Talk:H. P. Lovecraft/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What a pleasant surprise it was find in Wikipedia a pithy, reasonably polished entry on H. P. Lovecraft! I've been expanding parts of the article with a sort of irritated joy, which is not a bad feeling at all, considering that it seems to be what compels most of us to improve anything in the first place.

Now, enough terse and cryptic rambling, as there is a quandary. In a show of ostensible pure grumpiness, in a recent edit I excised a 20-item, partial list of Lovecraft's fiction. For this I make no apology, since the list was incomplete and contained only one story linking to an article (The Call of Cthulhu) that was not a stub of especially low value. Furthermore, I made mention of The Call of Cthulhu elsewhere in the entry in order to retain a link to it.

But why not just amend the list with the rest of Lovecraft's fiction? Because he wrote a lot of prose fiction—not to mention poetry, amateur journalism, travelogues, and on and on—and so a complete list would be a cumbrous behemoth, whereas the short list that managed to survive previously was merely unhelpful, inadequate.

Only if someone around here derives "eldritch" pleasure from writing plot synopses—and dozens of them—should we give readers a list of Lovecraft's stories. Otherwise, I see no reason not to improve upon that which already exists. Chris Roy 06:22, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

At the risk of lowering the literary tone :), would it be appropriate to toss in a quick reference to the Call of Cthulhu role-playing game by Chaosium? (Crayfish)

Sounds good; you'll probably want to link, somewhere in the article, to Call of Cthulhu (role playing game). BTW, although it was courteous of you to post here first, your proposed addition wouldn't very much alter the article's content, ergo it's unlikely that it would annoy anyone. :-) Be bold! Chris Roy 09:28, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ah, but, see, the Lovecraft article is Featured, and all authoritative-feeling. I'm more comfortable editing stubs. :) Crayfish

Don't worry about it. I've mutilated this article with varying degrees of elegance—whether by deleting the list of his fiction or by loading on a grotesque number of ISBNs—without really asking here. :-P Chris Roy 09:52, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It looks like Cthulhu has claimed his latest victim in the form of ComputerBuker. Isomorphic thinks he's safe, but he's next. Cthulhu fhtagn! -- Walt Pohl 22:24, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Iä! Iä! :-) Chris Roy 22:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some mention in this article of the controversy about whether Lovecraft was a racist? It's been a fairly big point of discussion in Lovecraft criticism in recent years. --172.193.16.118 21:30, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. You don't need to tell us to do it, though; you could add the information yourself, and then others could modify your contribution if necessary. I've left a welcome message on your talk page (currently User talk:172.193.16.118, though you may want to create an account in the future) if you would like to learn a bit more about editing Wikipedia. Chris Roy 21:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I actually had created a user account a day or two before I posted that message, I just forgot to log in. :) I guess I'll add a brief section about the Lovecraft racism issue. I was reluctant to tackle it because I know it's a touchy issue for many Lovecraft afficianados, and I'm not the greatest Lovecraft scholar out there. As always on Wikipedia, if anyone feels I've done a less than perfect job, by all means feel free to improve it. -- AaronW 19:27, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just to chime in on HPL's racism. By modern definition, he was a racist, and a fairly open one—however, we need to answer two questions: (1) what kind of racist was he?; and (2) why?
The first question may raise some hackles, but we need to be aware that racism comes in a number of forms, and (looking back almost a century) some forms were socially accepted, even expected, while others were almost universally frowned upon. A (too) short answer to my question (1) would be that he was a racist of the kind you saw in Gentleman's Agreement (c.1948)--no matter his racial superiority fantasies, he would never wish to see harm come to someone of another "race" or ethnicity if it happened in front of him, nor could he ever do it himself. I won't get into the deeper question here of how that kind of racism contributes to darker forms. As to (2) I think it is more complex—part of it is the simple bigotry of an early 20th-century threatened WASP, made keener by his own ineptitudes, insecurity and studied self-imposed anachronistic world view; but his "blue-blood" heritage was the core of the self-image of a man who could barely support himself. Cecropia 20:19, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The racism issue has been very well handled in the new addition to the article; the tone strikes me as entirely appropriate, and mercifully free of overt opinion. Good work. Rayray 12:45, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The section represents Lovecraft's views toward race in an informative, succinct fashion, and the article is better as a result! Chris Roy 20:36, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Historical revisionists and postmodernists, however, often dismiss Lovecraft's work from a modern, liberal Left political perspective." Only historical revisionists and postmodernists, huh? Nobody who just doesn't like reading racist works? There's a lot of adjectives in that sentence "modern, liberal Left political" that don't mean a whole lot. In fact, the redundancy "liberal Left", while not meaning much, implies to me that the author did not approve. Both liberal and Left are poor choices of words to use anyway, since even England and America define those words differently. --Prosfilaes 05:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn. In the case of Mark Twain, the argument *isn't* that literary merit override racism, but that Twain and Twain's work is actually anti-racist. Wagner would be a possible better analogy.

