How to Tell if Your Fun is Wrong

[MGibster]

In practice, however, better thinking about complex past figures is rarely the point. If it were, wielders of the injunction not to judge would not apply their counsel so selectively. They would, for example, be as concerned with positive as with negative judgments, as wary of celebration as they are of condemnation... The practical purpose of the injunction not to judge is not to refine public engagements with history; it is to reinforce established interpretations against the corrosive effects of criticism.

When the subject of Lovecraft's racism comes up I rarely find that it's meant to steer the conversation to better examine the complexities of a literary figure who had a profound influence on horror and role playing games. A few years back, it was often brought up to warn people unfamiliar with his work with what they might encounter. Some of his stories, like "Herbert West-Reanimator" and "The Horror at Red Hook" contain shockingly appalling language if one isn't prepared for it so warnings are appropriate. But more often these days Lovecraft's racism is brought up in an effort to dissuade people from reading his work or in some cases even acknowledging his influence. I'm surprised Call of Cthulhu hasn't been called out for being badwrongfun.

 

[Umbran]

There’s little doubt the future will view us all as abhorrent for things we view perfectly reasonable today. Some a little more abhorrent and some a little less so.

So IMHO, to be a little less abhorrent than others in your time is the only thing that matters as it’s those more virtuous than their peers that continuously push humankind closer to perfection - even if perfection is never truly obtainable.

That doesn’t absolve anyone from any time for any transgression, but it does help to keep things in perspective.

It is, of course, literally impossible for everyone to be ahead of their time. It then makes little sense to condemn anyone merely for failing to be ahead of their time. We should celebrate those who manage the trick.

On the flip side... let us be clear - some form of the Golden Rule has been in pretty much every major faith and philosophical system on the globe for at the past 1000 years! You get judged on how badly you hold up to that ideal, no matter what period you're from.

 

[aramis erak]

The only badwrongfun I can think of is a player whining because he can’t create a character not true to the setting. And by that I mean using eberon birthmarks in a greyhawk setting. Or something like playing an elf in a setting that doesn’t have elves like a good hyborian setting. That’s my opinion.

I'd expand that a bit...
Badwrongfun is fun based upon inflicting discomfort upon other real-persons, or upon encouraging behaviors that lead to discomfort, or which results in real harm to self or other players, be any of those physical or mental pain.
I'd also include play of games which are so utterly repugnant in their subject matter that even playing them is likely to lead to developing real world antisocial tendencies. (Fatal, RaHoWa, and a few others.)

 

[JEB]

When the subject of Lovecraft's racism comes up I rarely find that it's meant to steer the conversation to better examine the complexities of a literary figure who had a profound influence on horror and role playing games. A few years back, it was often brought up to warn people unfamiliar with his work with what they might encounter. Some of his stories, like "Herbert West-Reanimator" and "The Horror at Red Hook" contain shockingly appalling language if one isn't prepared for it so warnings are appropriate. But more often these days Lovecraft's racism is brought up in an effort to dissuade people from reading his work or in some cases even acknowledging his influence. I'm surprised Call of Cthulhu hasn't been called out for being badwrongfun.

The problem is, Lovecraft wasn't just racist, he was exceptionally bigoted even by the standards of his time. He supposedly even made other folks whose racism really was of-the-time, like his friend Robert. E. Howard, balk on occasion. (He might have started to mellow towards the very end of his life, but it isn't clear, and might be too little, too late anyway.) And knowing that seriously changes the context of his work, and not just the obvious stuff like Reanimator. (It was certainly enough to push me away from his stuff years ago - a far cry from the lore nerd who devoured Mythos books and produced online timelines of the Mythos in my college days.)

But Call of Cthulhu is a different matter. Sure, it's based on his works, inseparably. But it's not his work, it's a derivative, about 40 years removed in its original incarnation and twice as far now. (And CoC arguably owes much more to Lovecraft's successors, like August Derleth and Brian Lumley, than to Lovecraft himself. Heck, CoC itself is arguably the trope codifier of modern Lovecraftian fiction.)

So that raises a tough question. One can certainly make the argument that since Lovecraft was a bigot, his works are Bad Things that belong in the dustbin of history. But what of all the things he inspired? Like Derleth's fiction? Like Call of Cthulhu? Even remote stuff like The Evil Dead or the Great Old One warlock from D&D 5E? Or any fiction that has incomprehensible, alien gods and truths that drive men mad? Are those all fruit of the poisonous tree? Is it wrong to enjoy things that can't exist without a Bad Thing? If it's a matter of how far removed they are, how far is far enough?

And of course, Lovecraft's works are just one example, as we learn more and more about how terrible a lot of famous folks were (or worse, are). It's probably become one of the defining questions of our ever more aware age, if you're into anything creative. And even stuff that wasn't bad at the time can become a Bad Thing as times change, as any internet D&D fan is likely well aware.

Personally, it's a question I still struggle with. I still have some Cthulhu Mythos and Call of Cthulhu books on my shelf (none where Lovecraft is front and center, though). But I can't decide if I've struck the right balance, or if I'm just making excuses. Maybe, like many cases of badwrongfun, you kind of have to judge it yourself.

 

[aramis erak]

I'm surprised Call of Cthulhu hasn't been called out for being badwrongfun.

