Racism In Fiction

Hey all.

I'm a big H.P.Lovecraft fan, and judging from some of the recent posts on weird fiction, i'm not alone. But Lovecraft was a confirmed racist. And his racism was of the very worst type, that of the "bestial" variety, where a non-white "character" would be reduced to the status of sub-human, sneaky and untrustworthy at best. I would say that this is the type of racism a culture needs to demonstrate before the very worst atrocities can occur.

But he did write a tight story.

My question is, what does everyone make of a racism in fiction, especially as demonstrated by one of their favourite authors? Does anyone refuse to read someone they love because of this type of problem? Is it fair to say that a writer can be "of his time" or is this just sweeping a problem under the carpet? Is there a level of racism that can be tolerated and a line beyond which you won't go?

What does everyone think?

Well, it is hard to draw a line on this issue. Sometimes I will be happily reading along and get whacked over the head with some stereotype I hate, whether racial, ethnic, religious or gender based.

I haven't read anything so horrible that it has made me refuse to read any further works by an author, but it does make me feel disappointed in them. It also strikes me that yes, a writer can be a product of his or her times, and maybe it is a bit unfair to judge them by modern standards. However, it is useful to remember that there were many open and fair minded people throughout the ages, people who abhored slavery and female suppression. For example. John Stuart Mills argued for suffrage for women (in addition to other social reforms) and could quite properly be called a "feminist" and he was certainly not a product of "modern times".

Quote:

---

During the same period, 1865-8, he was an independent Member of Parliament, representing the City and Westminster constituency from 1865 to 1868. [3] During his time as an MP, Mill advocated easing the burdens on Ireland, and became the first person in Parliament to call for women to be given the right to vote. Mill became a strong advocate of women's rights and such political and social reforms as proportional representation, labor unions, and farm cooperatives. In 1869, he argued for the right of women to vote. In Considerations on Representative Government, Mill called for various reforms of Parliament and voting, especially proportional representation, the Single Transferable Vote, and the extension of suffrage.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McGrain

But Lovecraft was a confirmed racist. And his racism was of the very worst type, that of the "bestial" variety, where a non-white "character" would be reduced to the status of sub-human, sneaky and untrustworthy at best.
But he did write a tight story.

---

Holla McGrain
Having read almost everything writen by the Master i can see what you mean. But it had never occured to me before that he was a racist! Have you read it in somewhere (perhaps a biography)? If so, recommend me a book. That sounds interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McGrain

My question is, what does everyone make of a racism in fiction, especially as demonstrated by one of their favourite authors? Does anyone refuse to read someone they love because of this type of problem? Is it fair to say that a writer can be "of his time" or is this just sweeping a problem under the carpet? Is there a level of racism that can be tolerated and a line beyond which you won't go?

---

I think there is a certain level of racism that i can tolerate, provided that the book is old, meaning that the author lived in a quite different world so it would be unjust to judge him with our standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

Holla McGrain
Having read almost everything writen by the Master i can see what you mean. But it had never occured to me before that he was a racist! Have you read it in somewhere (perhaps a biography)? If so, recommend me a book. That sounds interesting.



I think there is a certain level of racism that i can tolerate, provided that the book is old, meaning that the author lived in a quite different world so it would be unjust to judge him with our standards.

---

If you're into following up your Lovecraft interest try Michel Houellebecq's "H.P Lovecraft: Against the World, Against Life". He's a fan like you and me but i'd say one of the many ways in which Lovecraft is unique is that it would be almost impossible for anyone who wasn't a fan to write a proper critique - who would want to get inside that head without loving what's there - or at least some of it. He deals directly with Lovecraft's racism but uses the usual "place and time" excuse. It is not one that sit's comfortably with me in this case. After all, it was less than a hundred years ago.

Apparently Lovecraft was in NY with his wife (who was jewish - how this sat with his admitted anti-semitism is a mystery!) and had a really tough time integrating himself with members of the various different races that populated his street. A direct quote from a letter he wrote Belknap Long - "The organic things - Italo-Semitico(!)- Mongoloid - inhabiting that awful cesspool could not by any stretch of the imagination be call'd human. They were monstrous and nebulous adumbrations of the pithecanthropid and amoebal; vaguely moulded from...stinking slime."

