Talk:The Great God Pan

Where is it quoted in The Dunwhich Horror?

Can someone point me at the place where The Dunwhich Horror quotes The Great God Pan - because I couidn't see it when I flicked through. --Fuchsia Groan 11:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The Dunwich Horror" refers to, but does not quote, "The Great God Pan":

'Inbreeding?' Armitage muttered half-aloud to himself. 'Great God, what simpletons! Show them Arthur Machen's Great God Pan and they'll think it a common Dunwich scandal!

—Walloon 02:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

(End of chapter V for anyone wanting to check.)

P.S. You briefly confused me there by correcting the entry and then seeming to imply I'd misread the entry. —Fuchsia Groan 12:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Chapter Breakdown?

Anyone against a chapter breakdown for the novel? The episodic, semi-atomic nature of the chapters lends itself to this. —12:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying statement.

Having not read the novella, but being very interested in it, I wonder if someone who has could clarify the last line in the plot summary: is the girl in London the daughter of pan and the madwoman, or the daughter of pan and the granddaughter of said madwoman? The wording of the current sentence is a little confusing there. User:Snyrt —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Great God Pan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 02:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: I noticed you copied a statement and sources from the article Satan about the fact that much of Satan's iconography is derived from Pan. that sentence was fine in the Satan article because the sources mentioned both Satan and Pan and explained the relationship between them, but we cannot use that in this article because neither of those sources mention The Great God Pan. That makes that statement's inclusion here in this article an original synthesis of previously published sources, which is strictly forbidden. Unless you have a source that specifically links the iconography of Pan and Satan to the novel The Great God Pan and explains how they are related, we cannot use that information here. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments and criticism

@MagicatthemovieS: Here are some problems I have noticed with the article:

1. It is revealed that Helen was the child of Mary and the god Pan, who is implied to be the same being as both Nodens and Satan, and that the creation of other demigod children like Helen has been going on since ancient times. How is this revealed? Could you be more specific? --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
2. The book's cover was illustrated by Aubrey Beardsley, and incited controversy upon the book's publication due to its sexual nature. I would appreciate it if you could find a way to make this sentence more specific. Perhaps you could find a source that elaborates more on this point. What exactly did the cover depict and why exactly did Victorian audiences find it so horrifying? It surely must have been much racier than Beardsley's illustration for the title page, because, frankly, the title page illustration in the infobox is probably both one of the tamest representations of Pan and one of the tamest illustrations by Aubrey Beardsley that I have ever seen. Ideally, since the cover illustration is such a key aspect of the book's controversy, we should include an image of it if possible.
3. The "Adaptations" section is somewhat underdeveloped and the "Legacy" section very much so. I suspect that probably quite a bit more information can be found about The Great God Pan's specific influence on Smith, Arlen, and Straub and I am virtually certain that a lot more can be found about its influence on del Toro and King.

I will probably come back with more feedback later. The biggest problem I have right now is the underdeveloped "Legacy" section. I would recommend using Google Books to try to find scholarly sources. You can also try Google Scholar, although I have actually found Google Books to be generally more reliable at turning up decent sources than Google Scholar. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Something unexpected happened and I will not be able to access a real computer, just my mobile phone, for a few days. As it is hard to tackle a project like this via phone, it may take me awhile to address all of your concerns. If I take too long for your liking, I suggest you put the article on hold.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: I will put the review on hold, then, until you are able to respond. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: If I am unable to fix these issues within a week, will you be so kind as to give me extra time? Also, are you satisfied with the edits I made to the "Adaptations" section and to the sections on King and Straub? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2018

(UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@Katolophyromai: Are you satisfied with my edits regarding King, Straub, and the finale of the book? Also, can I have extra time to finish this if a week is insufficient? Is the "Adaptations" section OK now?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: I am satisfied that criticisms one and two (regarding the finale of the book and the Beardsley illustration respectively) have now been fully addressed. I still think the "Legacy" section could use more information about the novella's specific influence on other works, however. Regarding your request for "extra time," I have not actually set a specific amount of time for this review to take. "Seven days" for a review is really just a recommendation. Generally speaking, I do not normally give much thought to how long a review takes. My view is that the review will end when it ends. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: The cover illustration on the first edition is exactly the same as the title-page illustration (see here). It would be nice to find a review at the time of publication that deplores the cover to replace the reference to Sommerlad's mention of the work's being "denounced in the press for 'degeneracy', not least because of the book's saucy cover". Deor (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Deor: Ironically, just yesterday, I happened to see an exhibit which included a first edition copy of The Great God Pan, so I actually saw the original cover myself in person. Funny how things like that work out! You are perfectly right; the cover illustration is exactly the same as the title page we have displayed here already. At first, I could not figure why the image was so offensive, but apparently, according to this source, it was because the gender of the figure is ambiguous. I must admit, though, that I cannot see why Harry Quilter chose to lambast the illustration here on account of that fact, rather than, for instance, nearly every major painting by Leonardo da Vinci. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Deor:@Katolophyromai: What was the exhibit about? Speaking of funny coincidences, I went into a bookstore this weekend, picked up a poetry collection, and found it contained Elizabeth Barrett Browning's "A Musical Instrument," which is where The Great God Pan got its name from. Also, I have done what I could do regarding the "Legacy" section. Are you satisfied with it? Also, do you think a pic of Steven King should be worked into the "Critical reception" section?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@Katolophyromai: She: A History of Adventure predates The Great God Pan, but you made it seem that the opposite is true.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: I noticed and I was already in the middle of correcting that when you pinged me here. Tibbetts, however, seems to say that She was written after The Great God Pan and influenced by it. He writes: "Remarkably, three other classic Gothic novels featuring these demon women of voracious and malignant sexuality appeared within two years of The Great God Pan - Lucy Westernra in Bram Stoker's Dracula, The Woman of Songs in Richard Marsh's The Beetle, and the priestess Ayesha in H. Rider Haggard's She." --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"Within two years" could also mean that it was published two years before Pan (which is also inaccurate), but the point here is really the similarity between Helen and Ayesha. What was the theme of the exhibit you saw the first edition of Pan at? Speaking of funny coincidences, I went into a bookstore this weekend, picked up a poetry collection, and found it contained Elizabeth Barrett Browning's "A Musical Instrument," which is where The Great God Pan got its name from. Also, I have done what I could do regarding the "Legacy" section. Are you satisfied with it? Also, do you think a pic of Steven King should be worked into the "Critical reception" section? I've also seriosly considered creating a section of this article about the alleged misogyny in the novella, but I'm getting burnt out on this article and just want to get it to GA. If you think that section is necessary, I will add it, though I'd be very thankful if I could get some help from you on said section.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@Katolophyromai: P.S. You are awesome! MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: The exhibit I saw Pan at was actually primarily about Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, but they had other Gothic novels on display there as well. It was at a library. I think I am reasonably satisfied with the "Legacy" section, but I would like to take a little more time to look at this article and see if there is anything that needs improving before I pass it for GA. You can add an image of Stephen King to the "Critical reception" section if you want; I have no objections against it. By the way, I saw your comment above, so there was no need to repeat everything here. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: Cool. Do you think we need a section on the portrayal of gender in the novella?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: I do not think we need a separate section on that subject, but I do think we should have a paragraph about it in the "Critical reception" section after the paragraph about current reception of the novel. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I finished the paragraph on misogyny. Let me know if you want me to change anything else. Thanks so much!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@Katolophyromai: While we are here, would you be interested in reviewing other GA-nominated classic lit articles? If so, are you interested in classic lit articles that aren't related to religion or folklore?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: I would be interested, possibly, if I have time. I will probably not have as much time for editing as I used to from now on, though. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

