World Fantasy Awards may drop H.P. Lovecraft's likeness from award statuette due to author's racism.

[Thaluikhain]

Even if a work of art is hurtful for some people, it doesn't make the other works of art tainted, The Merchant of Venice is far worse than any poem with the message that jews are greedy people that can only be saved through conversion to christianity but I don't want to ban any reference to shakespear or any appearance of him in media because of this because of the impact he created.

What reference or appearance is being banned?

Would you support someone that didn't want to use Shakespeare's likeness?

 

[Thaluikhain]

1) HP lovecraft's image as reward to the competition is beig banned.

It is not. People asking someone if they'd stop using his image is not remotely the same as it being banned.

 

[Vedrenne]

Playing something of a devil's advocate here, but this does seem similar to the Chris Benoit situation in certain respects. A person who was arguably one of the most talented in there field (Horror Fiction/Wrestling) commits acts or acts (Holding of Racist Views/Murdering Wife and Child) that leads to them being reviled from that point onward.

I do find some humour that there are issues with Lovecraft and his racism, but most people are entirely unaware of Stephanie Meyer (writer of the Twilight series) using the funds from the books and movies to fund anti-LGBT laws in the US. Gives me a chuckle, any road up.

By the by, I disagree with the decision, but don't disagree with the reasoning behind it.

citation needed. Where are your evidence of this. And no twitter post is not enough.

http://www.homorazzi.com/article/twilight-stephanie-meyer-prop-8-mormon-anti-gay-donation/ , among other sites.

A person who was arguably one of the most talented in there field (Horror Fiction/Wrestling) commits acts or acts (Holding of Racist Views/Murdering Wife and Child) that leads to them being reviled from that point onward.

Uh, when it comes to prioritizing what aspect of a person's life holds more weight with me, I don't feel like I'm being unfair to say the bit where he committed multiple acts of murder seems heavier than the bits where he pretended to beat people up on stage.

I don't disagree, but the issue is not that clear cut. When the autopsy of Benoit reveals that, due to the numerous headshots and steroid abuse, he had the brain of an eighty year old Alzheimers patient, it becomes much less clear-cut. Not only that, but when writing Benoit out of history, you're removing many moments and matches that helped to make other wrestlers look like a million bucks (the Benoit/Guerrero ending at Wrestlemania 20 and the matches between Jericho/Angle and Benoit from 2000 to 2004, for example).

 

[Solkard]

Aside from his writings, did he ever do anything 'hateful'?
Learning more about him, I feel kind of sad for him. His xenophobia seems more a symptom of his neurosis, and more a product of irrational fear and ignorance, rather than intentional malice.

There is a biographical film about the man "Lovecraft: Fear of the Unknown", that I feel is worth watching. It used to be on Hulu and Crackle, but I think you can find it on Youtube now.

According to the film, his "racism" subsided in the writings of his later age, when he was able to travel and explore the larger world he had previously hidden away from. While that may not negate the tone of his earlier works, I think it does somewhat redeem the man himself, who was not some stout racist, ever spouting hate-filled rhetoric. The fear invoked in his writing, was not a tool he wielded to manipulate others, but an expression of the irrational fear he felt in himself.

I kind of feel that it makes less sense to reject his worth, given he would be an example of someone who was fearful of other cultures and people, but then slowly learned to overcome those fears. Isn't that the kind of thing we're supposed to promote and celebrate?

 

[JimB]

I spent most of the last two hours or so typing a very long-winded answer in which I completely missed your point and ended up scrapping it. Instead I thought all this over and found that you actually made me change my mind.

I...don't think I've ever managed to do that before. Not sure what to do from here. I'm glad I gave you something to think about.

I don't disagree, but the issue is not that clear cut. When the autopsy of Benoit reveals that, due to the numerous headshots and steroid abuse, he had the brain of an eighty year old Alzheimer's patient, it becomes much less clear-cut.

Two things about that, but the second one isn't really relevant to the discussion, so I won't be mad if you don't answer it.

First, whatever Mr. Benoit's internal world may have been like doesn't matter to me. Since it was internal to him, I can't experience it and never will. The only thing he did that I can experience are his actions and the results of his actions, and his final actions were three murders (change that number depending on whether you feel suicide counts as murder). Whatever was in his head at the time he did it doesn't change his actions or their outcome.

