World Fantasy Awards may drop H.P. Lovecraft's likeness from award statuette due to author's racism.

[bobmd13]

Frission

Mayhap I will have to reread his works.

I have always felt that pulp fiction should only be assessed if it is a ripping yarn that holds the readers attention.

With relation to Christies work it was retitled for the American edition.

You can still buy the paperback here on Amazon. (£2.99) or if you want the hardback only £749.99 (yep that's $1,245)

Actually the refusal of African American blood was.

The American government at the time deemed it inferior to Caucasian blood.

You also have to remember, that until late 44, African American troops,were detailed to support roles and were not issued weapons.

This link refers to the airforce.

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/WW2/US%20apartheid.htm

This refers to the infantry.

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/WW2/US%20apartheid.htm

From this article:

During World War II, most African American soldiers still served only as truck drivers and as stevedores (except for some separate tank battalions and Army Air Forces escort fighters).[27] In the midst of the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944, General Eisenhower was severely short of replacement troops for existing military units which were totally white in composition. Consequently, he made the decision to allow African American soldiers to pick up a weapon and join the white military units to fight in combat for the first time.[27] More than 2,000 black soldiers had volunteered to go to the front.[28] This was an important step toward a desegregated United States military. A total of 708 African Americans were killed in combat during World War II.[29]

As you can see, even in 1944 there was an aversion to African American troops bearing arms.

Therefore xenophobia was a common preconception in the USA.

 

[neoontime]

People often allow their personal feelings to cloud their judgement.

Imagine if someone was trying to get a statue of Philip K. Dick removed because they were super offended by Dick's anti-abortion views, which he even wrote a short story to illustrate. Sure, racism is a different kettle of fish, but I think some people behave immaturely when confronted with beliefs they consider "unacceptable". Lovecraft was racist. This can be considered a character flaw. But it in no way changes the fact he is a man who created great things, and stands as an example to others.

The statue is a attribute to the man and his character. For this reason, people consider changing/removing the statue to more closely resemble an icon that can stand for the attribution of the the full scale view. As much as people think dishonoring Lovecraft is dishonoring his inspiring and popular works, it's not necessarily the same. It's completely possible to separate the actions and works of someone with the character of them. Removing the statue is not dishonoring his works as nothing implies that his popular works have diminished in value due to the current openness of heavily racist and antisemetic poetry and other things. It seems the other way around where peoples personal feelings about his works are affecting the judgement of Lovecraft. People are even defending his racism in this thread as something of the time rather than something obviously beyond it when you read those less popular works. As said before, the statue holds iconic status before his works and therefore his character is something to definitely consider. No one is diminishing his popular works but simply separating his character from that which currently represents science fiction and fantasy genres. Now reason in not allowing this to be considered.

 

[neoontime]

I found this interesting article that discusses the "product of his time" point.
Yes it's a wordpress blog but it does try to keep a logical perspective, defending points with examples.

http://nicolecushing.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/lovecraft-racism-the-man-of-his-time-defense/

Here's a line from it:
"If writers are all just ?men or women of their time?, then we?d probably, according to conventional wisdom, expect Poe (a writer born almost a century before Lovecraft, raised in the antebellum South ? hell, in the future capital of the Confederacy ? by a merchant who traded in slaves) to write stories even more filled with racist sentiment. And yet, I?ve yet to find any overt racism in Poe?s work at all (I?m not saying it?s not there, just that I haven?t seen it yet ? and I?ve read just as much Poe as Lovecraft, maybe a little more). We?d probably expect Ambrose Bierce (born and raised in the Midwest, in the 1840s) to likewise express racist leanings, and yet one academic article I?ve taken a look at actually argues that he wrote against anti-immigrant sentiment.
...
Lovecraft, on the other hand, seems positively obsessed with the theme of white supremacy, taking opportunities to shoe-horn it into stories even when it?s completely unnecessary. There?s no narrative reason Lovecraft had to name the cat in ?The Rats in the Walls? after a racist slur, or depict Buck Robinson in the degrading, animalistic way in which he did. These references are wholly gratuitous, apparently for Lovecraft?s own amusement and what he may have fancied to be the amusement of his audience (and before you leap to a ?he did it for his audience? defense, take note that his private letters ? not intended for an audience ? are also littered with racist references)."