Roadrunner 21:57, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Minor point, but the couplet quoted as being from 'The Call of Cthulhu' (1926) first appeared in 'The Nameless City' (1921) - and in it's first occurence lacked the 'even' in the second line, but gains it at the end of the story.

My source for the dates and content: ISBN 0-586-06324-2

--Zippedmartin 00:32, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Racism issue again

Actually, there is no need to white-wash Lovecraft's racism: it should be accepted that he was a racist. The article when I came upon it some months ago was trying to deemphasize this fact a little too much. I've accepted that Lovecraft was a racist, but I still appreciate his gift for weird fiction. As the article indicates, toward the end of his life it looks as if his views softened. I'm not saying any type of racism should be accepted, I'm saying that it should accepted that Lovecraft was a racist, to a degree. Alexander 007 15:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lovecraft was definitely a racist (though the less loaded term ethnocentrist would probably be more appropriate, even within the context of his time. It is natural, since racism is such a hot topic in modern times, to agonize over the evidence of his racism, which manifested itself in unpleasant literary, if not physical, ways, and use that knowledge to either vilify the man, or else claim it is untrue.
However, it might be much more useful to understanding the author to examine the issue (maybe beyond our scope here) in context of his personality and his times. Just a few points are:
  • There was an accepted view of the inferiority of those who are different in America of the time and, indeed, in most of the world;
  • Lovecraft's brand of "benign" ("passive agressive"?) racism, wherein he would rail in writing or in discussion against other ethnicities, but would not stand to see any of the objects of his hatred/fear harmed, was not all that uncommon, but also not that benign in the broader social context;
  • You can't view Lovecraft's racism without considering Lovecraft's fragile self-image. He wrote of robust bloodthirsty nordic peoples (as he viewed his ancestry) but was himself beset by numerous real, emotional, and psychosomatic disorders. (One thinks also of Robert E. Howard, the robust Texan who created Conan then committed suicide at the age of 30 because he couldn't deal with the death of his mother).
    • He was coddled by women for much of his life, but could not maintain a relationship with his wife; yet he gained apparent vicarious gratitification by taking a young woman to a graveyard at night and scaring the hell out of her with macabre stories;
    • His self-confidence was so poor that if a story was rejected by a publication at first submission, he typically threw it aside instead of marketing it to others. His friends often rescued the stories and secretly resubmiited him, then surprised Lovecraft with the acceptance checks;
    • His racism was bound up in a parallel with the fact that his life his materially austere, not what a "nobleman" of his background should enjoy. Dark and mysterious "others" seemed to threaten his "noble" position more and it seemed perverse to him that he should be poor while many of them prospered through hard work;
    • His "nobility" was his bulwark and against his many odd ailments and phobias; inability to withstand significant cold; a fear of large confined spaces; a dread of fish, which may explain why so many of his "monsters" resemble refugees from an Italian pesce meal.
So my point is that his genuine racism is but a symptom of the deficiencies of his personality--yet the man, when not writing horror tomes, was an amazingly lucid writer. I am frankly more disturbed by the writings of those of his era who engaged in high-minded political writings but were personally vile racists and/or anti-Semites. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suppressing black poetry?

This is in the article:

A year before his death, Lovecraft found himself further defending against charges of racism in the suppression of a black poet named Alvin Georgetown. Georgetown had died in 1927, and his widow, Mira Ellis, a white woman, accused Lovecraft of loving her late husband's work but intentionally paying him not to publish it. These charges were never proven.

