Lovecraft and Philosophy

[Aaron]

Interesting article in Salon about Lovecraft as a philosopher:
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/11/weird_science_on_the_wacky_world_of_hp_lovecraft_partner/

Aaron

[Ramsey Campbell]

I agree it's interesting, Aaron, but "Lovecraft never wrote a novel"? "...writers such as Clark Ashton Smith and August Derleth devoted their careers to extensions of the Lovecraft universe"?

[wilum pugmire]

The comments following are rather depressing. To completely dismiss the whole of an outstanding artist because of his ignorant and abhorrent racism is another form of bigotry and small-mindedness; it would lead to the banning of such an important American poet as Wallace Stevens. The article shews ignorance and contradiction. In the first paragraph we are told that Lovecraft has not received a great deal of attention from literary critics, then in the third paragraph we are told that HPL is receiving attention from literary critics and philosophers. To not know that Lovecraft wrote a novel is to not know Lovecraft's oeuvre. There is an undercurrent of snobbery in the article, and that perhaps explains why its author is apparently ignorant of the outstanding journals of literary criticism devoted to H. P. Lovecraft, or the magnificent books by writers such as S. T. Joshi, Kenneth W. Faig, Robert H. Waugh and many others. It is becoming a commonplace criticism in forums and on-line reviews that Lovecraft was a "hack" writer, from people who don't know the meaning of the term or the absurd falsehood of their claim. Yuggoth--so much ignorance. Happily, Lovecraft's Works stand above all of this and will grow in stature and renown, while these wee bedbugs will be swept away by history.

[Kishin]

I believe there was an article in that Famous Monsters which features a
photo of you in which the author compares Lovecraft's prose to poetry.
If you think about it, that's exactly what it is. As for his xenophobia
and racism: well, you have to take into account the time he lived in. He
was simply a product of that time. Perhaps if was alive today, and knew
more real people who were different from him, he would feel differently.
I know he'd feel a kinship with you, Wilum, despite your unconventional
appearance.

--

Kishin

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:14:55 PM UTC-4, Kishin wrote:
> As for his xenophobia
> and racism: well, you have to take into account the time he lived in. He
> was simply a product of that time.

This is simply not true. These are words one might use to excuse the "racism" (by modern standards) of such people as G.K. Chesterton, or perhaps even Robert E. Howard. HPL was far worse, and his philosophy had alot to do with it.

HPL's philosophy sucked - big time. The saving grace of his fiction is that the relationship between his formally-espoused philosophy and his fiction is a not-entirely harmonious one. In fact, it would not be unfair to say that HPL's horrid philosophy was what he wrote fiction and poetry to escape FROM.

[wilum pugmire]

On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:29:13 PM UTC-7, Aaron wrote:

There is nothing "horrid" about Lovecraft's philosophy; anyone who so describes it obviously has no clue what Lovecraft's philosophy entails. As S. T. has pointed out in many books, that philosophy is the key of meaning, the very foundation, of Lovecraft's fiction; he never tried to escape from it.

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:28:46 PM UTC-4, wilum pugmire wrote:
> There is nothing "horrid" about Lovecraft's philosophy; ...

Out of respect for HPL's memory, I will not rise to the challenge of this statement by refuting it with ugly facts. "Philosophy" is a nebulous term, and I certainly do believe that his art and his ideas had many valuable and positive aspects, as I have said.

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

By which I mean that if anyone wants to focus only on the positive, and refer to that as HPL's "philosophy", that is fine with me. But if that were the case, we would not be discussing his "racism", now would we?

[Ramsey Campbell]

On Monday, 22 April 2013 02:38:27 UTC+1, jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:14:55 PM UTC-4, Kishin wrote:
>
> > As for his xenophobia
>
> > and racism: well, you have to take into account the time he lived in. He
>
> > was simply a product of that time.
>
>
>
> This is simply not true. These are words one might use to excuse the "racism" (by modern standards) of such people as G.K. Chesterton, or perhaps even Robert E. Howard. HPL was far worse, and his philosophy had alot to do with it.

