Jump to content

Talk:Arthur Machen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

and using similar plot lines most notably seen by a comparison of The Dunwich Horror to The Great God Pan.

Well, no. The only common theme is in the creation of a hybrid between humans and something else: In Dunwich, interbreeding with an alien being from another universe as a bridgehead for an invasion (or a retaking) of Earth: in Pan, a cross with the ultimate source of life on Earth/a Nature principle, with all the unnerving biological urgencies and atavisms that involves.... But I can't work out a better expression at the moment, so I'm just registering disagreement with the above quote from the article. Malcolm Farmer 00:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think the fact Lovecraft quotes Machen in the story is a bit of a clue then? The plot lines do have similarities in that they both feature interbreeding with an otherwordly being from ancient times who comes into the present day in an isolated rural area. Similarly they are both defeated by the coming together of a group of right minded people who work out the threat presented to humanity. I am not saying they are indentical in theme or indeed in plot, indeed their themes are quite different as you point out, but just there are clear influences on plotting and ST Joshi agrees with me on this as do other weird tale scholars.--Machenphile 23:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Influences/influenced

[edit]

These infobox fields have been the topic of much negative discussion (see here, for instance), and it's been decided to omit them in a number of articles, such as the featured article J. R. R. Tolkien. I've therefore blanked the fields here, and I think a very persuasive case needs to be made before any use is made of them again. Deor (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental Edit Warring

[edit]

I want to apologize for some accidental edit warring that I was involved in. I have been working on WP:DPL and Puritanism was one of the clean-up items. Part of my conversation with the other user can be found here. Xe7al (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Llandewi Fach

[edit]

Here is the church at Llandewi Fach where his father was vicar: Not sure there's room to fit it into the article, but it's a very good image. The property appears to now be a dwelling. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also just added this image to Caerleon. It might also be used here, perhaps:
Plaque at birthplace of Arthur Machen, The Square, High Street
I can't find any source for when the Caerleon plaque was installed. There's also this one in Whitby: [1], not yet loaded to Commons, but of good quality. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re the Caerleon plaque: Installed November 1997 according to this, which is plausible as it bears the name of the Arthur Machen Society, which ceased to exist around 1997–1998. The Whitby plaque is interesting because the town, which Machen visited on journalistic business in 1916, apparently inspired the setting of his story "The Happy Children". I think I'll move the Caerleon plaque image down to the section "Literary societies" because of the AMS's involvement in its installation. Deor (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds a fine idea. Perhaps the date of installation could be added in the text by way of brief explanation? I will add that Whitby image to Commons if that would also be useful. It's a fine image (but if I had taken it, I might have done a little bit of cleaning first). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Arthur Machen Society is no londer with us, but the Friends of Arthur Machen FoAM fulfils much the same function now. Thank you for the photo of the plaque in Whitby, by the way. g88keeper (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of edits by IP 220.233.86.59

[edit]

I've reverted the long string of edits by this IP, as they were riddled with copyvios and off-topic material, and I just don't have time at the moment to deal with the many changes one by one. For instance, in the section "The Machen Boom of the Twenties" the characterization of Far Off Things as "the first and most lyrical section of Machen's autobiographical memoir, especially beloved of those who celebrate the author as a major stylist of evocative prose. The sublime Welsh landscapes shape the childhood of the author in approved Wordsworthian fashion" was copied verbatim, with no credit or quotation marks, from this page at the Friends of Arthur Machen site, as was the characterization of The London Adventure with the sentence "Machen's final burst of autobiography abandons progressively its attempt to tell a story and becomes instead concerned with its own genesis, and with the strangeness of the universe we inhabit". A good deal of the material seems to have consituted unsourced opinions as well (unless it was copied from sources I haven't had the time to ferret out); and even if such opinions can be sourced, they may well be taken to give undue weight to certain views. If the IP wants to make changes in the article, I suggest that he or she propose or discuss them on this talk page before making such a series of numerous short edits that are difficult to unravel. Deor (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

"Machen, however, showed literary promise, publishing in 1881 a long poem "Eleusinia" on the subject of the Eleusinian Mysteries."