Second, do you have a source for that Alzheimer's bit? Because Alzheimer's has a fairly specific pathology, and I've never once heard of physical trauma being able to replicate it. Then again, that isn't my area of expertise, so I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm asking for a source so I can look into it.

Not only that, but when writing Benoit out of history, you're removing many moments and matches that helped to make other wrestlers look like a million bucks (the Benoit/Guerrero ending at Wrestlemania 20 and the matches between Jericho/Angle and Benoit from 2000 to 2004, for example).

I don't understand what "writing Benoit out of history" means in this context. Is someone doing that? Has his name been stricken from the record books or something?

 

[JimB]

Learning more about him, I feel kind of sad for him. His xenophobia seems more a symptom of his neurosis, and more a product of irrational fear and ignorance, rather than intentional malice.

Feeling sad for him is fine (I tend more toward pity than hate in this instance, though that may be because I find myself pretty much incapable of hating a dead person; what a waste of time that is), but I feel compelled to call you out on your language here. If you're trying to argue that H.P. Lovecraft was too incompetent to be held responsible for his actions because of a mental disease, then I must ask you to tell us what that disease was, what its symptoms were, and how you gathered the necessary information to diagnose him. I'd also ask that you avoid using the term "neurosis," which is not, at least in most of the Western world, an accepted medical term, as it tends to describe invisible, internal psychological phenomena rather than observable behaviors. Sorry if that last part seems nitpicky, but since you seem to be forming a pseudo-legal defense here ("not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect"), I think it would be best to be stringent.

 

[Netrigan]

It's rare I care about what the rightful owners/operators do in regards to their public image and this is no exception.

Anytime you have a complaint (or in this case, two complaining sides), it's a PR move. Is it worth whatever public opinion backlash you might get. They made their choice, I don't see any compelling reason to give a rat's ass either way. It's not like Lovecraft was a particular good fit for this award.

 

[Biran53]

Well. He WAS pretty racist. I hardly blame them for wanting to alter the award.

Innovative story teller, though. I will give him that.

Lots of the most famous creative minds in history were a little... backwards in their thinking.
Even minds of today, like Mr. Orson Scott Card.

 

[Irick]

Why should anyone be okay with not politicizing it? Why should anyone care about how you you feel about him? If you're going to insist that your viewpoint is the only valid one that must be catered to, then why oughtn't everyone else to do the same until no one can talk to anyone because we're all too busy declaring a need to be treated as primary?

I'm not saying it should be. Why shouldnt my viewpoint be considered? Why should I be okay with an act of revisionism? It undermines the history of literature, and this is a literature award, not a social awareness award. Alfred Nobel's inventions have singlehandedly caused the most destruction of human life bar none. Yet, we honor advancements in science and social issues under his name. To rename it to something less politically charged would be disrepectful of what the award represents as well as the history surrounding it. Why is this any different?

When the influence being celebrated is one that was and is used to reinforce hatred of real people, the value of celebrating that influence becomes suspect.

Why?

The fallout of racist ideas being immortalized and perpetuated.

That's history. It's ugly and seedy and we can learn from it. There is no forgetting history, nor sugar coating it. That is disrespectful to those who suffered under the real oppression of society.

It's not just a reference. It's an endorsement.

Citation needed.

And the problem with that is, symbols are inherently subjective. Their meaning cannot be dictated, only argued. Lovecraft as a symbol will not mean to others what it means to you.

And why should I care? It's like debating the meaning of the word "good" if to me good is a positive feeling and to someone else it's a torture planet just outside the xylac galaxy, but to me and most of humanity good is a positive feeling, their interpretation doesn't really need to be taken into account when using it as a symbol. You ask most anyone on the street what they think of lovecraft and the majorities will break down thusly: "Who is H.P. Lovecraft?", "Oh, the Cthulu guy?", "He was a horror fiction writer who together with Edgar Allan Poe are considered the principle influences on the formation of the genre." and then "He was some racist guy who wrote books about racism." It's a minority interpretation of his accomplishments.

Then I question why you're involved in the conversation at all, is you're not willing to approach your opponents on their own ground. Is it just to preach?

What opponents?
If this was a debate, I'd have an opponent. This is a disagreement. I'm telling you why what you are advocating is wrong to me.