In what way do you feel it had?

[John Whelan]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> In what way do you feel it had?

HPL was, in terms of his ultimate moral philosopy, a moral nihilist,
recognizing no validity for moral concepts or indeed any human goals,
concerns or ideals. Notwithstanding this fact, he aspired to a sort
of personal code as an anchor and a the chaos of the Ultimate Truth.
Not believing in a higher power, he instead sought to anchor his
"morality" in his own genetic and cultural heritage, his own nature
and nurture (aristoctratic, anglo-saxon culture). He accepted the
arbitrary and (ultimate) invalidity of such a code, but, by the same
terms, recognized no higher code, and so latched onto his heritage as
a bulwark against the ultimate chaos. Xenophobia - or fear of the
Other - is to some extent a natural instinct in all humans, including
HPL (HPL believed so, nor do think he was entirely wrong, though this
has no particular relevance to me since I do not worship Nature). In
this context, "do unto Others before the Others do unto you" made
reasonable "rational" sense; as much as any other "moral" principle
HPL espoused (such as "I am well bred and therefore never eat bananas
in public").

[C-Ni...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:28:46 PM UTC-4, wilum pugmire wrote:

I agree. Mr. Wilum, this is likely just another reason why you are my favorite Lovecraftian horror writer. You truly understand Lovecraft's philosophy and also realize it is the very foundation of his fiction. I don't understand how one can truly enjoy Lovecraft's fiction and have no appreciation for his philosophy.

[John Whelan]

C-Nile...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I agree. Mr. Wilum, this is likely just another reason why you are my
> favorite Lovecraftian horror writer. You truly understand Lovecraft's
> philosophy and also realize it is the very foundation of his fiction. I
> don't understand how one can truly enjoy Lovecraft's fiction and
> have no appreciation for his philosophy.

Do these words have meaning? Or are they just empty blather? If the
former, perhaps you should explain what aspects of HPL's philosophy
you appreciate. You might find we are in agreement on some aspects.
On the other hand, perhaps you really do agree with HPL on
everything. Perhaps what you meant was "Yes, Wilum, just like you &
Lovecraft, I hate niggers too!" (But, I think, even Wilum does not
agree with you and HPL on that point).

Do you mean that you approve of HPL's idea of escaping from moral
nihilism by anchoring his moral values in his race-identity and class-
identity? Or merely that you approve (in a general way) of his
attempts to reject or escape from moral nihilism? (If so, what do you
anchor YOUR morality in? Modern political correctness?) Or perhaps
it is his moral nihilism of which you approve and (unlike HPL) you
really want to plunge headlong into that abyss, and declare that there
was nothing wrong (for instance) with the actions of Ariel Castro, as
long as he got off on it, and that his only crime was getting caught
(ie. he should have killed his victims).

It seems to me that HPL wrote fiction in order to escape from the
"reality" imagined under his philosophy. For this reason, his fiction
is both influenced by his philosophy, and in conflict with it.
Certainly fiction does not constently embody his materialist atheism.
HPL is famous for SUPERNATURAL fiction. He may not have believed in
the supernatural, but he wrote about it, and that is what he is famous
for. Anyone who imagines his fiction as a manifesto for materialist
atheism is delusional. They are just not enjoying the stories as they
are meant to be enjoyed.

[Ramsey Campbell]

Well, they're meant to be enjoyed as "a vivid picture of a certain type of human mood", which is all that such a tale "can ever be" - to excite "a profound sense of dread, and of contact with unknown spheres and powers; a subtle attitude of awed listening, as if for the beating of black wings or the scratching of outside shapes and entities on the known universe’s utmost rim" - to convey a sense that "common human laws and interests and emotions have no validity or significance in the vast cosmos-at-large". I don't see how any of that contradicts Lovecraft's atheism, and I would argue that very few of his tales are supernatural in the conventional sense, especially the major stories. His gods, after all, are alien monsters worshipped by cults, not gods in any spiritual sense.