I agree with much of the points so it seems better to post this from someone who looked into this a bit than explain my less informed opinion and logic.

 

[neoontime]

I'm gonna agree with what a lot of people have already said, and point out that racism was pretty universal back in lovecraft days. It was a different time, and there were hardships and frustrations we never had to deal with. I imagine some of the very same people wanting to take his likeness of the statues would have grown up racist as hell if they lived in his time.

IDK, saying he was a product of his time kind of misrepresents his setting really. This is a man, born and lived much of his life in the North east part of the U.S. in the early 20th century who was athiest and not much connected to traditional male values. Yes, racism was still popular up North but it was much of an inferred and unspoken idea compared to Lovecraft's often unnecessary emphasis in his works. This thought sends that message that everyone, everywhere was promoting racism in the U.S. rather than mostly ignoring it.

 

[QuicklyAcross]

Alfred Nobel probably wasnt a perfect human being without prejudice so should we then stop calling it the Nobel prize?
This kind of guilt by association and trying to find and sometimes prove hints and leads towards despicable values or sympathy with opinions that could be interpreted as, or in some cases are, racist or sexist etc, how does it matter?

We could remove the Christ from Christmas and just call it...mas?
We could stop calling things their actual name and start making new names because of the fear that the origin might have SOME connection to things such as racism, sexuality discrimination and so on.

But that would be kind of silly wouldnt you agree?

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Nearly everything in our history is offensive to at least one group of people. I think we need to be very careful about traveling too far down the road of sterilization. A relatively modern award? Seems like a fine candidate for renaming or re-branding to be respectful and inclusive. An NFL franchise? Same deal. Just make sure we're not on our way to tearing down statues, removing art, censoring books, etc. Windows to the past are inherently irreplaceable, and there is value even in the grotesque.

 

[Agayek]

Lovecraft was incredibly racist, as were pretty much all of his contemporaries, to a degree that many modern folks would find beyond the pale.

That does nothing to change that he's one of the most influential American authors of all time, and the defining voice in existential horror. His work is right up there with Edgar Allen Poe and Mark Twain in terms of cultural significance. It seems remarkably gauche to try and diminish his importance in literature because his views are seen as offensive to modern sensibilities.

The award organization is perfectly within their rights to do whatever they want with the award they give out, but this reeks of attempting to whitewash history, and I really can't say I approve of it.

 

[Sandjube]

May as well remove all of history and just start again from 2013 onwards then. Fucking hell this riles me.

 

[King Billi]

To be completely honest if I wasn't told beforehand that the guy on this award was supposed to be H.P. lovecraft I don't think I would have guessed it was him.

http://wiki.stephen-king.de/images/thumb/2/28/World_Fantasy_Award.jpg/160px-World_Fantasy_Award.jpg

I get that its a caricature but it looks more like one of those easter island heads to me.

In any case its not as though the award is called "The H.P. Lovecraft Award" or anything, it's the "World Fantasy Award" They should probably change it to something that better encompasses that title rather than just one specific author.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

Well, there's a pretty big difference between respecting someone's work, and respecting the person. For example, there's a number of extreme metal bands I listen to from Eastern Europe whose members have.. questionable ideologies. Now, I can respect and enjoy their music and praise their records, but I'd no sooner honour the individual musicians on their personal merits than fly to the moon, nor would I offer a statue of their likeness to a Jewish person.

So as far as I'm concerned, this awards place is well in their rights doing this.

 

[Irick]

I was using "you" in the general, imprecise sense. I was not attempting to describe your (the specific you, this time) personal beliefs, Irick. You (the specific you) do not seem to think racism is wrong, so you (the specific you) don't have to weasel out of anything.

*rolls his eyes*
Please. Detaching from pathos to consider a decision as an academic isn't approving. It's being academic. This isn't a defense of racism, it's an assertion that racism doesn't have a bearing on the quality of fiction.

But hey, assumptions right?

Given that there is no objective standard of what makes a good writer, the idea that presence of hatespeech in his body of work cannot be considered toward the quality of that body of work seems arbitrary at best to me, and at worst deliberately set up to avoid discussion. Why shouldn't people be allowed to consider "On the Creation of Niggers" as making him a worse author than some other?

