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

[masticina]

Someone out of a different time is racist. I am so surprised!

Really so many of our heroes had dark sides or things. And yes in ye old days the whole of society was racist.

 

[MXRom]

Honestly I'm just going to chalk it up to a mix of 'product of his own time' the reality that he really doesn't like people in general, and that he was bat**** insane.

This feels a bit like when people accused Abraham Lincoln of being gay because he shared a bed with a man.

 

[JimB]

I'm a moral nihilist, so, actually I do get to 'weasel out of it.' It's a bit presumptuous of you to assume I believe in the truth-aptness of moral statements.

I was using "you" in the general, imprecise sense. I was not attempting to describe your (the specific you, this time) personal beliefs, Irick. You (the specific you) do not seem to think racism is wrong, so you (the specific you) don't have to weasel out of anything.

Removing H.P. Lovecraft because he fails a modern sniff test is frankly laughable.

Enjoy your [the specific you) laugh, then.

This is of course not to take away from the accomplishments of Miss Butler, but if H.P. Lovecraft is to be replaced as the face of the Howard, it better be because someone is a better author than him. Not just because he was racist.

Given that there is no objective standard of what makes a good writer, the idea that presence of hatespeech in his body of work cannot be considered toward the quality of that body of work seems arbitrary at best to me, and at worst deliberately set up to avoid discussion. Why shouldn't people be allowed to consider "On the Creation of Niggers" as making him a worse author than some other?

 

[Frission]

This is of course not to take away from the accomplishments of Miss Butler, but if H.P. Lovecraft is to be replaced as the face of the Howard, it better be because someone is a better author than him. Not just because he was racist.

Given that there is no objective standard of what makes a good writer, the idea that presence of hatespeech in his body of work cannot be considered toward the quality of that body of work seems arbitrary at best to me, and at worst deliberately set up to avoid discussion. Why shouldn't people be allowed to consider "On the Creation of Niggers" as making him a worse author than some other?

Actually there are objective standards for better authors. Pacing, consistency in story, details, the ability for the writing to flow well and such and such. Writing is an art, a craft and you can tell skilled authors from unskilled authors, no matter what they're writing about. You are allowed to say you don't like the rampant racism that was exhibited in some of Lovecraft's work (I didn't from time to time), but that poem (as bad as it was) wasn't the only thing he has ever written. He was a very influential author and to deny all of that because of his racism is itself a denial of the whole meaning of the competition, which is to celebrate skill in writing.

To dismiss works of writing, because they may not correspond to someone's sensibilities is absurd.

OT: While I would understand that they may not want to keep his effigy as an award, I would be better for him to be replaced by an equally or even more influential author. Why not Poe? Lovecraft often cited the men as an inspiration.

Or why not replace him with a bust of Maupassant. Make sure some people get some culture and read about a great author from a different country.

 

[bobmd13]

This is another example of political correctness gone mad.

Here is one for you: Charles R. Drew.

American troops during WWII,were saved due to plasma infusions. The inventor of this technique was not allowed to give blood as he was an African American.

America had and still has racism.

Until the late 70's African Americans,were treated like second class citizens. Now it's Hispanic's (as a person watching from outside the US).

It seems to be okay for people to indenture people for cleaning,washing and general menial jobs in the US.

Agatha Christie's novel Ten little Niggers (now known as And then there was none) has to be deemed racist,so the Agatha award should be removed.

Tom and Jerry has inferred racism by the fact the housemaid is Black, so the modern version as I have already stated would be OKay if she was Hispanic.

We cannot apply racist connotations to every Literary work ever written,especilly to writers who died before the advent of political correctness.

 

[Frission]

This is another example of political correctness gone mad.

Here is one for you: Charles R. Drew.

American troops during WWII,were saved due to plasma infusions. The inventor of this technique was not allowed to give blood as he was an African American.

America had and still has racism.

Until the late 70's African Americans,were treated like second class citizens. Now it's Hispanic's (as a person watching from outside the US).

It seems to be okay for people to indenture people for cleaning,washing and general menial jobs in the US.

Agatha Christie's novel Ten little Niggers (now known as And then there was none) has to be deemed racist,so the Agatha award should be removed.