It makes for reading every bit as disturbing as some of his most hellish works.

Anyway, the book includes The Whisperer In Darkness and The Call of Cthulhu, which set me of reading everything he's ever written once again. Highly reccomended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kathycf

Well, it is hard to draw a line on this issue. Sometimes I will be happily reading along and get whacked over the head with some stereotype I hate, whether racial, ethnic, religious or gender based.

I haven't read anything so horrible that it has made me refuse to read any further works by an author, but it does make me feel disappointed in them. It also strikes me that yes, a writer can be a product of his or her times, and maybe it is a bit unfair to judge them by modern standards. However, it is useful to remember that there were many open and fair minded people throughout the ages, people who abhored slavery and female suppression. For example. John Stuart Mills argued for suffrage for women (in addition to other social reforms) and could quite properly be called a "feminist" and he was certainly not a product of "modern times".

---

Spot on i think. But is there a reasonable argument for just not reading these books? I knew a kid, his old man was Caribbean, his mother was Scottish, he got quite upset reading Lord of the Rings - black riders were evil, dark lord, evil, orcs are described again and again as being dark and swarthy, as are the men that come from the south to aid Souron at Minas Tirith, i'd never really noticed before, but he's right. All the good guys? White and shining, over and over again. Apart from Aragorn. I tried to direct him towards this guy and it worked to an extent, but even with him there is Sams line about him "seeming fair but looking foul" (or words to that affect). It made me feel quite uncomfortable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McGrain

Spot on i think. But is there a reasonable argument for just not reading these books? I knew a kid, his old man was Caribbean, his mother was Scottish, he got quite upset reading Lord of the Rings - black riders were evil, dark lord, evil, orcs are described again and again as being dark and swarthy, as are the men that come from the south to aid Souron at Minas Tirith, i'd never really noticed before, but he's right. All the good guys? White and shining, over and over again. Apart from Aragorn. I tried to direct him towards this guy and it worked to an extent, but even with him there is Sams line about him "seeming fair but looking foul" (or words to that affect). It made me feel quite uncomfortable.

---

Couldn't this just result from the natural dichotomy of light representing a pure, powerful force, and the dark representing the evil and unknown? Does it specifically mean Tolkien was a racist? I'd wait to read a biography before saying anything definite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

Couldn't this just result from the natural dichotomy of light representing a pure, powerful force, and the dark representing the evil and unknown? Does it specifically mean Tolkien was a racist? I'd wait to read a biography before saying anything definite.

---

Oh, i'm quite happy that Tolikein was NOT a racist. I'd be sure of that, that's how i feel. My point, in many ways, is the opposite. These days, especially on TV, one must be [I]seen to be non-racist[I] not instead of, but in addition to not being racist. The same with literature - not the characters but the writers. It's all around us in art in the hope that it will become a cultural bias. Cool, i'm all for it. But it's a bit of a jar then to read something that is not exposed to this sanitisation, especially for kids. Tolkien writes insensitively for our age, perhaps, but there's nothing insidious or oblique about his work i think. The man himself said he prefered "history to alegory" and i believe him.

Didn't explain this properly above.

And now I've gone way of my own topic!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McGrain

Spot on i think. But is there a reasonable argument for just not reading these books? I knew a kid, his old man was Caribbean, his mother was Scottish, he got quite upset reading Lord of the Rings - black riders were evil, dark lord, evil, orcs are described again and again as being dark and swarthy, as are the men that come from the south to aid Souron at Minas Tirith, i'd never really noticed before, but he's right. All the good guys? White and shining, over and over again. Apart from Aragorn. I tried to direct him towards this guy and it worked to an extent, but even with him there is Sams line about him "seeming fair but looking foul" (or words to that affect). It made me feel quite uncomfortable.

