D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[Mordhau]

They know it's why they don't exist. Same with Psion ideally that should have been out around 2016 IMHO.

How do they know? And how do you know they know?

The fact it wasn't is probably telling how popular it actually is.

Or that they didn't know how to do it.

 

[Mercurius]

He's pretty much the poster child for the fundamental problem; he's very influential, many people found (and still do) find his work compelling, and a lot of it is stuffed full of Unfortunate Implications at best (you can argue almost all his horror is based around fear of the Other), and outright racism and xenophobia in front of God and everybody at worst. It also, at its best, evokes the sense Things Beyond Our Ken better than virtually anyone else has managed. So on one hand, its understandable that a lot of people would like to just forget him, some others are in denial about his more awful traits, and yet a third group would dearly like to untangle one from the other.

I think you hit upon the key to the "Lovecraft obsession." We all have a "little lovecraft in us," (that would be a great tee-shirt!). We all have an "Other" that we fear and "otherize." It may not be a race or ethnicity or gender, like is easy to see and malign (whether rightfully or not) in folks such as HP. It may be an ideological orientation or political affiliation or other identity that we find disconcerting, or simply the folks that we don't like, for whatever reason.

I think that is why his influence is so profound: he palpable depicts in his work--and evidently through his very personhood--an aspect of ourselves that, while hopefully most/all of us in this thread don't embody to a degree comparable to him, we all still have. We all have our own version of the "Other," but sometimes it is less easy to designate what it is for ourself. I think sometimes, the Other are those who we see as worse about othering than we are!

 

[Mordhau]

To be honest I can never make up my mind whether the ubiquitiousness of Lovecraft is really due to inherent qualities of the writing, or whether it's just a kind of weird cultural obsession where everyone convinces themselves they love the Cthulhu mythos and find it scary because they think everyone else does.

Edit: Or in other words, the Lovecraft that features in geek culture these days is more meme than man.

 

[Zardnaar]

How do they know? And how do you know they know?

Or that they didn't know how to do it.

I don't but it's coming up 8 years. They're not incompetent so yeah leaves them as a low priority.

 

[Hussar]

In which American libraries is Lovecraft's body of work filed under juvenile fiction?

All of them?

 

[Vaalingrade]

To be honest I can never make up my mind whether the ubiquitiousness of Lovecraft is really due to inherent qualities of the writing, or whether it's just a kind of weird cultural obsession where everyone convinces themselves they love the Cthulhu mythos and find it scary because they think everyone else does.

Edit: Or in other words, that Lovecraft that features in geek culture these days is more meme than man.

I don't think it's so difficult to see why it's popular and it's not all that deep: edgelord nihilism combined with non-standard monsters and protagonists who know something 'the masses' don't? All wrapped up with some easy-to-spout catchphrases and some Metal anthems? It's nerd catnip.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

All of them?

Most certainly not in Northern Kentucky. Filed under General Adult Fiction along with Stephen King, Tolkien, Pratchett and Martin.

 

[Hussar]

To the first, I agree. To the second, I'm mixed. I mean, I hear what you or someone else said upthread, that we usually end up talking mostly about the work, not the author (someone used the example of the Wrath of Khan's writer, which I thought was apt). On the other hand, it also depends upon how deep we want to go, and also how clearly we want to understand the world and the author's intention. At the very least, it is interesting to understand the context of an author's life, and might shed light on their work.

For example, when I read Tolkien's biography (or maybe Letters) a couple decades ago, I found it interesting to discover that his depiction of Mordor was inspired by his childhood in the Midlands of England, and the industrial landscape that he grew to detest and contrast to the woodlands that he loved. It deepens our understanding of who he was, and why he contrasted the beauty and light of Aman and elves vs. the dark ugliness of Mordor and orcs. Tolkien was deeply Romantic (in the capital R sense of the word), and yearned for a "golden age," which we see glimpses of in the LotR but is more fully expressed in The Silmarillion.

