F#@k H.P. Lovecraft

In all seriousness, I’m wondering if it makes sense to discount or disregard art because of the acts of the artist. This is very different than disregarding the work of Mengele or something, that I can get behind.

If there is obvious racism in the work, then yeah I think I’d be uncomfortable with that. But say I was a big fan of Cthulhu and had a cool art piece of him (it?) in my house, then one of my best friends, a Haitian, comes over and says, « ... um... wasn’t Lovecraft a class A dick? »

I don’t know. I think I’d just say, « yeah for sure, but that’s not Lovecraft, I’m not hanging David Duke posters in my house or anything »

Like I’m not going to ever pretend that Manhattan isn’t an amazing movie just because Woody Allen’s sexual drive might be a tad deviant

Great write up just the same Barnes, I find myself thinking a lot about it and I read it yesterday

Lovecraft possessed the same human frailty and vices that have plagued all of humanity ever since Grog the caveman exited his cave, whether that be racism, bigotry, prejudice, stereotyping, avarice, envy, greed etc. I personally want to punish Lovecraft for coming up with words used for the names of his Elder Gods and Ancient Ones since I can neither spell them nor pronounce them. Fuck Cthulhu! How are you supposed to spell or pronounce that? Yet, what genius it took to create those words since they represent something clearly otherworldly and contrary to ordinary experience--it transports the reader somewhere else.

Regardless, I want a Cthulhu themed kite to fly in the sky just like in the video below of the Octopus kite. That would be so cool!

I think the question of how to separate art from artist (or whether this is even possible) is one of the defining questions of our current cultural moment. What does it mean to be an ethical consumer? It's a fraught and difficult conversation. Historically we've put up with a lot of bullshit from our most beloved artists, excusing pretty much any behavior or sidelining it due to the artist's "genius." The difficult and tortured savant has become an engrained part of our consciousness, and it's made even more difficult due to the shift in cultural values over time. Should we hold artists of another age to the same standard we hold artists to today? Does a boycott matter when the creator is no longer around to profit from their problematic ideas? I don't know, exactly, though I think it's worthwhile to consider what our culture might look like if we prioritized the inclusion of others over problematic works of genius, or our own satisfaction as fans.

Of course, all art is a reflection of its times, and I think it's interesting to look at the current glut of Lovecraft products and ask: what are they saying about the current moment? And I think the answer is... nothing. They've carefully sanded away the most obvious signifier's of Lovecraft's shitty ideas, but fail to actually replace it with anything other than a hollow sense of comfort, familiarity, and "fun." And they are fun! Well, some of them. I like the Arkham Horror LCG as much as anyone, but the beats it hits and the themes it explores are rote and empty. It succeeds despite this empty reference, due to mechanical and storytelling ingenuity, but what if it was based on a set of ideas and characters and mythologies that weren't beaten to death and sucked dry for every edible morsel?

The answer is simple, of course, which is that Lovecraft is recognizable and easy and (most importantly) free. And as long as people keep buying it, well, why on earth would they stop? Why invest in new IPs that require effort and imagination and (god forbid) a writer or two to pay when you can trot out the old stuff to get gobbled up? And why in the world would you approach the Mythos in a way that questions or critiques because then maybe folks wouldn't buy a bunch of goddamn miniatures?

I just started reading Lovecraft Country and this early passage really struck me. Atticus is the main character, a black sci-fi fan in the 1950s. His uncle, George, is too. The racism of Burroughs, Lovecraft, and other pulp writers is a subject of family debate:

“I do love them,” George agreed. “But stories are like people, Atticus. Loving them doesn’t make them perfect. You try to cherish their virtues and overlook their flaws. The flaws are still there, though.” “But you don’t get mad. Not like Pop does.” “No, that’s true, I don’t get mad. Not at stories. They do disappoint me sometimes.” He looked at the shelves. “Sometimes, they stab me in the heart.”

I don’t think I’ve ever encountered anything that strikes right at what white privilege means when reading a book, watching a movie, or playing a game where non-whites are either under- or mis- represented. The love for the stories is there...but an awareness of the tragedy of racism is too. I can imagine that a lot of People of Color who are genre fans relate directly to this passage and the sadness it expresses.

Lovecraft has always been a tough one for me when it come to separating the art from the artist. I have no problem loving music, books, paintings, etc made by people who are repulsive human beings as long as the art itself isn't an expression of racism or other hatred. I mean, if my appreciation of art hinged on whether or not the creator was somebody I could morally identify with, I'd probably be missing out on most of the great works of our time.

With Lovecraft, though, the racism is so embedded in the actual work that I don't feel comfortable enough with it to want to play games in his world. I can appreciate his works for the influence they've had and I don't think we should run from it or hold book burnings but I think we should also NOT be okay with his worldview because of the times he lived in. It's insulting to the people who DID live those times and who DIDN'T believe like he did.