General comment that's just my opinion and should be taken for whatever you folk think it's worth: Most of the images currently in the article—basically, every one in and after the "Analysis" section—seem to me to be "primarily decorative" (in the words of MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE) and only tagentially related to the topic of the article. Deor (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Deor: Ultimately, whether an image is "useful" or "decorative" tends to be subjective. I have personally always believed that even seemingly irrelevant images can have encyclopedic value. They can draw attention to information in the text that readers might otherwise tend to ignore and they can also make the article more engaging. I do, however, think that at least the image of the ruins and the image of Pan are definitely relevant because the ruin image (hopefully) gives something an idea of what Machen was looking at that inspired him to write the story and the image of Pan shows the reader how Pan was traditionally imagined before Machen. The Antichrist fresco I think is still relevant, although perhaps slightly less so, since it does in a way help the reader understand the analysis of the relationship between Helen Vaughn and Pan/Satan/Nodens. I am more-or-less ambivalent regarding the portraits of Wilde, Stoker, and Lovecraft. I certainly have no objections to them, although, for those, I could see why someone else might. For the two portraits in the "Legacy" section, I do think it might be more helpful to instead have images of things those authors wrote about that are agreed to have been influenced by The Great God Pan, if any such images exist. Otherwise, I do not really have a problem with the portraits. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Your wish is my command! Hopefully the end of this long-gestating project is in sight. Thanks again!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: One last thing: The image of the cover for "The Dunwich Horror" is helpful, I think, because it has an illustration of the monster in question that is believed to have been inspired by The Great God Pan. The blank cover of the first edition of Dracula, however, is possibly even less helpful than the image of Bram Stoker, because, well... it might as well just be a sheet of paper with the name Dracula written on it. Could you find an image of an illustration of something from the novel that is related to The Great God Pan? For instance, an image of Lucy Westenra or, even better, specifically her death, might be useful, since she is specifically mentioned in the text and the sources as having been influenced by Helen Vaughn. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: There are four images of Lucy Westenra on this website - two are on her page and are not free. The other two are in the Wikimedia category Dracula and depict a cosplayer dressed as Lucy. Are you satisfied with any of those images? If not, would you like the page to remain the way it is? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: We cannot use images that are not freely licensed without appropriate fair use rationale and an image of a cosplayer is clearly not acceptable for an encyclopedia entry unless the entry is specifically about vampire cosplay. You could try to find an illustration of the opening scene of Dracula, which is also mentioned in that section in relation to The Great God Pan, or you could just remove the image of the Dracula cover and only use the image of the cover for "The Dunwich Horror." --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Fixed the problem.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

I now feel comfortable passing this article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I don't think we should reveal the novella's ending (Helen's parentage) in the lede.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: According to policy, we are required to summarize the entire novella, even if that means giving spoilers. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I get that, but can't we put the spoilers in the "Synopsis" and not the lede so that the numerous readers who want to avoid spoilers can do so? Also, Beardsley's illustration is from the 1890s and thus in the pubic domain. It should be uploaded to Wikimedia as free media, shouldn't it? I would do that myself but i don't know how.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: I think WP:SPOILER is pretty clear on this as well: The article should fully summarize the novella and we are not supposed to let a desire to avoid giving spoilers influence what we do or do not include, whether in the body of the article or in the lead. Since the ending is vital to understanding the plot, some mention of it needs to be made in the lead. If people are trying to avoid spoilers, then they should not be reading the encyclopedia article about the book. As for Beardsley's illustration, you are right that it ought to be in the public domain, but I do not know how to move it to Wikimedia Commons either. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Characters

Who and what are Clarke and Villiers? No explanation is given. 67.231.66.125 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Characters in the story, apparently adult and presumably male. The person synopsizing here apparently felt no necessity of giving either a designation any more than Machen did. In the novella--see https://www.gutenberg.org/files/389/389-h/389-h.htm for text--the first is introduced without even a first name anywhere near, and the second is described as "a man about town", hardly a suitable insertion in the Synopsis as written, and left equally unchristened. I see no reason to edit the synopsis for more than the adequate clarity it already has. GeorgeTSLC (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde's face

Does anyone else think the photo of Oscar Wilde is as gratuitous and misleading here as I do? GeorgeTSLC (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I do. In fact, I consider every image in the article other than the infobox one and perhaps the one under "Background" to be gratuitous. I made that point in the "GA Review" section above, but the GA reviewer disagreed. Deor (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)