I Boycott World Fantasy

[Teresa Edgerton]

Was it curiosity, research or because you like that genre?

Some of both.

The insane PC brigade make up terms that no one else uses in 2015.

Ah, another civil invitation to debate. "Insane" is another word that invites a polite exchange of ideas.

And it seems that there is some misunderstanding here. What made Lovecraft's work racist was not that he didn't use "politically correct" language, but in the ideas he expressed in unmistakeable terms of loathing for non-white races. For instance, describing the residents of New York's Chinatown, “a ******* mess of stewing Mongrel flesh without intellect, repellent to the eye, nose and imagination.” Or this conclusion to a poem on the creation of the black race, "Th’Olympian host conceiv’d a clever plan. A beast they wrought, in semi-human figure, Filled it with vice, and called the thing a Nigger." Clearly this would be equally offensive even had the last word not been such a charged one. It is the sentiment expressed that makes it so repugnant. And anyone who thinks that this was the prevailing view in 1928 does the people of the early 20th century an injustice.

Is this reason enough to remove his likeness from the award? That would be an interesting debate if we could all do it without bringing our own agendas to the conversation and without vilifying those with different views from our own.

 

[Boneman]

Oh dear. The honour of the award is tainted from either view, and completely overlooked by both sides... It was a no-win situation for the WF committee, whatever they did.

You could always do what China Mievelle does, who accepted the honour of the award, but made his own personal judgement: "I put it out of sight, in my study, where only I can see it, and I have turned it to face the wall. So I am punishing the little f***er like the malevolent clown he was, I can look at it and remember the honour, and above all I am writing behind Lovecraft’s back."

So a two-sided statuette? Lovecraft on one side and Requires Hate on the other?

 

[Vladd67]

Here's a little background as to why Lovecraft has been dropped.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/sep/17/world-fantasy-awards-hp-lovecraft-racism-row-statuette

 

[Nick B]

I apologise if you somehow took offence at my post Teresa. My view on extreme PC is pretty low, I think if anything it exacerbates racism by causing resentment.
I am against any and all bigotry or discrimination.
I asked a black friend of mine what she thought of the term 'person of colour' and she laughed, saying she'd punch anyone who called her such a stupid thing. We are all coloured.
So, yeah, my opinion of extreme PC is pretty poor.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

So, yeah, my opinion of extreme PC is pretty poor.

But surely that is not the topic here? This is not a case of someone making a few careless statements that were taken out of context. Lovecraft said those things, he meant them, and he left no doubt of their meaning. Is it extreme PC to find his words offensive? Is it unreasonable to even question whether the man who said those things is worthy of being honored every year, with every award given out, by the World Fantasy Convention?

Having asked the question, those of us here might come up with a variety of different answers, and that is to be expected, but if we have all been obliged to really think and to recognize our own preconceptions, whatever they might be, isn't that is a good thing? But it won't be aided at all if we are calling each other names.

 

[Jeremy M. Gottwig]

it is an interesting conundrum - applying today's values to people of the past.

Very true, which is why this is such a no-win situation.

But I have been thinking about this, and I do think that reflection can (and should) cause us to reassess the past even as we acknowledge its complications. I think that an author can be forgiven for being racist if it was a common view of the times, but I still think that modern sensibilities can change how we honor that author in our own time.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Personally, I don't think WFC had much option. Diversity has always been poor in our genre, which reflects poorly on one that hopes to be open minded, and Lovecraft went far beyond the norm at the time in terms of opinion (and why JT's blog loses all power for me, when he fails to recognise that.)

I know William Pugmire is a great admirer of Lovecraft, but for many of us his views are not ones that sit well, or that we want the genre to celebrate. I'm not at all in favour of reducing access to his works/stopping him from being seen as a great of the genre, but I'm also not in favour of celebrating him as the role model to aspire to.*

I think, overall, more people will support this decision than deride it.

*These things are very hard. We have a new bridge being built in a town called Strabane, which is quite a divided town in terms of religion. Anyhow, naming it is proving problematic as some of the ones put forward offend one or other side due to historical differences. Anyhow, someone has now suggested it be named after 'The Wee Man From Strabane'** who talked incredibly fast and became quite famous for a time for it. Sometimes, frankly, we need to step aside, move away from offence, and go with the option that offends no one.

