Talk:Necronomicon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Necronomicon article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Misc

As my first day as a logged user, I have made an addition to the meaning of Necronomicon; hope to be welcomed. The Warlock

Re. the first para. discussion of the meaning of the word: I have to take issue with the "more prosaic (but probably more correct) translation". If the book is an invention of Lovecraft, then surely his definition of the meaning must be the correct one! -- Pamplemousse 05:37, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] declination to conjugation

For the record: the problems that require editting

A more prosaic (but probably more correct) translation, is via a declination of nemo (to consider): "Concerning the dead".

into

A more prosaic (but probably more correct) translation, is via conjugation of nemo (to consider): "Concerning the dead".

are:

  1. altho "declination" also derives from "decline", in the grammatical context the noun is "declension";
  2. nouns, pronouns, and adjectives get declined; verbs get conjugated;
  3. a conjugation is the whole table in its normal order, not one entry in the table. (Something similar is true of "declension", even tho in Latin there are multiple declensions (identified by ordinal numbers); these may have to do with Latin having more cases, or more of what non-scholars would confuse with cases, than many other languages.)

(Hmm, is that the start of an article?) --Jerzy 19:50, 2003 Nov 13 (UTC)


[edit] Just a Tip

The Necronomicon itself is an actual text, but it is not at all that ancient. It was written by H.P. Lovecraft himself under the pseudonym "The Mad Arab Abdul Alhazred." I suggest you edit your definition lest some poor soul be misled by the information and attempt to wreak havoc across the land with a bogus curse.

(Though I must say, I have tried a few spells in the Necronomicon and they have at least given me the illusion that they do work, considering that 90% of the time they are actually put into effect) User:NeverLasting

Actually, you are wrong, User:Neverlasting. That text you are thinking of is probably the Simon Necronomicon, a modern concoction which blends Lovecraft's ideas with authentic ancient Sumerian magic. It is not the Necronomicon, nor was it written by H.P. Lovecraft. As far as is known from his surviving writings, Lovecraft never wrote a Necronomicon, though in a number of his stories he wrote up some short 'excerpts' from the text (tantalizing and well-crafted excerpts). There is no evidence that a Necronomicon existed before Lovecraft first mentioned the book in one of his weird tales. Alexander 007 17:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
You may also have had in mind the various other modern fake Necronomicons, none of which are authentic and none of which were written by Lovecraft. Though since the Simon version is the most popular fake, I'm guessing that is the one you were referring to. Alexander 007 18:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Known text excerpts

I've collected a number of excerpts from Lovecrafts stories, where he's directly quoting the Necronomicon. I thought it would be interesting to put these all together somewhere, if not in this article then perhaps in WikiQuotes or WikiBooks to make some form of fragmented official text, whichever would be most appropriate. Any thoughts? -- Quoth 02:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Probably WikiBooks...I think. Ask them, maybe? [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 17:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It would be great to have some of the most famous excerpts on the page. I added one (below). Someone removed it immediately. Perhaps that person would be kind enough to explain why they think it is inappropriate.
That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die.
H. P. Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu (1926)
I explained it in the edit summary. Excerpts aren't particularly relevant to an encyclopedia article about the Necronomicon, and secondly, if we start adding too many of them, we may run foul of copyright, so it's best not to start. --14:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation - I'm just getting the hang of this, and I've found your summary. However, I disagree with your reasoning. I think that excerpts can add to our understanding of the nature of this fictional book. I see from your page that you are probably an expert in copyright law! Perhaps you are being over-cautious, because I am sure you know that fair use permits the use of short extracts of copyrighted text for purposes such as review. Also, I see that Wikipedia Policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights) permits the fair-use reproduction of text extracts, but it does ask for this fact to be noted. Although the attribution alone might be considered sufficient, perhaps we could be even clearer and write:

That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die.
H. P. Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu (1926); Fair use of this Copyright work.
As someone unfamiliar with the concept of the Necronomicon, I can attest to the fact that some of Lovecraft's (and the imitators') excerpts would be helpful. Nicolasdz 04:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be better to place such excerpts in a wikiquote article and link to it from this one TheDragonMaster 22:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct translation

Probably Necro-Nomicon, the first one listed in the article. Cf. Astronomicon. Though since the book may simply be fictional and Lovecraft may have had no exact idea of the meaning he intended, it may be irrelevant to speculate which is more correct. Alexander 007 08:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nethack reference incorrect

I've removed the Nethack references from "possible derivations". If you look up the 'book of the dead' from within the game, this is the description:

