I admit he had skill but I just can't read him without catching all the, well, ya know. I've enjoyed other eldritch horror and a number of works in conversation with his, but reading him is rough....
I admit he had skill but I just can't read him without catching all the, well, ya know. I've enjoyed other eldritch horror and a number of works in conversation with his, but reading him is rough.
I did try this one out again but only got to the descriptions of the people of Innsmouth before I quit. No shade to those who like it, it's just my hurdle I can't get over anymore.
II am not trying to be mean to you here but this kind of comment drives me insane. I feel like one of two things has to be happening here and I can never tell which in a given situation People are...
II am not trying to be mean to you here but this kind of comment drives me insane. I feel like one of two things has to be happening here and I can never tell which in a given situation
People are reading works with the subconscious or conscious goal of finding things that do not align with contemporary sentiment and treating interpreting in a way where then can mention how disgusted they are as a form of social clout. Tildes is generally better about this kind of thing so I am not sure if that is what is happening here.
People really do feel this way and I am out of sync with most of the morals of the people I come into contact with. This is the much more scary and alienating possibility. It seems like just about everything that depicts transgressing social boundaries is considered problematic. Its enough to push me into being interested in more esoteric things or just not talking to people about the things I like because I will get in trouble.
Lovecraft’s work is actually a really good litmus test for this because its highly valuable work for the fact that it helped found the most relatable genre ever created, cosmic horror. I don’t know about you but I feel like we live in a world of horrors beyond our comprehension just from the fact that we such a limited perception of the world around us. Yet few people talk about this when discussing him. I am not trying to see we should not see race as a part of work because it clearly is. I just think we should stop assuming the reader's view is the same as the author's.
Okay so I think there are 2 different things here that are being conflated. HP Lovecraft's work is racist Yes. It is. Lovecraft was proudly a white supremacist, homophobic, and antisemetic. This...
Exemplary
Okay so I think there are 2 different things here that are being conflated.
HP Lovecraft's work is racist
Yes. It is. Lovecraft was proudly a white supremacist, homophobic, and antisemetic. This is even by the standards of his time. In his letters he would write about race science that had already been widely debunked and the general population didn't believe outside of the most racist. His family used a racial slur in the name of their cat. This is heavily present in his work. Lovecraft understood that the most terrifying thing in the world is that which we don't understand. Unfortunately, one thing Lovecraft really, really didn't understand were other cultures outside of the English. If you reread his works, he almost always describes foreigners as gross, monstrous, alien, unknown, other. He uses the same imagery and prose to describe other cultures and their peoples as he does the cosmic horrors he created. This isn't a new recent thing. The Call of Cthulhu RPG game has had a disclaimer about the extreme racism in his works since the 1990s. "Lovecraft's work is racist" has been pretty well-established for decades.
Are fans of Lovecraft racist?
No. And if someone tries to argue liking Lovecraft is problematic, they are wrong. The things someone likes about Lovecraft and his work can indicate other problematic ideals someone holds, but being a fan of Lovecraft is not problematic. If one can stomach or overlook the bigotry, there is (in my opinion) an incomparably expansive and captivating world to dig into. But someone not being able to stomach and look past that racism is also completely valid and is also totally unrelated. Someone else not being able to look past the bigotry is not an automatic condemnation of those that can.
Lovecraft’s work is actually a really good litmus test for this because its highly valuable work for the fact that it helped found the most relatable genre ever created, cosmic horror.
Both things are true. Lovecraft is one of the most impactful American authors of all time and one of the most influential horror authors of all time. Cosmic horror would not exist in the way it does today if it were not for him. His writing is extremely valuable. His works also contain a plethora of bigoted ideas. That's the moral complexity that comes with being a fan of Lovecraft and his works. For example: Lovecraft was deeply homophobic and writes that homophobia into his work, and yet he has a massive queer following. Lovecraft wrote about feeling alone and isolated and controlled by untouchable, unknowable, overwhelming forces. Unbeknownst to him, he had perfectly described the horror of being queer in a homophobic society and wrote something incredibly relatable to people who felt otherwise unseen in media.
I'm a huge fan of Lovecraft's work. I am currently rereading my copy of The Complete Collection of HP Lovecraft, sprinkling in The King In Yellow when I am in the mood. Remedy is my favorite game studio for the Alan Wake and Control series. I've been playing Delta Green and Call of Cthulhu ttrpg for years. I love liminal spaces, cosmic horror, the new weird genre as a whole. All of my favorite media is heavily influence by Lovecraft. His work is racist. I am able to look past that to still enjoy his work; /u/DefinitelyNotAFae can't. Both coexist without any overlap or conflict. If you still enjoy Lovecraft, that is fine. No one here is saying you can't.
I love talking about Lovecraft because I think even racist is too soft a word. The man was xenophobic in the most literal sense of the word; he was terrified of the other. And his writing works...
I love talking about Lovecraft because I think even racist is too soft a word. The man was xenophobic in the most literal sense of the word; he was terrified of the other. And his writing works partly because he's writing from a place of horror already.
You absolutely can acknowledge that and enjoy his works. He precedes Great Replacement Theory and almost outright states that Latin people have no souls or dreams. As a Latin person, it's hard to get offended by something like this, because I don't even see any hate there. Just ignorance and terror. I might as well be a shoggoth to him.