Allowed? What is this about being allowed? You can involve the whole of the text when you analyse an author's works, but this has already been done. That's how we gain contextual insight into H.P. Lovecraft's works. That's how we extract themes. However, why exactly does it mater to The Case of Charles Dexter Ward that lovecraft is racist? Does it make it any less of a novel? Does it somehow magically diminish its cultural impact?

Moreover, as we are talking about morally charged situations, why ought I care? Does being interested in Literature mean I must take into account the racial themes or connotations of everything I read? Should I not celebrate Mark Twain because he used racial slurs in his writing?

Do you want me to defend H.P. Lovecraft? Because I don't particularly feel like defending his racism. I could instead say the man is a man and men are flawed. I could point to the textual evidence that he moderated his views later in life and from there could argue that he was at the very least changing. I could point out it is never fair to judge a man by a snapshot of their life. These are all defences of H.P. lovecraft, but I'm not defending him.

I'm defending the iconic image of Lovecraft's contributions to the literary arts. I'm defending the spirit of celebration. I am asserting that that spirit and appreciation of art transcends modern morality, or immorality as the time may be. I'm asserting that art is the connecting factor of all of humanity. I reject the simplistic black and white thinking of good or evil men and choose to see man as a complex whole, intertwined with measures of both.

I assert it is possible, or even preferable to not draw lines, but try to come together in art. Why should we not acknowledge these influences? In what way does celebrating a love of fiction influenced by Lovecraft push us further apart? In what way does denying his iconic status bring us together?

What is good about fictionalizing lovers of literature across these arbitrary divisers?

None of this asserts that it's bad to criticize Lovecraft's racism where it is rampantly apparent, or note it as a possible influence on his works. Those are textual details. They are valid discussions. However, implying that because a man is flawed his art is somehow lesser is just ludicrous. In logic we would call that an informal fallacy, but honestly it could be a formal one. A fundamental flaw in logic.

Consider the following two syllogisms:

Racist people are bad
H.P. Lovecraft was Racist
Therefore H.P. Lovecraft is bad

Art influenced by racism is bad
H.P. Lovecraft's art was influenced by racism.
Therefore, H.P. Lovecraft's art is bad.

So, lets look at the premises.

First off, Are racist people bad? I don't think so. Racist people are people. They could be not racist, that would make them not bad right? Universally, we can not say that Racist people are bad, we can just say they are racist.

We can, however, probably agree that Racism is bad.

Lets revise Syllogism 1.

Racism is bad.
H.P. Lovecraft was Racist
Therefore H.P. lovecraft was bad.

Now wait, this doesn't follow.

Racism != Racist.

A is B
C was D
Therefore C is B

This can not be said to be a logically consistent stance.

Now, the astute will probably not that none of the Syllogisms so far have been valid. Even the superfically valid one doesn't work because is != was. This is intentional.

I mentioned that H.P. Lovecraft moderated in his views later on in life. You can see this from the shifting tone in his fiction and the slow death of the vitriol in his personal correspondence. It can be easily said that later on he started to change his views and it is difficult to argue that he went to the grave a racist.

Now, this brings me to the 'are Lovecraft's works bad' question. lets look at Syllogism 2.

I question the primace. Racism influences a lot of work, again I mention Mark Twain. And in order to directly address or criticize racism, you need to be influenced by it. So this doesn't work.

If we want to claim any sort of truth, we must apply our rules in a universal way. Lets start with a simple axiom. We don't need to justify this axiom in this exercise, we'll just assume it's an absolute truth.

Racism is Wrong.
H.P. Lovecraft's On The Creation of Niggers advocates Racism.
On The Creation of Niggers advocates Wrong.

Alright, alright. This doesn't work exactly from the simple primace of Racism being wrong. Let's refine this to say "Advocating racism is wrong"

Advocating Racism is Wrong
H.P. Lovecraft's On The Creation of Niggers is Advocating Racism.
On The Creation of Niggers is Wrong.

So, we are getting to an internally self consistent argument here. Advocating Racism is wrong, and so On The Creation of Niggers can be said to be wrong because it does just that and only that.

Alright, lets tackle Syllogism 1 again.

Being Racist was/is/willallwaysbe wrong
H.P. Lovecraft was racist
Therefore, H.P. Lovecraft was wrong.