You're right, I did misunderstand the definition of "revisionism." I apologize. However, I don't see why revisionism itself is somehow inherently bad. Are we not allowed to disapprove of slavery in America because that would revise the historical belief that white people had a divine duty to elevate the mud-people? Are we not allowed to disapprove of the second war in Iraq because there was a historical (contested, but historical) belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction?

Revisionism has to do with editing history to be better consumable to modern mindsets. It's bad if you like truth. I like truth, it's one of the principal reasons for engaging in the world to me. It doesn't mean you can't disapprove of racism or slavery, it means you have to be aware of the historical context of racism or slavery. You can disaprove of anything you disagree with. However, when you say that we can't refer to french fries as french fries and need to start calling them freedom fries, i'll cry foul of censorship.

No, it isn't. If the state isn't doing it, then it's not censorship. It's a choice, not a mandate.

Self-censorship is still censorship. This is the literal argument that China uses to justify the mass censorship of their network communications.

Censorship doesn't have to involve governments. It can involve any authority. Even small things like moderating forums is still technically censorship. Here is the introductory paragraph on the subject from Wikipedia:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities.

Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is called self-censorship. Censorship may be direct or it may be indirect, in which case it is called soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, place, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and frequently a claim of necessity to balance conflicting rights is made, in order to determine what can and cannot be censored. There are no laws against self-censorship.

 

[JimB]

Alfred Nobel's inventions have singlehandedly caused the most destruction of human life bar none. Yet, we honor advancements in science and social issues under his name.

If you're offended, feel free to complain to the Nobel committee as Mr. Okorafor did; and if you're not offended, why draw the comparison?

To rename it to something less politically charged would be disrespectful of what the award represents as well as the history surrounding it.

No, it would be a judgment call, and an acceptance that the past is not the present and cannot serve forever.

When the influence being celebrated is one that was and is used to reinforce hatred of real people, the value of celebrating that influence becomes suspect.

Why?

Because certain questions become inevitable. "Why are they giving out awards of a man who held and published such intensely racist ideology? Isn't the award an endorsement of his position? How could it not be? Are they just ignorant and handing out something they don't understand? Or do they not care because they think him making up stories about magic space squids is more important than a black person's dignity?"

That's history.

It's also the present, when H.P. Lovecraft's likeness is still being awarded.

It's ugly and seedy and we can learn from it.

So you're arguing that black authors who receive this award need to just take that one for the team, so we can learn from it? What are we meant to learn, and how are we meant to apply that knowledge from this cautionary tale in the form of a statuette handed out to authors whose work fit within a marketing subcategory?

Citation needed.

It's de facto endorsement. "This is the man to emulate" is the very meaning of putting his image on an award.

And why should I care?

Beats me, but here you are arguing about it, so you clearly do care about it.

You ask most anyone on the street what they think of Lovecraft and the majorities will break down thusly: [snip]

You could ask most anyone on the street who the sitting justices of the Supreme Court are, and most would be, "Uh, I don't know." That it's a popular answer doesn't mean the judiciary branch is populated by wraiths and faeries.

I'm telling you why what you are advocating is wrong to me.

Except you've done that already. You're continuing for a different purpose.

Revisionism has to do with editing history to be better consumable to modern mindsets.

That is not what anyone is proposing. No one is talking about editing history. They're talking about the choice being made in the present.

Censorship doesn't have to involve governments. It can involve any authority.

Then what is the authority applying the pressure to the awards committee?

 

[Irick]

If you're offended, feel free to complain to the Nobel committee as Mr. Okorafor did; and if you're not offended, why draw the comparison?

I'm illustrating how silly your argument is by referring to another rather silly thing to be offended by. It's silly to be offended in general. It doesn't do anything positive.

No, it would be a judgment call, and an acceptance that the past is not the present and cannot serve forever.

Then dissolve the committee and make a new one. Otherwise, they're just pusysfooting around the historical realities of the award. The point of an awards committee is to bestow honors on people who exemplify excellence in a field or subject. The reason these hold sway is because excellence never changes. Implying that it does also implies that the past awards are invalid, and if this is the case the committee has no reason to exist.

Because certain questions become inevitable. "Why are they giving out awards of a man who held and published such intensely racist ideology? Isn't the award an endorsement of his position? How could it not be? Are they just ignorant and handing out something they don't understand? Or do they not care because they think him making up stories about magic space squids is more important than a black person's dignity?"

Why?