Faustus: Come on Mephistopheles.  What shall we do?
Mephistopheles: Nay, I know not.  We shall be cursed with bell,
book, and candle.
Faustus: How?  Bell, book, and candle, candle, book, and bell,
Forward and backward, to curse Faustus to hell.
Anon you shall hear a hog grunt, a calf bleat, and an ass bray,
Because it is Saint Peter's holy day.
(Enter all the Friars to sing the dirge)
  [ Doctor Faustus and Other Plays, by Christopher Marlowe ]

The "book" here is the "Book of the Dead" in nethack. The name "Book of the Dead" probably was chosen from the Egyption & is not based on the Necronomicon. Certainly, when you read it, you do not go crazy!

--LWM


[edit] Cleanup

It was mentioned in the article that it needed to be cleaned up-- so I stuck a cleanup template on there. If you guys don't think it belongs, I've got no emotional attachment to it-- feel free to remove it. --Southwest

[edit] Concerning Simon's Necronomicon

I wrote an article on the Simon Necronomicon. Someone might want to take a look at it. SpectrumDT 20:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


I don't know who writes all of the crap on your website, but I will never use it again. The Necronomicon is roughly "the exposition of the ways of the dead" it is an actual text writter by an islam known today as Abdul Alhazred (Alhazred means something close to "the servant of the evil") His real surname is lost. It was written in the early seventh century during his travels through the desert after being exiled from his homeland because of an affair he had with a woman of much higher social class. He was forced to live off of whatever he found in the desert until he made his way back to a civilization. And wrote the Necronomicon in his home afterward. The fact that this site has that it is a fake document or that it was written by Lovecraft is insulting and a joke. It is by far the most controversial book in history and it was almost lost because it has been outlawed and destroyed throughout history. If you wish to further rid yourselves of your complete ignorance, go to your local bookstore and have them search you up a copy because you can buy English translations of it for under $20. The next time you have a brain fart about what you think you know, please keep it to yourself instead of sharing it with millions of people who will call you a dumbass for posting false information on website that is supposed to help people.

Thank you for your input and the stunning faith in a piece of research that only cost you one book and under $20 and which you place above every other piece of literary and historical evidence to suggest otherwise. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of "Deus Ex Machina"

How exactly is the Necronomicon a deus ex machina? I find this a frank mislabeling. A deus ex machina indicates the interaction of a device with a plot. The Necronomicon does not have any interaction or resolution in Lovecraft's plots. A term that would be more applicable to the argument, I think, is "name dropping". Moneyobie 3:43, 24 January 2006

Good point -- I think the author of that paragraph meant a "literary crutch" or more charitably a kind of leitmotif, but reading the section I realized it was was entirely unsourced original research, so I removed it -- it was well-written, but unsourced speculation by the contributor. MattShepherd 15:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Seems kind of in line with a MacGuffin, but.. OR. 69.64.10.249 15:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Colin Wilson" Necronomicon

A blatant hoax version of the Necronomicon was produced by paranormal researcher and writer Colin Wilson, describing how it was translated by computer from a discovered "cipher text." It is far truer to the Lovecraftian version and even incorporates quotations from Lovecraft's stories into its passages. -- I suspect this needs correction. Apparently it refers to the 1978 UK-published "Necronomicon" whose cover credits are: "Edited by George Hay. Introduced by Colin Wilson. Researched by Robert Turner and David Langford." That is, George Hay (not the ice hockey player who has a Wikipedia entry) was overall editor, Colin Wilson wrote only the introduction, the occultist Robert Turner was responsible for the supposed Necronomicon content, and I described the (imaginary) computer translation from (actual) cipher tables by Dr John Dee. Others contributed commentary, including L. Sprague de Camp and Angela Carter. David Langford--84.51.152.72 11:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK -- although uneasy about adding a link to myself, I've corrected the Colin Wilson reference as above. Before this edit, the book was attributed to Wilson in the text and to Hay in the bibliography. --DeafMan 09:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] House of Usher

Does anyone have a better explanation of this? It says that some believe the name was inspired by "The Fall of the House of Usher" but in what way? The possible inspiration from "Astronomicon" is fnord clear, but this bit about Poe is Not. bmearns.....(talk) 15:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other apperances

"Other appearances" is quite large. Perhaps it should be moved to its own page, like References to the Cthulhu mythos. Bdoserror 22:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed from article

[edit] Necronomicon#Locations

I removed the following from the list of locations where the Neconomicon is supposedly kept:

[[National University of San Marcos]] in [[Peru]]

Since the paragraph explicitly references Lovecraft's works, I checked Anthony Pearsall's The Lovecraft Lexicon ("Necronomicon", pg. 294) to see if it is mentioned. It is not. Since it is not referenced in Lovecraft's works, why was this included here?
-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 22:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact it appears mentioned to be a Necronomicon at San Marcos in one of the cthulhu mythos tales, it was in August derleth's "The Lurker at the threshold", as he can be considered one of the "other autors" who created the book it can be considered correct to refer the university of San Marcos. --General Kane Nash 23:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The University of Florida once (years ago) had a Dee printing in their Rare Books Collection, but I think they may have gotten rid of it. If the Locations section ever goes back in, it'd be worth contacting UF library.


I just removed the copy about Wilbur Whatley having a copy. Although Whatley did possess some obscene volumes, he was killed trying to steal the necronomicon from the Miskatonic.

Good catch.

[edit] Etymology

RlyehRising, I don't see any reason why "Ne-crono-mycon" is not a perfectly serviceable etymology of "Necronomicon." It's certainly not what Lovecraft intended, but it is a possible root to the word. Moreover, it's less far-fetched than, say, "Necro-Nemein-Ikon." Why not leave it in? Korossyl 18:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • What I would really like to see are some footnotes to some verifiable sources. Indeed, I have no idea where a good portion of this article is coming from. The Etymology section especially needs some cites; otherwise, it may qualify as original research.
    ,-~R'lyehRising~-, 22:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's in any way research at all if it's just pointing out the various obvious ways that the word could be divided up. There's no research or even thinking to be done, as I see it. Korossyl 16:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
For the vast majority of readers and editors, how "Necronomicon" could be divided up is not obvious. Nareek 01:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
That's true, but it's still inherant information. For instance; I know Hungarian. If I see a word in an article in Hungarian, I could very easily go in and add the definition; it would not be original research. 99% of Wikipedians don't know Hungarian, so they couldn't do what I just did, but for those who do speak it, it would be very easy and would not require any original ideas or thoughts to be postulated. Perhaps if someone were to post an elaborate etymology, splitting up the word, giving archaic definitions for each part of it, going through its history and how the meaning has changed, etc., that would constitute original thought. However, saying that the word can be cut along this line or that and these are the meanings of its root words... I just don't see it as original, in any way. Korossyl 13:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm gonna add "Ne-crono-mycon" back, because it's a very possible and believable etymology, and I don't believe it counts as original research. If anyone has any objections, please raise them, or if anyone thinks it should be changed back, please post here first. Korossyl 00:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
A proposed etymology is a theory of how a word was derived and is therefore original research if it does not have a verifiable source. Nareek 13:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Why are people insisting that The Necronomicon was H.P. Lovecraft's idea? It is fact that a copy of the book was carbon dated back to 730 or so A.D.

So far all I've seen from you people are vague assertations ("it is a proven fact," etc.) with nothing backing it up. The guy a few posts above just went on a completely unwarranted rant rather than provide proof. Give me absolutely definite proof that the Necronomicon exists and maybe I'll take you seriously. 209.158.200.108 23:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Really. Source of information, please? BTW, you are aware of the limitations of radiocarbon dating, are you not? Things like the uncertainty window or bracket? Depending on when approximately something is dated to, the uncertainty window could be as much as 300 years. Radiocarbon dating does not lend itself well to small-scale time measurements. There's a nice article about it right here on Wikipedia; go have a read. I'll wait. And on a side note, please sign your posts; four tildes is all it takes.    ¥    Jacky Tar  16:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
"a copy of the book was carbon dated back to 730 or so A.D."? There is no book to carbon-date. What are these guys smoking? Given Lovecraft's own rigid materialism, the willingness of some people to fall for his tale-spinning really stuns me sometimes. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Illuminatus!