At the Mountains of Madness had a sympathetic Italian-American portrayal of a grieving woman. It also had a sympathetic portrayal of a dead alien. I don't think this is a coincidence. I really like to think that Lovecraft was getting better about this towards the end of his life.
EDIT: For the Italian American example, I think I'm actually thinking of the Reanimator. Things blur together!
I've read that some of his personal letters shortly before he died reflected this and that his views of other people were softening. I got the same vibe as you did though, I kind of feel bad for...
I really like to think that Lovecraft was getting better about this towards the end of his life.
I've read that some of his personal letters shortly before he died reflected this and that his views of other people were softening. I got the same vibe as you did though, I kind of feel bad for the man. His hate comes from what must have been a very lonely place mentally and it didn't need to be that way.
This is why I think of him a bit differently. For him, it really did come from a place of fear, a phobia. It doesn't make it any better, but he lived (mostly) unhappily, and died unhappy. If he...
This is why I think of him a bit differently. For him, it really did come from a place of fear, a phobia. It doesn't make it any better, but he lived (mostly) unhappily, and died unhappy. If he had lived a bit longer, he was on a path to becoming a better person. But he didn't.
I think it's okay for people to say, "This is too offensive for my taste." I also think it's okay vehemently disagree with a creator while enjoying something they made. In fact, I personally think...
I think it's okay for people to say, "This is too offensive for my taste."
I also think it's okay vehemently disagree with a creator while enjoying something they made. In fact, I personally think it's important to keep noticing and studying those attitudes. I like the old Looney Toons approach of putting a title card up front and saying something like, "We don't endorse these views but it's very important we don't erase or censor them either. They belong in another place and time, but we can learn from them to do better."
This is especially true when the author is dead, therefore not profiting off the sale of their poor beliefs.
Another argument would be that, if I found out the guy who invented the sneaker was a serial killer, I would still wear sneakers because I can do so without endorsing serial killing.
I agree fully I also just think there's a level of "I am not offended as much as this is exhausting, and it's not enjoyable, and I don't want to read it." It's how I feel about Heinlein for...
I agree fully I also just think there's a level of "I am not offended as much as this is exhausting, and it's not enjoyable, and I don't want to read it."
It's how I feel about Heinlein for example. I devoured a number of his books as a teen, though ironically not his juveniles, but when I picked up Friday a few years ago I just stopped and decided I didn't have the energy to deal with the sexualt assault and Heinlein's depiction of her reaction to it.
Being ok with letting books, especially "classics of the genre" go has been incredibly freeing. Its like if in your sneaker example, I've really wanted to be wearing sandals or going barefoot this whole time, so now I don't have to wear the foot prisons on my feet for two reasons!
Interesting. Of all Heinlein's books, I still think his juvenile fiction is a good way to introduce science fiction and space travel to kids. His adult works are problematic for me.
Interesting. Of all Heinlein's books, I still think his juvenile fiction is a good way to introduce science fiction and space travel to kids.
I've still not read his juveniles so I can't say if they suffer from some of the same issues as his adult works. But even just from language use I'd probably go more modern when my nephews are old...
I've still not read his juveniles so I can't say if they suffer from some of the same issues as his adult works.
But even just from language use I'd probably go more modern when my nephews are old enough to start reading at that level.
The thing is that writers in that era were hugely excited about the basic engineering and mechanics of space travel. The stories are fun, but the characters wrestle with the dangers of vaccuum for...
The thing is that writers in that era were hugely excited about the basic engineering and mechanics of space travel. The stories are fun, but the characters wrestle with the dangers of vaccuum for example in ways that are much less explicit in more modern stories. A different author from the same time period would do similar.
I'm a woman and Podkayne of Mars was a favorite when I was growing up, featuring an enterprising girl.
I mean, I've read a lot of classic SF, and I understand the distinction that you're talking about. I was reading Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, etc. I just didn't read the Heinlein juveniles. Given the...
I mean, I've read a lot of classic SF, and I understand the distinction that you're talking about. I was reading Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, etc. I just didn't read the Heinlein juveniles.
Given the plethora of other options and my lack of knowledge of the juveniles and whether Heinlein's other characteristic writing was brought in or not, I'd probably go with something more modern, very intentionally.
I feel like the "I'm a woman and I liked it but you do you" is defensive or even a bit aggressive? I'm happy you liked them. I enjoyed reading Heinlein's works myself. I just probably won't give my niblings Heinlein a decade from now. That isn't judgment to anyone who does.
I do think that Andy Weir engages with the science of survival aspect through both Martian and Hail Mary. But I don't personally read as much harder sci-fi at this point, so I don't find as much interest in the science of survival
Sorry if I came off as harsh. My experience is that Heinlein writing for children is quite different to his writing for adults and much better from a modern standpoint.
Sorry if I came off as harsh. My experience is that Heinlein writing for children is quite different to his writing for adults and much better from a modern standpoint.
No worries I just wanted to make it clear I'm not coming from a place of judging you for reading it. My niblings are just two, so I figure I have a few years to figure out the sci-fi/fantasy...