Tom and Jerry has inferred racism by the fact the housemaid is Black, so the modern version as I have already stated would be OKay if she was Hispanic.

We cannot apply racist connotations to every Literary work ever written,especilly to writers who died before the advent of political correctness.

To play Devil's Advocate, most of the examples you listed weren't meant as maliciously as with Lovecraft's. Agatha Christie's novel "Ten Little Niggers" (Recommended to everyone, it's one of the first cases of the close circle Whodunit's) was after a nursery rhyme, that's it. Whereas Lovecraft was racist (even xenophobic, because it was almost to the level of mania with him) even for his time.

It doesn't erase the quality of his work, but this part of his character should be kept in mind.

 

[bobmd13]

Frission

Mayhap I will have to reread his works.

I have always felt that pulp fiction should only be assessed if it is a ripping yarn that holds the readers attention.

With relation to Christies work it was retitled for the American edition.

You can still buy the paperback here on Amazon. (£2.99) or if you want the hardback only £749.99 (yep that's $1,245)

Actually the refusal of African American blood was.

The American government at the time deemed it inferior to Caucasian blood.

You also have to remember, that until late 44, African American troops,were detailed to support roles and were not issued weapons.

This link refers to the airforce.

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/WW2/US%20apartheid.htm

This refers to the infantry.

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/WW2/US%20apartheid.htm

From this article:

During World War II, most African American soldiers still served only as truck drivers and as stevedores (except for some separate tank battalions and Army Air Forces escort fighters).[27] In the midst of the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944, General Eisenhower was severely short of replacement troops for existing military units which were totally white in composition. Consequently, he made the decision to allow African American soldiers to pick up a weapon and join the white military units to fight in combat for the first time.[27] More than 2,000 black soldiers had volunteered to go to the front.[28] This was an important step toward a desegregated United States military. A total of 708 African Americans were killed in combat during World War II.[29]

As you can see, even in 1944 there was an aversion to African American troops bearing arms.

Therefore xenophobia was a common preconception in the USA.

 

[neoontime]

People often allow their personal feelings to cloud their judgement.

Imagine if someone was trying to get a statue of Philip K. Dick removed because they were super offended by Dick's anti-abortion views, which he even wrote a short story to illustrate. Sure, racism is a different kettle of fish, but I think some people behave immaturely when confronted with beliefs they consider "unacceptable". Lovecraft was racist. This can be considered a character flaw. But it in no way changes the fact he is a man who created great things, and stands as an example to others.

The statue is a attribute to the man and his character. For this reason, people consider changing/removing the statue to more closely resemble an icon that can stand for the attribution of the the full scale view. As much as people think dishonoring Lovecraft is dishonoring his inspiring and popular works, it's not necessarily the same. It's completely possible to separate the actions and works of someone with the character of them. Removing the statue is not dishonoring his works as nothing implies that his popular works have diminished in value due to the current openness of heavily racist and antisemetic poetry and other things. It seems the other way around where peoples personal feelings about his works are affecting the judgement of Lovecraft. People are even defending his racism in this thread as something of the time rather than something obviously beyond it when you read those less popular works. As said before, the statue holds iconic status before his works and therefore his character is something to definitely consider. No one is diminishing his popular works but simply separating his character from that which currently represents science fiction and fantasy genres. Now reason in not allowing this to be considered.

 

[neoontime]

I found this interesting article that discusses the "product of his time" point.
Yes it's a wordpress blog but it does try to keep a logical perspective, defending points with examples.

http://nicolecushing.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/lovecraft-racism-the-man-of-his-time-defense/