[John Whelan]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> Well, they're meant to be enjoyed as "a vivid picture of a certain type of
> human mood", which is all that such a tale "can ever be" - to excite "a
> profound sense of dread, and of contact with unknown spheres and
> powers; a subtle attitude of awed listening, as if for the beating of black
> wings or the scratching of outside shapes and entities on the known
> universe’s utmost rim" - to convey a sense that "common human laws
> and interests and emotions have no validity or significance in the vast
> cosmos-at-large".

But when he refers to a "certain type of human mood", he is referring
to the type of human mood which (delusional or not) senses and dreads
the supernatural. When he says that this is all the tale "can ever
be"; he is merely admitting that he does not really believe in the
supernatural, even though he writes about it. I have no idea why you
included the third quote, which does not support your case at all.
And as for the 4th quote, if human interests have no validity and
significance, then neither does HPL's fiction.

(BTW, I know you like making shit up. I also like to see words in
context. I've done you the courtesy, this time, of assuming all your
HPL quotes are genuine. But in light of your history, if you are
going to throw quotes at me, you really ought to provide a source.)

Secondly, if you are going to argue that HPL's fiction supports a
materialist atheist moral nihilist world view, then you should
obviously base that argument on his fiction itself, and not on his
OTHER writings that suggest a materialist, atheist, and moral nihilist
word view.

And yes, that includes fiction where he discusses his own fiction.
This is especially so because HPL has admitted that he does not really
know why he feels compelled to write spooky fiction. Hence, any
reasons he gives are not really reasons so much as rationalizations.
Similarly, much of his fiction involves writeups of dreams, which he
did not choose to dream.

He writes about supernatural evil ("supernatural" and "evil" being two
things his philosophy does not believe in). Yes, one can write
fiction about things you don't believe in. One can enjoy fiction
about things one does not believe in. But it does not thereby follow
that the fiction is really about something else.

> I don't see how any of that contradicts Lovecraft's atheism, and I would argue

> that very few of his tales are supernatural in the conventional sense [...]

They are obviously supernatural. Quibbles about the "conventional
sense" are merely a nonsensical and inane attempt to dodge the
subject.

> [...] especially the major stories.

Like what? Sweet Ehrmengarde?

But go on. Why don't you try to argue that "At the Mountains of
Madness" does not involve the supernatural. Try to argue that the
climax does not involve supernatural awe. I know Joshi makes this
silly "just aliens" argument, and you are equally free to make a
complete fool of yourself. It is though you stopped reading after the
description of the Old Ones, who are, like us, material beings
originating inside the material universe, but on an extrasolar planet.

Try to argue that "Shadow out of Time" does not involve the
supernatural That's a story about demonic or spiritual possession
involving beings from beyond space and time. Yes, from outside space
and time! You can't get much more "supernatural" than that.

Do you not count "The Dunwich Horror" and "The Call of Cthulhu" among
his major stories? Or do you argue that they do not involve the
supernatural?

> His gods, after all, are alien monsters worshipped by cults, not gods in any
> spiritual sense.

They are demons and devils. They are so supernatural that they make
werewolves look prosaic. That they come from outer space is beside
the point. It is as inane and illogical a non-sequitur as "They are
not supernatural; they're from Cleveland".

But go on. Give me a list of his stories that YOU don't think involve
the supernatural.
"The Temple" perhaps? Is the reader supposed to conclude that the
Prussian sub-commander is right, and that it is all hallucination,
superstition and delusion?

[Ramsey Campbell]

Forgive me - I was using the term "atheism" in its dictionary definition - disbelief in the existence of a god. If you feel that the stories you cite work against that, then obviously your case is made.

"I have no idea why you included the third quote, which does not support your case at all." It was meant not to support a case (I hadn't proposed one) but simply to indicate how the tales were "meant to be enjoyed", if you believe their author.