Do we have a source for this? This is a rather remarkable charge. Lovecraft could barely feed himself, but had money to pay off a black poet not to publish his work? And defending himself? In what court? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I removed the questioned paragraph. Google shows no such person or connection with Lovecraft except in the Wikipedia article. I will also remove the Alvin Georgetown article just posted by this anon, unless s/he provides some kind of source. Otherwise it's not simple vandalism, it's fraud. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I should have looked this up myself - my bad. A quick look at S.T. Joshi's "H.P. Lovecraft: A Life" reveals no such person(s), either. -khaosworks 00:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Copyrights

If we're going to say that his works may be in the public domain in Canada, why don't we say that he may have died in 1937 or that he may have existed at all? Furthermore, 1923 is only important in a US context. Likewise, the contested copyrights are contested worldwide, not just in the US.--Prosfilaes 01:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reason I refrain from stating that Lovecraft's works are in the public domain is that:
a) I think it is risky for Wikipedia to offer explicit legal advice which could cause others to unwittingly break the law, and even open Wikipedia to litigation,
b) even though the law would seem to indicate that Lovecraft's works are in the public domain in countries like Canada and Australia, without authorative evidence I don't think we can state this as fact - there could be other, unknown laws in these countries and other factors could extend copyright -
c) IANAL, and
d) without evidence and citation it would seem to be original research to state as fact that these works are now in the public domain.
OTOH, we have clear evidence that Lovecraft did exist and that he did die in 1937. If you have any further evidence on status on Lovecraft's copyrights in USA, Canada, Australia and other countries, please cite them here and on the article page. --Axon 11:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just stating that he died in 1937 could cause others to unwittingly break the law, if it turned out that was wrong. Should Wikipedia avoid stating any dates of death or dates of publication so no one unwittingly breaks copyright laws based on those facts?
You don't want to state it as fact because there could be unknown laws? HP Lovecraft could have faked his own death. What makes it worse is the only way to read "For those Berne Convention countries who have implemented only the minimum copyright period of 50 years after the author's death, [...] the copyrights on Lovecraft's work may have already expired." is that Lovecraft may have died less than 50 years ago, as the statement itself establishes that life+50 is the only law implemented. You can't offer the slightest shard of evidence that he's not in the public domain in Australia or Canada, so let's assert it like the fact it is instead of misleading our readers into thinking there's some question on the matter. --Prosfilaes 22:12, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you want a cite: Public domain. --Prosfilaes 22:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is certainly not misleading to highlight the fact there is some controversy over his copyrights, and not just in the USA. Sure, Lovecraft could have faked his death but we have no reason to doubt this. We do have reason to doubt the copyright status of his works because they are in dispute and I've cited considerable evidence for this.
I wrote and carefully researched the entire section on Lovecraft's copyrights myself and I'm as keen as anyone to see Lovecraft's works in the public domain, but I've yet to find any concrete evidence from a reputable source that they actually are in the public domain. The burden of proof lies very much with us on this. Not even Joshi or Project Gutenberg would go so far as to assert the copyright statis of his works yet. True, it would seem that they almost certainly are in the public domain in Canada and Australia. I think it would make sense to apply what we know of Canadian and Australian law to Lovecraft's works. However, to make the leap from applying the general case to this specific case would be original research and I think we do need further evidence: this is why I state that are "most likely" in the public domain and not "they are" in the public domain: I think it is reasonable to make people aware that they should carry out their own research in this matter until such time as it is settled by those outside of Wikipedia. It is certainly not Wikipedia's place to settle the matter.
I take it from the above that you do not actually have any evidence or citation that Lovecraft's works are in the public domain in Canada and Australia. Also, I don't think it's encyclopaedic for an article to reference Wikipedia itself for citations.
Also, if you could tone down the auto-reverting of my edits that would be great: the section scans poorly and repeats information elsewhere. -Axon 10:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've also been researching this question, and Joshi has made some concrete statements regarding HPL's works:
According to S.T. Joshi's "H.P. Lovecraft: A Life" (pp. 640-641): The true fact of the matter is that much of Lovecraft's work is in the public domain. This is unquestionably so in terms of the tales, essays, and poems published in the amateur press. As for stories published in "Weird Tales", the six that the magazine owned outright should have had their copyrights renewed after twenty-eight years, but repeated searches in the Library of Congress have turned up no renewals of any kind. Of the stories Lovecraft himself controlled, by law only he, his heirs, or his executor could have renewed the rights, but this was never done.
Referring to a useful summary of US copyright, Lovecraft's works could be copyrighted in the United States only if the copyrights were renewed. Given that S.T. Joshi is by far the definitive Lovecraft scholar and biographer, this is the clearest answer that you'll be able to get regarding the copyrights of Lovecraft's published works. I have been investigating this question intently over the last several weeks, and if you have anything that contradicts Joshi I'd love to hear it. --Chris Karr 10:07, 22 Mar 2005
Hi Chris, I think you might be misundertanding the discussion above and below. I myself have been researching this subject and I wrote the section on copyrights almost entirely myself. I would seem that Joshi is correct and that Lovecraft's works are most likely in the public domain within the USA. Although if you read the section and the references you will see there may still be some question over whether Lovecraft's works are owned by Arkham House (most publishers and companies seek Arkham House's permission to use Lovecraft's works, even Joshi did this) and Arkham House still seems to claim ownership so obviously there still is some dispute.
Instead, this discussion is on whether it is appropriate (within the remit of original research to explicitly declare his works in the public domain in Canada and Australia or not in Wikipedia or exercise some caution.
BTW That quote would be useful to insert into the article on copyrights. --Axon 12:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification on the discussion. I'm quite frustrated with the copyright situation as I can't seem to find anything that suggests that Arkham House has a legitimate claim on the copyrights, despite other publishers asking them for permission. (FWIW, Joyce Carl Oates' "Tales of H.P. Lovecraft" did not attribute Arkham House with the the copyrights in any way.)
In any case, with respect to the discussion you were having (my apologies for butting in) - I don't think that it is inappropriate to declare the works to be in public domain in Australia and Canada, given the argument that Prosfilaes has laid out. I understand erring on the side of caution, but saying that they might be in the public domain when they are in the public domain muddies the issue and makes the article less useful. I understand your need for a citation, but do you really need a voice from upon high to say what Prosfilaes is saying below? It seems to me that the article should be concerned with conveying the facts of the situation and not playing the IANAL (I am not a lawyer) game.
BTW, I'd love to discuss what I've found in my research on Lovecraft's copyrights in the US with you. Could you send me a note at br284@aetherial.net so that we might be able to share and compare notes? --Chris Karr 13:42, 23 Mar 2005
Hi Chris, Please see my notes below on why I think we should be wary of citing whether Lovecraft's works are or are not in the public domain. It is not just a case IANAL, but also an issue of original research. I think some outside evidence that either Lovecraft's works are explicitily in the public domain or some examples of new works based on his Lovecraft's would be helpful in clarifying the issue. --Axon 10:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Apologies, you have not reverted the edits: please ignore by cantankerous comments above. --Axon 10:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is this original research?

