HATECRAFT




Seriously? Maybe it’s just me.

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

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

That’s part of it.

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

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

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

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

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

Or this?

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

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

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

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

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

Nor was I. It seems very much in character.

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

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

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

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

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

Try to act surprised.

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

Shudder.

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

Any questions?

* * * * *

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

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


Notes & Links:

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

Enter At Your Own Risk Fires and Phantoms by Alex Scully
18 likes ·   •  337 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on January 19, 2015 11:59 Tags: lovecraft, racism
Comments Showing 1-50 of 337 (337 new)    post a comment »

message 1: by Nickolas (new)

Nickolas Cook I've read and heard the same bullshit 'he was a product of his times' excuse for going on a quarter of a century--as long as I've been reading HPL's work. But I have to wonder, if he was the product of his times, how is that still okay? What about all the writers--both enduring and those maybe best forgotten--who didn't foam at the mouth when it came to other races and other nationalities? What about those who spoke and wrote for equality and justice for all men and women, no matter the pigmentation of their skin or their country of origin? Do these same 'product of his time' argument still hold water in giving HPL, or any anti-intelligent, amorally disgusting writer from any era of our country's history?
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?


message 2: by Robert (last edited Mar 04, 2015 09:38AM) (new)

Robert Dunbar Thanks for posting, Nickolas. I've gotten so many compliments about this post but all in the form of private messages. Invariably, people praise my "courage," as though I'd participated in the Selma-Montgomery marches or something. Says a lot, doesn't it? Everyone is so frightened of provoking the true believers...


message 3: by Franklin (new)

Franklin How are you going to rag on Edgar Allan Poe?

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?

. . .


message 4: by Adriano (last edited Jan 25, 2015 02:03AM) (new)

Adriano Bulla Franklin wrote: "How are you going to rag on Edgar Allan Poe?

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...


message 5: by Gerhard (new)

Gerhard Mmm. "Why does Horror continue to make a patron saint of this creep?" Surely one has to separate the man from the work? And surely 'liking' Lovecraft does not imply affinity with his personal attitudes (that is like saying if you enjoy Wagner, you are a closet Nazi). This reminds me of the recent Benjanun Sriduangkaew brouhaha in SF, where this feted author has been exposed as an infamous internet troll. Does this invalidate all current and future work? In the case of Lovecraft, what about his legacy and influence on the horror genre? Anyway, very provocative and much food for thought in this blog post, thank you.


message 6: by Blair (new)

Blair Hodgkinson Honestly, I plead some ignorance here. I have read a little Lovecraft, but not his complete works. I was unaware of the extent to which his racism permeated his works. Having said that, his prose is often remarked as uninspiring as well. However, it's hard for me to dismiss him. Somehow, and sometimes in spite of his limitations, he produced a strangely brilliant world of Old Gods and dark life hidden below the surface that comes straight from the collective nightmare consciousness and he did this in a way that has inspired countless others. I guess I have to say all reading should be done with a critical eye, even when it is for entertainment. One hopes that readers can make their own judgements on what they will take of value from any writer. As written above, much food for thought.


message 7: by Robert (last edited Apr 16, 2015 09:15AM) (new)

Robert Dunbar E wrote: "I believe you have the right to say you do not like somebody for this and that..But You DO NOT have the right to ignore his statue.You gotta make your own judgment."

He has a statue? Watch me ignore it.

[Sorry this sounds so harsh. But -- seriously? -- I do not have the right?]


message 8: by Blair (new)

Blair Hodgkinson Robert wrote: "E wrote: "I believe you have the right to say you do not like somebody for this and that..But You DO NOT have the right to ignore his statue.You gotta make your own judgment."

He has a statue? Wat..."


LOL


message 9: by Gerhard (new)

Gerhard E wrote: "And dear Blair, I have the right to speak my mind and it is not right to mock and humiliate others."

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


message 10: by Gerhard (new)

Gerhard E wrote: "OK. sorry.I did not mean to be aggressive or rude.I just got angry for a sec. I said, Rob is a precious friend and I respect his opinion, even though I, to some extent, do not approve it."

Heh, no problem, I apologise for sounding a bit peremptory myself.

Robert is a typical author; a born agitator.


message 11: by Blair (new)

Blair Hodgkinson E wrote: "And dear Blair, I have the right to speak my mind and it is not right to mock and humiliate others."

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.


message 12: by Gerhard (new)

Gerhard E wrote: "yeah. you are certainly right about Robert and the discussion we are having my dear Gerhard. I am not saying that Rob is wrong,he IS right. but,IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, you just can not destruct some ..."