[John Whelan]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> Forgive me - I was using the term "atheism" in its dictionary definition - disbelief
> in the existence of a god.

So you were changing the subject for no reason? Okay. Apology
accepted.

The issue was whether HPL's fiction was consistent with all aspects of
his philosophy. In this context, I mentioned his "materialist
atheism". The extra word is there for a reason.

Nor do I see how it helps much to drop the word "materialist". That
only begs the question of how you define "a god", which is obviously
not the same thing as the Christian concept of "God". HPL's universe
is obviously filled with ultrapowerful supernatural, superhuman
entities that are indeed worshipped as gods. By what definition of
"gods" are they not "gods"?

> If you feel that the stories you cite work against that,
> then obviously your case is made.

My case was that HPL's fiction cannot be regarded as a manifesto for
all aspects of his philosophy. I don't know what you think "my case"
is. I sense an attempt to move the goal post.

[Ramsey Campbell]

No apology offered!

In the first place I was simply dealing with your contention about how the stories were meant to be enjoyed. I thought I'd made that clear. I would expect the quotes I provided to be familiar to anyone sufficiently interested in Lovecraft to have looked at his comments about his work and the field.

[Quoth The Raven]

I'm not going to explain myself to you because I was not talking to you. Even if I did attempt to explain, you wouldn't understand. If you think his philosophy is only about hating people of different races and being an immoral nihilist, then it is obvious to me you do not have a clear understanding of H. P. Lovecraft's philosophy. I don't deny the controversial aspects of his beliefs, but doesn't every philosopher who is worth reading hold some unpopular views? I believe anybody of any race or culture can benefit from H. P. Lovecraft's philosophy. His philosophy is similar to Nietzsche's. Do you think Nietzsche's philosophy is only about hating niggers and being a moral nihilist as well? If that is the only thing you can see when you read H. P. Lovecraft's philosophy then there is nothing I can say to you that will make you appreciate it.

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> In the first place I was simply dealing with your contention about how
> the stories were meant to be enjoyed. I thought I'd made that clear.

In what way were you "dealing" with my contention? Were you AGREEING with it? Were you saying "Yes, I think you are right John. HPL's purpose was to create in his readers a sense of supernatural awe and dread. And here's a quote from HPL reasonably consistent with your assessment".

Because if you had some other point, in the way of a disagreement, I simply don't get it. But I am sure that, rather than explain, you will simply insult me.

> I would expect the quotes I provided to be familiar to anyone
> sufficiently interested in Lovecraft to have looked at his comments
> about his work and the field.

Ooh! Another sly put-down. You don't have to supply quotes because you can just insult those who request them. Because are JUST THAT KIND OF GUY!

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 11:08:12 AM UTC-4, Quoth The Raven wrote:
> I'm not going to explain myself to you because I was not talking to you.

And also because you result to insult me and tell lies about me instead. Here there come ...

> Even if I did attempt to explain, you wouldn't understand.

Hup. There the insult. You mother must be proud.

> If you think his philosophy is only about hating people of different
> races and being an immoral nihilist, then it is obvious to me you do
> not have a clear understanding of H. P. Lovecraft's philosophy.

And there's the lie. (not especially the word "only") You know perfectly well id not say any it those things. In fact, I already clarified, at least twice, that his there may be positive aspects to his philosophy.

BTW, the phrase I used was "moral nihilism" not "immoral nihilism".

> I don't deny the controversial aspects of his beliefs, but doesn't
> every philosopher who is worth reading hold some unpopular views?

Who cares? Does this stop you and me from having our own views? I have said that I approve of some aspects of his thinking, and consider other aspects to be vile. You, meanwhile, are are unwilling take a position on anything. You merely call some of his views "controversial" as though you were too post-modern and "beyond good and evil" to take a position on any controversy yourself.

> I believe anybody of any race or culture can benefit from H. P. Lovecraft's
> philosophy. His philosophy is similar to Nietzsche's. Do you think
> Nietzsche's philosophy is only about hating niggers and being a moral
> nihilist as well?