In the interests of peace let us restart this discussion and allow ourselves to explain our reasoning. If you disagree we can explore the points contention and come to an agreement.

Let us both agree that we have evidence for the following:

A: Lovecraft died in 1937.

B: In Australia and Canada copyright expires 50 years after the author's death.

What you are saying that A ^ B => C, where:

C: Lovecraft's works are in the public domain in Canada and Australia.

You have no evidence for C but you are arriving at C given evidence for A and B. However, this is not how Wikipedia works: by combining the two statements together you are comitting the sin of original research. You cannot state C, given evidence for A and B because that leap is original research. In Wikipedia you must give evidence for A, B and C.

Now, there is some talk of provision for common sense in citing evidence which could remove the necessity to cite evidence for C. In other words, it would be 'common sense' to apply the above and arrive at conclusion C. However, I would argue that the 'common sense rule' should not necessarily apply in the case of giving legal advice because of the disproportionate risks involved. I would also argue that 'common sense' does not seem to reign in the legal world (especially considering recent findings on applicability of fair use in the case of sampling music in the USA). In other words, whilst B applies in the general case, the real world - and especially the legal world - is not necesarily a logical system where things work consistently and hence B may not apply in the specific case of A. Not being a legal expert I cannot say it is so with certainty.

Hence, this is why I state that his works are "most likely" public domain in the case of Australia and Canada - it is reasonable to assume they are but in the absence of any evidence Wikipedia should not say so with 100% certainty. This is not misleading and it is far from my aim to mislead. Nowhere does this give the impression that there is an argument that Lovecraft's works are not in the public domain and it only gives credence to conclusion C.

