Talk:Cthulhu Mythos reference codes and bibliography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Reference codes

This system can accommodate a maximum of 676 possible codes (and thus as many references). Allowing for a single-digit number used for the second part of the key (for example: A1, A2, A3, etc.), excluding "zero" which might be confused with "O", this raises the maximum number of possible references to 910. Keep in mind that if you change any codes here (NOT RECOMMENDED), you must also change them in the appropriate table(s) as well.

Note: When adding new codes, be sure your code is not already in use. If the ideal code is already used, try forming your code from a sequential set of letters in the name of the reference. Note that footnotes will still work even if you don't supply one; an advanced user can add the footnote later.

^Gate2Valusia^{Oh?..(contribs)} 11:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding "The Lurking Fear"

Sorry to say so, but I'm a total noob at manipulating this kind of tool. I'd like more information as to how to do so properly.

I seem to notice that HPL's story The Lurking Fear does not seem to appear here, and it should be added (conveniently, code LF seems to be free). that would allow the mention of a source to the Martense creatures in the Cthulhu Mythos article. --Svartalf 18:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• So that's where Martense came from—it's been at least 10 years since I read "The Lurking Fear" which is why I didn't recognize it. However, I think that the Martense entry does not belong in the table, as the "The Lurking Fear" is not technically part of the Cthulhu mythos (and so that entry should be removed—I think I'll do that now). To the best of my knowledge, "The Lurking Fear" contains no references that would link it, either directly or indirectly, to Lovecraft's Cthulhoid cycle of myth. I confirmed this by checking Steven J. Mariconda's table of Lovecraft's compositions in his essay collection On the Emergence of "Cthulhu" and Other Observations (Necronomicon Press, 1995, ISBN 0-940-88481-X, pp. 41). Mariconda lists no mythos references for "The Lurking Fear". Also, in The Encyclopedia Cthulhiana, Daniel Harms includes no entry for the Martense clan; thus, we may infer from its absence that Harms likewise does not regard "The Lurking Fear" as part of the "Cthulhu mythos".
  
  The upshot of this is: I recommend that you do not include "The Lurking Fear" in the table. Since this table is specifically for "Cthulhu mythos"-related sources, it should not be laden with stories (even those written by Lovecraft himself!) that have no relationship to the mythos. That being said, I should note that I did include "The Picture in the House" and "Herbert West—Reanimator" in the table, though they are not technically mythos stories. I included them only because they contain references to "Miskatonic" and "Arkham". However, I may remove these entries in the future, and instead include a footnote in the relevant tables rather than a reference code (but that's a separate issue).
  
  BTW, I am not trying to discourage you from adding new entries. Far from it! It's just that you should be sure (or reasonably certain) that any new entries actually belong to (or in) the "Cthulhu mythos".
  -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 04:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• With due respect, I believe this point of view as unduly restrictive of what does or does not constitute a "mythos" tale. IIRC, the table lists as "Cthulhian" some stories that belong to Lovecraft's "dreamland" and Dunsanian veins, which are more fantasy than terror... I'd have to read them again to check, but I'm not sure that stories like Celephaïs, The White Ship, or The Cats of Ulthar are any too cthulhoid either... When Lovecraft made up the Mythos, the point was Terror, and, despite its like of Cthulhian buzzwords, such is the point of The Lurking Fear : It is about things that are impossible, horrible, "blasphemous abnormalities" to quote the text itself, and while nothing is said of the life of the Martense clan, either before or after abandonment of their house, it can be inferred that it was unnatural practices that isolated them from the world, eventually leading them to leave the house for a subterranean existence, and that their unknowable lifestyle after that has only made things worse. A story, especially one by HPL, does not need to shout "Iä, Yog Sothoth" every other page to be mythos related.

As for The Picture in the House, it is clearly mythos related... the old man's lifespan is clearly unnatural, and he got it by forbidden practices... maybe he regularly attended the Kingsport Festival too? --Svartalf 02:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is worth noting that Wikipedia, as a matter of policy, frowns upon original research. Thus, the criteria for what should or should not be included in Wikipedia cannot be based on personal opinion. Instead, it must be based on verifiable sources. The reason I exclude "The Lurking Fear" is because I can find no evidence to substantiate it as a mythos story. And clearly a distinction exists between mythos stories and non-mythos stories, because otherwise virtually everything Lovecraft wrote would be considered part of the "Cthulhu mythos" (or, more appropriately, the Lovecraft mythos)—and this is not a view held by Lovecraft scholars (at least not the ones I am familiar with). (I should mention that I am very well-read on the subject of Lovecraft, especially the "Cthulhu mythos".)
  