It's also the present, when H.P. Lovecraft's likeness is still being awarded.

As well he should. Excellent writer that one.

So you're arguing that black authors who receive this award need to just take that one for the team, so we can learn from it?

Interesting question. Am I implying the progress of society and general grounding going forward is more important than reactionary self-censorship...
Yes. Definitively.

Citation needed.

It's de facto endorsement. "This is the man to emulate" is the very meaning of putting his image on an award.

I don't think you know what de facto means. The fact that we are having this discussion prevents it from holding resonance.

And why should I care?

Beats me, but here you are arguing about it, so you clearly do care about it.

I don't care about opinions, but you keep trying to turn them into truth values. When you turn your opinion into an active censorship, it hurt me and everyone else by denying them intellectual sustenance.
I understand that it might be really hard for you to understand that people are multifaceted, or that morality is an ambiguous construct governed by arbitrary lines that society constantly draws in the sand as the shifting tides of unrest wash them from the ephemeral shores of culture.

But I refuse to allow the staples of intellectual discourse become baby food because a baby can't chew steak.

You ask most anyone on the street what they think of Lovecraft and the majorities will break down thusly: [snip]

You could ask most anyone on the street who the sitting justices of the Supreme Court are, and most would be, "Uh, I don't know." That it's a popular answer doesn't mean the judiciary branch is populated by wraiths and faeries.

Damn, that's a huge non-sequitur. The common interpretation of symbol is not as you have represented, so obviously people think that the judiciary branch is filled with fae?
I'm not really sure I can engage respectfully with that sort of argument.

Except you've done that already. You're continuing for a different purpose.

I like how you've got this definitive idea of my goals. It kinda explains your position on this argument.

Revisionism has to do with editing history to be better consumable to modern mindsets.

That is not what anyone is proposing. No one is talking about editing history. They're talking about the choice being made in the present.

And choosing to remove references from a textbook is in the present. Doesn't make it any less revisionist.

Censorship doesn't have to involve governments. It can involve any authority.

Then what is the authority applying the pressure to the awards committee?

[/quote]
The authority is the current board of the awards committee. It's not a single entity, it changes pretty much every convention. Gahan Wilson made a lovely statuette celebrating what he found good in H.P. Lovecraft. Throwing that and its historical lineage away with the express reason that it offends is censorship.

If you want to claim it is anything else, you're definition of censorship is not recognised and is rather useless for communicating the concepts you are intending to.

captcha: rodents of unusual size
INCONCEIVABLE!
*snort*

 

[Thaluikhain]

Alfred Nobel's inventions have singlehandedly caused the most destruction of human life bar none. Yet, we honor advancements in science and social issues under his name. To rename it to something less politically charged would be disrepectful of what the award represents as well as the history surrounding it. Why is this any different?

Nobel realised the severity of what he had done, and came up with the awards as a way of making a more positive contribution to counter it.

Self-censorship is still censorship.

Only for very loose meanings of censorship, ones that stop being particularly useful. The right to free speech also includes not having to say things if you don't want to.

 

[Solkard]

Learning more about him, I feel kind of sad for him. His xenophobia seems more a symptom of his neurosis, and more a product of irrational fear and ignorance, rather than intentional malice.

Feeling sad for him is fine (I tend more toward pity than hate in this instance, though that may be because I find myself pretty much incapable of hating a dead person; what a waste of time that is), but I feel compelled to call you out on your language here. If you're trying to argue that H.P. Lovecraft was too incompetent to be held responsible for his actions because of a mental disease, then I must ask you to tell us what that disease was, what its symptoms were, and how you gathered the necessary information to diagnose him. I'd also ask that you avoid using the term "neurosis," which is not, at least in most of the Western world, an accepted medical term, as it tends to describe invisible, internal psychological phenomena rather than observable behaviors. Sorry if that last part seems nitpicky, but since you seem to be forming a pseudo-legal defense here ("not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect"), I think it would be best to be stringent.

Stress, depression, and the trauma of his upbringing could qualify as contributions to his neurosis. I use that word as it as it is, a description of his outlook and never claimed anything medical about it. You're the one that made that inference. I don't think you're being nitpicky, just missguided in assigning meaning and intent that was never stated.

My point is that even though he is judged by the body of his work, both his work and personal views grew and changed over the course of his life, so that while his xenophobic view did incite racist works earlier on, his views did change and soften in his later life, as he was explored more of the world that he has previously hidden away from.