Of course, this could all be avoided by simply citing evidence that Lovecraft's works are in the public domain in Canada and Australia. Not only would this clear up any confusion, but it would also allow us to state without absolute certainty that the state of affairs is such and allow downstream users in Australia and Canada the freedom to use Lovecraft's works with the confidence they deserve. --Axon 16:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let A be H.P. Lovecraft was born on August 20, 1890, and B be H.P. Lovecraft died on March 15, 1937. Is it "original research" to say he lived 46 years? That's the level of inanity you're pushing towards. You can't honestly claim that Wikipedia writers are required to have the levels of synthesis that original writing requires, but musn't follow a simple syllogism. He died more than 50 years ago, his works are in the public domain in Australia and Canada. Period. That's the way the law works. It's not magic, and questions about where the line is in fair use are hardly applicable.
Of course, Wikipedia doesn't give out legal advice, and anyone depending it for such is an idiot. All the cites in the world won't change that. (Note this applies to the entire section.) Nothing we write changes the freedom that Australian and Canadian users have, nor does it change their responsibility to do proper copyright research. Including, for example, the effects of editors (such as August Derleth) and their rights to the works they edited. (Which is an effect on US copyright, too.) --Prosfilaes 05:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to read my arguments. I regret that you still seem to have quite a hostile attitude towards me and I would appreciate it if you took the time to calm down and respond to all my points fully - I'm on your side here and would really love to see Lovecraft's works in the public domain.
Your point on Lovevcraft's date of birth is interesting, but does not really equate with my example for a couple of reasons. We know when Lovecraft was born and when he died and we have evidence that he lived for, as you state, 50 years. It is not original research to state this, although I believe the article doesn't go as far to state this and merely mentions his date of birth and death as all good articles should. Similarly, both pieces of evidence are quite specific to Lovecraft and it would be common sense to do so. As I have stated above, for my example I do not think the "common sense" rule applies, though.
I never dispute that his works are most likely in the public domain in Australia and Canada, but you have yet to offer any proof of evidence that they actually are in the public domain there. I have scoured the Internet for any such evidence and if you have access to any sources that I don't I would really appreciate you citing them here for everyone's benefit. --Axon 11:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As an aside, a quick search of Project Gutenberg in Australia reveals an absence of Lovecraft's works[1] --Axon 16:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't want Lovecraft in the public domain; I know he is. The law is clear. http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html states the copyrights last for the life of the author plus fifty years in Canada. Are you really demanding an itemized list, of every author that has ever lived, confirming that they're really in the public domain in Canada if and only if they died more than 50 years ago? Laws don't generally mention people by name; they mention groups. Apparently no one has explicitly mentioned Lovecraft; why should they? The absence of Lovecraft's works in PG-AU means nothing; you will also find an absence of Margaret Mitchell's works there. --Prosfilaes 02:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your certainty, but unfortunately I have no idea of your own credentials and an editor's certainty cannot really be considered evidence for something in a Wikipedia article. Similarly, I don't know that Lovecraft's works are in the public domain. I'm not a lawyer or even a para-legal and I have seen no evidence that demonstrates this to my own satisfaction.
Thanks for that useful link, it is most informative. It might well be useful posting it on the public domain page. I also note that the article is also quite cautious and frequently uses vague words like "may" and such when describing the legal status of copyrighted works.
I am aware of the law in Canada. That is not in dispute. Again, please read and respond to my points above so we do not end up repeating ourselves. We are not looking for evidence of Canadian law, but evidence that Lovecraft is in the public domain in Australia and Canada which is two seperate things.
I think PG-AU is important as an example of the kind of proof we need to demonstrate that Lovecraft is in the public domain in Australia and Canada (I shall refer to this preposition as LPDAC from now on to save space). PG is a respected organisation that thoroughly research all their material before they publish it as public domain. Their basic levels of proof can be considered a standard. If they say something is in the public domain, one can with a large degree of certainty assume it is safe to say so. I had no intention of saying it has any other significance.
To help us both reach resolution on this, I will leave the article as is but I politely request that you research the legal status and uses of Lovecraft's works in AUS and CAN and publish all evidence here within the next week or so. I would greatly welcome that any evidence of public domain status of his work because it is of great personal interest. --Axon 12:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Once again, are you questioning whether Lovecraft died in 1937? It is a legal question whether Lovecraft is out of copyright in Canada or Australia, but it is not a serious question whether he is out of copyright in countries where copyright runs 50 years from the death of the author.--Prosfilaes 23:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I patiently and politely declined from editing the page and asked you to supply specific evidence two weeks ago to back-up your edits. If Lovecraft's works are PD in AUS and CAN, as you seem to sure they are, there would be examples of public domain uses of his works or other secondary sources stating they are public domain. Without this evidence you are synthesising research from primary and secondary sources which is original research (please read the Wikipedia:No original research for full information on this).