I certainly would never judge anybody who enjoys the Mythos and I do understand that most the of "Lovecraft" has been sanded away from them over time but, for me, I will choose to spend my make-believe time in a different setting.

To help all of you who don't want to toss your Lovecraft games I will be setting up a Kickstarter next month for some game covers. It will include various sizes of white sheets that you can slide over your games so they're unrecognizable. Below is a prototype only.

BaronDonut wrote: What does it mean to be an ethical consumer? It's a fraught and difficult conversation. Historically we've put up with a lot of bullshit from our most beloved artists, excusing pretty much any behavior or sidelining it due to the artist's "genius."

I don't think people can or ought to regulate ethics by consumption. It is not the role of the consumer to do so and buying stuff is not a path to ethics. Quite simply, the idea that consumption is a way to enforce ethics in society is pure capitalist nonsense.

Regarding artist behaviour, I don't think it is the role of the consumer to judge or demand artists think or conduct themselves in a particular way. Being a buyer does not entitle you to judge the behaviour of an artist anymore than it entitles people to judge the behaviour of a waiter or a cashier just because they happen to pay them.

By the same rule, artists shouldn't be entitled to protection other people do not have just because they are well-liked or famous. People should not excuse someone's racism, rape or whatever awful behaviour because they like someone. Again, it's not the consumer's role to care about what artist do or say.

--

I also want to note: In 99% of cases, the people affected by boycotts and other "ethical consumption" measures are not racists, serial harrasers or bigots but the usual targets of hate: Women, transexuals, black people, lesbians, etc, etc. Think about all the recent nerd or gaming outrages? Who has been the target?

Good point Erik. The boycott of Chick-Fil-A ended up bolstering their revenues like crazy as advocates for traditional marriage started flooding their shops every Wednesday.

Wait, so you guys are trying to tell me that consumer boycotts don't work? Definitely tell that to the civil rights movement. Or South African apartheid regime.

To say that it isn't the consumer's "role" to think about what they consume or how, I both cannot disagree with that strongly enough while simultaneously acknowledging the *practical* deep hypocrisy that every OECD capitalist resident goes through on a day to day---no ethical consumption under capitalism, etc.

I can't speak for Erik, but I think we're saying that they cause unintended consequences.

ChristopherMD wrote: To help all of you who don't want to toss your Lovecraft games I will be setting up a Kickstarter next month for some game covers. It will include various sizes of white sheets that you can slide over your games so they're unrecognizable. Below is a prototype only.

A Klan hood for Cthulhu games????

.

That is a great visualization of Lovecraft’s worldview, Spece Ghost.

ChristopherMD wrote: To help all of you who don't want to toss your Lovecraft games I will be setting up a Kickstarter next month for some game covers. It will include various sizes of white sheets that you can slide over your games so they're unrecognizable. Below is a prototype only.

As long as it comes with a Cthulhu the size of a Fiat, I'm in.

Gary Sax wrote: Wait, so you guys are trying to tell me that consumer boycotts don't work? Definitely tell that to the civil rights movement. Or South African apartheid regime.

Can you think of a single consumer boycott in gaming or even nerd culture as a whole that was successful?

There has never been one. For real, I can't think of any time a consumer boycott was successful. In fact, I can only think of campaigns that massively backfired. All the boycotts and negative coverage about Hatred and HuniePop only managed to turn them into a success and stuff like Mass Effect: Andromeda ended up with women getting harrassed.

To say that it isn't the consumer's "role" to think about what they consume or how, I both cannot disagree with that strongly enough while simultaneously acknowledging the *practical* deep hypocrisy that every OECD capitalist resident goes through on a day to day---no ethical consumption under capitalism, etc.

It's the consumer's role to think about what they consume, but it's not their role to act as moral arbiter of artists or other workers.

The thing is, it's not even hypocresy, it's impossibility. Consumers can't be moral arbiters. The whole idea of consumers "paying with their wallets" is flawed and does not work. You cannot be a "good consumer" that buys only ethical products. It's absolutely pointless and does snot lead to change. Even worse, it puts the onus on being ethical on the consumer instead of the people behaving unethically. And even if it did lead to change, it would be economic power dictating societal ethics, not fairness.

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think societal ethics should be controlled by consumers but by laws, regulations and judges. And if these issues aren't enough to be regulated by laws and judges, why should a consumer use his economic power to force them? And why artists? We don't have this conversation about any other type of worker except, perhaps, teachers. And I don't think artists are really a different kind of worker, they are the same as any other.

Note how game companies are more than happy with having consumers boycott but scramble and scream the moment Belgium bans lootboxes.