I'm new to Wiki Editing so I hope this goes through. I just want to suggest that it'd be worthwhile to note that Eleusinia was self-published - this information can be found in any of the top biographies: Reynolds & Charlton; Sweetser; Valentine, as well as in 'Far Off Things.' Literary.elitist (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, citations are required for the following passage:

"He was deeply suspicious of science, materialism, commerce, and Puritanism, all of which were anathema to Machen's conservative, bohemian, mystical, and ritualistic temperament. Machen's virulent satirical streak against things he disliked has been regarded as a weakness in his work, and rather dating, especially when it comes to the fore in works such as Dr Stiggins. Similarly, some of his propagandistic First World War stories also have little appeal to a modern audience"

In the first instance the only critic I know of to suggest what has been termed "Machen's virulent satirical streak against things he disliked" is by S. T. Joshi in "Philosophy and Fiction." Discovering Classic Horror Fiction 1 p. 6. Unfortunatly Joshi's work is polemical at best, not really a strong source upon which to base such an assertion. Second, a source that can demonstrate that his First World War stories are 'propagantistic' and that they have little appeal to a modern audience is required, two sources if need be the case. Literary.elitist (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances in Fiction

[edit]

Text reinstated for popular culture reference to Machen, base on reliable citation to Los Angeles Times article. Ordinarily, appearances in popular culture are sufficiently nontrivial to warrant mention a bio. If there is some specific Wikipedia editing standard on triviality that is not met here, then please cite with specificity. Otherwise, text should remain in the article.One-Off Contributor (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that claim is verifiable, since Los Angeles Times is regarded as a WP:RS. But it sounds very trivial. Why does it not appear, where one might expect it, in the article for Afterlife with Archie? It might be quite relevant there, but I don't see how it helps us appreciate Machen himself in this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This one appearance, which the source only mentions in passing, doesn't appear to rise to the level of inclusion set by WP:DUE and described by WP:IPC. Mentioning the brief appearance would be giving the impression that this series has had a significant impact on a cultural understanding of Machen, but the source doesn't really suggest that. This needs heavier sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: The source isn't the print Los Angeles Times; it's one of the blogs (named Hero Complex) that they run on their Web site. That's not to say that it's unreliable—I'm sure that such a character actually appears in the comic. I just think that the comic appearance is utterly trivial in the context of the article on Machen (like most of the ooh-I-just-noticed-a-mention-of-this-person/place/thing-in-a-book/movie/TV-show material that populates "In popular culture" sections and articles in Wikipedia). Deor (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think leading newspapers often tend to incorporate "blog" columns, written by staff and vetted by the editor, as a way of appearing trendy. For all we know, of course, One-Off Contributor may have campaigned tirelessly for years with the writers or editor of Afterlife with Archie to mention Machen in some way. But that doesn't really alter its triviality. It may be a surprising factoid, and I'd thank One-Off Contributor for making us all aware of it, but I still don't think it belongs in the article, especially as a ten-word single-sentence sub-section. Sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arthur Machen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Weird fiction" table

[edit]

Re: this large recent addition. I think it rather unbalances the article and wholly defeats the object of having a "Selected works" section. Perhaps it could be hidden under a drop down, or else moved to an article of its own? This is rather an ambitious and unprompted contribution from a seemingly brand new editor. What do other regular editors think? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The table contained a number of errors, some of the entries could only by a stretch be considered "weird", and it was not fully supported by the cited sources. I've reverted it, and its restoration should be contingent on a consensus for its inclusion here. Deor (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arthur Machen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arthur Machen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of death is missing from the article

[edit]

This seems odd and incomplete. Is the cause of death unknown?? 172.10.237.153 (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arthur_Machen&oldid=1202402885"