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

[mecegirl]

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.

I laughed?

But really, this is part of what it boils down to for me.
Hitler painted this.

If you showed this to someone who didn't know they might think its pretty good. Once you tell them that Hitler did it their opinion of it might change, it might become more negative. At that point I think the separating the artist from the art argument can be made. It might not convince someone, but in this case there is a clear distinction between the art and the artist.

Now, 'everyone' wasn't racist back then. 'Everyone' includes the people bearing the brunt of the racist actions. A lot of White people were, but not even all of them were racist. Either way it is true that racism was common so I'm arguing semantics. But how often does it invade an artists work outside of some stereotypical portrayals? (not that that's a good thing but I digress) That poem posted earlier in this thread, you aren't likely to see it in a published book of Lovecraft's works. You couldn't give that poem to someone without them immediately thinking that some extreamly racist person wrote it. Unlike Hitler's paintings, you can draw some clues about the mindset of the person behind the pen. Unless you find out that its supposed to be some form of satire there would be no separating the artist from the art.

 

[mecegirl]

snip

Would an essay count as an artistic work in the same way that a poem would?

 

[ForumSafari]

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

It's also not fair to blame someone for the symptoms of their illness because you find the symptoms annoying. Realistically I am not a huge fan of sharing close proximity with the mentally retarded, their shrieking and flailing is extremely annoying but I don't blame them for it, they're not doing it because they're of a right mind and think it's a great idea.

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?

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=1188

They didn't really classify mental illness as thoroughly back then but yeah, most of his family ended up in the local mental institution and he suffered nervous breakdowns and episodes throughout his life. Why do you think most of his tales end in someone going mad?

His symptoms weren't well documented because stuff back then wasn't generally, however realistically there's no difference between Lovecraft and Solanas except:

1. Lovecraft said ****** oh no.
2. Solanas actually acted on her psychosis.

 

[Irick]

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)?

No, I get the point.
The point is "Boo Racism" (this isn't dispergent, this is literally what moral statements boil down to.)
And that's fine, you can not like racism. I don't like racism. Doesn't matter in this context though unless you make it matter by insisting that H.P. Lovecraft must be talked about in a context of racism. I'm not arguing that he wasn't racist. I'm arguing that it doesn't matter in the context of his speculative fiction.

Voltaire was racist as sin, does it mean we shouldn't honor him as a great philosopher?

What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly - that is the first law of nature.

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

It is a serious question among them whether the Africans are descended from monkeys or whether the monkeys come from them. Our wise men have said that man was created in the image of God. Now here is a lovely image of the Divine Maker: a flat and black nose with little or hardly any intelligence. A time will doubtless come when these animals will know how to cultivate the land well, beautify their houses and gardens, and know the paths of the stars: one needs time for everything.

Yes. One of the fathering influences of Egalitarianism was racist. Shocker right?
Historical figures do not have the benefit of hindsight. Understand their handicap and take what is good from them. This is how society moves forward rather than stays focused on the past.

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

Of course it applies. I didn't say you were wrong to criticize his racist works. Contrarily, you are claiming it is wrong to honor his literary achievements.

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.

What practical reason?
There is no practical reason for being offended. Being offended is about as impractical as any action it is possible to take. Doubly so when there is no amount of complaining in the world that can change the words of a dead man.

It's stilly to look for offense where none need be. Criticism is fine, knee-jerk reactionary censorship and revisionism... not so much.

 

[lordmardok]

This is a problematic subject because Lovecraft was just a product of his time. Even Tolkien had hugely racist elements in his beloved series, or did everyone miss the fact that every good guy was white while every bad guy was everything but, including the fantastically racist Southrons if you ever read up on them.

Which is funny because Tolkien was actually pretty liberal for the time, he supported civil rights of all kinds. Lovecraft on the other hand was really just an early-1900's version of a conservative. He was a nationalistic anglophile. But then, Orson Scott Card is a homophobic asshole and everyone loves his books.

