He was a fucked up bloke from a fucked up time. He lived in poverty and pain and died an agonising death. Leave the guy alone, let a likeness of his face be carved into a little piece of copper for the far-reaching creations he brought to the world. Guess what? He never lived to know that. He died slowly thinking no one would ever care about the things he made.
World Fantasy Awards may drop H.P. Lovecraft's likeness from award statuette due to author's racism.
- Thread starter Ratty
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Why should anyone be okay with not politicizing it? Why should anyone care about how you you feel about him? If you're going to insist that your viewpoint is the only valid one that must be catered to, then why oughtn't everyone else to do the same until no one can talk to anyone because we're all too busy declaring a need to be treated as primary?Irick said:
When the influence being celebrated is one that was and is used to reinforce hatred of real people, the value of celebrating that influence becomes suspect.Irick said:
The fallout of racist ideas being immortalized and perpetuated.Irick said:
It's not just a reference. It's an endorsement.Irick said:
Not according to Antonin Scalia, though I confess I don't know what any of the other justices think.Irick said:
And the problem with that is, symbols are inherently subjective. Their meaning cannot be dictated, only argued. Lovecraft as a symbol will not mean to others what it means to you.Irick said:
Then I question why you're involved in the conversation at all, is you're not willing to approach your opponents on their own ground. Is it just to preach?Irick said:
You're right, I did misunderstand the definition of "revisionism." I apologize. However, I don't see why revisionism itself is somehow inherently bad. Are we not allowed to disapprove of slavery in America because that would revise the historical belief that white people had a divine duty to elevate the mud-people? Are we not allowed to disapprove of the second war in Iraq because there was a historical (contested, but historical) belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction?Irick said:
No, it isn't. If the state isn't doing it, then it's not censorship. It's a choice, not a mandate.Irick said:
Playing something of a devil's advocate here, but this does seem similar to the Chris Benoit situation in certain respects. A person who was arguably one of the most talented in there field (Horror Fiction/Wrestling) commits acts or acts (Holding of Racist Views/Murdering Wife and Child) that leads to them being reviled from that point onward.
I do find some humour that there are issues with Lovecraft and his racism, but most people are entirely unaware of Stephanie Meyer (writer of the Twilight series) using the funds from the books and movies to fund anti-LGBT laws in the US. Gives me a chuckle, any road up.
By the by, I disagree with the decision, but don't disagree with the reasoning behind it.
I do find some humour that there are issues with Lovecraft and his racism, but most people are entirely unaware of Stephanie Meyer (writer of the Twilight series) using the funds from the books and movies to fund anti-LGBT laws in the US. Gives me a chuckle, any road up.
By the by, I disagree with the decision, but don't disagree with the reasoning behind it.
citation needed. Where are your evidence of this. And no twitter post is not enough.Vedrenne said:
Hadn't heard that, but wouldn't surprise me.Vedrenne said:
OTOH, I'd imagine a lot more gamers care about Lovecraft than Meyer.
This is a tricky one. On the one hand, we ought to be able to divorce the man's works from his personal character. Plenty of great figures from history have been pretty despicable and hopefully we realise it's folly to expect our role models to be perfect in every regard (having said that, Lovecraft was a writer, and his flaws are apparent through some examples of his writing). On the other hand, I would understand a black recipient of the award being hesitant or even resistant if given the statue.
Uh, when it comes to prioritizing what aspect of a person's life holds more weight with me, I don't feel like I'm being unfair to say the bit where he committed multiple acts of murder seems heavier than the bits where he pretended to beat people up on stage.Vedrenne said:
This is pretty much what I was going to write, so Quoted for Truth.Ihateregistering1 said:
Also, if a screenwriter/playwright were to be given a statue of Shakespeare as a prize for plying that craft, is that somehow validating anti-semitism (if Merchant of Venice is anything to go by.), or implying that the reciever shares this view?
While Tolkien would be a better choice for a prize of fantasy writing, Lovecraft isn't a bad one just because he had shitty views on people for shitty reasons. I'd much rather get a prize of literature depicting a great writer, who was also a raging racist, than I would get a prize in humanism depicting Agnes Bojaxhiu ("mother" Teresa).
