Talk:Arkham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] Model for Arkham

The real-life model for Arkham seems to be, in fact, Salem [Massachusetts]

Several Lovecraft scholars have claimed to the contrary that Providence, Rhode Island, was the model for Arkham (and that Brown was the model for Miskatonic University). I believe that S.T. Joshi is among them. If you Google "arkham providence" you will pull a list including literally dozens of websites also claiming that Providence was the model for Arkham (although none cite the source of this allegation). That said, I cannot immediately provide a specific attributable citation supporting Providence, but the Salem statement given above is — if not false — inaccurate and misleading. Canonblack 22:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

When I first came across this article, it cited no sources to substantiate any of the claims it made. Since then, I've made great strides in providing reliable sources for the information given. With regard to the location of Arkham, I did include a footnote giving different views on this matter. It is also worth nothing that in the "Arkham" entry in The H. P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia, Joshi and Schultz came to no firm conclusions about the place that Arkham is based upon (though the footnote in the article does quote from Lovecraft who infers that Arkham is based on Salem).

As far as "google searches" are concerned (and speaking solely for myself!), I would give the results about as much weight as I would a bag of wet field mice (though the sack of waterlogged rodents could probably make a stronger case as far as I'm concerned). Yes, I'm being flippant (don't take me too seriously). I suppose the point I'm making is that the internet, as it stands now, is not the respository of human knowledge that it purports itself to be (or would like to be seen as). After all, it's only been around for a little more than a decade, whereas published books, journals, etc. have been around since the dawn of recorded history (wow that's deep). Hence, there is far more critically- and peer-reviewed published material out there (i.e., physical books) than there is on the net. That's not to say there are not reliable sources on the internet (for example, some of S. T. Joshi's writings are on the net). The upshot is that not everything on the net can be trusted (especially if the source fails to cite verifiable sources or comes from an unaccredited author). And there are also tautological problems—namely, misinformation propagated from site to site so that an alleged fact generates a lot of hits. I would recommend finding a published source (professional publishers are usually very careful about what they put into print—their reputation is on the line after all) that supports your point of view; that way, no one can accuse you of violating WP:NOR. (A good source on Lovecraftiana would probably be Joshi's massive biography on H. P. Lovecraft: H. P. Lovecraft: A Life, West Warwick, RI: Necronomicon Press; 2004; ISBN 0-940884-88.)
-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 00:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

When I read the article, the text was slightly different. Check the history of the article for details. What I added was, specifically, a cite from August Derleth that pointed to Salem as model for Arkham. As you may imagine, Derleth's opinions have a high weight when speaking about Lovecraft. Anyway, I will describe where to find the cite so that you can judge whether or not it may be true. To put things into context, Derleth is explaining why he chose "Arkham House" as the name for his publishing house:

"There was never any question about the name of our publishing house. ‘Arkham House’ suggested itself at once, since it was Lovecraft’s own well-known, widely-used place-name for legend-haunted Salem, Massachusetts, in his remarkable fiction; it seemed to us that this was fitting and that Lovecraft himself would have approved it enthusiastically".

I really don't know where you may find this cite published. However, it may be read at Arkham House's homepage, in the section about the house itself[[1]].

Now, whether or not to give it credit is a different story. Personally, I think that reading it in the homepage of the publishing house founded by Derleth makes it believable.

PS: I have found a small note giving references for the cites on the page:
Twenty Years of Arkham House© 1959 by August Derleth
Thirty Years of Arkham House © 1970 by August Derleth

If you can have access to these books, the aforementioned cite should be in one of these two. Maybe the best way will be to check "Sixty Years of Arkham House", by S.T. Joshi, which reprints August Derleth’s essay on the first thirty years of Arkham House. ISBN 0870541765. Charles Dexter Ward 01:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Update. I added your citation to the Reference section. Thank you! Since Arkham House is an established publisher, I think its web site (especially since it talks about itself) is virtually irrefutable. Moreover, it cites references about itself, so don't think we have to worry too much about reliability in this case. (And since you listed those citations in your comments, that should cover the bases quite nicely in case someone wants to go look it up.)
  
  BTW, You may wonder why I moved your quote to the Notes section. My rationale is that trivial information (let me be careful here!--when I say trivial, I do not mean unimportant; I simply mean information that would be of little interest to the casual reader) belongs there so that it does not impede the natural flow of the article. In the interest of getting to the point, I think (IMHO) that it is important to strip away as much of the minor details as possible and get to the main points. The average reader, with only a passing interest in the subject, probably has never heard of August Derleth anyway, so his comments would carry little weight (on the other hand, he is mentioned in the introduction!). However, to a Lovecraft fan, these trivial pieces of information are like gold nuggests (or easter eggs?); hence, their inclusion in a separate notes section is a good place for this sort of stuff.
  
  Also, some of my comments about the net may have sounded somewhat gruff. I don't want to completely exclude the internet as a source of information; in fact, Wikipedia does allow—and even recognize—web sites to be reliable sources, provided of course their information is credible.
  -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 14:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Don't worry about being bold, it is the only way to progress efficiently, IMHO. When some text is first inserted, as it was the case, it may seem that the best place to put it is in the meat of the article, due to it being an important part of information in that context. When someone comes and reads the new content, the context he perceives is different, and probably more accurate. So any changes made with good intentions and reasons are usually welcome. I agree with you and think the article is now more readable. Keep up the good work. Charles Dexter Ward 14:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)