 

[Nick B]

@Teresa Edgerton you quoted my post about PC so I was following that up.
No, HPL was clearly racist. I dont know, or care much about the man to be fair. Some of his work I like, some I dont. I dont care about his opinions.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I'll continue to read his stories. The best of them can be moving, horrifying, heart-breaking, breath-taking. I don't always agree with other people about which of his stories are the greatest and why. I think there must be many writers who better represent the Fantasy genre (he was, after all, a Horror writer). And perhaps some of them are more worthy of admiration as individuals. Though anyone chosen would probably be controversial, too.

It is easy not to care, Quellist, when we are not the ones being reviled by the man in question.

 

[Ningauble]

And it seems that there is some misunderstanding here. What made Lovecraft's work racist was not that he didn't use "politically correct" language, but in the ideas he expressed in unmistakeable terms of loathing for non-white races. For instance, describing the residents of New York's Chinatown, “a ******* mess of stewing Mongrel flesh without intellect, repellent to the eye, nose and imagination.” Or this conclusion to a poem on the creation of the black race, "Th’Olympian host conceiv’d a clever plan. A beast they wrought, in semi-human figure, Filled it with vice, and called the thing a Nigger."

But when and under what circumstances was this written? It'd still be horrible, but such things as when and why are relevant. "On the Creation of...", for example, was written in 1912 when HPL was isolating himself from everyone and everything after having failed to graduate highschool. He was in all likelihood clinically depressed. He lived another 25 years -- a period of time during which most people develop and mature quite a bit. Is there anything written during his last year that is comparable?

And anyone who thinks that this was the prevailing view in 1928 does the people of the early 20th century an injustice.

Check any edition of Encyclopedia Britannica from the early 20th century. There is one from 1911, for example, pretty close to when That Poem was written, that can be accessed by googling. If that was not an extremely common view, then how come Encyclopedia Britannica, the pinnacle of scholarship at the time, says what it says?

The past is quite often a strange and terrifying place. The only thing we can do is to accept that.
HPL had an incalculably huge impact on both fantasy and horror, either directly (through his own writing) or indirectly (through mentoring and encouraging such writers as Clark Ashton Smith, Robert E. Howard, C. L. Moore, Henry Kuttner, Fritz Leiber and Robert Bloch). That cannot be ignored, no matter how much certain people try to do it.

 

[Ningauble]

But to return to the topic at hand. How much do you know about Lovecraft's views on race? Enough to claim they were typical for his time? I've read most of his stories, and that is not my impression. They strike me as extreme even for 1928.

There weren't any complaints when they were published. Also see my comment on the EB as to how typical it was. The tone of his racism was not; the content was.
Robert Bloch has an excellent foreword to The Early Fears in which he says that the only thing he and any other pulp writer of the time cared about was "not too much sex", because then there would be trouble. He also had some interesting things to say about the modern (even in 1993 when he wrote the foreword) trend to feel outrage at anything, and about "offendees", but I haven't read it in a while and couldn't summarise it properly from memory.

 

[Ningauble]

Wilum, if I go to WFC again, I'll make sure to wear my "LOVECRAFT ROCKS" T-shirt.

 

[WaylanderToo]

And it seems that there is some misunderstanding here. What made Lovecraft's work racist was not that he didn't use "politically correct" language, but in the ideas he expressed in unmistakeable terms of loathing for non-white races. For instance, describing the residents of New York's Chinatown, “a ******* mess of stewing Mongrel flesh without intellect, repellent to the eye, nose and imagination.” Or this conclusion to a poem on the creation of the black race, "Th’Olympian host conceiv’d a clever plan. A beast they wrought, in semi-human figure, Filled it with vice, and called the thing a Nigger." Clearly this would be equally offensive even had the last word not been such a charged one. It is the sentiment expressed that makes it so repugnant. And anyone who thinks that this was the prevailing view in 1928 does the people of the early 20th century an injustice.

Is this reason enough to remove his likeness from the award? That would be an interesting debate if we could all do it without bringing our own agendas to the conversation and without vilifying those with different views from our own.

please don't misunderstand me I'm not defending HPL per se (I've not read any of his works to be able to judge that) but what I AM saying is that different times judge things differently (hence my example of Abe L whom most would view as a wonderful man but when you peel away the surface could, by today's standards, be classed as abhorrently racist). Let's go back several centuries - Richard the Lionheart is viewed as a 'great warrior king of England' again these days he'd likely be viewed as a raving psychopath; Casanova, likely a rapist; most 'great' historical figures were also, likely, ravingly misogynistic... should we suddenly disavow them to fit in with our modern worldview?

