OccultForum.org

I have seen several Lovecraft references about the forum and wanted to bring this up.

I was really into Lovecraft because there's no doubting his fantastic abilities as a storyteller. After years of reading his stuff and loving his work deeply I stumbled on a poem he wrote wherein black people are basically described as subordinate trash in so many words.

I haven't been able to read a word of Lovecraft since then, having realized he was as afraid of other people as he was afraid of everything else in the world.

His fear of the unknown apparently inhibited his ability to be a decent human being.

This is commonly attributed to the popular opinion at the time, but it doesn't excuse it for me. What he wrote was truly hurtful, and has tarnished his entire body of work for me.

If you haven't read it and are curious, you can google it.

I knew and already thought about this... and I'm sure I won't quit reading Lovecraft.

Generally, I can enjoy art without praising or even liking the author. For example, certain black metal bands. I love their music, but it's not like I want to burn churches or kill people only because that's what the folks from those bands did.
It's similar with Lovecraft. Also, his racism isn't main theme in his stories nor his source of inspiration. Reading Lovecraft doesn't mean one encourages racism.

There is a couple of documentaries about Lovecraft. I really recommend them because he was so much more complex then just being a racist.
He hated pretty much everyone, suffered multiply mental illnesses, had a very odd relationship with his mother and didn't date until she died, when he was well into his 30's.

It is generally excepted in the literary world to like an author even if they where racists, sexist or some other form of weirdo. Even pedophiles and murderers have been accepted.
Herbert Karajan was a conductor who was a member of the naziparty, he performed Wagner with the Berlin orchestra even after the war (wagner was a raging anti-semetic) but still, karajan got an honorary doctor degree from oxford and was a celebrated conductor well into the 1980's. He even got an award from unesco.

"Jack Kerouac saw alcoholism as a means of spiritual exploration. Ben Franklin started his days with an air bath—half an hour each day in his birthday suit in front of an open window—to read, write, and get his mental juices flowing. T.S. Eliot wore green-tinted face powder and lipstick, while fellow poet Friedrich von Schiller sought inspiration from the scent of rotting apples."

Yeah, it is pretty common to read many things as is without dwelling on the author, when it comes to fiction.

No author is perfect - they all have their flaws.

I thought Lovecraft's racism, sexism, anti-semitism, and general xenophobic paranoia were pretty well known in the literary community. I even read an article recently trying to link his real-life "issues" to the profound terror of the Other that repeatedly shows up as a theme in his fiction.

And honestly, as a woman of non-white heritage, I can still read and enjoy his work without endorsing his personal viewpoints. It's fair if you don't feel the same. But if we based our appreciation of art on how nice the artists were in real life, there wouldn't be much to appreciate.

Also, I highly recommend you guys to check out the documentary about Ernest Hemingway.
His drinking adventures was legendary, he survived almost every disease known to man, he head-butted himself out of a burning plane, stole half a bar, hunted nazis on Cuba with his own boat and machinegun and started a colony with six toed cats.

chowderpope wrote:This is commonly attributed to the popular opinion at the time, but it doesn't excuse it for me. What he wrote was truly hurtful, and has tarnished his entire body of work for me.

Because it's an aspect to consider.

This doesn't justify of excuse anything he said but I try to place him and his views in the appropriate historical context. This was New England in the early 1900's. People need to realize that at that time these were fairly common views. Race relations were tense. Would he still be a racist today? Hard to tell. But I find it rather easy to sentence him and his work with a pair of modern, 21st century eyes.

It also remind me of some of Dion Fortune's comments. Again, one needs to understand the context she was living in, the 'class conscious British society of the early 1900s'. Some of her views, sometimes borderline racist and homophobic can also be perceived as unacceptable and they are for us but you know, it's easy to judge her in 2015. To me, this doesn't affect the essence of her work as an occultist.

All fair points. There is no denying the original genius of Lovecraft. I guess I am sensitive to this type of thing and it will take some time to read his work again.

I am the same way with Woody Allen. Brilliant filmmaker, but after the allegations of pedophilia I am not going out of my way to see any of his films.

Phenix20 wrote: Because it's an aspect to consider.

This doesn't justify of excuse anything he said but I try to place him and his views in the appropriate historical context. This was New England in the early 1900's. People need to realize that at that time these were fairly common views. Race relations were tense. Would he still be a racist today? Hard to tell. But I find it rather easy to sentence him and his work with a pair of modern, 21st century eyes.

Have you actually read the work Chowderpope is referring to? Because it would be considered virulently racist and anti-Semitic even in early 20th-century New England, especially since he also lived in New York City (which was a hub of immigration and social progressivism at the time). At the very least, even if some of his contemporaries may have shared his views, they didn't put them on paper the way he did.

And I feel the same way about people like Woody Allen; it's up to each individual fan to decide where they draw the line in supporting an artist's work in the face of his/her personal failings. What I don't appreciate is when people use the work to excuse the failings. For example, Roman Polanski is a brilliant director and "Chinatown" is still one of my favorite movies ever, but that doesn't mean he should be above the law in answering for his crimes. I can admire his work and still see him as an awful human being for what he did.

the_spiral wrote:Have you actually read the work Chowderpope is referring to? Because it would be considered virulently racist and anti-Semitic even in early 20th-century New England, especially since he also lived in New York City (which was a hub of immigration and social progressivism at the time). At the very least, even if some of his contemporaries may have shared his views, they didn't put them on paper the way he did.

If you are refering to 'On the Creation of ******' yes I've stumbled on it too. Honestly, I don't think that Lovecraft's views on race were that much uncommon at that time. Outright racism wasn't a rare occurance. As someone pointed out to to me, the man lived long before Civil Rights Movement was even a thing in the United States. But you are absolutely right in saying that Lovecraft did went as far as expressing it on paper, in a rather disgusting and shocking way. There is no doubt he was a racist. Nothing will ever excuse that for him.

I will quote Laura Miller, from Salon.com which I think sums up pretty well how Lovecraft fans should be dealing with his views:

“we need to be able to accept the truth that even great artists – greater ones than Lovecraft, certainly – have their ugly sides, and that ugliness can be inextricable from their greatness. Art, being human, is an expression of the whole self. This isn’t the same as accepting Lovecraft’s racism. You can acknowledge, contemplate and discuss that racism without feeling obliged to reject the work as a whole.”

Source: http://www.salon.com/2014/09/11/its_ok_ ... as_racist/

the_spiral wrote:

Phenix20 wrote:

Have you actually read the work Chowderpope is referring to? Because it would be considered virulently racist and anti-Semitic even in early 20th-century New England, especially since he also lived in New York City (which was a hub of immigration and social progressivism at the time). At the very least, even if some of his contemporaries may have shared his views, they didn't put them on paper the way he did.

You misunderstood the original poster.
He meant that if lovecraft was born in this century he would never have written that poem because he would have lived in a more enlightened society.

But you are correct. The poem would be racist no mater when it was written