Here's a line from it:
"If writers are all just ?men or women of their time?, then we?d probably, according to conventional wisdom, expect Poe (a writer born almost a century before Lovecraft, raised in the antebellum South ? hell, in the future capital of the Confederacy ? by a merchant who traded in slaves) to write stories even more filled with racist sentiment. And yet, I?ve yet to find any overt racism in Poe?s work at all (I?m not saying it?s not there, just that I haven?t seen it yet ? and I?ve read just as much Poe as Lovecraft, maybe a little more). We?d probably expect Ambrose Bierce (born and raised in the Midwest, in the 1840s) to likewise express racist leanings, and yet one academic article I?ve taken a look at actually argues that he wrote against anti-immigrant sentiment.
...
Lovecraft, on the other hand, seems positively obsessed with the theme of white supremacy, taking opportunities to shoe-horn it into stories even when it?s completely unnecessary. There?s no narrative reason Lovecraft had to name the cat in ?The Rats in the Walls? after a racist slur, or depict Buck Robinson in the degrading, animalistic way in which he did. These references are wholly gratuitous, apparently for Lovecraft?s own amusement and what he may have fancied to be the amusement of his audience (and before you leap to a ?he did it for his audience? defense, take note that his private letters ? not intended for an audience ? are also littered with racist references)."

I agree with much of the points so it seems better to post this from someone who looked into this a bit than explain my less informed opinion and logic.

 

[neoontime]

I'm gonna agree with what a lot of people have already said, and point out that racism was pretty universal back in lovecraft days. It was a different time, and there were hardships and frustrations we never had to deal with. I imagine some of the very same people wanting to take his likeness of the statues would have grown up racist as hell if they lived in his time.

IDK, saying he was a product of his time kind of misrepresents his setting really. This is a man, born and lived much of his life in the North east part of the U.S. in the early 20th century who was athiest and not much connected to traditional male values. Yes, racism was still popular up North but it was much of an inferred and unspoken idea compared to Lovecraft's often unnecessary emphasis in his works. This thought sends that message that everyone, everywhere was promoting racism in the U.S. rather than mostly ignoring it.

 

[QuicklyAcross]

Alfred Nobel probably wasnt a perfect human being without prejudice so should we then stop calling it the Nobel prize?
This kind of guilt by association and trying to find and sometimes prove hints and leads towards despicable values or sympathy with opinions that could be interpreted as, or in some cases are, racist or sexist etc, how does it matter?

We could remove the Christ from Christmas and just call it...mas?
We could stop calling things their actual name and start making new names because of the fear that the origin might have SOME connection to things such as racism, sexuality discrimination and so on.

But that would be kind of silly wouldnt you agree?

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Nearly everything in our history is offensive to at least one group of people. I think we need to be very careful about traveling too far down the road of sterilization. A relatively modern award? Seems like a fine candidate for renaming or re-branding to be respectful and inclusive. An NFL franchise? Same deal. Just make sure we're not on our way to tearing down statues, removing art, censoring books, etc. Windows to the past are inherently irreplaceable, and there is value even in the grotesque.

 

[Agayek]

Lovecraft was incredibly racist, as were pretty much all of his contemporaries, to a degree that many modern folks would find beyond the pale.

That does nothing to change that he's one of the most influential American authors of all time, and the defining voice in existential horror. His work is right up there with Edgar Allen Poe and Mark Twain in terms of cultural significance. It seems remarkably gauche to try and diminish his importance in literature because his views are seen as offensive to modern sensibilities.

The award organization is perfectly within their rights to do whatever they want with the award they give out, but this reeks of attempting to whitewash history, and I really can't say I approve of it.

 

[Sandjube]

May as well remove all of history and just start again from 2013 onwards then. Fucking hell this riles me.

 

[King Billi]

To be completely honest if I wasn't told beforehand that the guy on this award was supposed to be H.P. lovecraft I don't think I would have guessed it was him.

http://wiki.stephen-king.de/images/thumb/2/28/World_Fantasy_Award.jpg/160px-World_Fantasy_Award.jpg

I get that its a caricature but it looks more like one of those easter island heads to me.

In any case its not as though the award is called "The H.P. Lovecraft Award" or anything, it's the "World Fantasy Award" They should probably change it to something that better encompasses that title rather than just one specific author.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

Well, there's a pretty big difference between respecting someone's work, and respecting the person. For example, there's a number of extreme metal bands I listen to from Eastern Europe whose members have.. questionable ideologies. Now, I can respect and enjoy their music and praise their records, but I'd no sooner honour the individual musicians on their personal merits than fly to the moon, nor would I offer a statue of their likeness to a Jewish person.

So as far as I'm concerned, this awards place is well in their rights doing this.