On the subject of HPL the reason he was/is honoured is (IMO) not because he was a great author or a great human being but because he helped popularise a nascent genre (Shelly, Byron et al not withstanding) and as such the honour should still remain.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

HPL had an incalculably huge impact on both fantasy and horror

Really?
I think maybe some impact on horror. I struggle to see much impact on Fantasy. Incalculable seems a bit of hyperbole?

 

[Hex]

So, a couple of thoughts:

1. This has nothing to do with "extreme political correctness" -- that's a straw man and can be happily dropped.

2. Did HP really advocate genocide? (it says so in the article, but I can't find out what he said)

3. We now recognise that those attitudes of the time (and other times) were abhorrent -- they didn't reflect everyone's opinions but I agree they were not unique to Lovecraft. And unless we're talking postmodern equivalence, I mean actually truly unpleasant and wrong, and that such attitudes did in fact lead to attempted genocide.

Judging by the standards of his time, HP Lovecraft was a fairly extreme racist. By the standards of his, Abraham Lincoln was not.

4. Should we judge his work through the prism of his attitudes? Meh. This is harder. I'll still read him (I find him intensely horrible -- in the ways he meant to be).

So, I'm happy to read his stories again, but I don't think he should be regarded as a figure to celebrate the genre. I don't want to be represented by him.

 

[The Crawling Chaos]

As will be surmised by my username, I am a huge fan of cosmic horror and several fictional elements that H.P. Lovecraft has authored. I am also an admirer of several authors who influenced him and, in turn, of authors he has been influencing. I buy all the collected editions of HPL's stories and share a lot (all?) of the philosophical and religious views he expressed within them.

But I am in no way a personal admirer of the man. Not that I dislike or despise him: I just don't know him at all. I have never read a biography of him, I have never laid eyes on a single essay analyzing his work. I have never done a pilgrimage to his grave in Providence. The little information I know - or think I know - about him is the one I have garnered from his tales and poems, whenever the author channelled his own personal views into his fiction. And they are, at times, not pretty.

I, like many, still cringe whenever I leaf through one of his short stories and encounter a sentence of paragraph similar to those quoted at the top of this page by Teresa Edgerton. I feel uncomfortable reading Lovecraft in public. I do it because I choose to see past the nastier elements of his prose, but I am always aware that this is a conscious decision, and that they are there.

This is why I think that the decision made by the WFA was the only sensible way to deal with this issue.

Can an author's prose be separated from his personal beliefs? Louis-Ferdinand Céline was a heinous racist whose work is still revered and taught in French Lit classes. There are many other similar cases of historical figures whose spiritual shortcomings we willfully ignore - often in hindsight - to focus on the greater successes they have achieved. Yes, Lincoln is one of them. And it is the exact same thing with Lovecraft. Should he be banned from schools? Should his name be struck from the literary history of the 20th century? Of course not.

The WFA committee's decision will not have any impact over Lovecraft's literary influence. He will continue to be celebrated for his ever-growing influence over the genre. He will always have his fans and his detractors. Because WFA has done nothing to erase him from the canon (not that they even could if they tried). All they have done is distance themselves - and their brand - from a man whose views were at times controversial - at best -and frankly offensive - at worst. Again, that is perfectly reasonable.

Is (Was) this bust a representation of the man or his oeuvre? It doesn't matter. The two are too intrinsically connected to ever be considered two distinct entities. Lovecraft's views of the world/universe have always informed his fiction. The point is not that some people choose not to separate Lovecraft from his work, but that they cannot. Only those who can - and again, I am one of them - do it.

WFA made a mistake in the first place when they chose to model their award after the man himself as opposed to a more symbolic representation of his legacy. I cannot help but wonder what would have happened had the bust been a statue representing Cthulhu or Dagon. I'm sure the outcry would have been far more minute, because the distinction would have been clear that the award was a celebration of the imaginative powers of the man, not of his person. But why would anybody ask a black author to only see the man's prose in this bust, when the eyes staring back at them from their shelf are those of the man himself, and when that man wrote the most despicable things about them?