No such evidence has been forthcoming so I can only assume it does not exist. I don't really understand why you would ignore my last comments, but your habit of auto-reverting my changes and ignoring the discussion here is not helping us reach agreement on this. --Axon 08:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How do you know there would be examples or other secondary sources? That's quite a leap of logic.
I don't see how "For those Berne Convention countries who have implemented only the minimum copyright period of 50 years after the author's death" is under question. Only the minimum copyright period precludes additional copyrights, and 50 years after the author's death is pretty clear. For future reference, Australia is not such a country; authors that have been dead more than 70 years or died before 1955 are out of copyright in Australia. (See the page I cited above.)
"The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"." There's a difference between a novel interpretation and saying that adding 1937 and 50. There's nothing novel about that.
I feel this is the same as saying "most of Lovecraft's works published in the amateur press are most likely now in the public domain.", which is also synthesis of what Joshi said. --Prosfilaes 23:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, if you read the text I do not state the above as fact, but clearly attribute the opinion to Joshi. What is more, I back up what I say with evidence and references from secondary sources.
In your own words, there is no original synthesis adding 50 to 1937 or stating public domain law - this is not in dispute. But there is an original synthesis when you state certain works are in the public domain without evidence. Again, please read my original remarks above on the various reasons I believe this is original research. They discuss your point and other remarks you raise, otherwise I will end up repeating myelf.
I think a more appropriate compromise here would be to simply state the law without making explicit refernce to Lovecraft's works. Please see my latest changes. --Axon 15:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but that's not what Joshi said. You applied original systhesis in turning what Joshi actually wrote into something suitable for an encyclopedia article.
I'm not going to change it again. But I consider it stupid; it's a completely irrelevant fact, and once you figure out why it's there, it looks like we're too afraid to say what we mean so we have to hint at it obliquely.
Is it original research to say that if I picked this monitor of the desk it would fall? I don't believe it is; the rule isn't there to prevent people from applying general statements to specifics, but to prevent, you know, actual research. --Prosfilaes 05:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't appreciate you referring to my edits as "stupid" - please don't make personal attacks. I think the sentence makes sense in the context of the section and, if you don't like it, you should profer some other alternative as a compromise.
I would like to add that I don't make a new synthesis, I merely summarise what Joshi wrote as gathered from other articles on the Internet. Everything I wrote has been repeated elsewhere first.
Obviously, it's not just an issue of applying the general case to the specific, there is also a legal dimension to all this. Also, the no original research rule does include applying generalisations to specific cases: by doing so you are generating a primary source (i.e. Lovecraft is public domain) from a secondary source (i.e. a generalization) without further evidence, i.e. a primary source explicitly stating that Lovecraft is in the public domain. What is more, your point on original research has been discussed, in detail, in my comments above. I've responded there to all the issues you raise and more. If you wish to discuss this further, please do me the same courtesy and tone down the hostility. --Axon 10:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Synthesis ("the combination of ideas into a complex whole") is what we're doing here. Unless you're plagarizing, you're doing original systhesis. I have no idea what how you're using primary and secondary source here--they don't correspond in any way to the ways I've seen those words used.
Why is that sentence there? The only conclusion I can come to is that it's trying to say something about Lovecraft. So why doesn't say anything about Lovecraft? Why is it beating around the bush? Those are the questions that come up when I read that sentence.--Prosfilaes 02:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No apology for the personal attack, Prosfilaes? Ah well, I guess those of us who are more civil and humble have no need to denegrate others.
Obviously, synthesis as applied to compiling and summarising content for a Wikipedia article is allowed. Similarly, it is obvious from the no original research policy, synthesis to generate new secondary and primary sources is not allowed. If you disagree with the policy you can take the issue to the village pump.
I think the sentence makes sense in the context of the section. It is quite obvious how it relates to the topic of Lovecraft's copyrights. If it helps, we could move the sentence into the previous parapgraph. Again, if you don't like it I ask you submit some alternative compromise. --Axon 10:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Psychedelic Band