If memory serves (I've lent my copy to someone) the novel Illuminatus! by Robert Anton Wilson has a character visiting Miskatonic University to read the Necronomicon, and finding some revelation in it ("I can see the fnords!"). I don't know if that's something you want to mention? --Qef 14:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a candidate for Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture, if you can find the reference. We're trying to consolidate these into one article, rather than cluttering all the HPL articles individually (and frequently, redundantly). -- nae'blis (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portrait

The text on Image:ImamAli.jpg clearly states that this is Imam Ali one of the most important figures for Shea. Why do we claim he is somebody else? Is it a simple vandalism or what? abakharev 04:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It should go without saying that a picture in Wikipedia has to depict the thing that it says it depicts--to put up a picture and say it's the thing because we think it looks like the thing is a deception. Nareek 19:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this page is mistaken.

the necronomicon is real, lovecraft didn't make it up, it's a real book, he just used it in his fiction necronomicon

The article you've linked to is full of errors. It claims that Ole Worm translated the book a year before he was born, and that Aleister Crowley met and collaborated with Theodor Reuss in 1912, the year in which Reuss in fact accused Crowley of having leaked OTO secrets, among other plain mistakes. It's bunk.--Halloween jack 22:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The article linked to is not only full of errors, it is in fact simply an online copy of a 1985 (fiction) book that was meant as a (Fictional) version of H. P. Lovecrafts Necronomicon. Aside from Simons Necronomicon, it is considered the worst one to date. TheDragonMaster 00:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cthulhu in music

This article mentiones Metallica, but forgets the band's most relevant song to this theme, a song called The call of Ktulu. It can be found on album Ride the Lightning. - Xezs


[edit] Not a real book

It is generally accepted that the Necronomicon is not a real book. H.P.Lovecraft invented it in his horror stories. It first appears in The Hound in 1928. He also never wrote an actual Necronomicon under any pseudonym; his works contain quotations from the Necronomicon only (although calling them quotations is dubious since the book never existed), of which an especially long example is to be found in The Dunwich Horror. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.225.182.128 (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Why don't you put a link to this "fictional book"? There are actual copies. And how do you know if there were errors if the thing was written in the 1300's? Saintjimmy777 13:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movie Missing

I seem to recall on cable a few months back a feature film called Necronomicon: The Book of the Dead (http://imdb.com/title/tt0107664/) and I am surprised that it is not listed among the film enteries for the Necronomicon here. Might be a worthy addition. Dragonranger 10:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Convention

Necronomicon is also an annual scifi, fantasy & horror convention in Tampa, FL. (Their website). Should a mention be made on this page? Or at least some sort of disambiguation? Lurlock 16:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a mention on this page would be appropriate. Nareek 16:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Manga Appearance

If my memory serves me right the "Necronomicon" once appeared in one of the Slayers mangas. Can someone confirm that? Pi314 01:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There is more than one version of the Necronomicon

This is a subject that I have studied for many years. I am familar with both versions and can say with a strong assurence that the H.P. Lovecraft's version of the Necronomicon is not the correct one. There is a different older version that was written by Abdul Azaharad, also known as the mad arab. Lovecraft was a story writter, but this book is for real.

Can you supply any citations to back up that claim? TheDragonMaster 22:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the anon user can't, because the book he describes is almost exactly how Lovecraft describes the tome in his stories.

[edit] Book of the dead redirect

I looked up "book of the dead" with the intent of finding the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and got redirected here. Given that there appear to be a number of texts that could be called "the book of the dead" prehaps a redirect page would be more useful? Kerowyn Leave a note 02:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] artists necronomicon

Someone forgot to mention the book of artwork called necronomicon by the artist who did the cover of Brain Salad Surgery (album) by ELP (band) and inspired alien (film) and aliens (film). His name is H.R. Giger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 22:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC).Thaddeus Slamp 22:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Done.

[edit] Necronomicon photo

This article looked quite dull, so I added a photo of a Necronomicon prop I made for fun for a role playing convention. Shubi 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I don't like it. It's not a picture of the actual item, it's a picture of what one person thinks it looks like. Unlike a dinosaur picture, for example, there's no consensus as to what it should look like. Which is why I removed it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.64.10.249 (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
Well, nobody knows exactly what Satan is supposed to look, but that does not stop us showing how artists (or popular culture) imagine him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.166.69.43 (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
Besides since there is no actual Necronomicon, all we can show is how people imagine it to look. If there can't be a picture of an artistic renderition of Necronomicon, then how can there be pictures of any fictional or mythical things that no one has actually seen? So I don't think what you said is a valid argument for removing the picture. If no other (good) arguments come up, I'm restoring the picture to the article.193.166.69.170 17:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It is real

Is anyone aware that there is, in fact, a real necromicon? Whether it's really the original or not (it explains in the book) doesn't matter. It's existant should be acknowledged. Hell, I found it at B. DALTON at my local mall! IN PAPERBACK! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saintjimmy777 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

