Octavia E. Butler against Lovecraft (World Fantasy Award).

[Shadenuat]

Quote Originally Posted by Hidden X

[ I think that it is also common to ascribe malevolent spirits from Asian culture to colonial European influence. Like how in Philippines, Aswang superstition has it basis in Church's demonization of wise women/priestesses.

This is long debunked...
https://www.aswangproject.com/babayl...ive-deception/

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

It gets tricky when discussing ghosts, demons, spirits, faeries etc. They get all mixed up and a term like Yokai seems to lump them together sometimes.

[Speaking Mute]

Quote Originally Posted by Ancient History

Quote The Horror at Red Hook was extremely well received on publication and was once one of his most widely anthologized stories. I don't know what point you're trying to support, but the fact that the story was anthologized doesn't really counter the fact that being born in a place and time where racism was prevalent doesn't mean you automatically become a racist. Lovecraft was friends with folks like James F. Morton, who was an early member of the NAACP and wrote on the "curse of race prejudice." Racism was certainly widely accepted, but it was by no means universal. Quote Moral justification is a hazy matter, but my point was solely that he didn't have to engage in "dog whistles" because his views were mainstream - he was alive when the Hays Code specifically banned depicting interracial relationships in films. Note that I specified "nearly always" because The Horror at Red Hook at least does explicitly portray miscegeny as an evil. I think you're under the misapprehension; "dog whistle" suggests that Lovecraft was deliberately concealing one interpretation so that only those who were attuned to his hints would get it - this is not an argument that I, and as far as I'm aware (and I've read a lot of Lovecraft litcrit at this point) that anyone, has ever made. I am not suggesting that Lovecraft hid sub rosa racist subtext into his plots and stories; I am saying that Lovecraft was informed by and incorporated elements of racialist thought into his stories. It's a matter of intent. Except where Lovecraft specifically says "I intended such-and-such with this story," everyone has to guess at what he means beyond the plain value of the words. At the same time, we can clearly see elements of racialist thought in his fiction - "Arthur Jermyn" for example, has the genealogical aspect of the storytelling, the biological determinism with traits that grow more severe (rather than more dilute) generation after generation (in echo of the Kalikak study), the facial angle index reference to early attempts to quantify race, etc. The issue for interpretation, then, is the finer points of what Lovecraft meant or could have meant - and the ambiguity and points for discussion are in large part one of the reasons his horror is so effective. We today still struggle with questions of "what is human?" - where does the Ape Princess fall on that scale? The fact that people in the 1920s were asking "what is human?" about black people is just a bit of kerosene on the fire. Lovecraft never came out and said "Oh yes, it was all an allegory for having a black ancestor" - and maybe he never intended it in that way at all; but the author's intent is unknown to us. The interpretation is still valid.

But Lovecraft's intentions are known. First, he was a modern fantasy writer, and a basic premise of modern fantasy is that fantastic situations are primarily intended as literal depictions of events. There are obviously some genre writers and works that root themselves in symbols and allegory, but Lovecraft just wasn't one of them. When Lovecraft is describing humans breeding with extraterrestrial beings, the whole of his aesthetics and dedication to genre fiction weighs in that he's writing about literal extraterrestrial beings rather than engaging in race metaphors.

Furthermore, the reason that I keep bringing up the publication of The Horror at Red Hook is to point out that if Lovecraft had really desired to scare his readers using miscegeny there were few social consequences that would have stopped him from doing so as literally and frequently as he used incest. He could have easily filled Innsmouth and Arkham with hundreds of Heathcliffs. On the other hand, authors who did engage in extended metaphors had identifiable political, social, or religious motives for treating their chosen subjects obliquely. If anyone had actually delivered evidence that Lovecraft was deliberately concealing alternate interpretations, I might actually respect the notion that his fiction had a thematically racist subtext - but the best argument in this direction is De Camp style meditations that Lovecraft's aliens were a subconscious, xenophobic projection.

If this were a classroom discussion of literary interpretation, I also wouldn't object to "equally valid interpretations" - but in this case, I've been personally confronted and ostracized by people for appreciating Lovecraft. Butler, Arnason, Older, etc weren't/aren't pushing for a postmodernist reading of Lovecraft.

Finally, nothing I've said implies that Lovecraft's racism was morally justified by his historical context - I don't see why I have to state this at length, but when I refer to how racist the wider public was in Lovecraft's era I'm only noting that Lovecraft's politics wouldn't have subjugated him to the same backlash we now see for authors like Orson Scott Card (or Lovecraft today). This is a descriptive statement, and one that you actually support when you list far more popular racist authors from the general time period.

[Ancient History]

Quote Originally Posted by Speaking Mute

But Lovecraft's intentions are known. First, he was a modern fantasy writer, and a basic premise of modern fantasy is that fantastic situations are primarily intended as literal depictions of events. There are obviously some genre writers and works that root themselves in symbols and allegory, but Lovecraft just wasn't one of them. When Lovecraft is describing humans breeding with extraterrestrial beings, the whole of his aesthetics and dedication to genre fiction weighs in that he's writing about literal extraterrestrial beings rather than engaging in race metaphors.

Again the author's intent is not applicable to the interpretation of their work. Your assertion on the 'basic premise of modern fantasy' is just bull####. I wouldn't say that Lovecraft went out of his way to use symbolism and allegory - and in fact wasn't fond of the kind of psychosexual symbol-searching favored by some critics - but deliberation on his part is not necessary to read in symbols or allegory into his fiction.

Quote

Furthermore, the reason that I keep bringing up the publication of The Horror at Red Hook is to point out that if Lovecraft had really desired to scare his readers using miscegeny there were few social consequences that would have stopped him from doing so as literally and frequently as he used incest.