To him, the "creatures and lands of evil" were at least partially expressions of industrialization and the perversion of nature (Jackson captured this with his depiction of Saruman's industry, and the consequent "revenge of the ents"). This also contextualizes any racial connotations as being more "burps" than defining statements. He was more interested in the use and misuse of power, and the degree to which mortals either aligned or distorted the "song of creation." Thus Melkor, the primordial adversary, singing in discord with the song of the Ainur (although Tolkien hinted that this discord may serve a greater purpose in Iluvatar's plan).

I digress a bit, but I think it serves my point: that understanding the author deepens one's understanding of their work.

And if we want to understand Tolkien, that's great. But, if I want to critique The Lord of the Rings, for example, Tolkien simply doesn't matter. We can examine LotR in the context of the time it was written, but, largely, any interpretation of LotR has to be based in the text itself.

Anecdotes from the writer's life might be interesting, and, they might spark a talking point, but, unless we're actually discussing the author and not the works, the author's life is largely irrelevant to understanding and interpreting a work. Sorry, J. K. Rowling, no you don't get to after the fact declare Dumbledore to be a gay character when there is absolutely nothing in the text to even suggest his sexuality in any direction.

-----

On the topic of the vitriol regarding Lovelcraft.

One has to remember that Lovecraft was, until very, very recently, given a very prominent place among the authors of the genre. The 5e PHB, published not that long ago, places Lovecraft in the list of inspirational authors alongside Tolkien and other great genre authors. Heck, the term, "Lovecraftian" is used to describe works, completely expunged of any racist meanings. Think about that for a second. You're a writer who Lovecraft would have thought should have been castrated or killed, and your works are being called "Lovecraftian". Additionally, you're a really, really great writer and you win the highest award for Horror out there - the World Fantasy Award - and you are given the bust of a dude that would have thought Hitler didn't go far enough.

And, until very recently, if you complained, you would get reactions like you see in this thread - oh, you have to understand... it was just a product of his time, we don't really think like that anymore... you should be thicker skinned about it... we have bigger issues to worry about... hey, you just won a major award for your work, you should be grateful...

So on and so forth.

So the vitriol we're seeing today isn't really any different than the vitriol you would have seen in any other year. Thing is, instead of being pushed aside, sidelined and ignored, people are actually listening and actually making changes - the bust of Lovecraft is no longer the World Fantasy Award. I will be pretty shocked if Lovecraft's name appears in the newly released 5e PHB under inspirational reading.

The vitriol is largely a reaction to the privileged position Lovecraft enjoyed for nearly a century, simply because he was white and only attacked minorities.

 

[Hussar]

Most certainly not in Northern Kentucky. Filed under General Adult Fiction along with Stephen King, Tolkien, Pratchett and Martin.

And thus the problem. I'll admit to being glib, but, filing Lovecraft alongside those authors is kinda the point.

But, just to ask, do you not have a YA fiction section? Why on earth is Pratchett filed in General Adult Fiction?

 

[MGibster]

To the first, I agree. To the second, I'm mixed. I mean, I hear what you or someone else said upthread, that we usually end up talking mostly about the work, not the author (someone used the example of the Wrath of Khan's writer, which I thought was apt). On the other hand, it also depends upon how deep we want to go, and also how clearly we want to understand the world and the author's intention. At the very least, it is interesting to understand the context of an author's life, and might shed light on their work.

When it comes to RPGs, we mostly talk about the work itself rather than the author. When we talk about Star Trek, Dune, Star Wars, or Judge Dredd within the context of gaming we don't typically the personal lives or beliefs of Gene Roddenberry, Frank Herbert, George Lucas, or John Wagner. J.R.R. Tolkien and H.P. Lovecraft seem to be exceptions for whatever reason. Perhaps it's because both of them wrote seminal works that influenced their particular genre? It's hard to imagine what gaming today would be like without them.

I think perhaps talk of analyzing work is a little outside the scope of RPGs. Very few of us look to Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, or Dungeons & Dragons to as a tool for literary analysis. I don't mean to imply that it can't be done, only that this isn't the milkshake that brings all the boys to the yard. When Lovecraft, Tolkien, or other authors appear in RPG bibliographies it's not so much about citing sources as it is about letting readers know what work influenced influenced the game so they can check it out if they want.