I personally don't think that Lovecraft's likeness should be removed. After all, between him and Poe an entirely new genre of fiction was defined. Before them we really didn't have 'Horror Stories'. We had folklore and stuff that was really weird as often as it was dark and gruesome, but the fiction up to that point didn't have what you would call a Horror section. I don't think that blaming a guy who died alone, obscure, and in poverty because no one appreciated his books, for beliefs that were completely common at the time he was born and raised is fair. After all, on the flip side Lovecraft gave us literally every story/video game/movie that every featured a Elder God archetype ever.

 

[Irick]

snip

Would an essay count as an artistic work in the same way that a poem would?

Short answer, yes.
Long answer: The philosophy of Aesthetics has an ancient and noble tradition of never making up it's damn mind.

 

[neoontime]

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.

Imagine not being able to discuss Bean's development as a character as anything but a criticism of homosexuality
I do imagine this as gender and sexuality are schools of critique that people use all the time to view a writing. Of course you imply critiquing this man somehow gets to the extreme notion that we cannot separate the success of his writing from his character. Critique is something rational that dives into a deep understanding and your implying homophobia would be something so blatant that it's something people rationally couldn't get past. That thought leaps some logic in my opinion. Cards homophobia and Lovecraft's racism are not in the same context, and you can see the argument in the original blog in the OP. This is someone who wrote an essay on their with the line
"In Songmaster (and also in the third Homecoming novel, The Ships of Earth, the only other place where I have dealt with homosexuality in my fiction) I attempt to create real and living characters. I find it nearly impossible to create a character that I do not end up understanding and sympathizing with to some degree. Thus it should surprise no one that I treat homosexuals in my fiction with understanding and sympathy"
-and someone who on several occasions purposely wrote a group of people as depicted scum. People are shocked by how prevalent his racism was even to his day.

*In regards to the Card comment, I completely disagree. Not on the grounds of any "social justice" thought but its tiring to say how writer use this to step away from critique. To me any open-endedness in writing is often lazy or cowardly. I have to say that not every writer does this purposely and its important to set intentional meaning or end but if theirs anything that saves an author from having a badly written story, its by being intentionally vague as it justifies anything written badly as something you just interpreted wrong. I mean card says any interpretation of his writing is correct but to me that seems like the biggest cop-out to any criticism for how is written. (*obvious rant I had built up that's not related to the OT.)

 

[Fox12]

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.

In what way was he mentally unwell? I know his dad had issues, but I was under the impression that he was healthy. Maybe reclusive and depressed, but these wouldn't explain racism. A rape victim would have a reason for her fear, so I don't think that's applicable. What could have happened, other then societal racism, that would make him racist?

 

[ForumSafari]

In what way was he mentally unwell? I know his dad had issues, but I was under the impression that he was healthy. Maybe reclusive and depressed, but these wouldn't explain racism. A rape victim would have a reason for her fear, so I don't think that's applicable. What could have happened, other then societal racism, that would make him racist?

It wasn't just his father, it was most of his family and he himself suffered from nervous breakdowns. His entire short life was blighted by tragedy. As for why racism, well why not? If your entire life is constantly crumbling around you it's no wonder you'd find those different from you threatening, he was paranoid generally.

 

[neoontime]

I'm impressed how you led us to considering racial undertones in a work are as bad and perpetuating of racism, but I'll get to the main point.

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.

That is the exact premise you use to lead on yet no one has even held that stance, so its deemed as invalid. You're implying people deeming all Lovecraft's works as bad when only the ones considered are overly racist that are getting the attention. People understand that his thoughts influenced all his art but no one is saying his main works are bad.

Also I break down your other point.
First off, Are X people bad? I don't think so. X people are people. They could be not X, that would make them not bad right? Universally, we can not say that X people are bad, we can just say they are X.
So your basically saying any people represented by thoughts and harm are very vitriolic cannot be deemed as bad due to still being humans. Unless you're saying people will accept the premise with ANY group of humans that can be substituted for X, this logic isn't that valid.

 

[mecegirl]

snip

Would an essay count as an artistic work in the same way that a poem would?

Short answer, yes.
Long answer: The philosophy of Aesthetics has an ancient and noble tradition of never making up it's damn mind.

If that's the case then people have a stronger case for disregarding Card's work.

 

[JimB]

It's also not fair to blame someone for the symptoms of their illness because you find the symptoms annoying.