There was a psychedelic band in the 1960s that called themselves "H. P. Lovecraft" and based several of their songs on his writings. ("The White Ship", "At the Mountains of Madness", etc.) I thought this warranted a mention in this article, but couldn't find any obvious place to include it. Any thoughts? Skyraider 23:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No responses, so I decided to be bold and add a brief section about the band. If anyone comes up with a more elegant way to present this information within the existing structure of the article, I won't object. Skyraider 03:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I started an article on the band "H.P. Lovecraft (rock group)". Needs work. Anybody know how to make a disambiguation page? Can't seem to find it in the lengthy Help section around here. By the way, Vault Radio has been playing one of their numbers this week. BillFlis 12:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The simplest way is to put a note at the top of each article that says something to the effect of "This article is about the author. For the psychedelic band, see H.P. Lovecraft" There's some templates that can help with this: see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Racism Issue WAY overstated

That this should be such a large percentage of the Lovecraft article is fairly absurd. He had some armchair opinions about "negroes" that were not only common in the 20s and 30s, but taken as obvious science by most educated whites, and many educated "negroes" as well...including Bertrand Russell in the 20s, who actually envisions menial labor being done primarily by blacks in "The Scientific Outlook," which was published as nonfiction by the way, and taken seriously, by the way, unlike say, any of Lovecraft's tales, which have--.000000001%--overlap with shaping the intellectuals and mores of the times. Even the NAACP ideology, the "talented tenth," essentially conceded to this vision of africans being slightly "inferior" genetically. What this "racism" heading is doing there, I just have no idea. I ran across some of these startlingly ordinary opinions in his letters, but just about 0% of his stories have a flying fuck to do with race relations. Lovecraft found humanity disgusting and his opinions may be noteworthy for unifying racism and general disgust, but the claim about "miscegenation themes" in these stories is fairly questionable--the miscegenation in question is organic perversion from another dimension, infection--a trope common to racist theorizing, and Lovecraft's twisted imagination the same. Write a paper, but don't bog down Lovecraft's world with this speculative, authoritative sounding sullying. This just smacks of the "wow, he was a racist!" perspective of someone mostly unfamiliar with the intellectual landscape of the time.

"However, many scholars agree that the racism of his work does not detract from their inherent quality but for in a few instances, as in The Street or The Rats in the Walls, in which a cat is named "Nigger-Man"." Sorry, that doesn't detract from the inherent quality at all. That statement is simply objectively wrong--if there were themes about the evils of misegenation, that could possibly detract from the inherent quality, but ascribing magical, taboo offensiveness of our time to a name that was fairly common for pets in those days...uhm...what is this paragraph even doing there again?

These themes may arguably surface in a handful of his stories, but really...I find it RIDICULOUS that this should be a "finished" article with that jutting protruberance sitting so stupidly right in the middle. Anyway, I'm going to edit it down a bit, feel free to revert it, but if you do, please add big, massive "RACISM CONTROVERSY" headings to virtually every thinker of the 20s. -- posted by anon, please sign your work and consider opening an account so you may fully partipate in the community.

I cannot agree his racism is "WAY" overstated though we should better ask how it informed his work. He was not a hypocrite, as some writers of the era were, who proclaimed their love of man and freedom, but hated certain groups. The issue is important in the context of our own times and any writing of it should be affected but not suppressed by the knowledge that his attitudes were common then than now.
One thing I would definitely support is moving the issue from the second heading. He was not a significant figure in writings or politics dealing with race and ethnicity, and the racism material should not appear in the article ahead of his writing. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Give me a break. I scan books for Project Gutenberg, and I read books a lot of books from that era. I've noticed racist tendencies in J.S. Fletcher and Freeman Edwin Miller's Oklahoma Summer and various old cartoons. But I've scanned H.P. Lovecraft's Writings in United Amateur, and I'm not touching him again. I don't recall reading anywhere else that all the Romans and ancient Greeks had been wiped out and replaced by the inferior modern Italians and Greeks. His writings--not just his fiction, but his writings as a whole--had a strain of racism that was not merely normal for his day.--Prosfilaes 23:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Racism Thing

Your authority I'm sure is formidable, scanning and reading books. But until Franz Boas and Mead etc. moved in, pretty much no one would have the gaul to say Nurture molds race to an absolute extent. There were government sterilization programs, Social Darwinism was in, imagining ancient Greeks as a pure race seemed to make sense, reflecting on their glory, and thinking about the current Greece as mongrelized, that was taken as read.

