j d worthington
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 13,889
The subject of HPL's racism has been discussed at great length in another thread, but in connection with the above I will add that I do not think it was either a simplistic racism (at least in its manifestations) nor an entirely unthinking, knee-jerk-reaction type of racism, but something much more complex and difficult to nail down. As for whether or not he had a hatred or fear of certain ethnic groups... his own words on the subject make it pretty clear he did; and that he was even proud of being known as an anti-Semite when he was in high school, so those things are quite well established by documentary evidence. His views on blacks was, overall, appalling (as was the case with his views on Australian aborigines), but once again, he could make exceptions. His outburst at finding out that the editor of the Poetry Review (William Stanley Braithwaite) was black -- one which really should have been written on asbestos considering its intensity -- didn't prevent him from having a correspondence with him later on in life. And Sonia herself has commented on his views in her memoirs of him, as well.
I would also argue that the entire focus of "The Shadow Over Innsmouth" is fueled by his feelings about ethnics as expressed in writings from the early poem "New England Fallen" on; and in fact it is this ethnophobia which makes the final conversion of the narrator obviously the supreme horror of all, as he not only learns to live with the aliens, but loses what has been (up to that point) himself and becomes one, not just physically, but psychologically.
Yet, for all this I think, TOM, that you have much of it right in your posts. His sympathy was for the outsider, for the underdog, at least in the vast majority of cases; and even when it came to ethnics, it was a matter of "hating in the abstract", as those he met and got to know, he tended to like, often even admire. Hence, despite his anti-Semitism, he could admire Samuel Loveman and like him personally, have great empathy for him... and still puzzle how this person he so felt such a strong connection to could be a Jew.
As for the passage concerning the Old Ones... yes, he "redeems" them during the course of the story, often in subtle ways (use of "unhuman" rather than "inhuman" for their actions, thus removing the implied moral censure in favor of a distinction, crops up a little past midway in the story, showing how the narrator's views are already shifting toward sympathy and even a feeling of camaraderie toward them), and while it is, to some degree, a matter of intellect admiring intellect, he goes farther than that, into admiring character: persistence, courage, etc., and it is interesting that the highest compliment he can give them is to say "they were men!" -- indicating that HPL, despite his moments of misanthropy, felt there was much to admire in at least the best of our species.
Personally, I think that it is a combination of factors which has formed this idea of Lovecraft not being able to create characters, or at least characters one can empathize with -- obviously not quite the case, as there are many who do -- among which are his unique writing style, founded as it is on so much from the "Age of Reason", yet combined at times with the melodramatics of the Gothic school which also emerged from that same period; an almost clinical approach to his choice of words and prose rhythms to achieve certain effects; the fact that he does not allow his characters to ever be the main focus (save the central phenomenon, which is, in a real sense, a character -- just as the setting so often is, as was the case with the Gothic tale; and a very distancing approach to his characters' psychology -- in itself a way of affecting that stance of "outsider" and conveying it in unspoken ways to the reader from the outset. There are probably others as well, but these come to mind immediately. This sort of approach requires a much closer reading than most people afford anything they read; such a statement would apply to readers of almost any period. His works thus (again, like the best of the Gothics) require a certain leisurely approach where one savors and ponders what one reads, for there are resonances and ramifications which only come through with such a thoughtful and careful approach, while the more obvious resonances alone register with a more casual reading.
(Incidentally, I think this applies to much of his verse as well, the majority of which -- except for the fantastic verse -- has been condemned as "eighteenth-century rubbish"; my contention is that a large selection of it may not be particularly good verse, but there is a lot more going on there than meets the eye, and which only becomes evident once one ejects the preconceptions and begins actually reading those verses quite carefully and critically... at which time the sparkling wit, the joy in wordplay, the erudition, the satire, and sometimes outright farce, come through and make them actually a great deal of fun to read....)
At any rate, I continue to contend that HPL did create at least some memorable characters, and I strongly argue that his work shows a great deal of empathy... just not on the obvious levels to which we have become so accustomed....
I would also argue that the entire focus of "The Shadow Over Innsmouth" is fueled by his feelings about ethnics as expressed in writings from the early poem "New England Fallen" on; and in fact it is this ethnophobia which makes the final conversion of the narrator obviously the supreme horror of all, as he not only learns to live with the aliens, but loses what has been (up to that point) himself and becomes one, not just physically, but psychologically.
Yet, for all this I think, TOM, that you have much of it right in your posts. His sympathy was for the outsider, for the underdog, at least in the vast majority of cases; and even when it came to ethnics, it was a matter of "hating in the abstract", as those he met and got to know, he tended to like, often even admire. Hence, despite his anti-Semitism, he could admire Samuel Loveman and like him personally, have great empathy for him... and still puzzle how this person he so felt such a strong connection to could be a Jew.
As for the passage concerning the Old Ones... yes, he "redeems" them during the course of the story, often in subtle ways (use of "unhuman" rather than "inhuman" for their actions, thus removing the implied moral censure in favor of a distinction, crops up a little past midway in the story, showing how the narrator's views are already shifting toward sympathy and even a feeling of camaraderie toward them), and while it is, to some degree, a matter of intellect admiring intellect, he goes farther than that, into admiring character: persistence, courage, etc., and it is interesting that the highest compliment he can give them is to say "they were men!" -- indicating that HPL, despite his moments of misanthropy, felt there was much to admire in at least the best of our species.
Personally, I think that it is a combination of factors which has formed this idea of Lovecraft not being able to create characters, or at least characters one can empathize with -- obviously not quite the case, as there are many who do -- among which are his unique writing style, founded as it is on so much from the "Age of Reason", yet combined at times with the melodramatics of the Gothic school which also emerged from that same period; an almost clinical approach to his choice of words and prose rhythms to achieve certain effects; the fact that he does not allow his characters to ever be the main focus (save the central phenomenon, which is, in a real sense, a character -- just as the setting so often is, as was the case with the Gothic tale; and a very distancing approach to his characters' psychology -- in itself a way of affecting that stance of "outsider" and conveying it in unspoken ways to the reader from the outset. There are probably others as well, but these come to mind immediately. This sort of approach requires a much closer reading than most people afford anything they read; such a statement would apply to readers of almost any period. His works thus (again, like the best of the Gothics) require a certain leisurely approach where one savors and ponders what one reads, for there are resonances and ramifications which only come through with such a thoughtful and careful approach, while the more obvious resonances alone register with a more casual reading.
(Incidentally, I think this applies to much of his verse as well, the majority of which -- except for the fantastic verse -- has been condemned as "eighteenth-century rubbish"; my contention is that a large selection of it may not be particularly good verse, but there is a lot more going on there than meets the eye, and which only becomes evident once one ejects the preconceptions and begins actually reading those verses quite carefully and critically... at which time the sparkling wit, the joy in wordplay, the erudition, the satire, and sometimes outright farce, come through and make them actually a great deal of fun to read....)
At any rate, I continue to contend that HPL did create at least some memorable characters, and I strongly argue that his work shows a great deal of empathy... just not on the obvious levels to which we have become so accustomed....
