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...
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.
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?
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.
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."
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?
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.
Well, if the elite consensus view of Lincoln changes, you can be sure they will mention all that and more. (Did you know he was a shameless shill lawyer for railroad interests?)
Lovecraft's racism and xenophobia were not simply ordinary to his time, or removed from his work as a writer - "The Horror at Red Hook," as just one example, is a story that's just loaded with that sort of thing. I don't think you can discuss Lovecraft without it.
In what way do you believe they were not ordinary?
I agree that Lovecraft was racist, xenophobic and opposed to "hybridization" (both cultural and racial). But by the standard of his time he seems pretty mild. Concretely, why do you believe he was worse than average?
I won't argue that his beliefs were wholly out of touch with his contemporaries. But arguing that Lovecraft was typical of the time, particularly in the circles he ran in in New York at the time, is ignoring the evidence.
The article actually does actually mention something along the lines of "Lovecraft's literary legacy is threatened in the 50s by his rumored homosexuality and today by his latent racist attitudes". But yes, you're absolutely right, an article about a man's tragic life really has no place in loudly screaming that one of his early influences was racist.