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.


message 13: by Gerhard (new)

Gerhard E wrote: "I guess you are right about drawing the line.I think you are right. but what do you suggest?"
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.


message 14: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar I agree that HPL possessed the ability to evoke a disturbed state of consciousness, but I've always felt this had more to do with mental illness than literary skill. (It reminds me of Laurence Olivier's bitchy remark about Marilyn Monroe, that she was good at playing abject confusion "in the same way that midgets are good at being short.") Literary skill is not in evidence, but the frenzy of hysterical admiration HPL still inspires among adolescents is not difficult to sympathize with. Everyone goes through periods of alienation and paranoia: that's what being young is all about. Everyone needs to grow through it. Rejecting horrible writing full of hateful messages is an excellent place to start.


message 15: by Gerhard (new)

Gerhard There is an excellent Ellen Datlow anthology called Lovecraft's Monsters. A lot of really good horror writers here:

“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


message 16: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar Excellent writers. All of them superior to the source material (and yet the hagiography continues).


message 17: by Blair (new)

Blair Hodgkinson Robert wrote: "I agree that HPL possessed the ability to evoke a disturbed state of consciousness, but I've always felt this had more to do with mental illness than literary skill. (It reminds me of Laurence Oliv..."

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


message 18: by Gerhard (new)

Gerhard Robert wrote: "Excellent writers. All of them superior to the source material (and yet the hagiography continues)."

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.


message 19: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar Gerhard wrote: "The horror genre itself seems to have been superseded by the New Weird..."

If only.


message 20: by Gerhard (new)

Gerhard Robert wrote: "Gerhard wrote: "The horror genre itself seems to have been superseded by the New Weird..."

If only."


Heh. Blame it on the twinkly vampires.


message 21: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar Gerhard wrote: "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.


message 22: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd Hello there Robert, to come across your post on HP this morning was terrific because I'm researching him at the moment. I am in full agreement with your view of this weird guy. Oh, but don't give up horror, just write it elegantly and well! I think people read him a bit like they read comics. He is bad taste personified and when you discover about his life it all becomes clear.


message 23: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar Rebecca wrote: "He is bad taste personified and when you discover about his life it all becomes clear..."

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


message 24: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd So true. Something to ponder on, that. I just put up a photo of him and of Aubrey Beardsley on my Facebug page and asked other writers who the pictures were of. One person finally realised they were different men, and won a copy of my book, but perhaps if people don't even recognise who isn't their hero, then they haven't really looked at the life of HP either. Glad Sonia and he didn't stay together.


message 25: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar The Sonia situation is beyond bizarre. What was she thinking?


message 26: by E (new)

E Read the private life of H.P.Lovecraft by sonia Davis.I finished it recently.I could not believe when she said H.P loved and admired Hitler.


message 27: by Thomas (new)

Thomas That's a shame, I really wanted to read some of his work, but I don't know if my conscious will let me. I'm not squeamish mind you, but I still like to keep my morale's in check. Anyways just my thoughts.


message 28: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar I've tried too, Thomas. I just can't do it. (It doesn't help that his prose style gives me nosebleeds.)


message 29: by E (new)

E LOL...Rob, your statement about the bleeding gave me,however late,my first laugh of the day.


message 30: by Thomas (new)

Thomas The game Call of Chthullu: Dark corners of the earth is what perked my interest of Lovecraft as I even watched a whole walkthrough on Youtube. I then looked around and thought about reading one of those collections of Lovecraft. Until I saw some people claim he was racist, which at first I thought it was just trolls or people blowing something up out of proportion. But once I dug deeper and found your blog, well I was a bit disappointed. I found the Lovecraft mytho's of old gods and such quite interesting but held off first to get one of his collections and now I'm grateful I did. Now I know some say it's just the way it was back then, but I remember hearing that Lovecraft's work was quite racist even for back then. Even if it wasn't, it still doesn't make it right in my opinion. Sorry for driveling there a bit just wanted to put my two cents in.


message 31: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar I hear you.


message 32: by E (new)

E I played the game,too.It was one the very first things that made me follow Lovecraft.It really is an amazing game,you see.but when,a few days ago,when I read he was a fan of Hitler,I was shocked.


message 33: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd I can hardly read all the way down what all of you have said, I'd be dead at the end of it, but, let's look first at how good a writer he was. Honestly, if someone said to me Walter de la Mare was a racist, I'd have to ignore that because of the beauty of his writing. But in the case of HP Sauce, his writing is well... shitty. More or less shitty. But this was a guy whose mother thought his arms would drop off if he raised them above his head, so what can you say after that. I'm really not interested in squid-faced monsters, but guess what? We got Sigourny [sp?] Whatnot facing a squid faced thing much more serious than Facebug itself, that implanted itself into her, and she was only wearing a singlet at the time... a man's one at that. So what else is there to say... or not.


