HATECRAFT




Seriously? Maybe it’s just me.

I’m always a little suspicious of people who profess not to be offended by Lovecraft’s racism. Come on. This really doesn’t bother you? You can just overlook it?

I’ll never be able to. For one thing, I’ve seldom met a member of a minority who shared this tolerance. No, it’s pretty much a white thing and usually preceded by a complaint about “pretentious” snobs, you know, them with their fancy grammar and their punctuation. Loud factions within the genre are nothing if not anti-literary.

That’s part of it.

But… why aren’t more people offended? I just don’t get this. Why does old HPL get a free pass when it comes to hate speech? Is it because of the genius of his prose style?

“Cthulhu still lives, too, I suppose, again in that chasm of stone which has shielded him since the sun was young. His accursed city is sunken once more, for the Vigilant sailed over the spot after the April storm; but his ministers on earth still bellow and prance and slay around idol-capped monoliths in lonely places. He must have been trapped by the sinking whilst within his black abyss, or else the world would by now be screaming with fright and frenzy. Who knows the end? What has risen may sink, and what has sunk may rise. Loathsomeness waits and dreams in the deep, and decay spreads over the tottering cities of men. A time will come – but I must not and cannot think! Let me pray that, if I do not survive this manuscript, my executors may put caution before audacity and see that it meets no other eye.”

Does that passage truly inspire anyone to read further? Anyone who hasn’t sustained a cranial injury? Brought into contact with Lovecraft’s writing, even the most erudite scholars fairly gibber. Peter Damien’s recent comments on Book Riot (which nearly caused an actual riot) are not atypical: “A godawful writer. He was so bad. I really cannot stress this enough.” Nor was Edmund Wilson’s famous remark about HPL: “The only real horror in these fictions is the horror of bad taste.” Academics just can’t seem to believe that adults read this sort of thing. I have the same problem.

There must be some reason people support it, because support it they do. Rabidly. A few months ago, someone in the Literary Darkness group made a dismissive remark about Lovecraft and “casual racism.” Leaving aside (for the moment) that the phrase itself is appalling, does this sound casual to anyone?

“The only thing that makes life endurable where Blacks abound is the Jim Crow principle, and I wish they'd apply it in New York both to Niggers and to the more Asiatic types of puffy, ratfaced Jews!”

Or this?

“Of the complete biological inferiority of the negro there can be no question he has anatomical features consistently varying from those of other stocks, and always in the direction of the lower primates.”

Both examples are from HPL’s voluminous letters to editors. (He apparently wrote thousands of these, like some troll who never logged off.) And it’s not as though these attitudes did not bleed over into his fiction. They gushed.

“The negro had been knocked out, and moment’s examination shewed us that he would permanently remain so. He was a loathsome, gorilla-like thing, with abnormally long arms which I could not help calling fore legs, and a face that conjured up thoughts of unspeakable Congo secrets…”

What about this do people admire? And, please, don’t anyone start going on about his “ideas” again. Which inventions seem so brilliant? The giant elbow? The invisible whistling octopus?

In a recent New York Review of Books article, regarding “The New Annotated H.P. Lovecraft,” edited by Leslie S. Klinger, Charles Baxter raises several interesting points. This one in particular struck me: “Klinger notes that Lovecraft’s “support of Hitler’s eugenic programs, including the ‘racial cleansing’ advocated by Ernst Rüdin and others, is well known.” This reader had not known it but upon being informed was not particularly surprised.”

Nor was I. It seems very much in character.

The problem is not that HPL was a product of his time – an excuse I’m also sick of hearing – but that he was a vile product of his time. Sadly, that time seems not to have passed so much as cycled back. The Southern Poverty Law Center tracked nearly a thousand active hate groups in the US last year. Sorry, but I will never not mind. I will remain outraged and disgusted. And that but everybody was a racist back then argument is unpersuasive. Other writers of the period committed themselves to passionate anti-Fascism. Why does Horror continue to make a patron saint of this creep? I can’t help feeling he’s not just getting a pass. It’s almost as though Lovecraft’s bigotry somehow excuses his terrible writing, even justifies it.

I know many people agree: you should see all the private messages praising my courage. Not that I don’t appreciate the support, but come on already. My courage? In voicing an opinion? They have a point though, all these oh, you're so brave to say this out loud folks. To publicly express such sentiments is to antagonize the zealots, and they will come after you. This remains in many ways a cult, complete with an elaborately delusional belief system. For instance, accepted dogma holds that HPL eventually repudiated his fondness for the Nazis.