Okay, this argument seems internally consistent. However, the conclusion is still past tense.... we can't claim H.P. Lovecraft is wrong because we have no way of knowing if H.P. Lovecraft is still racist. The only thing that can still make points or advocate are his individual works. However... these individual works may not be advocating racism. This depends on interpretation. The Author is Dead. Intent is only one portion of the text.

... but lets continue.

We have come up with the primace that Advocating Racism is Wrong, so let us apply this as a template.

Advocating Racism is Wrong.
H.P. Lovecraft's Work Advocates Racism.
Therefore H.P. Lovecraft's Work is Wrong.

"BUT WAIT". I exclaim, thumping my copy of Death of the Author I have been not too subtly dropping hints about. "Barthes states that 'To give a text an Author' and assign a single, corresponding interpretation to it 'is to impose a limit on that text.' As an artist I can not abide to art being given such arbitrary limits! Each of us interprets a given text in the context of our experience of it. If we are going to be making blanket moral statements we should make sure that they reflect the importance of interpretation.

God, I'm pushy.

Alright, we'll revise the Syllogism.

Advocating Racism is Wrong.
The Racist Interpretation of H.P. Lovecraft's Work Advocates Racism.
Therefore, The Racist Interpretation of H.P. Lovecraft's Work is Wrong.

... Well, that seems to change the message a bit, but it's internally consistent and addresses the concerns of multiple interpretations.

Again, I seem intent on referring to Roland Barthes. One may assume he had an influence on my formation of literary theory. I seem to be arguing that we must separate a literary work from its creator in order to allow it artistic freedom....

This means that a charge of advocating racism can not be inherent to a work. We can not say "H.P. Lovecraft's work advocates racism", because that imposes interpretive tyranny. The charge of advocating racism can only be levied on the interpretation of advocating racism.

But what about the statue in his likeness? Well, lets consider the history of the bust itself.

From Wikipedia:
The World Fantasy Awards, established in 1975, are presented annually at the World Fantasy Convention. The World Fantasy Award been described as one of the three most prestigious speculative fiction awards, along with the Hugo (voted on by fans and professionals) and the Nebula Awards (voted on members of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America). Writers, editors or artists can receive awards. The award statue is a caricature bust of H. P. Lovecraft designed by cartoonist Gahan Wilson in honor of Lovecraft's work and contributions to the world of fantasy. The award has the nickname of "Howard", after Lovecraft's first name.

So... the bust is in honor of Lovecraft's contributions to the world of fantasy. Well, there certainly are a lot of those... so this bust is not an award for lovecraft, but rather an acknowledgement of the influence of his work and is meant to represent great achievement in the field. And, just to be clear, that field is speculative fiction and not racism.

To suddenly remove his image from this bust because it is decided that it represents the racism of Lovecraft is to say that, for the last forty years, this award has represented the racism of Lovecraft. And, while as art that is a valid interpretation, the icon in the context of the World Fantasy Award is not interpreted this way.

However, as to be consistent with our long fought and reasoned out axioms, I offer the following:

Advocating Racism is wrong
The Racist Interpretation of Lovecraft's Bust as the icon of the World Fantasy Award Advocates Racism.
Therefore, The Racist Interpretation of Lovecraft's Bust as the icon of the World Fantasy Award is wrong.

 

[mecegirl]

How can people be expected to separate the artist from their work when the artist puts their biases into their work?

 

[CaptainChip]

How can people be expected to separate the artist from their work when the artist puts their biases into their work?

Because the morality of a person has no bearing on the actual quality of their works.

It's extremely close-minded to think otherwise.

 

[mecegirl]

How can people be expected to separate the artist from their work when the artist puts their biases into their work?

Because the morality of a person has no bearing on the actual quality of their works.

It's extremely close-minded to think otherwise.

If its closed minded then oh well. This isn't like Ender's Game. Card didn't slip a homophobic rant into his novels. Lovecraft has poems dedicated to "niggers" and how horrible they are. Expecting someone to give a shit about the "quality" is a bit stupid if you ask me. I mean, some people are actually Black, why should they ignore their natural instinct to protect their mental well being? Why should they celebrate someone who wrote about how they are the scum of the earth?

 

[JimB]

Actually there are objective standards for better authors. Pacing, consistency in story, details, the ability for the writing to flow well and such and such.