No. But moral nihilism is certainly an aspect of Nietzcheism, exaggerated group loyalty a natural and expected consequence, and mass murder of perceived enemies the final logical ultimate end of the entire process. But I suppose his philosophy could be turned to many ends. You could be a genocidal black person who hates whites, for instance.

> If that is the only thing you can see when you read H. P. Lovecraft's
> philosophy then there is nothing I can say to you that will make you
> appreciate it.

Can I ask you a sincere and serious question? Why the lie? You know perfectly well I never said such a thing!

Check my posts and see if I ever said such a thing. Then, if you are an honest man, apologize.

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

[Too many typos last time]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 11:08:12 AM UTC-4, Quoth The Raven wrote:
> I'm not going to explain myself to you because I was not talking to you.

And also because you result to insult me and tell lies about me instead. Here there come ...

> Even if I did attempt to explain, you wouldn't understand.

Yup. Theres the insult. Your mother must be proud.

> If you think his philosophy is only about hating people of different
> races and being an immoral nihilist, then it is obvious to me you do
> not have a clear understanding of H. P. Lovecraft's philosophy.

And there's the lie. (note especially the word "only") You know perfectly well I did not say any of those things. In fact, I already clarified, at least twice, that there may be positive aspects to his philosophy.

BTW, the phrase I used was "moral nihilism" not "immoral nihilism".

> I don't deny the controversial aspects of his beliefs, but doesn't
> every philosopher who is worth reading hold some unpopular views?

Who cares? Does this stop you and me from having our own views? I have said that I approve of some aspects of his thinking, and consider other aspects to be vile. You, meanwhile, are are unwilling take a position on anything. You merely call some of his views "controversial" as though you were too post-modern and "beyond good and evil" to take a position on any controversy yourself.

> I believe anybody of any race or culture can benefit from H. P. Lovecraft's
> philosophy. His philosophy is similar to Nietzsche's. Do you think
> Nietzsche's philosophy is only about hating niggers and being a moral
> nihilist as well?

No. But moral nihilism is certainly an aspect of Nietzcheism, exaggerated group loyalty a natural and expected consequence, and mass murder of perceived enemies the final logical ultimate end of the entire process. But I suppose his philosophy could be turned to many ends. You could be a genocidal black person who hates whites, for instance.

[On second thought, I don't know why I am allowing myself to be lured into a discussion of Neitzche when you have adamantly refused to stay on topic and discuss Lovecraft].

[John Whelan]

Someone here mentioned a connection to Nietzsche.

In HPL's fiction, the most obviously Nietzschean reference occurs in
"Through the Gates of the Silver Key", where he have the line "The Man
of Truth is beyond good and evil"; a line we hear in the context of
Carter's encounter with the demon Yog-Sothoth.

But what is the ultimate result? Does Randolph Carter emerge from the
story as a sort of Neitzschean superman? Or occult superman? Not
really. What happens is that he loses his identity, loses his
humanity, and becomes a monster.

And that is the end of the story. I've heard readers complain that
"The Silver Key" did not need a sequel, and the sequel provided is
unsatisfying, and itself needs a sequel. But this seems to assume
that Randolph Carters blasphemous quest OUGHT to end in his becoming a
superman or an occult demi-god. But perhaps HPL thought (or, perhaps
his Muse FELT) that it OUGHT to end the way it did.

I don't know if HPL approved of Neitzsche or not. But if he was, his
Muse rejected Neitzsche, and his story took a different twist.

My own impression is that HPL had a horror of post-modernism (for
which Nietzsche was the major prophet), and was nostalgic for the
early modern period (ie. the 17th and 18th centuries) before
nihilistic thinking, and the advance of scientific knowledge,
shattered the positivism and humanistic self-confidence of the early
Enlightenment.

[Ramsey Campbell]

No insults were intended, despite the aggressiveness of your tone.

