[Ribald]

Steven Erikson has written an essay about the controversy around changing the World Fantasy Award from a bust of HP Lovecraft to something else.

https://thecriticald...steven-erikson/


Not sure how much people here have followed this, but it looks like it is blowing up in much the same way the Hugo controversy did.

[Andorion]

Very nice article. I must say I was unaware of Lovecraft's racism till this controversy started. I think Steve's response is balanced and well put.

[worry]

Here's a fun little game on this very topic: http://www.beesgo.biz/horp.html

[Andorion]

worry, on 14 November 2015 - 08:59 AM, said:

Here's a fun little game on this very topic: http://www.beesgo.biz/horp.html

I got an Average on my knowledge of Lovecraft though to be honest I deduced most of my correct replies.

[Grief]

Hmm, I've not been following the controversy at all. The essay is interesting. Some of it I agree with, some of it less so. I think he makes good points about the merits of a non-Lovecraft trophy. Likewise he's obviously correct that there's a world of difference between supporting a different trophy, and thinking that this says anything about the people who have previously won the award.

What I find more interesting -- and am less certain about -- is the blanket statement that "The historical context argument is bullshit".

To give people context, that passage:

Some might raise the observation that Lovecraft was a man of his time, and therefore excusable for his objectionable views on race. Of course, there were other men (and women) of that time, who were not racists. Some of them, indeed, were neither white nor male. Accordingly, to those apologists attempting the ‘historical context’ argument, it just doesn’t fly, folks. The proof of that is plain enough and I’ll state it here: those who seek to apologise for the beliefs and attitudes of people in the past invariably do so in defense of the egregious and the objectionable. Nobody apologises for those people in the past who held virtuous views, do they? No, they laud such people and name them unusually enlightened.

Lovecraft had neighbours who were not racists. The historical context argument is bullshit.

Inevitably, historical context is important in understanding and explaining the past. Does it excuse objectionable views? I'm not totally sure. I mean, even people like Abigail Adams had some pretty backwards views on gender by today's standards, likewise Lincoln on race, and honestly, probably a huge number of those historical figures that we laud. I am not entirely certain that we don't apologise for those who supposedly held virtuous views, by merit of how we tend to focus on these virtuous aspects of the historical "good guys". And I'm not entirely certain that the historical context of an action or belief should be dismissed out of hand -- is being racist in a more racist society equal to being racist in a less racist society?

This isn't to say that it makes historical racism acceptable, obviously, but rather that I don't think we can just dismiss historical context outright and judge everything by the present yardstick. I find the idea of morally judging the past in this way a bit weird to start with tbh.

Of course, in this given issue, we're discussing an award being given presently, and people in the present deciding not to use a racist for the face of that award, which seems perfectly reasonable, and the usual "Political correctness gone mad" crowd seems as tiresome as usual, but that's just business as usual; the interesting part of the article for me is the bit that makes the historian in me twitch.

[Andorion]

Grief, on 14 November 2015 - 11:43 PM, said:

Hmm, I've not been following the controversy at all. The essay is interesting. Some of it I agree with, some of it less so. I think he makes good points about the merits of a non-Lovecraft trophy. Likewise he's obviously correct that there's a world of difference between thinking supporting a different trophy, and thinking that this says anything about the people who have previously won the award.

What I find more interesting -- and am less certain about -- is the blanket statement that "The historical context argument is bullshit".

To give people context, that passage:

Some might raise the observation that Lovecraft was a man of his time, and therefore excusable for his objectionable views on race. Of course, there were other men (and women) of that time, who were not racists. Some of them, indeed, were neither white nor male. Accordingly, to those apologists attempting the ‘historical context’ argument, it just doesn’t fly, folks. The proof of that is plain enough and I’ll state it here: those who seek to apologise for the beliefs and attitudes of people in the past invariably do so in defense of the egregious and the objectionable. Nobody apologises for those people in the past who held virtuous views, do they? No, they laud such people and name them unusually enlightened.

Lovecraft had neighbours who were not racists. The historical context argument is bullshit.

Inevitably, historical context is important in understanding and explaining the past. Does it excuse objectionable views? I'm not totally sure. I mean, even people like Abigail Adams had some pretty backwards views on gender by today's standards, likewise Lincoln on race, and honestly, probably a huge number of those historical figures that we laud. I am not entirely certain that we don't apologise for those who supposedly held virtuous views, by merit of how we tend to focus on these virtuous aspects of the historical "good guys". And I'm not entirely certain that the historical context of an action or belief should be dismissed out of hand -- is being racist in a more racist society equal to being racist in a less racist society?