I really liked the part when the Little Doctor was deployed against the ewoks.jthwilliams said:
The other what? I'm not clear on what you're talking about. Would you please be more specific?First Lastname said:
No, I'm saying that when his image is being given out as an award by an organization, it is a de facto endorsement of his works--all of his works and the attitudes they exhibit--until and unless that organization provides some kind of disclaimer; and it strains credulity somewhat when such a disclaimer is offer if that organization continues to use him image as an avatar.First Lastname said:
None of his racist views are being singled out by whom?First Lastname said:
I don't care enough about his reputation or good name to have any interest in demonizing him. I care about the message being sent by awarding a statue of the man who wrote "On the Creation of Niggers" to a black author. No matter what anyone says about historical context or disallowing us to consider some of his catalog of work while determining how appropriate it is to use him as an idol, that is still fucked up.First Lastname said:
I generally don't care about historical, cultural context. Those things explain bad behavior; they do not excuse it.First Lastname said:
I am not in the business nor the habit of worrying about anyone's redemption. I am not a priest, and this is not a confessional booth.First Lastname said:
You get your definition from a different source than I do, then, but even so, that still isn't censorship. No government, media outlet, or authority--except for whatever authority resides at the World Fantasy Awards, of course--is involved; and if that is censorship, then the word's definition is so broad it's useless.First Lastname said:
Naw, the best part was when Hans Solo shot first in the battle school games.ObserverStatus said:
Presentism always makes for an amusing read.
By all means though, if a writer who was a virulent racist in a time when being a virulent racist was completely normal offends you to the point it devalues his contribution to literature, campaign to change the statue.
By all means though, if a writer who was a virulent racist in a time when being a virulent racist was completely normal offends you to the point it devalues his contribution to literature, campaign to change the statue.
I am more than fine with not celebrating racists. Sure acknowledge if they did something important, but actually doing something that would qualify as some sort of personal honor is unnecessary. More than fine with this including this including American founders. They get a disgusting amount of hero worship that could use a dose of reality. Don't care if lots of people were awful in the past. Just means people in the past were shittier people. Its a good reason not to look up to them
I want a Mi-go for the statuette. It fits the concept of imaginative twisted supernatural perfectly.
All right, here goes, into the breach.
During the era in which H.P. Lovecraft and his contemporaries lived (including H.G. Wells and Conan Doyle) the idea had begun to examine humanity with a scientific eye, but this was largely done through a lens of justification for English and European colonialism. As such, it birthed into existence the concepts known today as "Physical Anthropology" and later, "Eugenics".
Physical Anthropology is the study of the different races as sub-species of Homo Sapiens, and tried to validate the idea enough that the notion was pushed to give them scientific names such as Homo Sapiens Africanus and the such. This was largely justified using the anecdotal issues of what the researchers deemed as fundamental to having and developing culture, as they understood it, as well as focusing on basic aesthetic differences between the races. Africans tended to be slimmer and taller, therefore this was a trait identifiable to them.
This has since been supplanted by "Biological Anthropology" which uses genetics and DNA as a guideline, and which has debunked the notion of sub-species within Homo Sapiens, but there are still people who cling to this malignant way of thinking.
Eugenics, however, was the next step in that thinking, because if there were sub-species, then there clearly would have to be a "pure" species of Homo Sapiens. Looking for the traits that separated the "barbarous races" from the "civilized" ones created a "map" of sorts to breeding back into being a purer form of human, and protecting the species from becoming increasingly "devolved".
We know where this kind of thinking went. Forced sterilizations of the poor and infirm in the US. The Holocaust in Europe. Suffice to say, very few reputable academics still hold to the idea of the virtues of Eugenics.
However, in the day of Lovecraft, this was the accepted reality of human biology. That Europeans were superior by virtue of "greater purity" and that other races had somehow "devolved" from that purer stock. Ludicrously racist now, but many of the authors we look to today from that era accepted this as fact.
In addition, for Lovecraft's part he was an elitist of fairly high caliber. Most of his public writings on race refer not to color, but rather to the idea of a race of born thinkers, and race of born workers, and he made it clear in several of his letters that it was for the prior group he was writing his stories.
By all means, take his likeness of the statuette. By modern standards, definitely a racist, and even by standards of the time he was of "questionable integrity" with several investigations into his "potential homosexuality" and possible "moral deviance".
I say all this not to argue the statuette shouldn't be changed, it should if the contest owners or recipients feel he no longer truly represents their ideas and virtues. To reduce him to a hate-spewing ideologue though, is to do a disservice to writers of every era. He wrote the world as he understood it, nothing more.
For a greater example of the era's "hate-speech" writing, read H.G. Wells History of the World, where he turns his keen prose towards explaining how the world came to be using contemporary science and the notion of Aryan supremacy. Sometimes good people internalize terrible notions.
During the era in which H.P. Lovecraft and his contemporaries lived (including H.G. Wells and Conan Doyle) the idea had begun to examine humanity with a scientific eye, but this was largely done through a lens of justification for English and European colonialism. As such, it birthed into existence the concepts known today as "Physical Anthropology" and later, "Eugenics".