 

[Irick]

I was using "you" in the general, imprecise sense. I was not attempting to describe your (the specific you, this time) personal beliefs, Irick. You (the specific you) do not seem to think racism is wrong, so you (the specific you) don't have to weasel out of anything.

*rolls his eyes*
Please. Detaching from pathos to consider a decision as an academic isn't approving. It's being academic. This isn't a defense of racism, it's an assertion that racism doesn't have a bearing on the quality of fiction.

But hey, assumptions right?

Given that there is no objective standard of what makes a good writer, the idea that presence of hatespeech in his body of work cannot be considered toward the quality of that body of work seems arbitrary at best to me, and at worst deliberately set up to avoid discussion. Why shouldn't people be allowed to consider "On the Creation of Niggers" as making him a worse author than some other?

Allowed? What is this about being allowed? You can involve the whole of the text when you analyse an author's works, but this has already been done. That's how we gain contextual insight into H.P. Lovecraft's works. That's how we extract themes. However, why exactly does it mater to The Case of Charles Dexter Ward that lovecraft is racist? Does it make it any less of a novel? Does it somehow magically diminish its cultural impact?

Moreover, as we are talking about morally charged situations, why ought I care? Does being interested in Literature mean I must take into account the racial themes or connotations of everything I read? Should I not celebrate Mark Twain because he used racial slurs in his writing?

Do you want me to defend H.P. Lovecraft? Because I don't particularly feel like defending his racism. I could instead say the man is a man and men are flawed. I could point to the textual evidence that he moderated his views later in life and from there could argue that he was at the very least changing. I could point out it is never fair to judge a man by a snapshot of their life. These are all defences of H.P. lovecraft, but I'm not defending him.

I'm defending the iconic image of Lovecraft's contributions to the literary arts. I'm defending the spirit of celebration. I am asserting that that spirit and appreciation of art transcends modern morality, or immorality as the time may be. I'm asserting that art is the connecting factor of all of humanity. I reject the simplistic black and white thinking of good or evil men and choose to see man as a complex whole, intertwined with measures of both.

I assert it is possible, or even preferable to not draw lines, but try to come together in art. Why should we not acknowledge these influences? In what way does celebrating a love of fiction influenced by Lovecraft push us further apart? In what way does denying his iconic status bring us together?

What is good about fictionalizing lovers of literature across these arbitrary divisers?

None of this asserts that it's bad to criticize Lovecraft's racism where it is rampantly apparent, or note it as a possible influence on his works. Those are textual details. They are valid discussions. However, implying that because a man is flawed his art is somehow lesser is just ludicrous. In logic we would call that an informal fallacy, but honestly it could be a formal one. A fundamental flaw in logic.

Consider the following two syllogisms:

Racist people are bad
H.P. Lovecraft was Racist
Therefore H.P. Lovecraft is bad

Art influenced by racism is bad
H.P. Lovecraft's art was influenced by racism.
Therefore, H.P. Lovecraft's art is bad.

So, lets look at the premises.

First off, Are racist people bad? I don't think so. Racist people are people. They could be not racist, that would make them not bad right? Universally, we can not say that Racist people are bad, we can just say they are racist.

We can, however, probably agree that Racism is bad.

Lets revise Syllogism 1.

Racism is bad.
H.P. Lovecraft was Racist
Therefore H.P. lovecraft was bad.

Now wait, this doesn't follow.

Racism != Racist.

A is B
C was D
Therefore C is B

This can not be said to be a logically consistent stance.

Now, the astute will probably not that none of the Syllogisms so far have been valid. Even the superfically valid one doesn't work because is != was. This is intentional.

I mentioned that H.P. Lovecraft moderated in his views later on in life. You can see this from the shifting tone in his fiction and the slow death of the vitriol in his personal correspondence. It can be easily said that later on he started to change his views and it is difficult to argue that he went to the grave a racist.

Now, this brings me to the 'are Lovecraft's works bad' question. lets look at Syllogism 2.

I question the primace. Racism influences a lot of work, again I mention Mark Twain. And in order to directly address or criticize racism, you need to be influenced by it. So this doesn't work.