No worries I just wanted to make it clear I'm not coming from a place of judging you for reading it. My niblings are just two, so I figure I have a few years to figure out the sci-fi/fantasy that'll land best for each of them.
Best of luck. One of my nieces a couple of years ago made it clear that she wanted true stories only. (She was eleven), so that has been a challenge. I love fantasy and sci-fi. But I also love...
Best of luck. One of my nieces a couple of years ago made it clear that she wanted true stories only. (She was eleven), so that has been a challenge. I love fantasy and sci-fi. But I also love finding books for my niblings.
It's like the James Bond novels. They're my favourite series and Moonraker is potentially my favourite novel, it's just so tight, action filled, establishes the classic Bond formula, and it's just...
It's like the James Bond novels.
They're my favourite series and Moonraker is potentially my favourite novel, it's just so tight, action filled, establishes the classic Bond formula, and it's just a great Cold War novel in general.
However I caveat every single time I recommend the Fleming Bond novels that the majority of them were written in the 50's by a man born 7 years after Queen Victoria died. Bond can be a pretty horrid misogynist, homophobe, and racist throughout the novels.
Some of it is almost definitely just the zeitgeist with Fleming expressing that Bond was a product of his time,
"James Bond is a healthy, violent, noncerebral man in his middle-thirties, and a creature of his era. I wouldn't say he's particularly typical of our times, but he's certainly of the times."
However some of Bond's views were Fleming's own prejudices and some of them were Fleming creating a complex anti-hero in Bond who Fleming described as,
"Not necessarily a good guy or a bad guy. Who is? He's got his vices and very few perceptible virtues except patriotism and courage, which are probably not virtues anyway ... But I didn't intend for him to be a particularly likeable person."
Bond is not someone to be emulated or viewed as anything more than a thug with a penchant for good food, alcohol and beautiful women.
He's ostensibly a broken man, orphaned as a youth, rarely builds lasting relationships, trained as a government assassin and used as a blunt instrument to protect British interests abroad where he regularly thinks of the people he's murdered and on how long it'll be before his own luck runs out and he's gunned down by one of the villains he's sent to kill. He lives in a nightmarish world where laws are written at the end of a gun barrel, where coercion, blackmail and torture is commonplace and where murder is just an every day event. This comes across pretty starkly in Fleming's novels but not so much in the movies (perhaps more so in Craig's run, less so in Moore's run for instance).
Either way, I agree with you, my partner enjoys the Bond movies but has no interest in reading the books after I told her how rough they can be to modern sensibilities and that's okay. I'm able to put that aside and enjoy the novels and if you really want to read the books but are hesitant to do so, the Fleming estate recently rereleased the novels with offensive passages removed or rewritten. It's not something I particularly agree with, I'd prefer a disclaimer at the start of each book but the options there for those who want it.
So, what I was referencing in my comment was the bit at the beginning about how sailors being home foreign women and that the Innsmouth folks must have been really weird foreign people because...
So, what I was referencing in my comment was the bit at the beginning about how sailors being home foreign women and that the Innsmouth folks must have been really weird foreign people because they all look funny.
My understanding of Lovecraft is that he found horror everywhere as he was deeply afraid of anything different - from air conditioning to a slightly swarthy complexion, into the more explicit racism. He did found this subgenre, but I find authors who engage in conversation with him - Jemisin, McGuire - or other authors who engage with the genre - Vandermeer, more interesting and less offputting. I've read this work before but no longer find the interest in re-reading it, but I thought I'd give it a shot.
I feel similarly about other authors such as Card and Rowling.
In relation to your points,
I don't read trying to find things that don't align with contemporary values. I do sometimes notice those things. I don't know how to not notice them. This has been referred to as the Fed Ex Arrow effect or something like it. Once you see the arrow in the Fed Ex logo, it's hard to not see it again.
I am sorry if it upsets you that I dislike the racism baked into the story? I don't know why that is so upsetting. I don't find people who like Lovecraft or lovecraftian horror distasteful.
I specifically said the opposite in fact, no shade to those who like it. It's my hurdle I can no longer get over?
You're not being mean because I don't understand you being upset about my opinion about the work. I never "assumed the readers view is the same as the authors."
I will say that I think the moral lens is a bit different with these two than with Lovecraft, since he's long dead and not making a cent off his works, whereas these two authors still absolutely...
I feel similarly about other authors such as Card and Rowling.
I will say that I think the moral lens is a bit different with these two than with Lovecraft, since he's long dead and not making a cent off his works, whereas these two authors still absolutely profit off their work to a large degree. I personally feel a lot more comfortable with "separating art from the artist" when there's no way I'm materially benefitting their shittiness by doing so. Plus I can imagine him rolling over in his grave at my air-conditioned queer ass.
Totally respect you for no longer being able to put up with reading Lovecraft, though. To each their own on how much racist bs you can look past in his writing. Based on you bringing up other related authors it seems like you're much better read in the genre than me, so I might check some of them out!
Oh I'd agree that the calculus is different with living authors vs dead. Jemisin wrote The City We Became which is "what if white supremacy and racism is the eldritch horror" McGuire blurbed The...
Oh I'd agree that the calculus is different with living authors vs dead.