Physical Anthropology is the study of the different races as sub-species of Homo Sapiens, and tried to validate the idea enough that the notion was pushed to give them scientific names such as Homo Sapiens Africanus and the such. This was largely justified using the anecdotal issues of what the researchers deemed as fundamental to having and developing culture, as they understood it, as well as focusing on basic aesthetic differences between the races. Africans tended to be slimmer and taller, therefore this was a trait identifiable to them.
This has since been supplanted by "Biological Anthropology" which uses genetics and DNA as a guideline, and which has debunked the notion of sub-species within Homo Sapiens, but there are still people who cling to this malignant way of thinking.
Eugenics, however, was the next step in that thinking, because if there were sub-species, then there clearly would have to be a "pure" species of Homo Sapiens. Looking for the traits that separated the "barbarous races" from the "civilized" ones created a "map" of sorts to breeding back into being a purer form of human, and protecting the species from becoming increasingly "devolved".
We know where this kind of thinking went. Forced sterilizations of the poor and infirm in the US. The Holocaust in Europe. Suffice to say, very few reputable academics still hold to the idea of the virtues of Eugenics.
However, in the day of Lovecraft, this was the accepted reality of human biology. That Europeans were superior by virtue of "greater purity" and that other races had somehow "devolved" from that purer stock. Ludicrously racist now, but many of the authors we look to today from that era accepted this as fact.
In addition, for Lovecraft's part he was an elitist of fairly high caliber. Most of his public writings on race refer not to color, but rather to the idea of a race of born thinkers, and race of born workers, and he made it clear in several of his letters that it was for the prior group he was writing his stories.
By all means, take his likeness of the statuette. By modern standards, definitely a racist, and even by standards of the time he was of "questionable integrity" with several investigations into his "potential homosexuality" and possible "moral deviance".
I say all this not to argue the statuette shouldn't be changed, it should if the contest owners or recipients feel he no longer truly represents their ideas and virtues. To reduce him to a hate-spewing ideologue though, is to do a disservice to writers of every era. He wrote the world as he understood it, nothing more.
For a greater example of the era's "hate-speech" writing, read H.G. Wells History of the World, where he turns his keen prose towards explaining how the world came to be using contemporary science and the notion of Aryan supremacy. Sometimes good people internalize terrible notions.
For the love of Cthulhu, when will the racism-whining finally STOP?
Yes, he was a racist, like most people in his time. Does that have ANYTHING to do with the award? No.
Racism is set to replace rape and murder as the most heinous crime a person can commit if this keeps up. Heck, maybe it already has. This thought-policing, history-rewriting, politically correct *self-censored* thoroughly, utterly disgusts me.
When has political correctness gotten to the point where we have to go THIS far with it? So far that even historical figures have to match our worldviews or be shunned?
Society has "evolved" to the point where we've decided everyone should have equal rights. Good. That is progress. I support that wholeheartedly. But to go so overboard that everyone who has ever held different beliefs is now a monster? If that is what the world will be, I say it's gone one step forward, a hundred back.
Ugh, had to edit this. Why? Because I found that they are considering making the statuette look like another author: http://www.biography.com/people/octavia-e-butler-38207
Who here has even HEARD of her? Is she truly one of the "greats" or is it just that she is a politically correct choice due to her skin color? Also, how is that NOT racism?
Yes, he was a racist, like most people in his time. Does that have ANYTHING to do with the award? No.
Racism is set to replace rape and murder as the most heinous crime a person can commit if this keeps up. Heck, maybe it already has. This thought-policing, history-rewriting, politically correct *self-censored* thoroughly, utterly disgusts me.
When has political correctness gotten to the point where we have to go THIS far with it? So far that even historical figures have to match our worldviews or be shunned?
Society has "evolved" to the point where we've decided everyone should have equal rights. Good. That is progress. I support that wholeheartedly. But to go so overboard that everyone who has ever held different beliefs is now a monster? If that is what the world will be, I say it's gone one step forward, a hundred back.
Ugh, had to edit this. Why? Because I found that they are considering making the statuette look like another author: http://www.biography.com/people/octavia-e-butler-38207
Who here has even HEARD of her? Is she truly one of the "greats" or is it just that she is a politically correct choice due to her skin color? Also, how is that NOT racism?
Oh well it's their award, i personally think that in matters of achievement it doesn't really matter what the person's personal feelings are. HP Lovecraft was an excellent writer which makes him fit to be on a writing award
People way earlier in the thread have already refuted the claim that Lovecraft was just another guy of his time, so you might not want to rely on that argument.Vorlayn said:
On topic: Eh, I'm fine with it, their prize, their choice.