This article is about the fictional book described by H.P. Lovecraft in the 1920s and 30s. Not a book written to emulate the fictional book. To put it another way, if they released a book entitled "Harry Potter's Spellbook", it doesn't mean Harry Potter's a real person with a real spellbook, it means someone wrote a book designed to emulate what they believe would be in Harry Potter's Spellbook. Same deal with the book you bought. It's not The Necronomicon, it's a book that contains what someone believes might be in the Necronomicon. Existance doesn't equal reality, in all cases. Look at the various Mermaid Hoaxes floating around. Of course, I guess part of the problem is the usage of the word "Real". No one is saying that one cannot purchase a book entitled Necronomicon. Giger sells one, and thought it's expensive it'd make a great coffee table book. And no one issaying that you cannot buy a book called The Necronomicon that contains various "spells" and ancient histories and such. When we say that it's not real, what we're actually meaning is that it's not the book that Lovecraft wrote about, since that book does not exist. It never has existed and it never will exist. It's akin to Hamster Huey and the Gooey Kablooie from Calvin and Hobbes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.64.10.249 (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Did you read it? There are various credits to real people in it. 12.104.119.239 13:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And your point is... ? Credits to real people are meaningless in the context of this book. Unless one of the credits read "Thanks to H.P. Lovecraft, without whom we'd have not been able to fabricate this book out of nothing" then they're meaningless. The Necronomicons being published are books designed to blur fiction and reality, and by my judgement, they're doing a damned good job. Now, get me the ISBN of the Necronomicon you're talking about, 12.104.119.239, and I'll be able to tell you, more or less, who fabricated it. 69.64.10.249 15:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I, nor anyone else, is doubting that it's a real book in that you cannot buy a copy or that there are no books entitled "The Necronomicon". There's lots. There are, however, no good references to a Necronomicon that pre-date Lovecraft. None. Zero. There's a whole lot of fictional references. Those kinds of references sell books. Make up a story about having secret knowledge, suppressed and passed down in a very limited form, and only now rising up to the masses... it worked for a lot of things. It worked for various publishers who created books entitled The Necronomicon. But it doesn't mean there ever was a mad Arab. It's all fiction. It's as real as a copy of Aragorn's Diary. 69.64.10.249 16:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Well there's one way to test it! Did you go mad after reading it? --Pvednes 16:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
By way of testing, I did read it. Didn't go insane, but I now keep losing things in odd angles and parallel dimensions of my apartment. And if I have to fish one more foetid cephalopod out of my toilet, I am going to make that Arab author look sane. Thanks alot. 68.91.163.2 23:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the introduction part that is for the definition states that there are books called the Necronomicon, as a way of cashing in, and it is mentioned latter, I think that covers that section. However, if you wish to argue that there is a book that actually DOES the things described and can VERIFY it, I would LOVE a copy. Otherwse, I think the matter is abvout settled. Does anyone have objections to that? Corrupt one 00:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Trivial Trivia

There's too much "Oh, it's also mentioned in THIS!" going on. WP:AVTRIVIA. I'm going to remove most, if not all, of it.

I really need to remember to log in. As I said, I removed all but a page on my end. While I understand that everyone's resolution and font sizes are different, I counted 4 pages of information on the Necronomicon, 5 pages of other appearances. That's way too much, so I condensed it to 1, screwed up (I admit, I think I fried everything below Other Apperances), got it wisely reverted by User:Mindraker, fixed it properly.. then had it undone by User:Mindraker in the name of vandalism. I didn't realize condensing long, unnecessary lists was vandalism. Secondtalon 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, I guess I wasn't paying too much attention, there, I guess I assumed you were an anonymous editor on a deleting rampage. I was the one at fault here. Mindraker 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Also, I need to remember the User: before names. D'oh. Secondtalon 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] H.P. Lovecraft