Jemisin wrote The City We Became which is "what if white supremacy and racism is the eldritch horror"
McGuire blurbed The Innsmouth Legacy but has written a short story playing off Innsmouth specifically that I now cannot find.
Neither is particularly lovecraftian outside of those genre dips.
Jeff Vandermeer wrote Annihilation which is truly weird/eldritch horror imo. I have not read a ton of lovecraftian works but have also played a bit of Call of Cthulhu too so I can dig reworking the mythos.
I just don't vibe reading the original so much. I think the last one I read of his was the "afraid of air conditioning" story
Before you go into it, the Southern Reach Trilogy (of which Annihilation is the second book in) is VASTLY different from the movie. Both hold a very dear place in my heart, both are very good, but...
Before you go into it, the Southern Reach Trilogy (of which Annihilation is the second book in) is VASTLY different from the movie. Both hold a very dear place in my heart, both are very good, but for different reasons. Just don’t go into one expecting it to be like the other, otherwise you could be very disappointed. But I absolutely 100% endorse Jeff Vandermeer as an author.
Slight correction, Annihilation is the first of the trilogy (with Authority and Acceptance rounding them out). Unless he perhaps wrote a prequel? But it's a good note that they've got adaptation...
Slight correction, Annihilation is the first of the trilogy (with Authority and Acceptance rounding them out). Unless he perhaps wrote a prequel? But it's a good note that they've got adaptation drift.
DOH! I glanced at my bookshelf and saw Annihilation and Acceptance and thought I remembered buying the second and third books and got the first from the library. I guess I got 1 and 3 not 2 and 3
DOH! I glanced at my bookshelf and saw Annihilation and Acceptance and thought I remembered buying the second and third books and got the first from the library. I guess I got 1 and 3 not 2 and 3
Found it! Mira Grant, Seanan McGuire's horror penname, wrote In the Shadow of Spindrift House that is an Innsmouth riff. I do think I mixed that up with the Innsmouth Legacy series, by Ruthanna...
Found it!
Mira Grant, Seanan McGuire's horror penname, wrote In the Shadow of Spindrift House that is an Innsmouth riff.
I do think I mixed that up with the Innsmouth Legacy series, by Ruthanna Emrys, which I believe Seanan, or someone else, called "the Wicked" of Innsmouth. I started that but was in the beginning when my life sort of fell apart with partner's medical stuff and had to return the first book, The Winter Tide, unfinished.
But now I'm going to go back to it so this thread is a blessing in disguise!
Edit to add: also, duh, Lovecraft Country. The book and the miniseries (cancelled before its time imo) are similar but different in how they handled the topic. But I actually liked the book's ending better on a first run through. It engages with the horror of racism as well, and it doesn't get into the depths of "unknowable horror", but the darkest parts for me were the real life horrors. Anyway, also recommend for the exploration of lovecraftian themes
I read Innsmith earlier this year and enjoyed it. I recognized some of the harmful stereotypes mentioned by another commenter but was able to work past them. I found the descriptions of the...
I read Innsmith earlier this year and enjoyed it. I recognized some of the harmful stereotypes mentioned by another commenter but was able to work past them. I found the descriptions of the landscapes to be very interesting, and had a fun time looking up a lot of the terms that were new to me (like breakwater).
In general I found the attempts to describe the indescribable, such as the jewelry on display in the museum, to do a very good job of revealing just the right amount of detail to let my mind fill in the details.
The dark, aquatic theme is unnerving. Through the book you feel that something is very wrong. It's not outright scary, but it's definitely suspenseful. There was only one scene that got my heart pounding a bit, which I'm sure other readers will know right away.
I'm still a novice to Lovecraft's work, and intend to read some of his other short stories. But I think Innsmith is a good read for its cultural impact, shorter length, and satisfying conclusion.
As a side note, hplovecraft.com is a great source, but I find the contents quite difficult to read. I wrote some CSS which you can apply with Stylus or similar browser extensions to make it larger, and set against a dark background. Screenshot.
/* Wider page */.pagelayout{width:850px;padding:0;padding-bottom:0;}.pagelayout>table{width:100%;padding:40px;}/* Margin between paragraphs */img[src="/pics/PixelClear.gif"]{width:0;margin-top:50px;}/* Text formatting */.pagelayoutdiv{font-size:1.4em;line-height:1.5;text-align:left;}/* Color */.pagelayout>table{background-color:#040404;color:#efefef;}
Must second this one. For those of use that grew up reading cosmic horror in the shadow of cold war nuclear doom, this is pitch perfect. One of very few pieces of fiction I've read multiple times.
Must second this one. For those of use that grew up reading cosmic horror in the shadow of cold war nuclear doom, this is pitch perfect. One of very few pieces of fiction I've read multiple times.
An issue I've found myself facing with certain older uniquely stylized or genre-defining works, and I'm curious if other readers have experienced this, is: I have a really difficult time pulling...
An issue I've found myself facing with certain older uniquely stylized or genre-defining works, and I'm curious if other readers have experienced this, is:
I have a really difficult time pulling myself out of my own perspective and time and feeling the novelty that these works would have conveyed when first written/published.
Even if I know a style of a book was novel/shocking in its time, I sometimes can't shake a feeling of... I guess hokiness... to me (since I have encountered the style numerous times in my time), and I have a hard time appreciating the originality it must have offered.