---

I've heard this criticism before and I certainly acknowledge those things you mentioned are true...I'm not exactly sure what the "seeming fair but looking foul" thing is supposed to show though. Sam was talking about the fact that Aragorn looked kind of rough, he was a Ranger, he probably wasn't particularly clean, he didn't have nice clothes, he was mysterious and gruff. Sam was just making the point that while some people may look respectable and 'fair' they sometimes have 'foul' hearts where as people who look 'foul', like Aragorn, grubby and rough, sometimes have 'fair' hearts. I've never looked at the word 'fair' as pertaining to skin color, it's more about manners, temperment and intentions. I've read a fair amount about Tolkien, read his letters, his writings and comments and there is nothing in any of those that points to his being a racist. I'm not saying he was completely free of prejudice, even though I've never seen any evidence of any bias but I do think it's assuming a lot to call him a racist because of LOTR. I've always seen it as SheykAbdullah suggested, that's it's an issue of good and evil. Light being connected with goodness and purity and the dark being connected with evil in that archetypal fear of the dark kind of way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idril

I've heard this criticism before and I certainly acknowledge those things you mentioned are true...I'm not exactly sure what the "seeming fair but looking foul" thing is supposed to show though. Sam was talking about the fact that Aragorn looked kind of rough, he was a Ranger, he probably wasn't particularly clean, he didn't have nice clothes, he was mysterious and gruff. Sam was just making the point that while some people may look respectable and 'fair' they sometimes have 'foul' hearts where as people who look 'foul', like Aragorn, grubby and rough, sometimes have 'fair' hearts. I've never looked at the word 'fair' as pertaining to skin color, it's more about manners, temperment and intentions. I've read a fair amount about Tolkien, read his letters, his writings and comments and there is nothing in any of those that points to his being a racist. I'm not saying he was completely free of prejudice, even though I've never seen any evidence of any bias but I do think it's assuming a lot to call him a racist because of LOTR. I've always seen it as SheykAbdullah suggested, that's it's an issue of good and evil. Light being connected with goodness and purity and the dark being connected with evil in that archetypal fear of the dark kind of way.

---

Presumably you'll have read the post i'd dropped 8 minutes before you dropped yours explaining my position on all of this. I would like to point out here that i didn't call Tolkien a racist in my first post on the subject at any point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McGrain

Presumably you'll have read the post i'd dropped 8 minutes before you dropped yours explaining my position on all of this. I would like to point out here that i didn't call Tolkien a racist in my first post on the subject at any point.

---

I didn't read it until after I posted and I know you didn't but call him a racist but you did bring up the possibility or at least the fact that someone else thought he was. My response wasn't necessarily directed at you, it's just a general answer to that idea, an answer to what your friend said because I know the idea that Tolkien was a racist is out there, this isn't the first time I've heard it mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McGrain

Hey all.

I'm a big H.P.Lovecraft fan, and judging from some of the recent posts on weird fiction, i'm not alone. But Lovecraft was a confirmed racist. And his racism was of the very worst type, that of the "bestial" variety, where a non-white "character" would be reduced to the status of sub-human, sneaky and untrustworthy at best. I would say that this is the type of racism a culture needs to demonstrate before the very worst atrocities can occur.

But he did write a tight story.

My question is, what does everyone make of a racism in fiction, especially as demonstrated by one of their favourite authors? Does anyone refuse to read someone they love because of this type of problem? Is it fair to say that a writer can be "of his time" or is this just sweeping a problem under the carpet? Is there a level of racism that can be tolerated and a line beyond which you won't go?

What does everyone think?

---

Whether he was a "man of his time" or not, Lovecraft had a difficult early life. He also suffered health difficulties and psychologically troubled in his youth and adulthood. I always took it with a grain of salt, the Mythos being more ancient than days. :/

Lovecraft on wiki

"Man of his time" that makes perfect sense, I mean reading stuff like George MacDonald Fraser's hilarious Flashman Papers I feel revealed genuine colonialist arrogances and faults. Different context and by no means any justification but a reflection of "the times" modeled into a story.

*shrugs*

I love Mr Eldritch to death besides.

Thanks Stieg for the Wiki link to H.P. Lovecraft. I have to admit I’ve never heard of him, but he does seem to be an interesting chap.

As for racism and racists; those two terms have become almost as loaded and politically incorrect as their cousin - the racial epithet. At a wine and cheese party, present day polite company would no more use the N-word than admit to being racist. And yet, in some sense of the word, to be human is to be racist. Ancient humans must have been lively defenders of their – families – tribes – cultures – races – religions - fiefdoms – nations – national soccer teams - species – and so on, or we wouldn’t be here today in our present form. We’d be walking with the Neanderthals. (OK, I’m getting a picture of a Progressive Car Insurance commercial – “So easy, a Cave Man could do it.”)