"By God, I like the boy!"
~ H.P. Lovecraft (about Adolf Hitler), November 1936

HPL died in March of 1937, just a few months after making that statement, so the spasm of sanity must have been brief, if it occurred at all, but pointing this out provokes the fanatics to renewed levels of frenzy, so be careful. These are the same people who claim that his lifelong demented hatefulness has no relevance to his "art." Why then do they insist on painting him as a reformed character? Logic is not the order of the day. Also beware of experts who hyperventilate over HPL's supposed literary merits. Such individuals have an agenda.

Not convinced about the political connection? Check out some of the people who become incensed over any criticism of their idol. Any moment now, comments are sure to start piling up. Just wait. Look at who their other favorite authors are. How shocked will you be? Oh, and don’t forget to check out the list of books they hate as well.

Try to act surprised.

Trust me, it only gets uglier. Fan culture can be deeply reactionary, and the genre has catered to this particular contingent for a very long time. No, I’m sticking with the disgust. Plus there’s that aspect where this is all just so fucking embarrassing. Horror writers often complain about the lack of respect accorded us by the rest of the literary community. Ever think maybe there’s a reason? Or that it might be time for Horror to grow up?

Shudder.

"Of course they can’t let niggers use the beach at a Southern resort – can you imagine sensitive persons bathing near a pack of greasy chimpanzees?" ~ HPL

Any questions?

* * * * *

Martin Luther King Jr. Day (and the recent epidemic of racist violence) prompted me to post this blog. It seems fitting to conclude with this quote.

“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
~ Martin Luther King, Jr.


Notes & Links:

For more information, see this article by Charles Baxter in the New York Review of Books:
"Racism is not incidental to Lovecraft’s vision but is persistent and essential to it."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archi...

The New Annotated H.P. Lovecraft by H.P. Lovecraft




And don't overlook this essay by Laura Miller in Salon:
"His venomous racism is self-evident; it’s right there on the page."
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/11/its_o...

An "in-defense-of" article by Samuel Goldman appears in (where else?) The American Conservative:
"To criticize his stilted dialogue or Gothic affectations is to miss the point."
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...

Also Phenderson Djeli Clark's article – THE ‘N’ WORD THROUGH THE AGES – at Racialicious should not be missed:
"It’s always perplexing to watch the gymnastics of mental obfuscation that occur as fans of Lovecraft attempt to rationalize his racism."
http://www.racialicious.com/2014/05/2...

Daniel José Older's passionate and insightful piece in The Guardian constitutes required reading:
"The fantasy community cannot embrace its growing fanbase of color with one hand while deifying a writer who happily advocated for our extermination with the other."
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014...

Readers might also enjoy taking this quiz.
Who said it? Hitler or Lovecraft?
http://www.beesgo.biz/horp.html
Some of the answers may surprise you.

This bit is from CREATING A DISTURBANCE, my article about the reactionary forces still so prevalent within the genre. It’s in the current issue of Primeval, a Journal of the Uncanny.

“Everything is political, every aspect of life, and all forms of dissent begin in misery. No individual secure within a free society ever hurled a brick at a tank. Only the oppressed know this kind of rage. There are many ways to resist, large ones and small ones, and even reading can be an act of rebellion. The immersion of the self in forbidden thought manifests a quiet defiance. Often, this constitutes the first step… and a dangerously liberating one. On a basic level, horror fiction suggests an exploration of the unknown, but other impulses often dominate, among them a regressive factor apparently built into the foundation of the genre, an aspect grounded in both fear of the unfamiliar and hysterical loathing of difference.”
http://www.amazon.com/Primeval-Journa...

Primeval A Journal of the Uncanny (Primeval #2) by Livia Llewellyn





And this is from my introduction to Enter at Your Own Risk: Fires and Phantoms, a queer-themed anthology of horror stories from Firbolg Publishing.

“There existed a whole universe of such material hidden in plain sight upon the dustiest of library shelves. Edith Wharton’s ghost stories, for instance, fairly vibrated with sexual tensions, even when all the characters were men. As a child, I devoured it all, impressing the hell out of the local librarian and quickly learning to eschew more obvious fare, like H.P. Lovecraft’s luridly paranoid ravings. After all, I empathized only too strongly with the “other” that so terrified him. Plus his prose style always seemed more suggestive of mental illness than artistry.”
http://www.amazon.com/Enter-Your-Own-...