I mention this in this thread, because trying to read lovecraft stories have left me feeling this way. A couple other authors, too. Or, maybe I'm overthinking things and just am not a fan :)
I have seen people react this way many times in the books subreddit. A book with a trope that is ground breaking can seem clumsy or not fully developed when compared to the books that built on it.
I have seen people react this way many times in the books subreddit. A book with a trope that is ground breaking can seem clumsy or not fully developed when compared to the books that built on it.
I'll drift off a bit, but I have actually seen similar reactions with movies which in the same sense could establish what eventually turned into expectable tropes and thus don't quite pack the...
I'll drift off a bit, but I have actually seen similar reactions with movies which in the same sense could establish what eventually turned into expectable tropes and thus don't quite pack the same punch in a modern context.
I think this is an experience that transcends genre and medium, tbh -- there's a TV tropes page called Seinfeld is Unfunny specifically about this phenomenon. When something is groundbreaking and...
I think this is an experience that transcends genre and medium, tbh -- there's a TV tropes page called Seinfeld is Unfunny specifically about this phenomenon. When something is groundbreaking and inspires a lot of later works, people will naturally experience it differently if they've already seen (and in many cases grown up around) responses to and imitators of the things it introduced.
I either push past it or get used to it. Sometimes the writing style is archaic or asks too much of the reader. Most notably, they try to hype an emotion and ramp up the story at the very...
I either push past it or get used to it.
Sometimes the writing style is archaic or asks too much of the reader. Most notably, they try to hype an emotion and ramp up the story at the very beginning of the book. In general, I've found the pulp genre to be this way. I'm guessing it was because these stories were so short and they were attempting to get the reader into an emotional frame as mind as soon as possible. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't for me. I have to be patient with Lovecraft's introductions.
I don't know if this is what you're speaking to, but part of his style is a sort of gentility in the way he's describing his experience. I dig it, but I can see how it would be hard to swallow for some. The way he describes being scared out of his mind, while trying to maintain an air of sophistication is part of the cool vibe of his storytelling for me, but it is extremely far removed from modern horror and modern speech.
I just taught a very short elective on the Weird featuring Lovecraft. It's deeply fascinatng teaching it to Asian teenagers in a very multicultural society.
I just taught a very short elective on the Weird featuring Lovecraft. It's deeply fascinatng teaching it to Asian teenagers in a very multicultural society.
This and At the Mountains of Madness are.my favourite Lovecraft stories, for very different reasons. Innsmouth is probably his most action oriented story, and for someone that's not used to...
This and At the Mountains of Madness are.my favourite Lovecraft stories, for very different reasons. Innsmouth is probably his most action oriented story, and for someone that's not used to writing action, I think it was well done! The scene where the main character hears someone testing the doorknob has stayed with me.
I admit he had skill but I just can't read him without catching all the, well, ya know. I've enjoyed other eldritch horror and a number of works in conversation with his, but reading him is rough.
I did try this one out again but only got to the descriptions of the people of Innsmouth before I quit. No shade to those who like it, it's just my hurdle I can't get over anymore.
II am not trying to be mean to you here but this kind of comment drives me insane. I feel like one of two things has to be happening here and I can never tell which in a given situation
People are reading works with the subconscious or conscious goal of finding things that do not align with contemporary sentiment and treating interpreting in a way where then can mention how disgusted they are as a form of social clout. Tildes is generally better about this kind of thing so I am not sure if that is what is happening here.
People really do feel this way and I am out of sync with most of the morals of the people I come into contact with. This is the much more scary and alienating possibility. It seems like just about everything that depicts transgressing social boundaries is considered problematic. Its enough to push me into being interested in more esoteric things or just not talking to people about the things I like because I will get in trouble.
Lovecraft’s work is actually a really good litmus test for this because its highly valuable work for the fact that it helped found the most relatable genre ever created, cosmic horror. I don’t know about you but I feel like we live in a world of horrors beyond our comprehension just from the fact that we such a limited perception of the world around us. Yet few people talk about this when discussing him. I am not trying to see we should not see race as a part of work because it clearly is. I just think we should stop assuming the reader's view is the same as the author's.
Okay so I think there are 2 different things here that are being conflated.
HP Lovecraft's work is racist
Yes. It is. Lovecraft was proudly a white supremacist, homophobic, and antisemetic. This is even by the standards of his time. In his letters he would write about race science that had already been widely debunked and the general population didn't believe outside of the most racist. His family used a racial slur in the name of their cat. This is heavily present in his work. Lovecraft understood that the most terrifying thing in the world is that which we don't understand. Unfortunately, one thing Lovecraft really, really didn't understand were other cultures outside of the English. If you reread his works, he almost always describes foreigners as gross, monstrous, alien, unknown, other. He uses the same imagery and prose to describe other cultures and their peoples as he does the cosmic horrors he created. This isn't a new recent thing. The Call of Cthulhu RPG game has had a disclaimer about the extreme racism in his works since the 1990s. "Lovecraft's work is racist" has been pretty well-established for decades.
Are fans of Lovecraft racist?