[John Whelan]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> No insults were intended, despite the aggressiveness of your tone.

Well, if you were offering no apology, then the words "forgive me"
were sarcasm; which necessarily follows you consider it self evident
that if I correctly understood the dictionary definition of
"atheism" (implying I don't) that I would understand that HPL's
fiction contains no "gods".

So, please explain what dictionary you are using, and how it defines
the word "god" with a small "g"; and why it is self evident that HPL's
ultrapowerful supernatural entities do not qualify under this
definition.

Of course, that is still rather off-topic semantics. The question was
not definitions of single words, but merely whether it is possible to
intensely dislike (as I do) some aspects of HPL's philosophy, and
still appreciate his fiction. And HPL was (at least in terms of his
privately expressed philosophy) definitely a materialist atheist, not
some other kind of atheist, who believes in ultrapowerful supernatural
entities, but for some reason does not call them "gods".

[Ramsey Campbell]

On Tuesday, 14 May 2013 12:41:14 UTC+1, John Whelan wrote:

> So, please explain what dictionary you are using, and how it defines
>

> the word "god" with a small "g"...

Chambers. The definition is exactly as I posted it.

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:32:35 AM UTC-4, Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> Chambers. The definition is exactly as I posted it.

You did not supply the definition I requested; the one that might have made your comment marginally relevant; the definition of "god".

But never mind. I found the relevant Chambers definition of "a god" myself: "

> 2 in other religions: a superhuman male being with power over nature
> and humanity; a male object of worship. Compare goddess.
> [...]
> 5 (the gods) superhuman beings collectively, both male and female.

I think the definition overemphasizes the requirement of maleness or even gender (though Yog Sothoth is certainly referred to as male, so it hardly matters). But otherwise, obviously it does not support your position (which is why you dodged my question).

You did supply the definition of "atheism" while sarcastically straining to imply I did not know its meaning. But, apparently, that was merely a gratuitous display of petulance, with no relevance to anything.

You have also failed to supply examples of HPL's fiction that do not feature the supernatural. Was "Sweet Ehrmengarde" the example you have in mind? Or would you like to concede that HPL's fiction is indeed supernatural fiction, quibbles about "conventionality" aside.

[Ramsey Campbell]

No.

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

Fair enough. I suppose you are so advanced in the practice of nihilistic philosophy that you live in a universe where words have no meaning, and you can say whatever you please.

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 3:32:54 AM UTC-4, Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> His gods, after all, are alien monsters worshipped by cults, not gods in
> any spiritual sense.

I would like to single out this quote as evidence that Ramsey Campbell has not actually read HP Lovecraft very closely.

What is he saying? That a god cannot be a god because it is alien? But the Christian God also transcends space, time, and terrestrial origin; at least in the mind of those who actually believe in Him.

Is he saying gods cannot be gods because they are merely monsters worshiped by cults? I think Ramsey is confusing Yog-Sothoth with King Kong. Yog-Sothoth, unlike King Kong, is a non-material being who transcends space and time. What can he say to that? Yes, it is a non-material being who transcends space and time ... but not in a spiritual sense. And yes, Bill Clinton lied, just not in a spiritual sense. And yes, Darth Vader is Luke Sykwalker's father ... just not in a spiritual sense. And yes, OJ Simpson killed his wife ... just not in the spiritual sense. And yes, Yog Sothoth is worshiped as a god ... just not in a spiritual sense. If Yog Sothoth does not qualify at as a "god" (with a small "g"), then what could possibly convince Mr. Ramsey?

How would one prove to Mr. Ramsey that Thor was a "god", in those myths and works of fiction that relate to him? You would be hard pressed to find a reference where Thor described as unambiguously transcendent and immaterial to the same extent that HPl has described Yog Sothoth.