It was not originally H.P. Lovecraft's idea. Abdul Alhazred was a real man who was the author of the real Necromicon, written around 750 A.D. The book was recently on exhibit at the Museum of Cairo in Egypt. Alhazred "wrote" the book when he was imprisoned with 5 or 6 other men (I don't remember the exact number) for I think a year, and when they opened the pit Alhazred was the only thing remaining. He used the skin, bones, and blood of the other men to write the book. It's a true story, not just H.P. Lovecraft's creation. The article should not be, well, how it is.--WatchHawk 22:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The story you just related is the fictional backstory that H.P. Lovecraft INVENTED about the history of the Necronomicon. I think a lot of people get confused because Lovecraft wrote as if the Necronomicon was real, had been written by "The Mad Arab" and had existed for centuries. People then take Lovecraft's fiction as reality and argue "how can Lovecraft have made it all up if it was written by someone else centuries ago? Lovecraft made THE WHOLE THING up, including the books "History" that people keep quoting as real.
It's like saying "George Lucas couldn't have written Star Wars. Everyone knows that it happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. It says so right in the movie!" 63.241.190.32 23:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Watchhawk, did you bother to read any of this talk page or the page on Abdul Alhazred? 65.80.73.187 01:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you bother to actually read what I wrote? The book itself was on display at the Museum of Cairo. It's real, and since it is, Lovecraft could have just taken credit for "creating" the history when in fact it actually happened.--WatchHawk 18:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you paying attention to what you're saying? You're honestly suggesting.. correct me if I'm wrong here.. but you're suggesting some American went to Cairo, checked in on a known book there, went home or whatever and proceeded to write stories about it all while claiming it was his own invention when it's on display in the Museum of Cairo in the early 19th century when Egypt was CRAWLING with acheologists? What color is the sky in your world? 216.26.131.217 15:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
That isn't what I said. Why are you people not reading what I'm saying? I don't know how or when Lovecraft got the idea, I'm just saying it was not origanally his. His story is based on true events. Do you know when Lovecraft died? Look at the article. He couldn't have gone and seen the book on display at the Museum of Cairo which was this year, and he wrote the story LONG before the actual book was on display. You might want to try and think before you say things.--WatchHawk (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WatchHawk, can you provide any actual sources for this bizarre claim? This is right up with the people who keep posting on the Talk:Dragon page that "Dragons are real, man!" --Orange Mike | Talk 14:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, he might have a point. I remember seeing this documentary about it late one night. I think it was called "Evil Dead 2" -Uselesswarrior (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A History of The Necronomicon

This is mentioned in the fictional history section. I own quite a few Lovecraft books and I've never seen this. Where could I find this? --Uselesswarrior (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seven Parts

I have found references mentioning the Necronomicon being written in seven parts, or seven books. Anyone has references as to what those parts or books might be named? Monstrim (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing of the sort in Lovecraft's own work; somebody may have added that to the mythology at some point. (That's the nice thing about a fictitious book, nobody can challenge you on the details, as long as you don't contradict HPL himself.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greek Titles

Is anyone aware of a citation for the statement "Greek editions of Lovecraft's works have commented that the word can have several different meanings in Greek when broken at its roots"? This has been marked as "Citation Needed" for over a year at least. With so much misinformation floating around on this topic, it would be nice to check if this claim is true. If someone has access to some Greek translations of Lovecraft's works, it would seem easy to resolve this. If it is true, then it can be verified and cited. Otherwise, I suggest that the statement be removed. 0x539 (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

On April 31, it will have been one month since I posted this. I will then remove it if it has not been cited, and no one objects here. If you think this should not be removed, please say as much! 0x539 (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Non-fictional" subheading by EgoSanus

Despite the consistent failure to provide sources for the information in this section, it has been continually re-submitted, between bouts of vandalism on the page itself. I'd rather not edit-war, so can we get some form of consensus, or perhaps some citations for this? For now, I'm just sticking up an original research template, but if anyone else would care to judge and either back this up or delete it, that'd be peachy. - Vianello (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what the current version of the article is trying to say. That some version of the Necronomicon gives locational details about the Garden of Eden and Iram, and these happen to correspond to some of the theories or findings of modern archaeologists? Without a source, it's original research to draw these comparisons. --McGeddon (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's a citation of a Wikipedia article now, but it doesn't do diddly to actually back up the claims. It discusses the place, but the connection to the Necronomicon/Al-Hazred is still up in the air. - Vianello (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this just boils down to "one version of the Necronomicon mentions Alhazred discovering The Garden of Eden and the Lost City of Iram", which can go in the "fictional history" section.
In fact, "Irem" is already in that section, with a wikilink to Iram of the Pillars. And looking at both the cited articles, EgoSanus has just copy-and-pasted paragraphs from them into this one. I see no reason for this section to remain. The Garden of Eden can be mentioned in the fictional history section, once we know where it turns up. --McGeddon (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It's less original-research-y now, but at best, I don't know that there's much reason for copypasted info regarding one real place that the character was, I'm pretty sure (if memory of Lovecraft's work serves), around, and.... Well, the "Garden of Eden" thing really seems connected pretty much to absolutely nothing at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vianello (talk • contribs) 09:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pulling Report?

I propose that we remove the link to the Pulling Report from "Secondary Sources." It is not primarily concerned with the Necronomicon, and does not appear to be mentioned in the article. 0x539 (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)