No. And if someone tries to argue liking Lovecraft is problematic, they are wrong. The things someone likes about Lovecraft and his work can indicate other problematic ideals someone holds, but being a fan of Lovecraft is not problematic. If one can stomach or overlook the bigotry, there is (in my opinion) an incomparably expansive and captivating world to dig into. But someone not being able to stomach and look past that racism is also completely valid and is also totally unrelated. Someone else not being able to look past the bigotry is not an automatic condemnation of those that can.
Both things are true. Lovecraft is one of the most impactful American authors of all time and one of the most influential horror authors of all time. Cosmic horror would not exist in the way it does today if it were not for him. His writing is extremely valuable. His works also contain a plethora of bigoted ideas. That's the moral complexity that comes with being a fan of Lovecraft and his works. For example: Lovecraft was deeply homophobic and writes that homophobia into his work, and yet he has a massive queer following. Lovecraft wrote about feeling alone and isolated and controlled by untouchable, unknowable, overwhelming forces. Unbeknownst to him, he had perfectly described the horror of being queer in a homophobic society and wrote something incredibly relatable to people who felt otherwise unseen in media.
I'm a huge fan of Lovecraft's work. I am currently rereading my copy of The Complete Collection of HP Lovecraft, sprinkling in The King In Yellow when I am in the mood. Remedy is my favorite game studio for the Alan Wake and Control series. I've been playing Delta Green and Call of Cthulhu ttrpg for years. I love liminal spaces, cosmic horror, the new weird genre as a whole. All of my favorite media is heavily influence by Lovecraft. His work is racist. I am able to look past that to still enjoy his work; /u/DefinitelyNotAFae can't. Both coexist without any overlap or conflict. If you still enjoy Lovecraft, that is fine. No one here is saying you can't.
I love talking about Lovecraft because I think even racist is too soft a word. The man was xenophobic in the most literal sense of the word; he was terrified of the other. And his writing works partly because he's writing from a place of horror already.
You absolutely can acknowledge that and enjoy his works. He precedes Great Replacement Theory and almost outright states that Latin people have no souls or dreams. As a Latin person, it's hard to get offended by something like this, because I don't even see any hate there. Just ignorance and terror. I might as well be a shoggoth to him.
At the Mountains of Madness had a sympathetic Italian-American portrayal of a grieving woman. It also had a sympathetic portrayal of a dead alien. I don't think this is a coincidence. I really like to think that Lovecraft was getting better about this towards the end of his life.
EDIT: For the Italian American example, I think I'm actually thinking of the Reanimator. Things blur together!
I've read that some of his personal letters shortly before he died reflected this and that his views of other people were softening. I got the same vibe as you did though, I kind of feel bad for the man. His hate comes from what must have been a very lonely place mentally and it didn't need to be that way.
This is why I think of him a bit differently. For him, it really did come from a place of fear, a phobia. It doesn't make it any better, but he lived (mostly) unhappily, and died unhappy. If he had lived a bit longer, he was on a path to becoming a better person. But he didn't.
I think it's okay for people to say, "This is too offensive for my taste."
I also think it's okay vehemently disagree with a creator while enjoying something they made. In fact, I personally think it's important to keep noticing and studying those attitudes. I like the old Looney Toons approach of putting a title card up front and saying something like, "We don't endorse these views but it's very important we don't erase or censor them either. They belong in another place and time, but we can learn from them to do better."
This is especially true when the author is dead, therefore not profiting off the sale of their poor beliefs.
Another argument would be that, if I found out the guy who invented the sneaker was a serial killer, I would still wear sneakers because I can do so without endorsing serial killing.
I agree fully I also just think there's a level of "I am not offended as much as this is exhausting, and it's not enjoyable, and I don't want to read it."
It's how I feel about Heinlein for example. I devoured a number of his books as a teen, though ironically not his juveniles, but when I picked up Friday a few years ago I just stopped and decided I didn't have the energy to deal with the sexualt assault and Heinlein's depiction of her reaction to it.
Being ok with letting books, especially "classics of the genre" go has been incredibly freeing. Its like if in your sneaker example, I've really wanted to be wearing sandals or going barefoot this whole time, so now I don't have to wear the foot prisons on my feet for two reasons!
Interesting. Of all Heinlein's books, I still think his juvenile fiction is a good way to introduce science fiction and space travel to kids.
His adult works are problematic for me.
I've still not read his juveniles so I can't say if they suffer from some of the same issues as his adult works.
But even just from language use I'd probably go more modern when my nephews are old enough to start reading at that level.
The thing is that writers in that era were hugely excited about the basic engineering and mechanics of space travel. The stories are fun, but the characters wrestle with the dangers of vaccuum for example in ways that are much less explicit in more modern stories. A different author from the same time period would do similar.
I'm a woman and Podkayne of Mars was a favorite when I was growing up, featuring an enterprising girl.
But you do you.
I mean, I've read a lot of classic SF, and I understand the distinction that you're talking about. I was reading Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, etc. I just didn't read the Heinlein juveniles.
Given the plethora of other options and my lack of knowledge of the juveniles and whether Heinlein's other characteristic writing was brought in or not, I'd probably go with something more modern, very intentionally.