Of course, from a Monotheistic perspective, one could say that Yog-Sothoth is not a "god" because there is but One God; and that to worship any other being (whether it exists or not) is idolatry. But this is a meaningless objection from an Atheistic perspective. No-one (whether Christian or Atheist) would consider a Zeus-worshiper to meet the definition of "atheist" merely because a Christian does not consider Zeus (whether he exists or not) to be a "god".

And if Yog-Sothoth is not a "god", does that mean Arthur Machen's "Great God Pan" is not a god either? Machen, after all, does not approve of the worship of Pan any more than HPL approves of the worship of Yog Sothoth.

[blackw...@gmail.com]

People conveniently forget that the possibly
most celebrated science-fiction author of
his time (H.G. Wells) would be considered
QUITE racist & misogynistic by today's
standards.

[Kishin]

How do you figure? He was quite progressive for his time. "The War of
the Worlds" was an allegory about English imperialism, with the humans
playing the "natives" and the Martians as the Brits. He was also in
favor of animal rights, per "The Island of Doctor Moreau," which spoke
strongly against vivisection. I don't know his stand on feminism, but I
would expect it to be in line with the rest of his philosophy.

--

Kishin

[John Whelan]

This is relevant only to those who worship "today's standards". By "today's standards" (whatever those are) one might call H.G. Wells a racist (I'm not sure exactly why, given his record, but no doubt I have missed something). One might call G.K. Chesterton a racist too (I can even think of a few reasons why, though in his case I think they miss the bigger picture). You could probably say the same about ANYONE that was born then, as opposed to being born today. But that does not mean there were not differences back then. There were. Extreme differences.

Lovecraft's racism was quite virulent.

[blackw...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 7:05:39 AM UTC-4, Kishin wrote:
> How do you figure? He was quite progressive for his time.

The key-words being "for his time".
Today, he would be considered both
racist & sexist by comparison to a
person born in our time-period.

[blackw...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 9:53:57 AM UTC-4, John Whelan

> Lovecraft's racism was quite virulent.

If it is the only thing you are looking to
see, it is indeed all you will see.

[John Whelan]

It is not the only thing I am looking to see, nor is it the only thing I see.

[John Whelan]

Perhaps true, but not relevant. I agree that it is unfair blame Lovecraft (or Chesterton or Wells or RE Howard) merely for being born in a particular time period.

But Lovecraft was a racist even by the standard of his own time period (and earlier time periods). Others of his time (and earlier times) had different (and in my view, better) attitudes towards their fellow man, regardless of differences. Those include Chesterton, Wells, and even (I think) Robert E. Howard. And no, that is not the only thing I see in HPL. It is just happens to be the truth.

[blackw...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 4:40:24 PM UTC-4, John Whelan

> But Lovecraft was a racist even by the standard of his >own time period (and earlier time periods). Others of his >time (and earlier times) had different (and in my view, >better) >attitudes towards their fellow man, regardless of >differences. Those include Chesterton, Wells, and even (I >think) Robert E. Howard. And no, that is not the only >thing >I see in HPL. It is just happens to be the truth.

I see him more as agoraphobic & racist because
that is what he was taught. I think, much like
a discount bookstore teenager, that is what you
have been told to focus on. To you, it is the
truth. Unless you were able to ask him yourself
or people that knew him, you'll never know. If
you have a need to see him as the head of the
KKK in order to reinforce what you believe he
was, you will. You aren't going to see other
authors as being also a product of the time as
far as bigotry because you are focused on HPL
being "THE" racist. So be it, but that doesn't
mean you are right and all others wrong. It
means that is how YOU see it.

[John Whelan]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 8:16:07 PM UTC-4, blackw...@gmail.com wrote:
> I see him more as agoraphobic & racist because
> that is what he was taught.

As to "what he was taught", and its role in his racism, I expressed no opinion.

> I think, much like
> a discount bookstore teenager, that is what you
> have been told to focus on.

You have no call to get personal.

> To you, it is the truth.

To you as well. Aside from your bizarre personal attacks, I see no actual disagreement.