I’m optimistic that human societies are evolving towards more racial and cultural tolerance and I think that one step towards the euphemistic global village utopia is admitting to ourselves how strongly we identify with our own group and then extend that understanding to our perceived competitors.

The Americas are a sort of macrocosm of this phenomenon with their mix of Native American, African and European peoples and my family is a microcosm of the same thing. At a good family reunion, we’ll all meet in a neighborhood near Chicago, and eat bad pot-luck food at card tables from paper plates with plastic utensils, then we’ll drink too much cheap beer, then we’ll call each other every vituperative racial epithet we can think of, then we’ll fight like wet cats, then we’ll dust ourselves off, hug each other, cry and swear to return the next year. Yes, there are many Irish amongst us.

And so it goes… (as Kurt Vonnegut would say)

OFFTOPIC:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sancho

Thanks Stieg for the Wiki link to H.P. Lovecraft. I have to admit I've never heard of him, but he does seem to be an interesting chap.

---

Sancho, H.P. Lovecraft is one of weird tales/horror's greatest and most influential authors. Alongside Algernon Blackwood and Arthur Machen, he basically served as a template for many, many generations of horror. He delved into what is called cosmic horror. Monsterous mysterious terror.

Here are eight tales that are a great place to start. In no particular order required thus I'll list them in alphebetical order.

"The Call of Cthulhu"
"The Colour Out of Space"
"The Dunwich Horror"
"Herbert West - Reanimator"
"The Lurking Fear"
"The Rats In The Wall"
"The Shadow Over Innsmouth"
"The Shunned House"

after these you might want try his novella "At The Mountains of Madness" and browse through his other works.

Wait while I am at it,

Arthur Machen:

"The Great God Pan"
"The White People" - a gothic band Bauhaus dedicated one of their darkest songs to this story of the Little People
"The Novel of the Black Seal" - another Little People story

Algernon Blackwood:

"The Willows" - Blair Witch Project has nothing on this one
"The Wendigo"
"The Man Whom The Trees Loved"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McGrain

Spot on i think. But is there a reasonable argument for just not reading these books?

---

Well, I think that is a personal choice that each individual has to make. If it is an issue that offends someone so deeply that they cannot take anything else from the work than I suppose they simply would be better off not reading it then. I have never read something that is that offensive to me, that I would stop reading the material and never read any more of the author's work.

To meander a bit, one can see racist elements (in addition to other stereotypes) in old movies, cartoons and the like. My friend bought a collection of Betty Boop cartoons (made in the 1930s) for her 4 year old daughter. We were watching them and I got very offended by a depiction of a Black woman and her infant. Both were drawn in an absurd caricature style and the baby started crying and the mother gave him a slice of watermelon as a pacifier. :rolleyes: My friend and I started discussing this and the little girl asked what was the matter. I answered her that the cartoon was being mean by making the mother and her baby look silly. (keeping in mind that she is 4). She looks at me and says "But maybe the baby was hungry?". I really didn't have a response to that so I just said yes, maybe.

So, should my friend now throw out this otherwise inoffensive collection because one cartoon out of about 30 was racist? Maybe yes, but maybe no as well. After all, one has the option to fast forward through that particular one. (the little girl doesn't sit in front of the tv by herself, mom watches with her).

I guess the same applies to reading. If you are aware of something that bothers you in a book, either don't read it, or apply that knowledge. It isn't necessary to agree with sentiments expressed in literature, it is possible to look at these things objectively. As Aristotle said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kathycf

As Aristotle said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

---

Totally agree with the idea. So, I wouldn't stop reading someone's works just because I disagreed with one particular point. Of course there is always a line not to be crossed, but everyone sets his own limits so to say.

Once I had to read Wright's Black Boy which is partly a biography and issues and manifestations of racism are discussed at lenght in the book. The protagonist was the oppressed one and the book itself is like a key to the other side of the racism, thus very gloomy and painful... I don't want to read anything else by Wright, for it is extremely depressing for me, BUT I enjoyed the book as a literary work, because it is well structured, written with good language, etc., etc.