Talk:The Colour Out of Space

Film adaptations

The article doesn't mention that there is a german independent film from 2010, Die Farbe, based on this novel. --Duckwing (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Picture

I removed the image in this article because it depicts a creature from Lovecraft's "The Shadow Out of Time" and has nothing to do with "The Color Out of Space." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad the Impaler (talk • contribs) 01:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with V-the-I; it's a swell illustration, but it does not illustrate the subject of this article. I don't recall "Color" even being adapted in that collection. Asat (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 09:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The Colour out of Space → The Colour Out of Space – Speedy move back to correct title. I blundered when I first moved this page (I suppose I had a bad case of Wiki-lowercase-itis).
-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 19:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Mutagenic"

I removed the term "mutagenic" from the plot synopsis for a rather simple reason - DNA had not even been discovered during Lovecraft's lifetime, let alone when this story was written. Nice analysis from a 21st century viewpoint, but kind of ridiculus when taken in context. --71.201.77.111 01:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem with using the word mutagenic? The glowing plants are mutants. The mutation is caused by the metorite. Thus, the meteorite/color from space would be mutagenic. Merely because Lovecraft himself didn't know about DNA, doesn't mean this article shouldn't use the word.

I think User:71.201.77.111 is confused about the etymology of the word mutagenic. Mutagenic shares the same Latin base as "mutate," derived from the Latin verb mutare . the -Genic part isn't from "gene" but a suffix meaning "to pruduce." Mutagen is "something that produces a change," and doesn't have anything to specifically do with DNA genes. Remember also that Darwin had been around long before DNA was discovered, and scientists were looking for the biological basis for "genes" long before DNA and its double helix structure were discovered. To this day, the word "gene" is for the Evolutionary Biologist an abstract construct, while for other scientists and biologists, gene is the physical DNA. Cuvtixo 18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Unconvincing quote

"Robert M. Price has pointed to a passage in Edgar Rice Burroughs' The Gods of Mars describing the gems of Barsoom: "[W]here are the words to describe the glorious colours that are unknown to earthly eyes? where the mind or imagination that can grasp the gorgeous scintillations of unheard-of rays as they emanate from the thousand nameless jewels of Barsoom?"

The "scintillations of unheard of rays" could simply be hyberbole in describing the strength of light or perhaps the combinations of colors of light. A lot of multicolored jewels might create an interesting light show of various hues, but this doesn't strike me as describing "a colour out of space." There are already several quotes about ultraviolet light in the article, and, with apologies to Mr. Price, this particular citation sounds like padding or filling for an bad college essay. I don't see any reason to connect Burroughs with Lovecraft, and I don't see the reason for including this quote. Cuvtixo 20:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's been speculated that Lovecraft was inspired by Burroughs' Mars novels, at least in The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath. It makes some sense.

I personally don't think, though, that Lovecraft had to get the idea from any earlier story - it's a fairly obvious imaginative leap from the nature of color as wavelength and the fact that there are wavelengths we can't see. I used to imagine what infrared-sight would look like long before I'd read Lovecraft. Vultur (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the objection to the ERB quote. I read this article before I read the story and I assumed based on this that the "colour" would just be some mumbo-jumbo "it baffles the eye" kind of thing, but instead it's discussed in terms of scientific testing and wavelengths. The silly "ooh the jewels were impossible to describe"-type quote would be a pretty weak "inspiration." Just get rid of it. XKL (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Colour

Out of curiosity - and I'm not suggesting that it's wrong - why did he use "colour" instead of "color"? Was it the done thing in his period, or was he very posh, or writing for a British audience? I worry that someone will proofread the article and, given that Lovecraft is an American author, they will retitle it. -Ashley Pomeroy 17:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It probably has a lot to do with Lovecraft's anglophilia. I think he used British English spellings in some of his other stories too. --86.135.218.137 (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Lovecraft wrote in a very informed, descriptive style. He had an extremely wide vocabulary, and knowledge of such things. Colour must have struck him as a more traditional and refined version of the word, instead of the American "bastardization" of the word. --MwNNrules (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Colour Out of Space/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. (I just had to, this is one of my favorite Lovecraft stories!) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Just a few rough spots and possible typos

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   needs some discussion of the cover to meet fair use rationale

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I don't see any critical commentary on the cover, which the Fair use rationale says is included.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• General:
  • Really should have the full citation to the lovecraft as the very first footnote, so the full bibliographic details are given with the first citation
  • Currrent ref 14 - which burleson is meant? there are two given...
  • Is current ref 10 a journal article? If so, Crypt should be italicised.

• • All fixed. Canadian Paul 01:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Images:
  • The fair use rationale for the magazine cover claims there is discussion of the cover in the article, but I don't see any. I assume that the cover depicts the story, but this is never made clear in the article, which should be also mentioned. Also, who was the artist?

• • Honestly, I don't really have much of a rationale for the cover - it's nothing more than the cover of the magazine where Colour first appeared. Since it's not a book, the only other picture that would work for the infobox would be the cover of an arbitrary edition, which also really wouldn't conform to the non-free use guidelines. I guess what I'm saying is that the best solution is probably not having a picture at all... what do you think? Canadian Paul 01:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Probably the best choice, yeah. While an image is nice... Do we have any public domain images of Lovecraft himself? That might work, if we can find one. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• • I've elected to just remove the image, since the only PD images seem to be of Lovecraft aged 9 and Lovecraft's grave, neither of which are particularly relevant. There is some relevant illustration in the article, so at least it's not just a wall of text. Canadian Paul 01:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Synopsis:
  • "Over the following year, the problem begins spreading to the vegetation and the local animals.." but crops are vegetation - suggest "surounding vegetation" or "non-farmland" or something similar to avoid confusion. (Or maybe I'm just easliy confused?)

• • Clarified. Canadian Paul 01:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• • "Soon after the vegetation begins eroding into a grey powder and the water from the well becomes tainted." Soon after what?

• • Oops, I added the last sentence of the paragraph above much later. Fixed now. Canadian Paul 01:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Background:
  • "Lovecraft's goal for the story, dismayed at the all-too human deception of "aliens" in other works of fiction, was to create an entity that was truly alien." I get what you mean, but it's convoluted. Suggest "Lovecraft was dismayed at the all-too human deception of "aliens" in other works of fiction, and his goal for Colour was to create an entity that was truly alien."

• • I like it! Changed. Canadian Paul 01:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Do we know when he finished the work?

• • The same month he started. I've (hopefully) clarified this in the article. Canadian Paul 01:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Reception:
  • It's been reprinted often since, right? Are there any particularly important reprints?

• • I didn't find anything about particularly notable reprints, although I did add that the work has fallen into the public domain. Canadian Paul 01:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Film:
  • "play[] with the idea of an alien life form completely different from anything humans can imagine" Are those brackets just typos or is something supposed to be in them?

• • It's an omission: the original sentence read "the author plays with the idea...", but to quote it exactly wouldn't make grammatical sense in the context of the article, so I indicated the change with "[]". If there's some better way to do that, I'd be happy to fix it. Canadian Paul 01:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Usual practice would be to use ellipsis here then, as in "play ... with the idea of an alien life form ..." or you could just do "experiment "with the idea of a ..." " and eliminate the first part entirely. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• • • I've gone with the former suggestion, just because. 01:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Those are my responses for now, thanks for reviewing the article! 01:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Just two responses, everything else looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Great! I've addressed those two responses, so please let me know if anything else needs work. Canadian Paul 01:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)