

Then berated Lord Dunsany?
Thump on Oscar Wilde?
Beat up Ambrose Bierce?
Slap around Nathaniel Hawthorne
Belittle Matthew Lewis?
Punch out William Shakespeare?
Kick around Dante Alighieri?
. . .

Then berated Lord Dunsany?
Thump on Oscar Wilde?
Beat up Ambrose Bierce?
Slap around Nathaniel Hawthorne
Belittle Matthew Lewis?
Punch out William..."
I can hardly find racism in the Bard or the Sommo Poeta, for the matter. Shylock? I tend to find that his 'Do we not bleed' speech, the most powerful piece of rhetoric in The Merchant of Venice is often overlooked. Iago? Well, Iago's motivations remain obscure...



He has a statue? Watch me ignore it.
[Sorry this sounds so harsh. But -- seriously? -- I do not have the right?]

He has a statue? Wat..."
LOL

Of course you do. So do others. No one is mocking or humiliating anyone here. It is called intelligent debate.

Heh, no problem, I apologise for sounding a bit peremptory myself.
Robert is a typical author; a born agitator.

Hi E. For clarification, I wasn't mocking or humiliating anyone. My LOL was directed at Robert's answer to your statement about the statue, which I found bluntly humorous and refreshing. I promise you I very much respect your right to speak your mind and assure you my three-letter remark was only an expression of my own amusement.

I suppose the problem with this liberal argument is simply: where do you draw the line? Are we then to argue that Hitler etc. also fall under the rubric of 'All of us are the mixture of good and bad'? It is an issue that is raising its head more and more in ordinary society: even the Charlie Hebdo shootings are an (extreme) example of where to draw this line.
What I find fascinating about Robert's blog, and in particular the references, is how Lovecraft is seen to have codified racism / xenophobia in the guise of his fiction. This is honestly an aspect of Lovecraft I have never considered before, and is of course deeply disturbing.

I honestly do not know. Reminds me of New Criticism, which espoused 'close reading', divorced from both the reader's life and his/her sociopolitical context. It seems to have gone the other way now, with the author being of more interest than the work.


“Only the End of the World Again" by Neil Gaiman
“Bulldozer” by Laird Barron
“Red Goat Black Goat” by Nadia Bulkin
“The Same Deep Waters as You” by Brian Hodge
“A Quarter to Three” by Kim Newman
“The Dappled Thing” by William Browning Spencer
“Inelastic Collisions” by Elizabeth Bear
“Remnants” by Fred Chappell
“Love is Forbidden, We Croak & Howl” by Caitlín R. Kiernan
“The Sect of the Idiot” by Thomas Ligotti
“Jar of Salts” by Gemma Files
“Black is the Pit From Pole to Pole” by Howard Waldrop and Steven Utley
“Waiting at the Crossroads Motel” by Steve Rasnic Tem
“I’ve Come to Talk with you Again” by Karl Edward Wagner
“The Bleeding Shadow” by Joe R. Lansdale
“That of Which We Speak When We Speak of the Unspeakable” by Nick Mamatas
“Haruspicy” by Gemma Files
“Children of the Fang” by John Langan

I'd never heard that Olivier quote on Monroe. Priceless.

Robert wrote: "Excellent writers. All of them superior to the source material (and yet the hagiography continues)."
I think it is akin to Hugo Gernsback being hailed as the 'father of SF' ... ultimately a very crap writer though. Unsure about the hagiography: is Lovecraft even fashionable still? The horror genre itself seems to have been superseded by the New Weird.

If only."
Heh. Blame it on the twinkly vampires.

Do Ms. Meyer's readers even know who HPL is?
No, the genre has always attracted more than its share of 'true believer' personality types. "You have no right" is not an atypical response.


Agreed. What never becomes clear is the degree of fanatical devotion he inspires.










I think as far as you reading Lovecraft is concerned, if you think that his writing was good and his stories were good, then read him. You can move on anytime you like, after all. [Do not be trapped ever by the New Puritanism that tells you what to like and not to like].


I happen to think that Lovecraft is vastly overrated as an author, even as a horror author, though I cannot deny the glimpses of genius in a few of his better stories or in his collaborative world-building with fellow authors. The Mythos feels real, ancient, and dreadful in parts, provoking a deep, quaking, existential horror that popular horror writers of today do not come close to. And yes, some of that ability is inextricably tied up in beliefs that many today find unutterably offensive. One of HPL's best, The Shadow Over Innsmouth, could simply not be written by someone who did not have his deep loathing of miscegenation. I'm still waiting for the enlightened modern gentleperson to tell me that he does not share that same revulsion at the very idea of Deep Ones interbreeding with human beings.
Anyway, the bashing of Lovecraft by the community of modern horror readers and authors seems strange to me considering the current state of the genre, so riddled with torture porn and gratuitous indulgence in scenes of sexual perversion.. What's worse: a gruesomely drawn-out scene of child molestation, or a cat named Nigger-Man?

The only bashing I ever see in the horror community targets those who point out that HPL was an awful human and an awful writer. Much safer to keep one's mouth shut.
I have "no right." And dissenting opinions are not tolerated.


As for the Deep Ones, I think they're Deep Ones, but I also think it echoes the fear of blue-blooded WASPy New Englanders mixing with any of the "savage, inferior" races that Lovecraft loathed.

Wow. This is so wrong, in so many ways. That way lies literary fascism, book burnings, thought police, the Charlie Hebdo shootings.

I'm sure HPL would have been happy to lend you his copy.

yes, I took the Deep Ones to be that fear of outsiders you mention. I have an interest anyway in the lives of other writers, and read a lot of biographies of the same, so perhaps I'm more inclined to check them out first, or at least simultaneously if I like their work. But yes, I guess you could feel that .... oh, hang on, I don't believe I ever said 'read people with whom I know ahead of time that I agree with in their personal views.' Agree with their views! Heck no. I don't think you read me properly.
Bottomline: if you can so easily justify another person's racism, then it's a good bet youve gotten real handy at justifying your own.
We're never going to live in a perfectly equal, just world for all people. But why make it just that much harder to become a close reality by letting any such actions or words be given a justification for any reason at all?