The works of HP Lovecraft and Race

[ouroboros]

I'm going to try to remember the title, but I got a review copy about four years ago of a book on Howard that reprints excerpts from letters to and from, including between the two of them. Howard, himself, was racist, though even then, he was fairly liberal for being a smalltown Texan in that time, but I figure any time you have racists going "that's a little too racist," you've gone far enough. He called him out over women, in regards to a particular woman who was trying to break in at the time, as a fantasy/horror writer. He didn't like how condescending Lovecraft was without having seen her work.

Lovecraft, in those letters, and in the collections I've seen in HPL-centric works, seems like a guy who just felt he could say whatever within his circles, because they were his circles. I don't know enough to say if that's actually true, he just seems to have no filter.

Thanks for the info. I have to admit that I've never devoted much time to the HPL letters.

[t hedge coke]

I've never read her work. Why is she supposed to be of comparable importance to fantasy fiction?

Butler was the frontline of a resurgence of women's perspectives in sf/fantasy, as well as nonwhite experience in English-language fantastic fiction. And, notable for taking PoV to extremes, so that worldbuilding was intense and thorough, but not spelled out constantly, the way, say, Tolkien did. What we get are the perspectives of those within the world, and limited to their understandings or expectations.

She's not necessarily an innovator in any of that, but similar to Alan Moore's position in mid-80s comics, she was the frontline of a watershed. (And, like Moore, I'm not as impressed, years and years later, with how some of that turned out, but at the time, it hit hard, I'm sure.)

Really, I'd make the bust CL Moore, since her fantasy and sf work had major influence on Heinlein, who remained a devoted fanboy his entire life, Bradbury, Asimov (who compared himself unfavorably to her as an author more than once), and who really did the best work in the sword and sorcery pulps of anyone with the entirely mad and beautiful Jirel of Joiry stories. But, I can see an argument for Butler, Swift, and many others, too.

[ouroboros]

Interestingly, some of that is because they were inventing overly complicated and difficult sequences in attempt to sabotage the movie from within. Val Lewton hated the messages he saw in the book and arranged things like the infamous extreme pan out of all the brutality to counter the book and also because he thought it was exhaust resources and become too frustrating to follow through with.

Without papering over the reactionary qualities of the Mitchell book, it has a few ambivalences too. Mitchell characterizes Southern women as being terrified that black men are going to rape them, yet-- in contrast to authors like Thomas Dixon-- no such threat ever manifests, Mitchell's characters get torqued when Reconstruction blacks get "uppity," but as I recall no white woman is assailed for sexual reasons. Scarlett is attacked twice-- once by a white Yankee, and once by a salt-and-pepper pair of thieves-- but they're all trying to rob her, not rape her.

[ouroboros]

Butler was the frontline of a resurgence of women's perspectives in sf/fantasy, as well as nonwhite experience in English-language fantastic fiction. And, notable for taking PoV to extremes, so that worldbuilding was intense and thorough, but not spelled out constantly, the way, say, Tolkien did. What we get are the perspectives of those within the world, and limited to their understandings or expectations.

She's not necessarily an innovator in any of that, but similar to Alan Moore's position in mid-80s comics, she was the frontline of a watershed. (And, like Moore, I'm not as impressed, years and years later, with how some of that turned out, but at the time, it hit hard, I'm sure.)

Really, I'd make the bust CL Moore, since her fantasy and sf work had major influence on Heinlein, who remained a devoted fanboy his entire life, Bradbury, Asimov (who compared himself unfavorably to her as an author more than once), and who really did the best work in the sword and sorcery pulps of anyone with the entirely mad and beautiful Jirel of Joiry stories. But, I can see an argument for Butler, Swift, and many others, too.

Your mention of CL Moore came back to me a few days after reading it, because I was thinking of the fact that the critique of Lovecraft's racism ignores the sexual aspect: that he may have been displacing fears of the most profound boundary-crossing-- that of sex-- into his monsters. I'm not advocating a straight-laced Freudian reading of Lovecraft, but I think the horror of sex had more to do with Cthulhu than the horror of race, despite Noah Berlatsky's attempt to take the contrary view.

And the same applies to one of Moore's best known works, the short story "Shambleau," which is also best read as a displacement of the "horror of sex." I think that's a positive feature, since for me fiction is more about expressing one's inner demons-- whether they concern race, sex, or both-- than being safe and politically correct.