I don't care about assigning blame, particularly to a dead man. Blame is useless. It doesn't help anything. I care about the effects of his actions. Whether he was ill or not is irrelevant for three reasons: the first is his actions have effects on others no matter what his intentions; the second is he isn't yet proven to be ill; the third is his illness isn't proven to have caused his racism. More on that in a moment.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=1188

Jesus Christ, that is a slog to read through. I guess the contibutor doesn't understand the importance of paragraph breaks. Oh well, not the point.

The point is, anyone who claims his racism was caused by mental illness has chosen an extremely high standard for himself to meet. Racism is not a mental illness; no peer-reviewed medical organization in the world that I am aware of recognizes it as such. Now, there may be certain forms of delusion that fixate on racism, or at least that can fixate on racism, but which ones are we talking about here? What symptoms did Lovecraft evince, and how do those symptoms combine to form a psychopathology that can be used to diagnose a dead man?

Without that kind of information, trying to excuse his racism because of mental illness seems like just that: an excuse.

Realistically there's no difference between Lovecraft and Solanas except:

Then go complain to whatever organization offers a statuette of Valerie Solanas as an award. Otherwise, her illness and behaviors are irrelevant here except to change the subject.

The point is "Boo Racism" (this isn't dispergent, this is literally what moral statements boil down to). And that's fine, you can not like racism. I don't like racism. Doesn't matter in this context though unless you make it matter by insisting that H.P. Lovecraft must be talked about in a context of racism.

It matters because it affects people. It affected Mr. Okorafor, after all.

Voltaire was racist as sin, does it mean we shouldn't honor him as a great philosopher?

I don't care whether people honor a dead man. Honor isn't doing him any good any more, on account of him being dead and all. As such, I will not prioritize what people want a dead man to be entitled to over the living people who have to deal with that fallout.

Contrarily, you are claiming it is wrong to honor his literary achievements.

No, I'm pretty sure what I said is, it's fucked up to give to a black author a statue of a man who thought that author was a half-beast filled with vice, created by the gods to bridge the gap between human and animal.

What practical reason?

I...I don't know how else to say it. I already said. Because it's a component of the discussion, and ignoring that is a disservice to your (the specific you) opponent and to the audience. It makes them less likely to agree with your position because you (the specific you) won't address what concerns them.

Criticism is fine, knee-jerk reactionary censorship and revisionism... not so much.

Neither is describing as censorship an act that does not alter, eliminate, or reduce ease of access to a person's works mandated by the state. If you want to describe this as an organization bending to pressure from its consumers, then that's fine, but it's not censorship, it's capitalism. Passing this off as censorship smacks of hysteria. Likewise, I don't think I need to say how pointing out the things a person is documented as saying counts as revisionism.

 

[Irick]

It matters because it affects people. It affected Mr. Okorafor, after all.

Everything and nothing affects people. The world does not exist but for our own internal narrative. The choice to let the views of a long dead man affect your current state is still an active choice. You must seek to engage that portion of history, and in doing so, you are critiquing the past.

Again, I don't disagree with the points about H.P. Lovecraft, but why exactly should I be okay with politicizing this award? Why should I care as to how people feel about H.P. Lovecraft? Why should we 'fix' a historical icon?

Is it because people are ignorant as to the iconic status? Is it because the historical Lovecraft offends them?

Political statements are fine. Don't accept an award if you feel it does more for your causes that way, but I see no reason to change the bust because of it. H.P. lovecraft is still one of the most influential authors of all time and there is really nothing that anyone has said on the matter that has even begun to address the fact that this has no basis in literary merit or accomplishment, which is what the award purportedly celebrates.

I don't care whether people honor a dead man. Honor isn't doing him any good any more, on account of him being dead and all. As such, I will not prioritize what people want a dead man to be entitled to over the living people who have to deal with that fallout.

The fallout of being offended by the beliefs of a man dead long before you were born?
The Literary Canon is a thing that exists, though I'm sure you would find it very offensive. It happens to have a lot of emotionally moving pieces in it. Even pieces that would make you question the purpose of living. People have to deal with the fallout of the literary canon everyday.

Should we remove references to offensive material so that people don't have to deal with the fallout of it?