message 34: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd ... What I mean really is that even though HP was utterly vile, he somehow left intellectual and social mould behind him which grew.


message 35: by Thomas (new)

Thomas That's what I'm struggling with. Should I read a author, who many consider a classic author, who wrote things that I find morally wrong even if it's considered a classic? If him or her kept there controversial views to themselves and did't put them in there books then that's fine. But lovecraft did put some racist stuff in his works so should I still read it?I probably won't, but I do struggle with this question with both books, movies, video games and other works often.


message 36: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd Well, HP is classic because he is unique and opened up a whole new 'story' so to speak. But whether something is considered 'classic' or not has nothing to do with quality or dignity or literary style or anything of the sort. I'm sure that Stephen King is thought of as classic, but that doesn't mean he's a good writer, or more to the point, Richard Matheson who wrote 'I am Legend,' fabulous title, shitty, badly written book, but such a good idea, that like HP, he opened up a vein [that I personally wish would dry up now... all those deeply boring zombies and shit.]. So that's why these people are 'classic' because they create new roads that other writers can follow ... if other writers were sheep.
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].


message 37: by Thomas (new)

Thomas True, at the moment I probably won't read his work but that's more to do with other books I'd like to read right now. Though I doubt I'll end up reading of his work anyways, still thanks for that insightfull replie. : )


message 38: by Michael DiBaggio (new)

Michael DiBaggio I do not read fiction because I approve of an author's racial/religious/political beliefs or to pat myself on the back for supporting those persons deemed progressive and enlightened. I do it because I enjoy the story they've written. That's all. Most people don't know about an author's personal view point and couldn't care less. They're not looking to him for moral instruction or self-validation.

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?


message 39: by Robert (last edited Mar 22, 2015 09:45AM) (new)

Robert Dunbar Michael wrote: "Anyway, the bashing of Lovecraft by the community of modern horror readers and authors seems strange..."

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.


message 40: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd While what you say Michael is well said indeed, there are some of us who do take into account an author's personal attitudes to life, and since there are so very many books to read in the world, we can afford to do this can't we? I think it's a good thing to care enough about a writer's real life, if we're going to spend time reading his or her work. Although it's true that very often the info. about the personal life isn't available anyway. Equally, if we as readers want to read bad writing, that's a choice too. On my part, I find I can't read bad writing, or overblown writing such as Lovecraft produced. However, for my own purposes I'm very interested in his personal life, and am researching it at the moment. But having said all that, it was very common for writers from England in the 30's and 40's to be anti-semitic and it did creep through into their books, so the bad characters would be 'swarthy'... ha-ha. And of course I'm not saying therefore I never read any of their books, or never read any of the well known pedophile authors, but Lovecraft with his terrible writing and hatred of humanity is just a few steps too far for me, and who do you think the Deep Ones were?


message 41: by Michael DiBaggio (new)

Michael DiBaggio @Rebecca: Yes, I agree with you in that it is legitimate for someone to reject an author for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons at all. We will never read all the books that are already published, so there must be a process of narrowing down what we want to read. My point, if I may be glib about it, is that life is too short to only read people with whom I know ahead of time that I agree with in their personal views.

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.


message 42: by Gerhard (new)

Gerhard Rebecca wrote: "there are some of us who do take into account an author's personal attitudes to life, and since there are so very many books to read in the world, we can afford to do this can't we?"

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


message 43: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd don't be daft, Gerhard. :-)


message 44: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd ... I must remember to order a copy of Mein Kampf then. :-)


message 45: by Robert (new)

Robert Dunbar Rebecca wrote: "... I must remember to order a copy of Mein Kampf then. :-)"

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


message 46: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd Hi Michael,
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.


message 47: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd ... and therefore nor did Gerhard. Why not? My point was infinitely more subtle.


message 48: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Lloyd ha-ha, maybe he'd even sign it for me, Robert.


message 49: by E (new)

E Robert wrote
I'm sure HPL would have been happy to lend you his copy
LOLLLLLLLL


message 50: by E (new)

E I read it in the private life of HPL that He was a fan of Hitler and Mien kumpf.He liked the idea of Holocaust .
And it is funny that he did not like most of the greatest american writers such as sinclair lewis,T.S.Elliot and all


« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7
back to top