That...does not follow. Leaving aside the raped women in "The Horror at Red Hook," there's no connection between what you just said and your conclusion.

Quote

If anyone had actually delivered evidence that Lovecraft was deliberately concealing alternate interpretations, I might actually respect the notion that his fiction had a thematically racist subtext - but the best argument in this direction is De Camp style meditations that Lovecraft's aliens were a subconscious, xenophobic projection.

You are aware that there is a difference between racist and racialist, right? And that a work can be informed by or influenced by racism without itself being an outright work of "Those people of another race are inferior to us! And want out women!" right? Because outside of a couple stories ("The Street," "The Horror at Red Hook," "Medusa's Coil") most of the racial elements in Lovecraft's fiction are not overt, they're details of the plot, background, and characterisation.

Quote

If this were a classroom discussion of literary interpretation, I also wouldn't object to "equally valid interpretations" - but in this case, I've been personally confronted and ostracized by people for appreciating Lovecraft. Butler, Arnason, Older, etc weren't/aren't pushing for a postmodernist reading of Lovecraft.

Sounds like you need a better class of friends.

Quote

Finally, nothing I've said implies that Lovecraft's racism was morally justified by his historical context - I don't see why I have to state this at length,

...because you were talking about moral justification.

Quote

but when I refer to how racist the wider public was in Lovecraft's era I'm only noting that Lovecraft's politics wouldn't have subjugated him to the same backlash we now see for authors like Orson Scott Card (or Lovecraft today). This is a descriptive statement, and one that you actually support when you list far more popular racist authors from the general time period.

The fact that Lovecraft could hypothetically have gotten away with publishing worse than he did in terms of race is not exactly a feather in his cap. The fact that other people held more extreme positions on race - publicly - does not excuse his own prejudices, but it does help to provide some context for understanding his life, beliefs, and fiction in that regard.

The crux of your argument seems to be "Well, Lovecraft could have published much worse, but he didn't, so we know that all interpretations of his work trying to find more racism than a surface-level reading of the text allows are bull####." That's false on its face - just because Lovecraft could have written worse doesn't mean he would have, and his intent is not clear - or important. There are multiple valid interpretations of Lovecraft's fiction; some have greater claim to justification for others, based on what we know of Lovecraft's life and what he said of his fiction.

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

Quote Originally Posted by Speaking Mute

Butler, Arnason, Older, etc weren't/aren't pushing for a postmodernist reading of Lovecraft.

Butler? Did she ever talk about Lovecraft? Unless you're talking about a different Butler?

[Speaking Mute]

Quote Originally Posted by Ancient History

Quote Finally, nothing I've said implies that Lovecraft's racism was morally justified by his historical context - I don't see why I have to state this at length, ...because you were talking about moral justification. Quote but when I refer to how racist the wider public was in Lovecraft's era I'm only noting that Lovecraft's politics wouldn't have subjugated him to the same backlash we now see for authors like Orson Scott Card (or Lovecraft today). This is a descriptive statement, and one that you actually support when you list far more popular racist authors from the general time period. The fact that Lovecraft could hypothetically have gotten away with publishing worse than he did in terms of race is not exactly a feather in his cap. The fact that other people held more extreme positions on race - publicly - does not excuse his own prejudices, but it does help to provide some context for understanding his life, beliefs, and fiction in that regard. The crux of your argument seems to be "Well, Lovecraft could have published much worse, but he didn't, so we know that all interpretations of his work trying to find more racism than a surface-level reading of the text allows are bull####." That's false on its face - just because Lovecraft could have written worse doesn't mean he would have, and his intent is not clear - or important. There are multiple valid interpretations of Lovecraft's fiction; some have greater claim to justification for others, based on what we know of Lovecraft's life and what he said of his fiction.

That fact that you're actually arguing with me about what I'm saying should give you little bit of pause here. I can understand confusing a normative and descriptive case if someone just says "X died in a car accident because they weren't wearing a seat belt." - but when it's stated repeatedly that what they meant was the causal reading of the statement, that old Academic idea of the charitable reading is warranted even if you're not completely satisfied with the phrasing and grammar. If this is representative of how you go about your literary criticism then I can rest my case.

[Druidic]

These cries of "racism" are just symptomatic of our time. We are obsessed with race. I don't give a damn about Lovecraft's racial views anymore than I care Dostoevsky was extremely xenophobic.

Xenophobia is almost certainly an evolutionary trait that once was useful and now is harmful. A small gene pool has its own advantages. Gregory Benford once pointed out that a tribe with great rock throwers would benefit greatly from a limited gene pool, increasing the number of great rock throwers with each generation.

Intelligent parenting is the cure for xenophobia. Tolerance is learned; hating those different from you comes too easily. The universe is not kind, warm and fuzzy. Life is not fair. Teach your children well, as the song says; it's more productive than debating the racism of a man born in the 19th century.

I think it ironic that the most tolerant man on earth today is almost certainly a rehabilitated racist.

[Ancient History]

Quote Originally Posted by Speaking Mute

That fact that you're actually arguing with me about what I'm saying should give you little bit of pause here.

The whole of our entire argument has been actually arguing you with what you are saying, because what you are saying is not entirely correct, and I am entirely pedantic enough to argue the finer points. We both agree Daniel Jose Older is full of ####, that was never a matter of contention.

[qcrisp]

The new trophy thing is pretty dire. Had it been up to me, I'd've tried to commission Patricia Piccinini:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Piccinini

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

If you want to make people really uncomfortable.