This isn't to say that it makes historical racism acceptable, obviously, but rather that I don't think we can just dismiss historical context outright and judge everything by the present yardstick. I find the idea of morally judging the past in this way a bit weird to start with tbh.

Of course, in this given issue, we're discussing an award being given presently, and people in the present deciding not to use a racist for the face of that award, which seems perfectly reasonable, and the usual "Political correctness gone mad" crowd seems as tiresome as usual, but that's just business as usual; the interesting part of the article for me is the bit that makes the historian in me twitch.

Historical context is very important. But I think the problem here is that because the bust is being given as a trophy now, sometimes to the very people Lovecraft had a problem with, his racism is becoming an issue that can't be ignored.

A good example is Rudyard Kipling. I am an Indian, and presently an enrolled in a history PhD course, I am a big fan of Kiplings writing, Yet Kipling was one of the biggest cheerleaders of the British Empire which did a lot of nasty stuff to India (to keep it simple) So now if say a bust of Kipling was being handed out as the prize for lets say the Booker Prize, which lots of Indians have won. Many people would have a problem in that situation.

Again, historically speaking, given where he was born, its inevitable that Lovecraft would have some racist views. It would be miraculous if he didn't. But there is "after all they are brown/black" racist, which is a product of that period, and then there is "they are as clearly inferior as we are superior and we should have ultra strong segregation forever or our race could be in danger" level racism which is far harder to ignore/excuse/

[worry]

Without necessarily disagreeing with you, Grief, the argument you make is an honest one, but it's simply not the one these complainers are making (here or ever). It's rather more as you imply -- the anti-PC crowd makes the same old leap-in-logic strawman case against censorship. At best, they're arguing don't throw the baby out with the bathwater to people who were never approaching the baby in the first place. And the reason they make this argument is because they have no honest one to make and because feigning martyrdom attracts adherents, regardless of correctness. It's an easy rallying cry for a crowd you don't want to think too hard as they do what you want.

[Grief]

Worry, to be clear I totally agree that the complainers don't have a withered appendage to stand on. It's absurd to decry people changing their award as being censorship, and seems like yet another case of an "attack on free speech" actually meaning "someone using their speech in a way that I don't like". Not to mention that this is monumentally ironic, given that the alternative to "censorship" is what exactly -- never to be allowed the freedom to change the design of the award? I have zero interest in defending the people complaining about this, nor can I see any good reason not to change the award -- I'd hope they could find at least one SF writer whose head isn't going to offend anyone, and that seems like a good thing to do. My point is less to do with the actual case of changing the award, which I think Steve outlines a good case for, and more the general question of how we should judge the past, and whether we can really say that someone being a "person of their time" doesn't actually affect this judgement.

Andorion, on 15 November 2015 - 01:35 AM, said:

Historical context is very important. But I think the problem here is that because the bust is being given as a trophy now, sometimes to the very people Lovecraft had a problem with, his racism is becoming an issue that can't be ignored.

A good example is Rudyard Kipling. I am an Indian, and presently an enrolled in a history PhD course, I am a big fan of Kiplings writing, Yet Kipling was one of the biggest cheerleaders of the British Empire which did a lot of nasty stuff to India (to keep it simple) So now if say a bust of Kipling was being handed out as the prize for lets say the Booker Prize, which lots of Indians have won. Many people would have a problem in that situation.

Again, historically speaking, given where he was born, its inevitable that Lovecraft would have some racist views. It would be miraculous if he didn't. But there is "after all they are brown/black" racist, which is a product of that period, and then there is "they are as clearly inferior as we are superior and we should have ultra strong segregation forever or our race could be in danger" level racism which is far harder to ignore/excuse/

Yeah, I do think a lot of the importance is that it's an award that people are choosing to give in the present. Kipling is an interesting example. This somewhat comes back to the idea of symbols mentioned in the essay. Certainly, I think Kipling's popularity has taken something of a hit (at least academically) owing to the "white man's burden", and he's become very much associated with this, and a symbol of it.