No, I'm pretty sure what I said is, it's fucked up to give to a black author a statue of a man who thought that author was a half-beast filled with vice, created by the gods to bridge the gap between human and animal.

And yet it's still traditional to give doctors busts of Hippocrates whilst adorning private and state medical facilities with religious iconography harkening back to a mercantile god. These things violate the separation of church and state, romanticize a man to the living embodiment of medical ethics and... are entirely detached from their historic context into one of modern iconography.

Go figure right? Busts and Symbols become detached from the real and instead stand in for an ideal.

I...I don't know how else to say it. I already said. Because it's a component of the discussion, and ignoring that is a disservice to your (the specific you) opponent and to the audience. It makes them less likely to agree with your position because you (the specific you) won't address what concerns them.

It's still not remotely consequential, so, I don't much care for it. The critisism is fine, the calling for Lovecraft to be scrubbed from the award due to what amount to 'he had antiquated views' (though far more emotionally charged because: pathos) is not something I can take seriously. Period.

Neither is describing as censorship an act that does not alter, eliminate, or reduce ease of access to a person's works mandated by the state. If you want to describe this as an organization bending to pressure from its consumers, then that's fine, but it's not censorship, it's capitalism. Passing this off as censorship smacks of hysteria. Likewise, I don't think I need to say how pointing out the things a person is documented as saying counts as revisionism.

Casting historical views against modern morality is an act of revisionism. It is implying that morality is consistent through history, which simply isn't true. The norms and standards of society have shifted and changed near yearly basis. Attempting to present history in a light that reflects modern sensibilities regardless of the simple reality of the situation revises history.

Yes, this is a form of censorship. It is the removal of an Icon (Symbol, which conveys information) because it is considered harmful. That's pretty much the definition of censorship, even if it doesn't involve you striking through a piece of paper with a black felt pen.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Picking someone as wrong in the head, whether or not he genuinely had something against people not of his sill colour, or if it was just something cultural, as Lovecraft and then having second thoughts on it is just stupid.

They should have been more careful about this in the first place.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

It's their award and they can make it in the likeness of H.P. Lovecraft's cat for all I care, but this is a very slippery slope to demonize and marginalize famous individuals who held beliefs or did actions that were not only considered acceptable, but downright normal, for the time in which they lived.

To give examples of people we should now remove from any sort of awards, building names, recognition, monuments, currency, etc., due to them having beliefs that were normal at the time but that we now see as barbaric or backwards:

-As many already mentioned, George Washington, Ben Franklin, and pretty much any of the original founders of the US (slave owners).

-Edgar Allen Poe (believed in phrenology, the now laughably bad science of believing head shape determined personality).

-Margaret Sanger, Alexander Graham Bell, Teddy Roosevelt (actually, pretty much any US President up until FDR), H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Winston Churchill, William Welch, and many more. All supported eugenics, the belief (among others) that Government should be allowed to forcibly sterilize "undesirables" to improve the human race's gene pool. Was considered to be largely to blame for the Holocaust and the idea of the Nazi "Aryan race".

There are too many anti-semites to even begin a list, not to mention it'd be real interesting if we got into what people would have likely believed. How many famous individuals from prior to 1950, no matter how 'progressive' they were for their time, would have supported gay marriage, states paying for sex change surgery, or affirmative action, back when ideas such as these barely even existed? Obviously one cannot speak for the dead, but I'd have serious doubts.

Trying to transpose the morality of our age onto those who lived in a completely different era is a fool's errand. The way I see it, who's to say that 200 years from now, people won't look back at us and consider us barbaric because we kept dogs and cats as pets, or ate meat, or watched trashy reality shows?