What do you think the word "objectively" means, Frission? Because the things you describe seem to me to be the very definition of subjective quality. For instance, what is the instrumentation one uses to chart pacing? What is the unit of measurement one uses to rate flow? I'll agree that most people can probably reach a consensus on what makes a good book (or story or whatever), but that does mean the experience is any less subjective from reader to reader.

You are allowed to say you don't like the rampant racism that was exhibited in some of Lovecraft's work (I didn't from time to time), but that poem (as bad as it was) wasn't the only thing he has ever written.

Uh...I don't remember saying it was. I just used it as the most blatant example I can think of, meant to be representative of his problematic attitudes toward race as expressed through his writing.

Can anyone give one legitimate reason for why his likeness shouldn't be used other than "cuz he wuz racist"?

Because the body that presents the award doesn't want to, and they have every goddamned right in the world not to.

Because someone finally complained about it, indicating that his racism is not considered acceptable among the public to whom the award is aimed.

Alfred Nobel probably wasn't a perfect human being without prejudice, so should we then stop calling it the Nobel prize?

Has anyone expressed offense at Nobel's effigy being given as a prize? Because if not, I really don't see the parallel here.

Please. Detaching from pathos to consider a decision as an academic isn't approving. It's being academic. This isn't a defense of racism, it's an assertion that racism doesn't have a bearing on the quality of fiction.

Then I think you (the specific you) are missing the point somewhat, as no one I am aware of has said his work isn't influential. The complaint I am aware of seems to be that a statue of the guy who wrote "On the Creation of Niggers" to black writers, or Jewish writers, or Asian writers, is kind of fucked up; that the general appreciation for his body of work doesn't change the amount of hatespeech it contains, and that handing out awards named after him seems like an endorsement of that. If the award is only meant to honor his "contributions," whatever that even means (the word is so vague I'm suspicious of it, as it seems to be a stand-in for "good things I like that are magically divorced from any bad things and are thus above criticism"), then how would you (the specific you) recommend the awarding body distance itself from the racism? Ought there perhaps to be a disclaimer carved on the base of each statuette? Should they issue a statement? Wouldn't either of those results generate just as much internet outrage ("internet" in this instance used to describe not outrage expressed over the internet, but outrage over hollow issues of supposed principle blown up out of proportion by echo chambers of people who feel oppressed that an award they'll never win has been changed)?

However, why exactly does it matter to The Case of Charles Dexter Ward that Lovecraft is racist? Does it make it any less of a novel? Does it somehow magically diminish its cultural impact?

Doesn't the reverse also apply, though? Does the Case of Charles Dexter Ward make any of his racist works less racist?

Moreover, as we are talking about morally charged situations, why ought I care?

You ought to care for practical reasons, because they are a large part of the conversation you (the specific you) have chosen to involve yourself (the specific you) in. If you (the specific you) don't care about the contents of the discussion being had, then it seems dishonest and disrespectful to be in it at all.

 

[JimB]

Why should they celebrate someone who wrote about how they are the scum of the earth?

becuz he wrote a rilly cool story about a space squid that got hit in the face by a boat and went to sleep and that's more importent then racism

...Okay, that was a little unfair of me. My apologies to anyone who feels I was attempting to characterize their argument. I'm just making jokes because this topic is kind of pissing me off, and jokes are how I deal with that sometimes.

 

[ForumSafari]

Yeah, Lovecraft was a pretty awful person. Racist, sexist, anti-semetic, hateful... the list goes on.

Lovecraft wasn't racist because he was an asshole, he was racist because he was mentally unwell. His racism was was a symptom of his tortured mind. I no more blame him for hating black people than I blame rape victims for being scared of men, both are irrational, both are from a selfish perspective insulting but neither is an attempt to force an ideology or a rational reaction.

Mental illness doesn't stop being mental illness just because the symptoms are socially frowned on. If people aren't assholes for unmoderated masturbation when they're unwell they're not assholes for being racist.

Well, there's a pretty big difference between respecting someone's work, and respecting the person. For example, there's a number of extreme metal bands I listen to from Eastern Europe whose members have.. questionable ideologies. Now, I can respect and enjoy their music and praise their records, but I'd no sooner honour the individual musicians on their personal merits than fly to the moon, nor would I offer a statue of their likeness to a Jewish person.

