Feo Takahari
Auror
An interesting article about past racism in fantasy literature and how it should be dealt with going forward. It's not really a writing resource or anything, but I thought some folks might find it interesting.
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Lovecraft's Racism and the World Fantasy Award Statuette
- Thread starter Feo Takahari
- Start date
I don't know much about Lovecraft's background, but I have heard of his issues with race in the past. Lovecraft is one of those authors that is forever ingrained into speculative fiction, so I'm sure some find it difficult to avoid him altogether. I think readers tend to shy away more from modern authors who they disagree with rather than older writers. Maybe this has something to do with the times they lived in or this idea that artists all have some kind of baggage one way or another. I don't know. I think the easy solution might be to replace the bust with something else. Anytime you have a metal head as an award, there may be some controversary tied to it. I do like China Mieville's way of handling his award.
Myth WeaverBeen reading Merritt's 'Moon Pool' on and off the past month or so (Merritt being a more-or-less contemporary of Lovecraft, writing similar tales). The 'casual racism' in the first fifth of the book (which features south pacific 'frontier civilization' as it existed back then) was a bit of an eye-opener. Non-whites are written as being almost subhuman - exception, of course being the 'smoking hot' Polynesian woman the narrator's Irish sidekick becomes infatuated with.
And this sort of racism was deeply embedded into the US society or the time.
And this sort of racism was deeply embedded into the US society or the time.
I do believe you have to cut people slack based on the morals of their times. But that poem of Lovecraft's was pretty vile, and based on it and the article, it sounds like racism was a more fundamental motivator for his work, not simply an aside that came up now and again. He's clearly gone beyond a little slack with it.
But his work echoes much the way that Tolkein's does. He's cemented his legacy as a lasting part of the literature. His racism shouldn't be ignored, but neither can his contributions.
I won't even try to comment on the merits of having an award in his honor. Geesh that's got to be awkward for the author of this article, to say the least. But that also prompts a discussion that many times we would rather avoid, when as the author says, it needs to be dealt with.
But his work echoes much the way that Tolkein's does. He's cemented his legacy as a lasting part of the literature. His racism shouldn't be ignored, but neither can his contributions.
I won't even try to comment on the merits of having an award in his honor. Geesh that's got to be awkward for the author of this article, to say the least. But that also prompts a discussion that many times we would rather avoid, when as the author says, it needs to be dealt with.
Jabrosky
Banned
Honestly, racism and other obsolete social attitudes should be expected when you're reading older fiction, including that which laid the foundations for the modern fantasy genre. You see it in the works of Tolkien, you see it in Robert E. Howard, and of course you see it in Lovecraft. I imagine that must be unfortunate for non-European readers interested in reading the celebrated classics, but it shouldn't shock us that writers from that bygone generation openly expressed attitudes that we rightly consider repugnant.
Though on the other hand, insofar as people today want to use these classics as source material for movies, video games, fan fiction, or other modern productions, the racist influences cannot always be ignored either lest they be translated over into the adaptations. For example, the Conan game for the PS3 has a couple of levels set in Kush, but these "Kushites" bear less resemblance to the historical conquerors of ancient Egypt than to the ooga-booga tribal stereotypes that influenced Howard's portrayal of Africans. I understand the game designers might have desired some semblance to the Hyborian Age as Howard conceived of it, but that would only go to show you that faithful adaptations to old works run the risk of replicating those works' morally problematic elements too.
Should modern filmmakers, game designers, etc. who wish to adapt older fiction diverge from the source material if that source material displays offensive prejudices?
Though on the other hand, insofar as people today want to use these classics as source material for movies, video games, fan fiction, or other modern productions, the racist influences cannot always be ignored either lest they be translated over into the adaptations. For example, the Conan game for the PS3 has a couple of levels set in Kush, but these "Kushites" bear less resemblance to the historical conquerors of ancient Egypt than to the ooga-booga tribal stereotypes that influenced Howard's portrayal of Africans. I understand the game designers might have desired some semblance to the Hyborian Age as Howard conceived of it, but that would only go to show you that faithful adaptations to old works run the risk of replicating those works' morally problematic elements too.
Should modern filmmakers, game designers, etc. who wish to adapt older fiction diverge from the source material if that source material displays offensive prejudices?
To an extent, this carries over into gaming: for example goblins and orcs in AD&D are automatically assumed to be 'evil' (well, 'lawful evil') with no reason other than 'just because.' I remember participating in (and becoming disgusted with) a number of supposedly 'good' aligned adventuring groups that behaved no better than bandits.
It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sommbitch or another - Malcolm Reynolds, Jaynestown.
I too like the way China Mieville handled his award. There's a dichotomy between what the award is meant to represent and the representation of the award. Imagine if every recipient handled the award like Mieville? It could be a great reminder and tradition that honors the past, but doesn't let the past escape the harsh light of scrutiny.
I too like the way China Mieville handled his award. There's a dichotomy between what the award is meant to represent and the representation of the award. Imagine if every recipient handled the award like Mieville? It could be a great reminder and tradition that honors the past, but doesn't let the past escape the harsh light of scrutiny.
