• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
I like authors such as HP Lovecraft and I recognize that they were 'problematic'. But what exactly does that do? Nothing about my recognizing that changes anything.
But it should. Lovecraft explicitly built his racism into his works. The Fish People from The Shadow Over Innsmouth were stand-ins for mixed-race people. He was afraid of people of color, so he had them be villains in most of his works. He was more racist than most people of his time (and generally afraid of practically everything), and built his biases into his works. They're tainted by them.

It's not just the "problematic" label that you seem to feel is overused. It's much like the material that this thread is actually suppposed to be about. Just like the Yellow and Red Orcs were supposed to be stand-ins for real world people that the writers of this product could mock, Lovecraft did the same thing with his works. It's not "problematic-ness", it's "blatant racism built into the core of the book".
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Filthy Lucre

Adventurer
But it should. Lovecraft explicitly built his racism into his works. The Fish People from The Shadow Over Innsmouth were stand-ins for mixed-race people. He was afraid of people of color, so he had them be villains in most of his works. He was more racist than most people of his time (and generally afraid of practically everything), and built his biases into his works. They're tainted by them.

It's not just the "problematic" label that you seem to feel is overused. It's much like the material that this thread is actually suppposed to be about. Just like the Yellow and Red Orcs were supposed to be stand-ins for real world people that the writers of this product could mock, Lovecraft did the same thing with his works. It's not "problematic-ness", it's "blatant racism built into the core of the book".
Ok but how does that interact with the fact that the Shadow Over Innsmouth is one of the great works of early weird fiction? Also, what do you mean "it should"? What exactly should happen when I recognize the racism inherent to HP Lovecrafts work? Are you saying that it should make me not like it?

When I, as a boy, read that story I didn't pick up on, or even consider, any sort of racist parallel. I thought, "Wow, spooky fish monsters!". I can acknowledge now, via literary analysis, that it's racist. But that doesn't change the fact that my experience of reading it wasn't racist. HPL's work is not racist in the same way that the atomic weight of lead is 207.2 u.
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
But it should. Lovecraft explicitly built his racism into his works. The Fish People from The Shadow Over Innsmouth were stand-ins for mixed-race people.
The funny thing is, when I first read that story as a teen, I thought that they were stand-ins for inbreds. My, ol' Howard would not have liked me.
 


Vaalingrade

Legend
Ok but how does that interact with the fact that the Shadow Over Innsmouth is one of the great works of early weird fiction?
How does knowing that most of the Wonders of the Ancient World like the pyramids were built by slaves and therefore exist by the power of human suffering? You have a complicated conversation with yourself and hopefully don't come to the conclusion it was totally worth it and Pharaoh was just a product of his time so it's okay.

HPL's work is not racist in the same way that the atomic weight of lead is 207.2 u.
Yeah, it's racist in the way that Song of the South and the KKK are racist. Trying to make it not racist is like turning 207.2 into 196.96 - ain't a thing and anyone trying to say it is a selling you snake oil.
 

Voadam

Legend
The horror in Shadow Over Innsmouth can be read many different ways.

People who are genetically programmed to inescapably change and become physically inhumanly monstrous later in life can be taken as straight up body horror.

The slow taking over of cognition and identity to lose themselves and become alien in thought can be seen as an allegory for the horrors of Alzheimer's and dementia, or if you focus on the inheritance aspect it can be thought of as evoking genetic aspects of mental illness.

It can be a racist fear of breeding with the other - a fear of miscegenation.

It can be about insular inbreeding.

It can be the pact for power that corrupts.

It can be about keeping monstrous secrets.
 

Filthy Lucre

Adventurer
How does knowing that most of the Wonders of the Ancient World like the pyramids were built by slaves and therefore exist by the power of human suffering? You have a complicated conversation with yourself and hopefully don't come to the conclusion it was totally worth it and Pharaoh was just a product of his time so it's okay.
Ok - done. Anything else? This is what I don't understand: What do you want me to DO with this knowledge that is not mere self reflection? I am keenly aware of the history of HPLs work, (which right now is sort of a stand in for the module that featured red and yellow orcs).

Do you want me to... stop reading HPL? Do you want me to join some kind organization? Is this just a mode of self improvement?
Yeah, it's racist in the way that Song of the South and the KKK are racist. Trying to make it not racist is like turning 207.2 into 196.96 - ain't a thing and anyone trying to say it is a selling you snake oil.
You missed my point entirely.
 


MGibster

Legend
The funny thing is, when I first read that story as a teen, I thought that they were stand-ins for inbreds. My, ol' Howard would not have liked me.
@Hussar alludes to this phenomenon when he argues (not incorrectly) that you don't need to know anything about Lovecraft to interpret his work. When I read it The Shadow Over Innsmouth for the first time, I interpreted it as being about insanity, drug/alcohol abuse, or diseases that run through family trees. At the time I first read the story, I really didn't know anything about Lovecraft nor did I grow up in an environment where miscegenation was something that concerned me.

And I think it's very common for older works to be interpreted differently by a modern audiences compared to contemporary audiences. I remember my professor asking the class, "Who's the hero of the Iliad?" The general consensus among my peers was that Hector was the hero and Achilles was just a big baby crying about missing his home and refusing to fight because Agamemnon hurt is wittle feelings.

How does knowing that most of the Wonders of the Ancient World like the pyramids were built by slaves and therefore exist by the power of human suffering? You have a complicated conversation with yourself and hopefully don't come to the conclusion it was totally worth it and Pharaoh was just a product of his time so it's okay.
The consensus of modern scholars is that the pyramids of Egypt were not constructed by slaves but rather by free people who were paid fairly well and even had access to medical care. As far as the ancient world is concerned, Egypt wasn't such a bad place to live.
 

How does knowing that most of the Wonders of the Ancient World like the pyramids were built by slaves and therefore exist by the power of human suffering? You have a complicated conversation with yourself and hopefully don't come to the conclusion it was totally worth it and Pharaoh was just a product of his time so it's okay.
Current understanding is (and has been for a while) that pyramids were not built by slaves. Not that whether they were or not has anything to do with their status as an engineering marvel.
 

Remove ads

Top