Enter At Your Own Risk Fires and Phantoms by Alex Scully
18 likes ·   •  337 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on January 19, 2015 11:59 Tags: lovecraft, racism
Comments Showing 251-300 of 337 (337 new)    post a comment »

message 251: by Robert (new)


message 252: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd Yes, good points made by a lot of people and obviously the award should be changed and his ugly face taken away from sight. I'd sign if a petition went round to get it done. Would you instigate it, Richard? It would be so perfect if you were the one who put this into action given 'Hatecraft.'


message 253: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar I'll let Richard know when I see him.


message 254: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd Grrrr, Robert, l mean


message 255: by Robert (last edited Jun 20, 2015 12:42PM) (new)

Robert Dunbar Rebecca wrote: "It would be so perfect if you were the one who put this into action..."

Hardly. As Mr. Joshi pointed out, I'm not famous enough to have an opinion. I do have an idea though. If the World Fantasy Award ever actually drops the Lovecraft statue, maybe the Hugo Awards could adopt it. (In fact, I don't see why they don't simply switch statuettes.)

I mean have you seen some of the postings by the dude heading up that whole sad puppy faction?

“The women of America would do well to consider whether their much-cherished gains of the right to vote, work, murder and freely fornicate are worth destroying marriage, children, civilized Western society and little girls.”

He’s also spoken about the sort of attacks on women that have found their way into the news so often lately. “A few acid-burned faces is a small price to pay for lasting marriages.”

And this just leaves me speechless:
“A purely empirical perspective on Malala Yousafzai, the poster girl for global female education, may indicate that the Taliban's attempt to silence her was perfectly rational and scientifically justifiable.”

Let's see, what else. Ah! Here's a good one: "Homosexuality is a birth defect.”

And, finally, this:
“It is absurd to imagine that there is absolutely no link between race and intelligence.”

HPL would have felt right at home.


message 256: by Tom (new)

Tom Mathews Does the dude heading up that whole sad puppy faction have a name? Inquiring minds want to know.


message 257: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd yes, quite, Robert, who is he?


message 258: by Robert (last edited Jun 20, 2015 12:43PM) (new)

Robert Dunbar Various individuals are referenced in Chuck Wendig's excellent blog. (Pay close attention to "Vox" and "Theo," who turn out to be the same person.)

http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2015/...


message 259: by Robert (last edited Jun 15, 2015 08:41AM) (new)

Robert Dunbar We need to come up with a new term for these people. They are not just trolls (who simply want to cause trouble), and they are certainly not fans in any conventional sense of the word. They may be malign in nature, but their motivations are not merely malignant. They seek influence, even control.

http://skyseastone.net/jvstin/?p=4211


message 260: by Tom (new)

Tom Mathews Robert wrote: "We need to come up with a new term for these people. ...but their motivations are not merely malignant. They seek influence, even control."

Nazis?


message 261: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar Funny how that keeps coming up.


message 262: by Tom (new)

Tom Mathews Robert wrote: "Funny how that keeps coming up."

I'm generally not one who throws that word around but I read your post and asked myself if there already was a word that described people with a passion for racial purity who also were not merely malignant but also sought to influence and even control. Let me know if the word I came up with isn't apropos in this case.


message 263: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar I'm so tired of hearing such people described as Neo-Nazis. Where exactly does the neo part come in?


message 264: by Tom (new)

Tom Mathews I always assumed it was with the haircut.


message 265: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar Hard to tell on the net. I always picture them looking like Shemp.


message 266: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar For anyone still harboring uncertainty about the caliber of persons who object to the expression of anti-fascist sentiments, I just thought I’d mention this. One of the gentlemen (comments can be found far above) who was so profoundly offended by the existence of this blog sent me a private message in which he provided a list of gay writers who are “well-known pedophiles.” (If your first thoughts were “well-known by whom?” you’re not alone.) He concludes with these words: “I DARE YOU TO WRITE A BLOG ABOUT THAT!!”

Goodreads needs to start doing psych evaluations.


message 267: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd I'm not understanding what you are saying, Robert.


message 268: by Robert (last edited Jun 17, 2015 10:38AM) (new)

Robert Dunbar Hate speech is hate speech. (And it’s not about free speech. Not at all. These people will inevitably try to silence dissenting opinions.) It often seems to me that HPL has a very specific fan base. Many of these people do not venerate him despite his bigotry, no matter what they claim.