I think there are a few things to consider here. The poem was written in 1912, when Lovecraft was around 22, and it's not part of his professionally published work as far as I know (his professional publications wouldn't happen for another decade or so). The use of the word "N-gger" probably seems much more egregious to the modern audience than it would have to people at the time. About 15 years before this, Conrad published "The N-gger of the Narcissus," and there the black man who is the title character is the protagonist. It is telling that publishers were worried about publishing it with that title - but only because they were worried about whether people would read a book about a black man, not about whether the title was offensive.
That all said, Lovecraft was a pretty messed up guy, and was highly xenophobic. Race is one way in which that xenophobia was expressed, and even in his published fiction you can see racism. From what I can tell, his views may have moderated over time from what they were when he was a 22 year old, but I don't have any doubt that he harbored racist views of one sort of another right up until his death.
I think if they want to change the award, they should change it. It's an ugly statue, regardless, and I like Mieville's approach. I think you can separate the views of the artist from the work, and while we can rightly condemn Lovecraft's views on race you can't really take away the seminal impact he has had on his genre of fiction. That people can separate these things is self-evident, in my view, if you look at writers who pay direct homage to Lovecraft and share none of his views (e.g. Caitlin R. Keirnan, who is a transsexual and a lesbian. What would Lovecraft have made of her?).
If you want to reject historical fiction when the author had attitudes toward race, gender, homosexuality, or other social issues that we find egregious today, I think you'd have a very short list of authors to read. Even among modern authors, we don't always know their feelings on these issues or what goes on behind closed doors (see Marion Zimmer Bradley, for example). So are people going to research every author to find out how they feel about these issues? It doesn't seem likely. Besides, people are complex, and you can't boil the totality of any human down to a single characteristic like this, even Lovecraft.
Even in the case of someone like Orson Scott Card, whose work I do not buy, I think you can separate the work from the man. Ender's Game remains an important book of my childhood. Knowing what I know of OSC doesn't change that. It wouldn't change how I'd evaluate his other works on their merits as pieces of literature. Since I do know about Card, however, I choose not to support him. Not because of his views per se, but because he is so active in spending his money to promote his political causes. Card is deeply wrong on issues of homosexuality, in my view. I'm sure a lot of that stems from his religious persuasion. But even saying that, I don't think you can reduce Card to an evil or bad person based on that viewpoint alone, no matter how misguided he is. I've met the man, and he seemed pleasant, and I'm sure in many ways he's a good person. But his financial support of certain political causes and his harsh statements about homosexuality have led me not to buy his work. It's more of a practical consideration than any condemnation of the man, and the kind of consideration you don't have to make when you're talking about the work of someone like H.P. Lovecraft.
That all said, Lovecraft was a pretty messed up guy, and was highly xenophobic. Race is one way in which that xenophobia was expressed, and even in his published fiction you can see racism. From what I can tell, his views may have moderated over time from what they were when he was a 22 year old, but I don't have any doubt that he harbored racist views of one sort of another right up until his death.
I think if they want to change the award, they should change it. It's an ugly statue, regardless, and I like Mieville's approach. I think you can separate the views of the artist from the work, and while we can rightly condemn Lovecraft's views on race you can't really take away the seminal impact he has had on his genre of fiction. That people can separate these things is self-evident, in my view, if you look at writers who pay direct homage to Lovecraft and share none of his views (e.g. Caitlin R. Keirnan, who is a transsexual and a lesbian. What would Lovecraft have made of her?).
If you want to reject historical fiction when the author had attitudes toward race, gender, homosexuality, or other social issues that we find egregious today, I think you'd have a very short list of authors to read. Even among modern authors, we don't always know their feelings on these issues or what goes on behind closed doors (see Marion Zimmer Bradley, for example). So are people going to research every author to find out how they feel about these issues? It doesn't seem likely. Besides, people are complex, and you can't boil the totality of any human down to a single characteristic like this, even Lovecraft.
Even in the case of someone like Orson Scott Card, whose work I do not buy, I think you can separate the work from the man. Ender's Game remains an important book of my childhood. Knowing what I know of OSC doesn't change that. It wouldn't change how I'd evaluate his other works on their merits as pieces of literature. Since I do know about Card, however, I choose not to support him. Not because of his views per se, but because he is so active in spending his money to promote his political causes. Card is deeply wrong on issues of homosexuality, in my view. I'm sure a lot of that stems from his religious persuasion. But even saying that, I don't think you can reduce Card to an evil or bad person based on that viewpoint alone, no matter how misguided he is. I've met the man, and he seemed pleasant, and I'm sure in many ways he's a good person. But his financial support of certain political causes and his harsh statements about homosexuality have led me not to buy his work. It's more of a practical consideration than any condemnation of the man, and the kind of consideration you don't have to make when you're talking about the work of someone like H.P. Lovecraft.
Last edited:
Right, I mean that poem was pretty extreme. It didn't just use a slur or refer to old stereotypes, but cleverly and cruelly declared that blacks aren't quite human, in an age where he should have been at least beyond that much. I mean, I hope he grew up, and tuned it way down, but unless he apologized or in some ways made up for it, that poem is still part of his legacy.
I'm all for separating the person from their work, to an extent. His contributions are significant. He deserves credit for his writing. But there's also a murky line between giving someone credit and celebrating them as a literary hero. Homage to his work in a video game? Great. An ugly plaster of his face being used to celebrate our modern literary heroes? Not so much.
