
The Complicated Friendship of H. P. Lovecraft and One of His Fans - lermontov
http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-complicated-friendship-of-h-p-lovecraft-and-robert-barlow-one-of-his-biggest-fans
======
mcguire
"The Night Ocean"
([http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/fiction/no.aspx](http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/fiction/no.aspx))
is rather haunting, as is "Till A' The Seas"
([http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/fiction/tas.aspx](http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/fiction/tas.aspx)).

------
rrdharan
Interesting article. As someone he would have likely considered a "beast of
semi-human nature" myself, I'm admittedly biased against Lovecraft.

At any rate I found it interesting that the New Yorker didn't squeeze in a
throwaway mention of this awful aspect of Lovecraft's personality, given the
sympathy it evokes for the member of another oppressed class (homosexuals):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._P._Lovecraft#Race.2C_ethnic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._P._Lovecraft#Race.2C_ethnicity.2C_and_class)

Although actually now having read through it more carefully, it's really an
article about Barlow, and I can see how delving into Lovecraft's despicable
attitudes would just be a distraction.

EDIT: Actually, they did squeeze in exactly said throwaway mention I would
have expected, so my original observation was just plain wrong. Thanks ffm for
the correction.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Should every article about people from historical eras discuss the fact that
they held views which were extremely common then, but are uncommon now?

For example, should every article about Lincoln mention his opposition to
miscegenation, his views on blacks being unsuitable as voters and jurors (and
generally inferior) and his desire for them to emigrate? Should every article
about any particular Roman mention their lack of opposition to gladiatorial
combat and crucifixion?

~~~
aomurphy
Lovecraft's racism was significantly more extreme than for his time. He
constantly called New York "Jew York", even while married to a Jew. He was a
complicated fellow, but explicitly wished not to be a product of his time, but
an imagined better era (Specifically he calls out the time of Queen Anne in
one of his letters0.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Lovecraft (who lived from 1890 to 1937) was far from extreme, and did not
favor much beyond a degree of cultural (and possibly genetic) protectionism.
The goal was to preserve the unique beauty of each culture including many
cultures besides his own (he was quite fond of Japan).

He strongly criticized Hitler, who he called a clown and who's policies he
called barbaric. His main critique of the Jews was their cultural influence:
"Aryans ought not to leave their guidance and interpretation to persons of an
irreconcilable Semitic culture,...If the Jews had a nation of their own (and
they would if they had our guts and self-respect) I’d be the first to insist
that it be kept free of Aryan influences. As it is, I honestly regret the
Aryan taint (any infusion is a taint if it’s where it doesn’t belong) in the
noble and ancient culture of Japan."

(Quote from here: [https://chuckhoffman.blogspot.in/2016/03/making-excuses-
for-...](https://chuckhoffman.blogspot.in/2016/03/making-excuses-for-
lovecrafts-racism.html) )

Even today many folks hold similar views: think of SF nimbys and other left
wing activists who are critical of the cultural influences of tech bros and
gentrifiers.

He also thought blacks were fundamentally inferior; are you going to
characterize this as somehow uncommon in the 1890-1937 era?

~~~
watwut
That remark about Jews is quite horrible. And it definitely is not just
"critique of cultural influence". He calls them without guts, without self
respect and claims them to be "irreconcilable". From that quote alone, it
makes sense to talk about that too.I did not knew he was that much racist
before.