It is for the people who are able to look past his racism, and enjoy his fiction in spite of it, to embrace his legacy - warts and all. It is not something that should be imposed upon others.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I used to adore Marion Zimmer Bradley* - now I can't read her at all. But I can still read Orson Scott Card**. Why the difference? Perhaps, for me, there are things about a woman being an abuser/faciliatator I find particularly hard to reconcile, or perhaps I'm a mother, and find it harder. I'm not gay, so perhaps Card's morals upset me less because they don't come as close my inner self.

My point is - it's not up to us to judge how much or how little it offends people. Offense is deep in our values. But, as Hex says, do we want someone whose thoughts DO legitimately offend people to be representative of our genre? I don't.

I also agree something representing his characters would have been a different kettle of fish altogether.

*Bradley was married to a man who abused young boys (about 13), and may have either been an abuser herself, or certainly a facilitator to her husband (and wrote a book about an older man having a relationship with a boy of 13 as it happens - the book is amazing but I can't see me ever reading it again, as now it reads like apologist.)
**Card has notoriously outspoken, and offensive to many, views on homosexuality.

 

[Extollager]

Lovecraft was certainly behind, say, H Rider Haggard in terms of race. But Haggard (a Victorian, too) had lived in Africa.

Toby, I don't understand this remark. Are you saying

[a] "If you think Lovecraft was a racist, compare him to Haggard, who was even worse"

or

"Haggard was a racist, but well ahead of Lovecraft in terms of knowing better, which was partly due to his having lived in Africa"

I have read all of Lovecraft's fiction and much of his other material (letters, essays, poems), and de Camp's biography of him, and well over thirty of Haggard's books, several of them more than once and a few of those three times or more, and Cohen's biography of him. Nasty racism is far more an issue for Lovecraft than Haggard. Haggard is apt to portray Africans (Umslopogaas, Galazi, and others) as shrewd, highly courageous noble savages -- which is a form of "racism" if you like, but less offensive surely than portraying them as generically bloodlusting, raping fiends* or as clowns. His writing, as I recall, is occasionally marked by the stereotypical view of Jews as avaricious, but he is fascinated by their antiquity and devoted an entire romance to the sympathetic portrayal of a courageous "Jewess" (Pearl Maiden). These come to mind without my checking any of the books. He was also greatly intrigued by the antiquity and wisdom of the Egyptians. Such peoples not rarely put white characters to shame. (As I recall, in his African tale The Yellow God, it is colonialists idolozing gold who are the devotees of the "yellow god.")

http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/16/mullen16bib.htm

http://www.reocities.com/noelcox/Haggard.htm

I wonder what light on Haggard's racial attitudes would be cast by the reading of this nonfiction book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetywayo_and_His_White_Neighbours

*The villain of Nada the Lily is a bloodlusting fiend, but then he really was such in real life:

http://militaryhistorypodcast.blogspot.com/2006/03/king-shaka-zulu.html

Haggard was not the author to fail to make use of such material.

 

[Toby Frost]

Sorry not to be clear about this: I meant that Haggard comes across as a very reasonable man for his time, much more so than Lovecraft. In fact, if I remember rightly, Quartermain specifically refuses at the start of King Solomon’s Mines to refer to the black characters crudely, and says that he’d met many Africans who were as good gentlemen as Europeans. Whatever slips he makes, at least in the few books of his I’ve read, seem like mistakes and lack the deliberate malice of Lovecraft’s comments.

I think it was Jess Nevins who suggested that Haggard was unusual in regarding Africans as members of different nations, rather than just one bunch of generic “savages”, and ascribing different characteristics to each (which is better than the creatures created by most modern SFF writers, incidentally). Interestingly, in one of the Quartermain books there’s a comedy Frenchman who is exactly like a modern post-WW2 comedy Frenchman, so Haggard must have been aware of stereotypes. Anyway, Haggard probably makes an interesting comparison to Lovecraft: whilst much less intense, he seems far more healthy in his outlook.

I really should have spotted the double meaning there. Whoops.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I'm left scratching my head at the suggestion that a bust of Olivia Butler was apparently nominated to replace the one of HP Lovecraft - isn't she normally known as a science fiction writer??