I feel like the "I'm a woman and I liked it but you do you" is defensive or even a bit aggressive? I'm happy you liked them. I enjoyed reading Heinlein's works myself. I just probably won't give my niblings Heinlein a decade from now. That isn't judgment to anyone who does.
I do think that Andy Weir engages with the science of survival aspect through both Martian and Hail Mary. But I don't personally read as much harder sci-fi at this point, so I don't find as much interest in the science of survival
Edited for Voice to text typos
Sorry if I came off as harsh. My experience is that Heinlein writing for children is quite different to his writing for adults and much better from a modern standpoint.
No worries I just wanted to make it clear I'm not coming from a place of judging you for reading it. My niblings are just two, so I figure I have a few years to figure out the sci-fi/fantasy that'll land best for each of them.
Best of luck. One of my nieces a couple of years ago made it clear that she wanted true stories only. (She was eleven), so that has been a challenge. I love fantasy and sci-fi. But I also love finding books for my niblings.
They will be SFF nerds. I demand it!
But yeah I'll love buying things for them regardless.
It's like the James Bond novels.
They're my favourite series and Moonraker is potentially my favourite novel, it's just so tight, action filled, establishes the classic Bond formula, and it's just a great Cold War novel in general.
However I caveat every single time I recommend the Fleming Bond novels that the majority of them were written in the 50's by a man born 7 years after Queen Victoria died. Bond can be a pretty horrid misogynist, homophobe, and racist throughout the novels.
Some of it is almost definitely just the zeitgeist with Fleming expressing that Bond was a product of his time,
"James Bond is a healthy, violent, noncerebral man in his middle-thirties, and a creature of his era. I wouldn't say he's particularly typical of our times, but he's certainly of the times."
However some of Bond's views were Fleming's own prejudices and some of them were Fleming creating a complex anti-hero in Bond who Fleming described as,
"Not necessarily a good guy or a bad guy. Who is? He's got his vices and very few perceptible virtues except patriotism and courage, which are probably not virtues anyway ... But I didn't intend for him to be a particularly likeable person."
Bond is not someone to be emulated or viewed as anything more than a thug with a penchant for good food, alcohol and beautiful women.
He's ostensibly a broken man, orphaned as a youth, rarely builds lasting relationships, trained as a government assassin and used as a blunt instrument to protect British interests abroad where he regularly thinks of the people he's murdered and on how long it'll be before his own luck runs out and he's gunned down by one of the villains he's sent to kill. He lives in a nightmarish world where laws are written at the end of a gun barrel, where coercion, blackmail and torture is commonplace and where murder is just an every day event. This comes across pretty starkly in Fleming's novels but not so much in the movies (perhaps more so in Craig's run, less so in Moore's run for instance).
Either way, I agree with you, my partner enjoys the Bond movies but has no interest in reading the books after I told her how rough they can be to modern sensibilities and that's okay. I'm able to put that aside and enjoy the novels and if you really want to read the books but are hesitant to do so, the Fleming estate recently rereleased the novels with offensive passages removed or rewritten. It's not something I particularly agree with, I'd prefer a disclaimer at the start of each book but the options there for those who want it.
So, what I was referencing in my comment was the bit at the beginning about how sailors being home foreign women and that the Innsmouth folks must have been really weird foreign people because they all look funny.
My understanding of Lovecraft is that he found horror everywhere as he was deeply afraid of anything different - from air conditioning to a slightly swarthy complexion, into the more explicit racism. He did found this subgenre, but I find authors who engage in conversation with him - Jemisin, McGuire - or other authors who engage with the genre - Vandermeer, more interesting and less offputting. I've read this work before but no longer find the interest in re-reading it, but I thought I'd give it a shot.
I feel similarly about other authors such as Card and Rowling.
In relation to your points,
I specifically said the opposite in fact, no shade to those who like it. It's my hurdle I can no longer get over?
You're not being mean because I don't understand you being upset about my opinion about the work. I never "assumed the readers view is the same as the authors."
I will say that I think the moral lens is a bit different with these two than with Lovecraft, since he's long dead and not making a cent off his works, whereas these two authors still absolutely profit off their work to a large degree. I personally feel a lot more comfortable with "separating art from the artist" when there's no way I'm materially benefitting their shittiness by doing so. Plus I can imagine him rolling over in his grave at my air-conditioned queer ass.
Totally respect you for no longer being able to put up with reading Lovecraft, though. To each their own on how much racist bs you can look past in his writing. Based on you bringing up other related authors it seems like you're much better read in the genre than me, so I might check some of them out!
Oh I'd agree that the calculus is different with living authors vs dead.
Jemisin wrote The City We Became which is "what if white supremacy and racism is the eldritch horror"
McGuire blurbed The Innsmouth Legacy but has written a short story playing off Innsmouth specifically that I now cannot find.
Neither is particularly lovecraftian outside of those genre dips.
Jeff Vandermeer wrote Annihilation which is truly weird/eldritch horror imo. I have not read a ton of lovecraftian works but have also played a bit of Call of Cthulhu too so I can dig reworking the mythos.
I just don't vibe reading the original so much. I think the last one I read of his was the "afraid of air conditioning" story
Ooh I loved the movie for Annihilation but I didn't realize it was based on anything, I'll have to check it out!