So as far as I'm concerned, this awards place is well in their rights doing this.

Otherwise known as the difference between liking Burzum and liking Varg.

 

[JimB]

Mental illness doesn't stop being mental illness just because the symptoms are socially frowned on.

The word "******" doesn't stop being the word "******" because a sick person said it.

Incidentally, people keep mentioning that his racism is caused by mental illness. What illness did he suffer? What is his specific diagnosis, and how is that disease's pathology linked to racism?

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Eh, everyone was racist back then, but honestly, it's their choise if they want to use him or not, don't really see how it matters to anyone, honestly.

It's actually pretty hard to even find nuanced views on non-white people from back then, so I'll wonder which classic author they'll go to next.

Nope. Lovecraft was especially racist. Like, to the point where even his family members thought he was unhinged in how much he hated everyone who wasn't white.

OP:I'd wish they would do something similar with F. Scott Fitzgerald. I thought that the book Tom was talking about in the first few chapters was a joke, but it was actually F's actual political views

That dude was also surprisingly racist, but then again, he did have an immense wanting to be Souther-born. Still doesn't excuse it though.

 

[Irick]

If its closed minded then oh well. This isn't like Ender's Game. Card didn't slip a homophobic rant into his novels. Lovecraft has poems dedicated to "niggers" and how horrible they are. Expecting someone to give a shit about the "quality" is a bit stupid if you ask me. I mean, some people are actually Black, why should they ignore their natural instinct to protect their mental well being? Why should they celebrate someone who wrote about how they are the scum of the earth?

Card actually did publish at least one essay that was a homophobic rant[footnote]http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html[/footnote]. It's not in the novels, but neither are Lovecraft's racist rants. So... I mean, If you understand removing the author from the context of the work as it relates to Card and Ender's game, yeah...

It is like Ender's Game. Can we celebrate Ender's game, or even just Card's contributions to science fiction without celebrating his homophobia? I think that the answer is yes... and I honestly think it's belittling of literature to really push that we can't.

In my previous post I mentioned The Death of the Author. It is one of the formative books for my personal literary theory and it's rather widely cited. By us forcing the tyranny of a specific interpretation on a work we unnecessarily limit it. Think, for a moment, how bad it would be if instead of being able to sit down and discuss Ender's Game as an exploration of the relationship dynamics between adults and children. Imagine not being able to discuss Bean's development as a character as anything but a criticism of homosexuality, of people telling you that because card has these views that that's all that there can be and that's what you are celebrating by acknowledging those works.

Those collective additions to the sific canon, dismissed because of a single interpretation. It's ludicrous to me.

Ender?s Game is a story about gifted children.  It is also the story about soldiers.  Captain John F. Schmidt, the author of the Marine Corp?s Warfighting, the most brilliant concise book of military strategy ever written by an American, found Ender?s Game to be a useful enough story about the nature of leadership to use it in course he taught at the Marine University in Quantico. Watauga College, the interdisciplinary studies program at Appalachian State University?as unmilitary a community as you could ever hope to find!?uses Ender?s Game for completely different purposes?to talk about problem-solving and the self-creation of the individual.  A graduate student in Toronto explored the political ideas in Ender?s Game.  A writer and critic at Pepperdine has seen Ender?s Game as, in some ways, religious fiction.

All these uses are valid; all these readings of the book are ?correct.?  For all these readers have placed themselves inside this story, not as spectators, but as participants, and so have looked at the world of Ender?s Game, not with my eyes only, but also with their own.

This is the essence of the transaction between storyteller and audience.  The ?true? story is not the one that exists in my mind; it is certainly not the written words on the bound paper that you hold in your hands.  The story in my mind is nothing but a hope; the text of the story is the tool I created in order to try to make that hope a reality.   The story itself, the true story, is the one that the audience members create in their minds, guided and shaped by the text, but then transformed, elucidated, expanded, edited, and clarified by their own experience, their own desires, their own hopes and fears.

The story of Ender?s Game is not this book, though it has that title emblazoned on it.  The story is one that you and I will construct together in your memory.  If the story means anything to you at all, then when you remember it afterward, think of it, not as something I created, but rather something that we made together.

So, here I agree with card.