Given this, I would agree that handing out Kipling statuettes for the Booker seems tacky and offensive (at best). My intuitive reaction is to see it that way at least. So, what about Darwin statuettes for a scientific award? On the Origin of Species is rather better known than On the Moral State of Tahiti, but Steve argues that "Culpability rests not with the unknowing recipient, but with those of us who know better", and Darwin's more "of their time" comments are certainly documented well enough. Is there a distinction to be made between the two? If it's a question of symbols, does the degree to which Kipling has become a symbol for these ideas -- in a way that Darwin has not -- make a difference? Or is there no distinction between the two, and I simply feel intuitively worse about Kipling for whatever reason?

Now, Lovecraft is actually a fairly simple historical example, in that as far as I'm aware he's awful even by the standards of his time never mind by ours. The ones I find interesting in these discussions are the less clear cut cases. In this case, that would be the people who are actually good (or totally neutral, but it's hard to argue what that is) people by the standards of their own time. If historical context is meaningless many early feminists fail on account of gender essentialism, huge numbers of anti-colonialists fail on account of racism, etc etc. Would we rule out a Dickens award, because his attitudes towards the poor are troubling by our standards, even though he is famous as a social activist by the standards of his own time?

As I said, I don't see any good argument not to change from Lovecraft awards, and I can see good reasons for doing so. I'm not convinced that historical context doesn't play a part though. In Kipling's case, I feel that the historical context actually is a large part of the issue -- what he wrote fits into a wider historical context which this makes it more of an issue than just his own views.

[LinearPhilosopher]

So a few things.

I just realised grief is vengeance. I have no idea when this happened, but i thought there were more people than there actually was.

Secondly.

Its a well written piece with some salient points written. My issue with it is that the example he gives, is that hitler was known for doing horrible things, yet it wasn't until i'd read this article I was aware that lovecraft was a racist. Even then, i don't think its sufficient cause for changing the award. Reasoning is that lovecraft isn't known and honored for his views on race relations. He was honored for being an amazing writer and helping define a genre wayyyyy before it was popular.

I've only read a handful of his shortories (shadown of innsmouth, rats in the wall, call of cthulhu, a few others i can't remember) but i don't think i've ever come across it. Granted i was in high school at the time so take it with a grain of salt.

Point is, i don't think his views are sufficient grounds to change the award. Now if lovecraft was well known as a racist, or even participated in a lynching, that might be different as then there would be a very clear relationship between the award and promotion of racism. But there isn't and as far as im aware he hasn't. You have to separate the art from the artist to a degree.


That isn't to say perceptions don't change over time, but given that lovecraft was a pioneer in the genre, possesing a few backwards thoughts isn't grounds for changing the award.

This post has been edited by LinearPhilosopher: 15 November 2015 - 11:36 PM

[worry]

Well "sufficient grounds" is a pretty weird way to look at it. It's an award, not an LSAT logic puzzle, and people get to decide on the "right" answer. So if the question is, should we hand a bust of an avowed and bilious racist to people as a measure of our appreciation of them, I'd personally write off anybody whose answer is "yes, sounds good to me."

[LinearPhilosopher]

worry, on 16 November 2015 - 12:02 AM, said:

Well "sufficient grounds" is a pretty weird way to look at it. It's an award, not an LSAT logic puzzle, and people get to decide on the "right" answer. So if the question is, should we hand a bust of an avowed and bilious racist to people as a measure of our appreciation of them, I'd personally write off anybody whose answer is "yes, sounds good to me."

Unless you're just making decisions without thinking, you need a basis of some sort. As in a justification for making that decision. So sufficent grounds, in the more "every day" type of english the words would be, "a good enough reason". That work for you?

that way of describing him also leaves much out and lends itself to being interpreted as if thats the only thing lovecraft was known or was even WELL known for.

Let's look at it another way. What has he actually done? Rather than speaking of abstracts lets get some specifics in here, what racist acts or words has lovecraft actually said. Did he advocate for the establishment of genetics programs, did he refour to people of colour as lesser or base species?

It's also important to look at history and it's context. Not as a way of excusing behavior ofc, but was lovecraft worse than his peers? Yes SE mentions there were others who rose above society's beliefs and kudos to them, but was lovecraft truly worse than his peers? I bring this up because while we laud those who rise above society's bad practises, i don't think its fair we critise every person who didn't.