Since the linked essay makes brief mention of S.T. Joshi's opposition to the anti-Lovecraft petitioners, here's an interesting excerpt from Joshi's "last word" on the subject:

3) The discarding of the WFA bust may in itself be insignificant, but it is troubling for a multitude of reasons. It is, for example, an historical error to pass condign judgment on figures of the past because they are perceived to have departed from the moral, political, and social views to which we adhere. This shows a cultural intolerance and lack of historical understanding that is very discouraging. We have not exactly attained moral and intellectual perfection ourselves, and I daresay we will be judged harshly for all manner of derelictions a hundred years from now. (We now hear of students at Princeton University—where I did graduate work in 1982–84—lobbying to have every vestige of Woodrow Wilson’s name eliminated from the campus merely because he made a few racist comments, as if these comments somehow repudiate all the significant political and diplomatic achievements of his career.)

4) The current discussion of Lovecraft as a racist is a tendentious caricature. His views are far more nuanced than most people realise. (How many are aware that he expressed admiration for the Hasidic Jews in the Lower East Side of Manhattan for adhering tenaciously to their cultural and religious heritage?) It is easy to condemn Lovecraft for his views (although I have never been clear on what such a condemnation actually accomplishes, or how it contributes to combating racism in our own time); it is lot harder to arrive at a dispassionate understanding of the nature, origin, and purpose of his views. That takes actual work—a profound study of history, sociology, anthropology, and psychology, and a canvassing of the scholarship on the history of race prejudice. A few Internet searches will not suffice. (A good place to start is my own compilation, Documents of American Prejudice [Basic Books, 1999].)

Here's a link to his blog. BTW, Joshi identifies himself as a "POC."

[Indigo Al]

It's a great series, but I found it quite tactless that he is painting the Yazidis as some kind of Satanist/Great Old ones cult, considering what ISIS is currently doing to them in real life.

I'll need to read Providence. Moore wrote a very good Yezidi superhero in Top 10.

Regarding the thread topic, I believe the Salon article previously posted shows the obnoxious white-privilege defense of the HPL bust by certain parties. It's absurd to me.

[Gryphon]

Lovecraft's racism was more than what was typical for the time. His racism fuelled his writing. Many of the concepts born of his writing came from racist ideas. We can read his writing but we need to acknowledge the truth.


Someone here compared him to Robert E Howard and that's not the case. Howard was a lot more complex, racist but of a different kind. While some black characters he wrote were stereotypes of the time, he also wrote the story "Hawks Over Egypt" with a black protagonist who isn't a stereotype. Lovecraft was in a league of his own

[Michael P]

Yeah, Howard and Lovecraft had a long correspondence with each other, and part of it was Howard going "Dude, you seriously need to stop being so racist." (I'm paraphrasing.)

[Gryphon]

Yeah, Howard and Lovecraft had a long correspondence with each other, and part of it was Howard going "Dude, you seriously need to stop being so racist." (I'm paraphrasing.)

Lovecraft was a seriously fucked up individual. The situation with his wife for example

[Gryphon]

To me, the biggest rebuke to Lovecraft has always been ...Star Trek. The opening narration is a rejection of everything Lovecraft

[Gryphon]

Your mention of CL Moore came back to me a few days after reading it, because I was thinking of the fact that the critique of Lovecraft's racism ignores the sexual aspect: that he may have been displacing fears of the most profound boundary-crossing-- that of sex-- into his monsters. I'm not advocating a straight-laced Freudian reading of Lovecraft, but I think the horror of sex had more to do with Cthulhu than the horror of race, despite Noah Berlatsky's attempt to take the contrary view.

And the same applies to one of Moore's best known works, the short story "Shambleau," which is also best read as a displacement of the "horror of sex." I think that's a positive feature, since for me fiction is more about expressing one's inner demons-- whether they concern race, sex, or both-- than being safe and politically correct.

Since the linked essay makes brief mention of S.T. Joshi's opposition to the anti-Lovecraft petitioners, here's an interesting excerpt from Joshi's "last word" on the subject:




Here's a link to his blog. BTW, Joshi identifies himself as a "POC."

S.T. Joshi is of East Indian descent, right?


Lovecraft actually married a jewish woman at one point and was seemingly obsessed with her

[Kees_L]

Lovecraft's racism was more than what was typical for the time. His racism fuelled his writing. Many of the concepts born of his writing came from racist ideas. We can read his writing but we need to acknowledge the truth.


Someone here compared him to Robert E Howard and that's not the case. Howard was a lot more complex, racist but of a different kind. While some black characters he wrote were stereotypes of the time, he also wrote the story "Hawks Over Egypt" with a black protagonist who isn't a stereotype. Lovecraft was in a league of his own

Well it might be you'd know more about HP Lovecrafts' personal motives and ideals than me,

but purely based on his writings or books on his filmwork I see no reason or incentive in the slightest to think

that Lovecraft would have written or created anything he did for the purpose of idolizing or advocating / perpetuating bigotry or racism towards any fellow humans whatsoever.