Remember Charles Baxter’s comment: “One would think... that I had attacked the object of a cult.”


message 269: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd oh, yes, I agree, scum attracts scum. I really think that anyone with the slightest sensibilities would not even acknowledge Lovecraft, when they discovered who he was, so it's reasonable to say that those who venerate that man have allegiance with him, except that I came across a 20 year old wearing a tee shirt with an octopus tentacle on it, and he had no idea what it implied. He had heard of Lovecraft but didn't know anything about him. So the 'culture' really has spread massively beyond the sick mind of that geezer.


message 270: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar I just saw a posting that yet another volume of Lovecraft’s collected fiction is about to be released. Yippee! And can you guess who the editor is? One might almost assume that all his bombastic posturings were motivated by self-interest. (Not to mention the personal attacks on myself and others. Many others. Virtually anyone with a sane opinion.) I must be getting cynical.


message 271: by Tom (new)

Tom Mathews Robert wrote: "I must be getting cynical. "

You? Roberta of Sunnybrook Farm, cynical? Pshaw!


message 272: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar Sunnybrook Fen, thank you very much.


message 273: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd lol!


message 274: by Robert (last edited Jun 20, 2015 12:20PM) (new)

Robert Dunbar Oops. I was wrong about the TOR boycott. Have folks been following this?

When an editor for TOR voiced a critical opinion (on her personal Facebook page) of the Neo-Nazi trolls who derailed the Hugo Awards, her boss at TOR publicly censured her. My mistake? I assumed the boycott was in protest of the shabby way she’d been treated. (What? TOR employees may not speak out against racism? Or sexism? Or homophobia?) Silly me.

It turns out to be the other way around. The censure was in compliance with the demands of the trolls… who orchestrated a protest. Trolls like to do this sort of thing. It’s all about power and its abuses. (See some of the comments above.) Censure, in their opinion, isn’t enough. They want the editor fired. The essence of true bullying: miss no opportunity to do harm.

You can read more about it here: http://skyseastone.net/jvstin/?p=4211

I’m happy to report that their boycott has been completely ineffective. In my opinion, the person who should be censured is the exec who caved to the trolls (here called “puppies”) in the first place.

There’s a lovely “Boycott Backfires” article here:
http://www.starburstmagazine.com/book...


message 275: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar Another delightful human:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/20...


message 276: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd Thanks for posting that Robert. I notice that all his books are self published with people like 1st Book Library, Xlibris and Author House. I was happy to discover that no legitimate publishing company was supporting his 'work,' had that not been true, I would've flagged them up for the purposes of shaming them.


message 277: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar Some of the people at Random House these days aren't a whole lot better.


message 278: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar Check out Master of Disgust, an article by Laura Miller about how "H.P. Lovecraft built his reputation as America's greatest bad writer."

http://www.salon.com/2005/02/12/lovec...


message 279: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd wonderful! Thank you.. :-) It seems almost impossible doesn't it that one man can realise how utterly bad Lovecraft's writing was, and another just not see it at all? But of course, if you were making money and 'reputation' whatever that is in maintaining the myth that the jerk was actually a good writer, you'd want to keep that idea going I expect even if you knew perfectly well it wasn't true.


message 280: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar Rebecca wrote: "if you were making money... in maintaining the myth that the jerk was actually a good writer, you'd want to keep that idea going..."

It really is just that obvious, isn't it? Sad.


message 281: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd Yes, because the only other conclusion is that the supporter of the myth was very very stupid, and in which case he wouldn't be able to write books.


message 282: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar Rebecca wrote: "Yes, because the only other conclusion is that the supporter of the myth was very very stupid, and in which case he wouldn't be able to write books."

Or at least not good ones.


message 283: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd Ah! okay then, ha-ha.


message 284: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar "The Old Racist from Providence."

https://awhendry.wordpress.com/2014/0...


message 285: by Shadowdenizen (last edited Jul 09, 2015 12:42PM) (new)

Shadowdenizen Interesting, thought-provoking post. This is why I love Goodreads so much; the lively debates!

Yes, Lovecraft's personal views pervade his entire body of work, and his many abhorrent views are well-documented.

I'm not an apologist, and I won't try to rationalize it with the tired "Product of his times"/"Product of his Environment" argument. (In fact, I won't try to rationalize it all.)

BUT, that doesn't negate the value of his writings, or the stark vision that his work was founded upon (That mankind is but a mote in the cold & unfeeling universe), or the influence that his work has had on the weird fiction genre, or in the literary world in general.