If we want to claim any sort of truth, we must apply our rules in a universal way. Lets start with a simple axiom. We don't need to justify this axiom in this exercise, we'll just assume it's an absolute truth.

Racism is Wrong.
H.P. Lovecraft's On The Creation of Niggers advocates Racism.
On The Creation of Niggers advocates Wrong.

Alright, alright. This doesn't work exactly from the simple primace of Racism being wrong. Let's refine this to say "Advocating racism is wrong"

Advocating Racism is Wrong
H.P. Lovecraft's On The Creation of Niggers is Advocating Racism.
On The Creation of Niggers is Wrong.

So, we are getting to an internally self consistent argument here. Advocating Racism is wrong, and so On The Creation of Niggers can be said to be wrong because it does just that and only that.

Alright, lets tackle Syllogism 1 again.

Being Racist was/is/willallwaysbe wrong
H.P. Lovecraft was racist
Therefore, H.P. Lovecraft was wrong.

Okay, this argument seems internally consistent. However, the conclusion is still past tense.... we can't claim H.P. Lovecraft is wrong because we have no way of knowing if H.P. Lovecraft is still racist. The only thing that can still make points or advocate are his individual works. However... these individual works may not be advocating racism. This depends on interpretation. The Author is Dead. Intent is only one portion of the text.

... but lets continue.

We have come up with the primace that Advocating Racism is Wrong, so let us apply this as a template.

Advocating Racism is Wrong.
H.P. Lovecraft's Work Advocates Racism.
Therefore H.P. Lovecraft's Work is Wrong.

"BUT WAIT". I exclaim, thumping my copy of Death of the Author I have been not too subtly dropping hints about. "Barthes states that 'To give a text an Author' and assign a single, corresponding interpretation to it 'is to impose a limit on that text.' As an artist I can not abide to art being given such arbitrary limits! Each of us interprets a given text in the context of our experience of it. If we are going to be making blanket moral statements we should make sure that they reflect the importance of interpretation.

God, I'm pushy.

Alright, we'll revise the Syllogism.

Advocating Racism is Wrong.
The Racist Interpretation of H.P. Lovecraft's Work Advocates Racism.
Therefore, The Racist Interpretation of H.P. Lovecraft's Work is Wrong.

... Well, that seems to change the message a bit, but it's internally consistent and addresses the concerns of multiple interpretations.

Again, I seem intent on referring to Roland Barthes. One may assume he had an influence on my formation of literary theory. I seem to be arguing that we must separate a literary work from its creator in order to allow it artistic freedom....

This means that a charge of advocating racism can not be inherent to a work. We can not say "H.P. Lovecraft's work advocates racism", because that imposes interpretive tyranny. The charge of advocating racism can only be levied on the interpretation of advocating racism.

But what about the statue in his likeness? Well, lets consider the history of the bust itself.

From Wikipedia:
The World Fantasy Awards, established in 1975, are presented annually at the World Fantasy Convention. The World Fantasy Award been described as one of the three most prestigious speculative fiction awards, along with the Hugo (voted on by fans and professionals) and the Nebula Awards (voted on members of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America). Writers, editors or artists can receive awards. The award statue is a caricature bust of H. P. Lovecraft designed by cartoonist Gahan Wilson in honor of Lovecraft's work and contributions to the world of fantasy. The award has the nickname of "Howard", after Lovecraft's first name.

So... the bust is in honor of Lovecraft's contributions to the world of fantasy. Well, there certainly are a lot of those... so this bust is not an award for lovecraft, but rather an acknowledgement of the influence of his work and is meant to represent great achievement in the field. And, just to be clear, that field is speculative fiction and not racism.

To suddenly remove his image from this bust because it is decided that it represents the racism of Lovecraft is to say that, for the last forty years, this award has represented the racism of Lovecraft. And, while as art that is a valid interpretation, the icon in the context of the World Fantasy Award is not interpreted this way.

However, as to be consistent with our long fought and reasoned out axioms, I offer the following:

Advocating Racism is wrong
The Racist Interpretation of Lovecraft's Bust as the icon of the World Fantasy Award Advocates Racism.
Therefore, The Racist Interpretation of Lovecraft's Bust as the icon of the World Fantasy Award is wrong.