I cited a theme of fear in both his works and his mental state to point out the common influence between the two. His ability to convey fear of the unknown so effectively is not just a testiment of his writing ability, but also of his personal familiarty with that sense of dread.

I pointed all this out because it seems people are uncomfortable with the idea of acknowledging a racist, which he may have been early in his life, but eventually grew out of, as he shed the ignorance of such views. In that sense, he is a example of what social reform seeks to accomplish, to educate and change the views of people who express to bigoted ideals out of ignorance.

 

[Irick]

I'm impressed how you led us to considering racial undertones in a work are as bad and perpetuating of racism, but I'll get to the main point.

That is the exact premise you use to lead on yet no one has even held that stance, so its deemed as invalid. You're implying people deeming all Lovecraft's works as bad when only the ones considered are overly racist that are getting the attention. People understand that his thoughts influenced all his art but no one is saying his main works are bad.

Also I break down your other point.
First off, Are X people bad? I don't think so. X people are people. They could be not X, that would make them not bad right? Universally, we can not say that X people are bad, we can just say they are X.
So your basically saying any people represented by thoughts and harm are very vitriolic cannot be deemed as bad due to still being humans. Unless you're saying people will accept the premise with ANY group of humans that can be substituted for X, this logic isn't that valid.

No, those syllogisms are not valid. The valid syllogisms are more toward the end. I'm using the perceived arguments to lead at what I see as a logical criticism rather than what I saw as illogical criticism. "Racism is Wrong" has actually been an argument, and I don't necessarily disagree with it, which is why I use it as the starting point for the final conclusion of Advocating Racism is Wrong.

This was more or less the aristotelian argumentation for an axiom in order to show the separation of intent and interpretation. The advocation of racism is wrong, but no one here is advocating racism. So the criticism isn't valid under this axiom.

As for your breakdown of my argument: You have introduced the additional qualities of harmful and vitriolic, as such it can not be evaluated under my syllogistic model. This doesn't make it invalid, it makes your additions new information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity

Also your breakdown isn't entirely accurate. it's not X people, it's people who exhibit X. Fundamental separation between people and concepts is a big part of formal arguments.

My point is we can't prescribe good-bad values on objects due to tangential relationships. I showed that as well as I could by using invalid syllogisms to describe logic that broke that rule. I don't actually take issue to calling H.P. Lovecraft racist. I take issue with people implying it is wrong to give his likeness as an award for literary excellence. That position is pretty clearly codified.

Nobel realised the severity of what he had done, and came up with the awards as a way of making a more positive contribution to counter it.

And H.P. lovecraft moderated himself in his later years, and never published the horrifying poems that are fueling this fire. Neither of these actions change any other accomplishment of these men's lives, negative or positive. Atonement is a moral argument, and moral arguments are wishy washy at best.

Both of these men gave us stunning advances in their respective fields that still influence them today. Neither of them can be made less influential through attacks on their person. Ad-hominem is not a valid argument.

Self-censorship is still censorship.

Only for very loose meanings of censorship, ones that stop being particularly useful. The right to free speech also includes not having to say things if you don't want to.

By every possible positive definition of censorship, self-censorship is censorship. As evident by containing the actual word. This is doubly true when the self we are talking about is a committee that long ago stopped being the will of any individual. Changes that call into question the previous actions of the committee are serious formal questions. Does this reflect on the committee of the past in a way that would imply invalidity of the award?

If not, the change is censorship because it does not represent the views of the institution. It is instead explicitly curtailing to political correctness at the expense of the integrity of said institution. As I said previously, if the previous awards being racist or advocating of racism is the case, they should dissolve rather than attempt to edit the historical context of the award. If it is not the case, then the change is simply censorship and I oppose it vehemently.

 

[JimB]

I'm illustrating how silly your argument is by referring to another rather silly thing to be offended by. It's silly to be offended in general. It doesn't do anything positive.

No emotion does anything positive until acted upon.

The point of an awards committee is to bestow honors on people who exemplify excellence in a field or subject. The reason these hold sway is because excellence never changes.