 

[mecegirl]

I was wondering how long it would be Godwin's Law would rear it's ugly head in this argument... anyway, I would argue Hitler is an entirely different case from Lovecraft (in terms of honoring them anyway) since for one, he never became anything more than an amateur artist (seriously, check out some of his other stuff, a lot of the perspective is wonky). Lovecraft on the other hand was one of the most influential writers for a genre in his time. Second, Lovecraft's views rarely if ever reflected his actions. At most, he wrote a fairly racist poem that was self contained from all his other work. Lastly, Lovecraft had other major aspects to his character other than his racism and was a lot more sympathetic than someone as controversial than Hitler. I just have a problem demonizing famous figures in history for what amounts to a small facet of their person. Humans, even the most celebrated ones, tend to be fairly flawed individuals. Name any public figure, and I'm pretty sure I can identify a fairly unsavory view the held or action they preformed. Does this mean we can't ever give these people credit for the good they did or remove any icon involving their likeness? I'm not saying we should excuse Lovecraft's racism or anything, but you can easily recognize his more negative views while at the same time giving him credit for the positive ones without being needlessly dogmatic and trying to retroactively police history like this. I mean hell, this isn't even the first time I've heard something like this. I've seen people try to get statues or busts of certain individuals removed simply because of a controversial opinion they held completey unrelated to what the iconography was recognizing them for.

You don't need to educate me on the merits of Hitler's art. I'm well aware of it. Hitler may have improved if he was let into the Academy of Fine Arts. Maybe he should have taken their advice and went to Architecture school instead going down the path that he did, but that's another topic. Still, I have yet to see a painting of dead Jews attributed to him. Maybe it's because he sucked at drawing people so he stuck to cityscapes and building instead. Either way his fucked up view of humanity never intersected with his art. And so if you are talking about him as painter judging him for his antisemitism is pointless.

SO far as Lovecraft is concerned what seems like a minor flaw won't be so minor to to everyone. And it isn't a controversial opinion, it's a wrong one. It's just flat out wrong. People of African decent are not subhuman. They were never subhuman. Nor were they magically gifted with sentience and personhood once Europeans decided to acknowledge their humanity. If Lovecraft were alive he wouldn't care about Ms Okorafor's talent. He would not judge her based on the quality of her work. He'd think she wouldn't deserve an award based on nothing but the color of her skin. But judging him based on his work is wrong? As a writer if he is not to be judged by his own work then what is he to be judged for? He didn't have to write racist poems, he chose to.

 

[Signa]

[snip]

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.

Damn! How long did it take you to write that whole thing? I'm impressed,[footnote]comma is optional here in this sentence[/footnote] it needed to be said.

 

[Ratty]

It's not in the novels, but neither are Lovecraft's racist rants.

Bluh? Racism is all over many of Lovecraft's stories. The "horror" of non-WASPs "race mixing" can be found in his stories. As has been pointed out several times.

Picking someone as wrong in the head, whether or not he genuinely had something against people not of his sill colour, or if it was just something cultural, as Lovecraft and then having second thoughts on it is just stupid.

They should have been more careful about this in the first place.

According to someone in the comments to the original blogpost, Lovecraft was picked partly as an appeasement to the horror authors of the World Fantasy Awards, who outnumbered SF and Fantasy authors in 1975. Then, when the pendulum swung and SF/Fantasy became more popular and their were more authors of those genres in the organization the horror authors branched out and made their own award. I don't know if that's true or not but it would explain why Lovecraft is on an award primarily for SF and fantasy authors.

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.

Yep, all of these arguments kind of fall flat to me. But especially that one. "Oh EVERYBODY back then was an uninlightened racist, he didn't have any choice!" aside from being based on a demonstrably untrue premise[footnote]Which defames everyone in the past while giving unearned pats on the back to us present-day folk, as someone else mentioned all you need to see proof racism is alive today is to scroll through some youtube comments.[/footnote], ignores that Lovecraft was NOT "a man of his time" in key ways. As you mentioned he was an Atheist, he didn't marry young, and he wrote weird fiction. Lovecraft had freewill apparently as much as any of his did. While he did mature and start to rethink some of his ideas as he aged, he apparently still thought blacks biologically inferior, so still racist. Just perhaps a more mellowed one.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

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.

Not really. And certainly if casual racism existed, few if any took it to Lovecraft's extent. Edgar Allen Poe, meanwhile, freed a slave by purchasing one and then selling it to a black family for $1. Which was a common intermediary step to a long legal process of freedom.

 

[jthwilliams]

I find this hard. Distinguishing the art from the artist. Example Orson Scott Card is something I fundamentally disagree with, but Endor's Game was one of my favorite stories as a child and many of his works are very well written. It causes a real dilemma for me.