Now if lovecraft was worse than his peers then yes we can criticise him.

[worry]

To answer your questions, yes he did those horrible things, and yes Lovecraft was worse than many of his peers. Those are easy enough questions to answer. (This is an article, I don't expect you to read it, but it has numerous direct quotes that are italicized and/or indented, for your perusal: http://mediadiversif...f-hp-lovecraft/)

Regardless, we can criticize him as much as we want however we want. Nobody needs permission, and I don't see much point in drawing the line between bad and awful. If some of his peers were just as bad, criticize them too. Or on the other hand, we can continue to reproduce his likeness* and hand it to people as an award to display in their homes, even though he quite openly hated their guts and said so, albeit removed a couple generations. How does that make more sense than simply updating the award? I think the horror of doing something like that is "sufficient grounds" in the everyday sense we're using it.

What's to be stubborn about anyway? Lovecraft got 40 years of recognition out of this already. He hasn't been disappeared from the lit canon. But do you think the best fantasy writers in 2355 AD should still be handed a Lovecraft award? Why bother? I suppose that might seem like a tangent argument, but I think a lot of awful behavior/opinions on this matter hide behind preserving tradition like its inherently sacrosanct.


*(I realize the award has, in fact, been changed as of 2015, but since we're arguing principle).

[worry]

Just to clarify: when I said "I don't expect you to read it" re: the link, that wasn't meant snidely towards you, I meant it literally and to everyone in general, like I was just posting that article specifically for its collection of direct quotes.

[Andorion]

Nice link Worry. I was searching for something like that.

From what I have read it seems to me that Lovecraft was an advocate of strict segregation and he was significantly worse than his peers.
As Worry says his beliefs are enough to remove him from the award. I am an Indian, and what this gut advocated was precisely what we were fighting against at this precise historical juncture.

Giving an award with his likeness would easily offend a huge number of people. So why not change it? And why replace him with another author? Can't there be a symbol that more people can identify with?

Regarding Historical Context, I was wondering whether it would be interesting to see how beliefs born of that time influenced the work for which people are now celebrated.

[LinearPhilosopher]

worry, on 16 November 2015 - 01:45 AM, said:

Just to clarify: when I said "I don't expect you to read it" re: the link, that wasn't meant snidely towards you, I meant it literally and to everyone in general, like I was just posting that article specifically for its collection of direct quotes.

glad you offered that second statement. Otherwise would have been quite displeased at you. You're usually quite entertaining

Quote

Hitler’s] vision is of course romantic & immature, & colored with a fact ignoring emotionalism … There surely is an actual Hitler peril–yet that cannot blind us to the honest rightness of the man’s basic urge … I repeat that there is a great & pressing need behind every one of the major planks of Hitlerism–racial-cultural continuity, conservative cultural ideals, & an escape from the absurdities of Versailles. The crazy thing is not what Adolf wants, but the way he sees it & starts out to get it. I know he’s a clown, but by God, I like the boy!–Letter from Lovecraft to Donald Wandrei, November 1936.

This on top of everything else on the site? HOLY SHIT!!!!! this wasn't just a few lines in a dense book like the grounding of metaphysics of morals, its everywhere! some of the stuff he wrote jesus christ....

Alright that's some messed up stuff he wrote, now im wiling to reconsider. Maybe we can just change the award to just the SF award for meritorious service blah blah blah blah.

Onto the more interesting point as for criticising everyone or the average i don't think we can, they are just a product of their environment. Those who rise above or fall below is where value judgements take place as that's where individual character can be seen. Having character shows a certain ability to not just go with the flow and that reflects a conscious choice on the part of the individual. Thats what we can critisize or applaud.

[Grief]

Andorion, on 16 November 2015 - 01:48 AM, said:

Regarding Historical Context, I was wondering whether it would be interesting to see how beliefs born of that time influenced the work for which people are now celebrated.

In Lovecraft's case his racial views quite clearly make it into his work at various points but I'm sure you could draw interesting connections even where his views are less explicit. Ideas of degeneration are pretty common in what I've read of his work (which admittedly is not a ton). The one that comes to mind (though it's been years since I read it) being the Shoggoth in At the Mountains of Madness. Here we find that the Shoggoth were very useful tools for building the civilization of the Old One's, but that as they gain freedom this civilization is corrupted and decayed (and the Shoggoth are only able to produce degraded mimicries of the art of those before them), and the civilization is eventually destroyed... I think you could write plenty about where that might be coming from.

