uAtygnjxOvnwUmUzdv2rV21Cw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-AF5VKC_Bcq5ogTSzoGYAg&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Lovecraft%20Holdings%2C%20LLC&f=false


 * http://books.google.ca/books?id=JEzHAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT4&lpg=PT4&dq=Lovecraft+Holdings,+LLC&source=bl&ots=x7VztPPZHB&sig=x6dkDuCltI5xZZwidSv8wWT9EkM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-AF5VKC_Bcq5ogTSzoGYAg&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Lovecraft%20Holdings%2C%20LLC&f=false

24.71.35.83 (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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)