His "Supernautral Horror in Literature" essay alone remains to this day one of the most valid and useful refernces an aspiring writer could ever want.

And personally speaking? That quote you used in your post DOES inspire me to read more works by him.


message 286: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar Shadowdenizen wrote: "BUT, that doesn't negate the value of his writings, or the stark vision that his work was founded upon (That mankind is but a mote in the cold & unfeeling universe), or the influence that his work has had on the weird fiction genre, or in the literary world in general..."

Many of the comments above echo that sentiment. Personally, I just don't see it. Like being colorblind, I suppose, or those sounds that only bats can hear. Give me Blackwood or Machen any day.


message 287: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd If you were to read the short stories of Walter de la Mare all other writers in this genre would feel very ordinary indeed, including Machen and Blackwood. But in order for rotten writers to become popular there must be a whole world of readers out there who have no critical faculties and care only about the content of the story itself.


message 288: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar I've read de la Mare's work. Quite lovely. But it does not make Blackwood seem "ordinary." Art is art. I'll never understand the process by which enthusiasm for one author must diminish the value of all others. Does it apply to other fields? Does Mozart detract from Bach? Does Picasso lessen the impact of Rembrandt's genius?


message 289: by Shadowdenizen (last edited Jul 10, 2015 07:07AM) (new)

Shadowdenizen [quote]It seems almost impossible doesn't it that one man can realise how utterly bad Lovecraft's writing was, and another just not see it at all?[/quote]

How does it seem impossible?

If you're talking solely about writing, couldn't you make the same statement about the Twilight saga (as an example) or ANY OTHER book out there? Some people view it as the "Greatest Thing Ever!" while others view it as "Crap on a Stick." (To me, that's the inherent joy of literature.)

"Bad Writing" is, of course, totally subjective. It's all a matter of personal taste, which everyone is entitled to. (Again, putting aside HPL's distasteful personal viewpoints, and focusing on the writing itself.)

As a gay man, I'm likely someone that Lovecraft, in his time, would have had nothing to do with, and yet I still can read and like his work without shame. (And let's not even open that "Lovecraft was likely a latent homosexual" box.)

(Full disclosure though; Though I try to be open-minded and speerate art from artist as best I can, there ARE a very few current-day writers that I am not likely to buy books from due to their personal/political views, so I guess I'm not COMPLETELY "Colorblind.")


message 290: by Robert (last edited Jul 16, 2015 07:37AM) (new)

Robert Dunbar Shadowdenizen wrote: "Bad Writing" is, of course, totally subjective. It's all a matter of personal taste, which everyone is entitled to. (Again, putting aside HPL's distasteful personal viewpoints, and focusing on the writing itself.)"

Hmm. I often wonder about that. Certainly, enjoyment is subjective, a matter of personal taste as you say. But is quality?


message 292: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar Racism and the "man of his time" defense:

https://nicolecushing.wordpress.com/2...


message 293: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar "Pop culture's racist grandpa."

http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2013/...


message 294: by Robert (last edited Jul 22, 2015 06:58AM) (new)

Robert Dunbar For the record, I never said that I think I'm a better writer than Lovecraft. What I said was that my dog is a better writer than Lovecraft.


message 295: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar Christopher Conlon, a brilliant writer, provides a fascinating perspective on the whole Lovecraft/Derleth controversy here:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...


message 296: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar The long, dark shadow of Lovecraft...

http://www.vice.com/read/horror-is-st...


message 297: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar “Far from disappearing from view… Lovecraft has been repeatedly resurrected by successive generations. No one would now write of him as the critic Edmund Wilson did, in the New Yorker in 1945: “The only real horror in most of these fictions is the horror of bad taste and bad art.” The true horror was in fact that of judging Lovecraft by the standards of a defunct literary culture.”

Good point. Depressing as hell. But good point.

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2...


message 298: by E (new)

E Robert wrote: "For the record, I never said that I think I'm a better writer than Lovecraft. What I said was that my dog is a better writer than Lovecraft."

Right on!!! This one gave me my first laugh of the day.
Good job, Rob.


message 299: by E (new)

E Hi every one. Hi Rob. Missed you all.
Guess what?Thursday was the 125th birthday of H.P. Lovecraft. wow.
big!!!!!surprise. what would you like to get him guys


message 300: by Shadowdenizen (new)

Shadowdenizen So many jokes....


back to top