  In the case of the so-called dream stories (such as the "White Ship" and The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath, among others) I think that they are probably included by extension because they either mention mythos elements or are in some way connected to those elements; though some authors, such as Lin Carter, excluded them entirely from the mythos. Nevertheless, if various accredited scholars recognize the dream stories as mythos stories, then that's a good enough reason to include them.
  -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 23:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Alright... If I intended to do opinion driven editing, it would be done already. But I assume that these mythos articles are being watched by a community of geeks and experts amongs whom I could produce a consensus in favor of my views. After all, what I say is not "original research" : it is the fact that, after reading various texts and opinions about HPL and the mythos, I've read the stories and checked for the patterns, themes and features associated with the mythos and described by HPL himself. I AM basing myself on verifiable sources, namely the stories themselves, and some of the best known commentaries, particularly S T Joshi and his annotated Lovecraft books. I do agree that some of HPL's stories are not mythos, I just find it superficial and ill considered to do the sorting according to whether the story contains mythos buzz words. For instance I regard such stories as The Lurking Fear, Arthur Jermyn, The Picture in the House, and Pickman's Model as "mythos", in spite of a lack of obvious mythos related words or events, because their themes and manner are in keeping with the horror laden univers HPL ascribed to his better known mythos tales, while I deny this quality to Herbert West because, despite the title character having studied at Miskatonic U., the themes and the nature of the horror are thos of a typical "mad scientist" tale, not those of the Lovecraftian universe.

Yes, I admit the Dream tales as part of the mythos, because they are interlaced with mythos themes, beings and motifs, my argument was antithetic in nature. As for Lin Carter, given the overall quality of his production, and his invention of a copious progeny to Cthulhu (including Ghatanotoa who, in more orthodox tales does not show any ties to the Master of R'Lyeh), I think it is obvious he was an even worse idiot than Derleth and his opinions can be safely discarded. By the way, I don't think there are any "verifiable" sources beside the stories themselves, and critical analyses you've studied and agreed with, because the published sources (say, the Encyclopedia Cthuliana) rely only or at least mostly on their author's opinion, not on a well established body of knowledge and interpretation... they are generally regarded as authorities only because they were mass published, that is, the authors took the pains of compilating stuff, for which the books are very convenient, but it is no guarantee of the author being right, and given the rather obscure and specialized nature of the subject... I'm not sure that finding a publisher is any guarantee. I will disparage the Encyclopedia Cthuliana not because it is bad, or lacks seriousness, but because you mentioned it, and I happen to disagree on this point. Mr Harms does not mention the Martense in his book. Is it because he studied the case carefully, and ended up rejecting the idea of the story being mythos on serious grounds, or did he review it hastily and pass it by because it lacks the most obvious marks of the mythos? I feel it's the second. Then again, I would like to hear what he has to say on the matter. The nature of the horror in The Lurking Fear leads me to think it is mythos, in spite of the absence of obvious markers. Don't trust books written by others whose method and reasoning you don't know. Read it, think, and then tell me if you still think the same way. In any case, I won't edit on that subject before I feel I have a consensus, or at least support.

--Svartalf 01:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Let me be clear that my arguments for excluding "The Lurking Fear" applies only to this table. You are free of course to write an article about the story. Such an article would also be a good place to include a section about the Martense family.
  
  The problem with asserting that the stories themselves are verifiable is problematic because different readers may come to different conclusions. In the case of "The Lurking Fear", a first-time reader with no knowledge of the "Cthulhu mythos" will have a different take than those who are intimately familiar with it. Thus, you yourself may find parallels to the myth-cycle simply because you know of its existence (and certainly such parallels must exist because the story was written by Lovecraft and Lovecraft invented the mythos!) But to state such views in an article constitutes original research not because they are invalid but because they are asserted by you. If, on the other hand, these views come from a published source (which by virtue of being "mass published" means that it is open to peer-review and criticism by Lovecraft scholars) then those views are considered neutral (i.e., not your own) and thus meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. So, it would be perfectly acceptable to include the analysis of such scholars as S. T. Joshi (as might appear in his commentaries) as long as you do not intentionally augment or reinterpret these views to fit your own opinion. (However! you may express your views about the story on the article's discussion page—but I wouldn't recommend writing an essay-length analysis; though I believe there is a separate wiki-project for just that sort of thing.)
  -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 03:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)