You don't find many authors talking about it because it was impolite, just like I don't talk about people in Nigeria having the same cognitive capacity as me, because I take it as read you accept this if we decide to talk about Nigeria. Lovecraft didn't much care for politeness and he liked to imagine big shifts, races, these kinds of things, which did feed into his imagination of cosmic races, etc. Nonetheless, as the "racism controversey" heading specified, his opinions changed in the 30s, just like the western world's opinions changed, when they saw through the ignorance and pseudoscience.

Perhaps it's more noteworthy than I perceive it--I admit I have not read all his nonfiction. Nonetheless "not touching Lovecraft" because you find his scientific speculations, which he would have ceded as such, totally not, like, considerate to people's general right to respect and stuff, this seems to be as destined to be dated as Social Darwinism, and perhaps more silly. Artistole thought women had two more teeth than they do; he could have checked any time, he didn't...and Lovecraft didn't have a vicious persecuting streak remotely, unlike Henry Ford, Hitler, or dangerous pseudoscientists of the era that suggested horrid legislation. I just think looking over Lovecraft's work, which tried to place all of humanity somewhere near the toad in evolutionary development, this 25% of the article racist-fixation is pretty inane.

It's an issue that people reading and writing this article were interested in. From a reader's perspective, it's a lot more prominent in Lovecraft than many other authors. That's why it gets the space it does.
You say that his work places "all of humanity somewhere near the toad"; one discussion of the issue I read mentioned that Lovecraft's heros and villians are all white; that is, the non-whites didn't even have what it takes to be villians in Lovecraft's works.
It's not merely a minor part of his beliefs, either. The fact that anyone who wasn't British was inferior pervades his writings for the United Amateur. Whether or not it's common at that time, if it is a belief someone holds strongly, it should be included in the article.
I'd appreciate you backing off on the personal attacks. I will read and scan who I want to read and scan, and you have no right to mock me for it. --Prosfilaes 06:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What you said about non-whites not having what it takes to be villians; many, many works of fiction include both white heros and villians. They are not all racist. I'm sure there are books with non-white heros and villians; are they anti-white? Besides, Lovecraft lived in a segregated society. I doubt he came in frequent contact with non-whites, and I highly doubt this lack of them in *most* of his writing was a concious decision on his part. --Anon.

"one discussion of the issue I read mentioned that Lovecraft's heros and villians are all white; that is, the non-whites didn't even have what it takes to be villians in Lovecraft's works." The cultists in the Houdini story whose name escapes me were Egyptian, and the voodoo cult in "The Call of Cthulhu" were black. Obviously the mythos creatures are the real villains, but they were antagonists, and the Egyptians were more prominent than the Mythos in that particular story. -Sean Curtin 23:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Get off your high horse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tchernobog (talk • contribs) 18:58, 30 September 2005.

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 20:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Dumb Question

So, which book should I start with? --Señor Cardgage

The Necronomicon, of course! But seriously. . . I've always thought "The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath" makes a good intro to Lovecraft's works. Skyraider 00:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
My first Lovecraft was "Omnibus 1 At The Mountains Of Madness" ISBN 0586063226, which has seven enojoyable stories. Alf 01:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Time to break off pop culture?

Much of this article is dedicated, not to Lovecraft, but to the pop culture trappings of Lovecraftian horror. Is it, perhaps, time to slice off large hunks of the end of this article to crate that one? If no one has any strong feelings against, I'll probably be bold sometime in the next week or so... -Harmil 17:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I've felt like ripping out every two bit singer and webcomic that once made a toss-off reference to Lovecraft. But moving them to their own article would probably be the more friendly option. --Prosfilaes 18:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This work is now done. Feel free to go poke at the result at Lovecraftian horror. I'm sure it could use work, especially in adding information on Lovecraft-influenced novels. -Harmil 16:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Very good job, too (IMHO), thanks for taking the time and care it needed. Alf 17:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/2E/_/Talk%7EH._P._Lovecraft_archive1_a1e8.html"