Sure it does. Until, um, I think it was in the early 1940s, it was considered impossible for a human being to run one mile in less than a minute. Then some British fellow beat the record, admittedly only by a fraction of a second, but he still did it. In the next five or ten years, his feat had been duplicated and surpassed a handful of times, and that kept happening until now it's fairly well within the capacity of an admittedly outstandingly fit person to run one mile in fewer than sixty seconds; or if that's too vague because of how many details of that story I've forgotten, once upon a time, an excellent standard of living involved shitting in a bucket in your room and tossing it out the window, and dying at age thirty-five of complications from a sinus infection. Standards of excellence change as our capacities shift.

Why?

Is this an honest question? It doesn't feel like one.

As well he should. Excellent writer that one.

And the writer of "On the Creation of Niggers," that one.

Interesting question.

You also failed to answer the question that immediately followed it. The one about what we're supposed to be learning.

I don't think you know what de facto means. The fact that we are having this discussion prevents it from holding resonance.

That you disagree doesn't mean I'm wrong. Just look at the birthers.

I understand that it might be really hard for you to understand that people are multifaceted, or that morality is an ambiguous construct governed by arbitrary lines that society constantly draws in the sand as the shifting tides of unrest wash them from the ephemeral shores of culture.

Spare me. I understand; I just don't care.

Damn, that's a huge non-sequitur.

You're appealing to popular understanding as if a lot of people believing a thing makes it true.

I like how you've got this definitive idea of my goals.

I don't know what your goals are. I just don't think you're telling me the truth when you say your sole purpose is to tell me you disagree, because as I said, you've already done that. That mission is accomplished.

And choosing to remove references from a textbook is in the present. Doesn't make it any less revisionist.

If a statuette awarded to a handful of people was the same thing as a textbook made available to everyone in a given school district (and presumably beyond; I don't know how schools determine what textbooks to use), I might find that convincing.

The authority is the current board of the awards committee. It's not a single entity, it changes pretty much every convention. Gahan Wilson made a lovely statuette celebrating what he found good in H.P. Lovecraft. Throwing that and its historical lineage away with the express reason that it offends is censorship.

Then the word "censorship" is meaningless as a condemnation.

 

[Irick]

Damn, that's a huge non-sequitur.

You're appealing to popular understanding as if a lot of people believing a thing makes it true.

Oh my god, okay, i'm done.

For some context to those who may be confused by this reaction. I posited that language as a system of symbols works because of the shared meaning behind those symbols and demonstrated that the symbol of H.P. lovecraft in the popular perception is that of a writer of horror fiction.

Apparently, that means the supreme court is suddenly populated by mythological figures.

And seriously JimB, I'm quite sorry. I tried my best to take you as I would an academic, but oh my god.

I can not be explaining how language works literally every post.

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse, but I can't engage with you if you are seriously at that level.

 

[Korolev]

He was racist in a time when just about everyone was - so I don't really hold it against him personally. However, taking his likeness of the statue is probably a good move. Surely you could replace it with the image of someone who was more in keeping with modern times, or a better symbol to represent science fiction overall.

 

[JimB]

Stress, depression, and the trauma of his upbringing could qualify as contributions to his neurosis.

Then aren't you arguing that even though you don't know he had a disease, we must treat him as if he had one? At that point, how can anyone be responsible for his actions? For instance, I am excessively literal, to the point that I was thirty years old before it occurred to me that the term "brushing my teeth" might be talking about cleaning any other part of my mouth than my teeth; should it then be assumed that I might possibly have some degree of autism that renders me blameless for any bad decisions I make in my life?

His views did change and soften in his later life, as he was explored more of the world that he has previously hidden away from.

This is interesting to me, because you're the first person in this thread to mention it that I know of. What works of his "softened," as you say?

I pointed all this out because it seems people are uncomfortable with the idea of acknowledging a racist, which he may have been early in his life, but eventually grew out of, as he shed the ignorance of such views. In that sense, he is a example of what social reform seeks to accomplish, to educate and change the views of people who express to bigoted ideals out of ignorance.

I think it is a mistake to think that the award is more about honoring H.P. Lovecraft than it is about honoring the recipients. The purpose is to praise the recipients by comparison, not to praise Lovecraft by comparison.

Oh my god, okay, I'm done.

That's fine. I wish you could have done it without needing to make that defensive declaration to the entire thread to insult me by misrepresenting my position (sure does bolster your case that you don't consider this a debate and that you're not trying to convince anyone of anything, doesn't it?), but whatever.