[Salt-Man Z]

I don't have a problem with HPL's likeness adorning the award, but clearly some people do, and their reasons why make perfect sense. So changing the award seems like a reasonable, respectful, and necessary thing to do.

Also, when I read this:

Steven Erikson said:

Symbols are potent things.

I couldn't help but think of this:

Gene Wolfe in THE BOOK OF THE NEW SUN said:

We believe that we invent symbols. The truth is that they invent us; we are their creatures, shaped by their hard, defining edges. When soldiers take their oath they are given a coin, an asimi stamped with the profile of the Autarch. Their acceptance of that coin is their acceptance of the special duties and burdens of military life—they are soldiers from that moment, though they may know nothing of the management of arms. I did not know that then, but it is a profound mistake to believe that we must know of such things to be influenced by them, and in fact to believe so is to believe in the most debased and superstitious kind of magic. The would-be sorcerer alone has faith in the efficacy of pure knowledge; rational people know that things act of themselves or not at all.

[Ribald]

Well some of the comments on the essay have taken a fairly dark turn.

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

Andorion, on 15 November 2015 - 01:35 AM, said:

But I think the problem here is that because the bust is being given as a trophy now, sometimes to the very people Lovecraft had a problem with, his racism is becoming an issue that can't be ignored.

Spot on. Even if for no other reason, that's plenty good enough.

I really liked the essay. I must admit at this juncture that the minute a person uses "SJW" or any other connotation of that idea, I tend to assume they don't have a cogent or reasonable argument to make - because it never seems to go hand in hand with well thought out discourse on a topic.

Crying "censorship" for the "special little snowflakes" or however it was inelegantly phrased is just martyrdom at this point. Oh no, something is happening in an attempt to make something more inclusive and less divisive and I don't like it - best cry that it's an attack on my freedom of expression!

Nope, sorry. It's an attack on your unwillingness to self-assess your views and consider other perspectives. Nobody likes having that pointed out.

Taking HPL off the award doesn't attack anybody's right to free expression in any way whatsoever. Hopefully, it's a step in the right direction and really not the big deal the controversists want everyone to believe.

Steve touched on a thought I have when looking at this kind of thing - when moves are made to be more inclusive, why is that such an offensive thing to some? It doesn't suggest anything good really.

This post has been edited by TheRetiredBridgeburner: 17 November 2015 - 07:24 AM

[Andorion]

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 17 November 2015 - 07:23 AM, said:

Andorion, on 15 November 2015 - 01:35 AM, said:

But I think the problem here is that because the bust is being given as a trophy now, sometimes to the very people Lovecraft had a problem with, his racism is becoming an issue that can't be ignored.

Spot on. Even if for no other reason, that's plenty good enough.

I really liked the essay. I must admit at this juncture that the minute a person uses "SJW" or any other connotation of that idea, I tend to assume they don't have a cogent or reasonable argument to make - because it never seems to go hand in hand with well thought out discourse on a topic.

Crying "censorship" for the "special little snowflakes" or however it was inelegantly phrased is just martyrdom at this point. Oh no, something is happening in an attempt to make something more inclusive and less divisive and I don't like it - best cry that it's an attack on my freedom of expression!

Nope, sorry. It's an attack on your unwillingness to self-assess your views and consider other perspectives. Nobody likes having that pointed out.

Taking HPL off the award doesn't attack anybody's right to free expression in any way whatsoever. Hopefully, it's a step in the right direction and really not the big deal the controversists want everyone to believe.

Steve touched on a thought I have when looking at this kind of thing - when moves are made to be more inclusive, why is that such an offensive thing to some? It doesn't suggest anything good really.

I have been thinking about that as well. You may have a point with the self assessment

So in this, as well as in other cases, when a person has been celebrated or become iconic in some cultures or groups, when socio-cultural change demands the breaking or removing of that icon, the people who uptil that point had looked up to that icon will always have problems. Because agreeing to the reform basically means admitting that they were wrong, and that takes courage and an ability to self-reflect. Now not all people can do that very well for various reasons.


And recently we have seen several incidents of this happening with the Confederate flag being the most prominent, To conservative people who dislike change or can't keep up this probably leads to the development of a victim complex