Which is weird since bigots or racists are usually recognizable for this malignant purpose most primarily both as pretty much most immediately.


I think there are quite a few people not seeing the point to 'negative incentives / paradoxalities / controverse' underlying either fame or forms of expression. As something I wouldn't want to agree with.

In case of Lovecraft it seems not his works as giving pause but the idea that someone having attracted fame and accomplishment to their stature (albeit in Lovcrafts' case foremostly posthumously!) may or will have had racist personal views to an extent nonetheless.

But any people feeling for instance that Rihanna or Miley or Prince or hiphoppers would be showing depraved morals, or that Quintin Tarantino should be seen as a violence glorifier, or that either Slayer or the Sex Pistols or Iggy Pop would seem derogatory somehow, I personally cannot wrap my head around such. I mean Donald Trump sure. But artists? Creative minds? (Kanye West I do not consider a creative mind I should add)

Should Charles Bukowski be banned for having seemed mean to women? Should William Burroughs be considered less of a writer due to appearing grumpy or coarse at times?
Should Nietzsche and Schopenhauer or Wagner be scrapped?
Or Jerzey Kosinski, should his works be scrapped due to not accurately describing WW2 enough?

Or would it simply be common sense both as healthy for anyone to recognize how even worldfamously revered persons could be proving imperfect or even deeply flawed potentially?

I personally think that swapping Lovecraft for someone different to seeming more rather misguided both as sad moreso than not if I'm honest.

Not because I'd like racists to getting revered or be made into awards, but because Lovecraft his works would in its genre appear very much the epitome of inspiredness and dedicated accomplishment.

[ouroboros]

Kees L,
Yes, much of what you've said resonates with me. Though as I said above I haven't gone through the HPL letters, I think it's likely that a lot of HPL's racist writings come down to nothing but Big Talk: a way to rhetorically extol the ethnicity from which he himself descended. But though he inserts snippets of this philosophy into his fictional stories, his tales don't promote a racist agenda as such.

This is in contrast to an example I mentioned earlier, Thomas Dixon. I've not read anything but summaries of these novels, but he was actively engaged in arguing that the races had to be kept apart, and arguably the adaptation of his work into BIRTH OF A NATION was a factor in strengthening the influence of the Ku Klux Klan.

It's too pat to claim, as the linked essay does, that stories like "Shadow Over Innsmouth" reduce down to nothing more than racist fantasies. All of us can imagine the experience of having our identities compromised by alien presences, and as I'm a Jungian I'd argue that it's an archetypal experience that subsumes any specific verison.

[phantom1592]

How much Racism is ok?

1890-1937 was a pretty racist time period. Is it only the complete and total racists we should ignore? Are we allowed to honor the ones who wrote great influencial pieces of fiction who were only mostly racist?

What about the Constitution and Declaration of Independence? Do we disregard all things that were written by people with Racist Views?


Time and context are tricky things. History is littered with people who did great things despite being kind of crummy people. Being a terrible person doesn't erase the influence you had. Love him or Hate him, Lovecraft changed things. He influenced many many people who went on to do many many awesome things. His personal views in letters really have no bearing on the actual accomplishments.

Was he a member of the klan? Did he burn crosses and murder innocents? If that were the case, that would be a wholly different point. But if he didn't... then we're into 'thought-police' territory. Thought Police during some of the most racially charged times of history...

I find it boggling that they want to remove Lovecraft... one of the grandfathers of scifi/horror and the creator of the Cthulu mythos... and replace with Butler, who I have never heard of, and I've never heard anyone claim her influence at all...

[t hedge coke]

No one is banning Lovecraft's work, though, or taking it out of print. They're not removing it from the historical record, either.

One organization will no longer be using his face as the face of their celebratory gestures in their field.

Anyone opposing this is essentially saying that a private organization is not in charge of their own plaques or little statues.

[Kieran_Frost]

No one is banning Lovecraft's work, though, or taking it out of print. They're not removing it from the historical record, either.

One organization will no longer be using his face as the face of their celebratory gestures in their field.

Anyone opposing this is essentially saying that a private organization is not in charge of their own plaques or little statues.

Ding ding ding ding. There is a MASSIVE difference between banning Lovecraft's work (which I don't believe anyone is advocating in this thread), and supporting no longer using his name and image on a symbol of celebration. Huge, HUGE difference.