> Unless you were able to ask him yourself
> or people that knew him, you'll never know.

Like everyone else who discusses the issue, I judge him by his writings. And when people excuse him because of "his time", I compare him to other people who left writings in this period, based on the writings they left behind.

> If
> you have a need to see him as the head of the
> KKK in order to reinforce what you believe he
> was, you will.

Why the ridiculous straw-man personal attacks. I never compared him to the head of the KKK. So why you believe I have some bizarre irrational "need" to do so.

> You aren't going to see other
> authors as being also a product of the time as
> far as bigotry because you are focused on HPL
> being "THE" racist.

??? What racist would that be? Please! What did I ever do to you, that you feel compelled to make up these ridiculous stories about me.

> So be it, but that doesn't
> mean you are right and all others wrong. It
> means that is how YOU see it.

Dude, If you sincerely think I am wrong, and that HPL was NOT more racist than anyone else of his time period, tell me I am wrong. That would be more honest than what you are doing now, which is to attack me for straw-man positions that you invented, and then excuse your lies about me by appeals to a nihilistic and solipsistic philosophy.

[blackw...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:13:28 AM UTC-4, John Whelan

> Dude, If you sincerely think I am wrong, and that HPL was >NOT more racist than anyone else of his time period, tell me >I am wrong. That would be more honest than what you are >doing now, which is to attack me for straw-man positions >that you invented, and then excuse your lies about me by >appeals to a nihilistic and solipsistic philosophy.

LOL - Oh, man.... I'm not saying "anyone" for the
reason that there were some true progressives
around in that time. I'm simply stating that how
he viewed others was not uncommon in that time.

Do you honestly feel like you are being attacked?!?
I mean... Seriously.. You seem to have a need for
everyone to share your opinion or you feel like
people are assaulting you.

[John Whelan]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:46:45 PM UTC-4, blackw...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm simply stating that how
> he viewed others was not uncommon in that time.

Well, we don't disagree at all then. Not any more, anyway.

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 7:41:48 AM UTC-6, Ramsey Campbell wrote:

> I agree it's interesting, Aaron, but "Lovecraft never wrote a novel"?

While he certainly did write book-length works, if one reads further on in the article, it's clear that the author's definition of a novel requires other characteristics having to do with the motivations of the characters in the work and so on.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 4:06:14 AM UTC-6, Aardvark wrote:

> They are demons and devils. They are so supernatural that they make
> werewolves look prosaic. That they come from outer space is beside
> the point. It is as inane and illogical a non-sequitur as "They are
> not supernatural; they're from Cleveland".

It's true Cthulhu has powers of telepathy.

But look at "At the Mountains of Madness". Space travel. Genetic engineering. Suspended animation. Magic? Well, it's true that the alien creatures encountered in the book were referred to in a book about magic... but that's about it.

And "The Shadow out of Time", although unlike _At the Mountains of Madness_ it doesn't qualify as *hard sf*, since *time travel* can be classed as fantasy, is even more a science-fiction work rather than a supernatural horror work, even though the ending is still a shock ending as befits a horror story. Despite the Necronomicon making an appearance in it as well. (Even its initial publication was in a science-fiction magazine!)

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 5:05:39 AM UTC-6, Kishin wrote:
> blackw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > People conveniently forget that the possibly
> > most celebrated science-fiction author of
> > his time (H.G. Wells) would be considered
> > QUITE racist & misogynistic by today's
> > standards.

> How do you figure? He was quite progressive for his time.

Being progressive _for his time_ is not inconsistent with being behind _today's_ standards. He wrote some things about Catholics and Jews that were startling.

John Savard

[Kishin]

Any quotes or other evidence to show that Wells was racist or
misogynistic? He certainly didn't think much of imperialism, which
suggests he felt sympathy for other races/cultures.

--

Kishin

[Ramsey Campbell]

I'd say THE CASE OF CHARLES DEXTER WARD was certainly a novel and that quite a few important novels don't accord with the columnist's definition.