Before you go into it, the Southern Reach Trilogy (of which Annihilation is the second book in) is VASTLY different from the movie. Both hold a very dear place in my heart, both are very good, but for different reasons. Just don’t go into one expecting it to be like the other, otherwise you could be very disappointed. But I absolutely 100% endorse Jeff Vandermeer as an author.
Slight correction, Annihilation is the first of the trilogy (with Authority and Acceptance rounding them out). Unless he perhaps wrote a prequel? But it's a good note that they've got adaptation drift.
DOH! I glanced at my bookshelf and saw Annihilation and Acceptance and thought I remembered buying the second and third books and got the first from the library. I guess I got 1 and 3 not 2 and 3
Good to know going in, thanks! A lot of book-movie pairs I like are like that, I find.
Found it!
Mira Grant, Seanan McGuire's horror penname, wrote In the Shadow of Spindrift House that is an Innsmouth riff.
I do think I mixed that up with the Innsmouth Legacy series, by Ruthanna Emrys, which I believe Seanan, or someone else, called "the Wicked" of Innsmouth. I started that but was in the beginning when my life sort of fell apart with partner's medical stuff and had to return the first book, The Winter Tide, unfinished.
But now I'm going to go back to it so this thread is a blessing in disguise!
Edit to add: also, duh, Lovecraft Country. The book and the miniseries (cancelled before its time imo) are similar but different in how they handled the topic. But I actually liked the book's ending better on a first run through. It engages with the horror of racism as well, and it doesn't get into the depths of "unknowable horror", but the darkest parts for me were the real life horrors. Anyway, also recommend for the exploration of lovecraftian themes
I read Innsmith earlier this year and enjoyed it. I recognized some of the harmful stereotypes mentioned by another commenter but was able to work past them. I found the descriptions of the landscapes to be very interesting, and had a fun time looking up a lot of the terms that were new to me (like breakwater).
In general I found the attempts to describe the indescribable, such as the jewelry on display in the museum, to do a very good job of revealing just the right amount of detail to let my mind fill in the details.
The dark, aquatic theme is unnerving. Through the book you feel that something is very wrong. It's not outright scary, but it's definitely suspenseful. There was only one scene that got my heart pounding a bit, which I'm sure other readers will know right away.
I'm still a novice to Lovecraft's work, and intend to read some of his other short stories. But I think Innsmith is a good read for its cultural impact, shorter length, and satisfying conclusion.
As a side note, hplovecraft.com is a great source, but I find the contents quite difficult to read. I wrote some CSS which you can apply with Stylus or similar browser extensions to make it larger, and set against a dark background. Screenshot.
Well this is just wonderful for my eyes. Thank you!
After exhausting the mind through the labyrinthine pages of the Necronomicon, readers may also like bundling up for A Colder War.
Must second this one. For those of use that grew up reading cosmic horror in the shadow of cold war nuclear doom, this is pitch perfect. One of very few pieces of fiction I've read multiple times.
An issue I've found myself facing with certain older uniquely stylized or genre-defining works, and I'm curious if other readers have experienced this, is:
I have a really difficult time pulling myself out of my own perspective and time and feeling the novelty that these works would have conveyed when first written/published.
Even if I know a style of a book was novel/shocking in its time, I sometimes can't shake a feeling of... I guess hokiness... to me (since I have encountered the style numerous times in my time), and I have a hard time appreciating the originality it must have offered.
I mention this in this thread, because trying to read lovecraft stories have left me feeling this way. A couple other authors, too. Or, maybe I'm overthinking things and just am not a fan :)
I have seen people react this way many times in the books subreddit. A book with a trope that is ground breaking can seem clumsy or not fully developed when compared to the books that built on it.
I'll drift off a bit, but I have actually seen similar reactions with movies which in the same sense could establish what eventually turned into expectable tropes and thus don't quite pack the same punch in a modern context.
I think this is an experience that transcends genre and medium, tbh -- there's a TV tropes page called Seinfeld is Unfunny specifically about this phenomenon. When something is groundbreaking and inspires a lot of later works, people will naturally experience it differently if they've already seen (and in many cases grown up around) responses to and imitators of the things it introduced.
I either push past it or get used to it.
Sometimes the writing style is archaic or asks too much of the reader. Most notably, they try to hype an emotion and ramp up the story at the very beginning of the book. In general, I've found the pulp genre to be this way. I'm guessing it was because these stories were so short and they were attempting to get the reader into an emotional frame as mind as soon as possible. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't for me. I have to be patient with Lovecraft's introductions.
I don't know if this is what you're speaking to, but part of his style is a sort of gentility in the way he's describing his experience. I dig it, but I can see how it would be hard to swallow for some. The way he describes being scared out of his mind, while trying to maintain an air of sophistication is part of the cool vibe of his storytelling for me, but it is extremely far removed from modern horror and modern speech.
I just taught a very short elective on the Weird featuring Lovecraft. It's deeply fascinatng teaching it to Asian teenagers in a very multicultural society.
This and At the Mountains of Madness are.my favourite Lovecraft stories, for very different reasons. Innsmouth is probably his most action oriented story, and for someone that's not used to writing action, I think it was well done! The scene where the main character hears someone testing the doorknob has stayed with me.