It has been... over being over-focused on the occult. Usually by the more educated bigots of the enduring remnants of the satanic panic ...
Most of them aren't educated enough to realize the point is to fight the demons, not play their cultists.
Same kind of people who hold book burnings focusing on D&D, Palladium, and all other RPGs... as recently as 2012... (In 2012, Jerry Prevo of Anchorage Baptist Temple, which isn't affiliated with any organization of Baptists, held a book burning in Anchorage, and called for fantasy novels, any/all rpgs, and especially D&D, and Rifts. But the list circulated included CoC and the complete works of HPL.)

 

[Emerikol]

So that raises a tough question. One can certainly make the argument that since Lovecraft was a bigot, his works are Bad Things that belong in the dustbin of history. But what of all the things he inspired? Like Derleth's fiction? Like Call of Cthulhu? Even remote stuff like The Evil Dead or the Great Old One warlock from D&D 5E? Or any fiction that has incomprehensible, alien gods and truths that drive men mad? Are those all fruit of the poisonous tree? Is it wrong to enjoy things that can't exist without a Bad Thing? If it's a matter of how far removed they are, how far is far enough?

This is a good question but for me not a tough question. If the worse human being to ever live, created the most beautiful paintings that ever were, those paintings would not cease to be beautiful. If the person's character is not reflected somehow in their specific work (and with Lovecraft this may be so, I'm not denying that), then the art is unaffected. If this terrible person is making money off their art, we may very well not want to buy it because we don't want to fund his bad deeds. But after he is long gone, the paintings would remain and they'd still be beautiful. So art must be judged on its own merits I think.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is a good question but for me not a tough question. If the worse human being to ever live, created the most beautiful paintings that ever were, those paintings would not cease to be beautiful. If the person's character is not reflected somehow in their specific work (and with Lovecraft this may be so, I'm not denying that), then the art is unaffected. If this terrible person is making money off their art, we may very well not want to buy it because we don't want to fund his bad deeds. But after he is long gone, the paintings would remain and they'd still be beautiful. So art must be judged on its own merits I think.

Makes me wonder how many medical treatments and other technological advances we use today were created by racists or people with other deplorable beliefs/practices.

 

[Umbran]

So that raises a tough question. One can certainly make the argument that since Lovecraft was a bigot, his works are Bad Things that belong in the dustbin of history. But what of all the things he inspired? Like Derleth's fiction? Like Call of Cthulhu? Even remote stuff like The Evil Dead or the Great Old One warlock from D&D 5E? Or any fiction that has incomprehensible, alien gods and truths that drive men mad? Are those all fruit of the poisonous tree? Is it wrong to enjoy things that can't exist without a Bad Thing? If it's a matter of how far removed they are, how far is far enough?

It becomes more complicated when you get to works like the Lovecraft Country series, in which African American writers and actors take on that history directly.

If you consign his works to the dustbin of history, you land yourself in the land those who do not study history, and are therefore are doomed to repeat it. Rather, it is important to approach his work with full understanding that it is a study in how things go wrong.

This is doubly important when we note, as you have, that the man was rather more racist than many of his peers of his time. But, somehow, even though he gave others pause with his vehemence... his works became famous and influential anyway. So, it is more than "Lovecraft's works show his racism." There's also, "systemic racism overlooked his issues and embraced his work," which is also an important lesson.

 

[MGibster]

The problem is, Lovecraft wasn't just racist, he was exceptionally bigoted even by the standards of his time.

I can buy that Lovecraft might have been a bit more virulent than others but exceptionally racist by the standards of the 20s and 30s? No. During Lovecraft's relatively short life, the United States experienced strong nativist leanings, lynching was practically a national past time, 1915's Birth of a Nation led to the 2nd incarnation of the KKK which went on to become a mainstream organization (not just in the South), anti-Semitism reached it's peak, and many historians consider the 20s and 30s to be the nadir of race relations in America (post Reconstruction). The sad truth is that Lovecraft's racism was very much within mainstream standards of the era, which, again, was a particularly ugly time. This doesn't vindicate Lovecraft for the hateful things he wrote of course and I've got no problem with people bringing attention to it. But saying he was exceptionally racist for the era kind of lets the rest of America off the hook.

But just for the moment, let's assume that Lovecraft was exceptionally bigoted even by the standards of his time. So what? Lovecraft wasn't a particularly wealthy man, he wasn't politically connected, and he wasn't even a very successful author during his lifetime. He was never in a position to do a lot of harm and what honors he does currently receive aren't because of his racist beliefs.

Personally, it's a question I still struggle with. I still have some Cthulhu Mythos and Call of Cthulhu books on my shelf (none where Lovecraft is front and center, though). But I can't decide if I've struck the right balance, or if I'm just making excuses. Maybe, like many cases of badwrongfun, you kind of have to judge it yourself.

Me too. I think we're all still struggling to come to terms with the problematic nature of a lot of the literature we grew up loving. And the struggle will be an ongoing process rather than something with a definitive end.

 

[FrogReaver]

I can buy that Lovecraft might have been a bit more virulent than others but exceptionally racist by the standards of the 20s and 30s? No. During Lovecraft's relatively short life, the United States experienced strong nativist leanings, lynching was practically a national past time, 1915's Birth of a Nation led to the 2nd incarnation of the KKK which went on to become a mainstream organization (not just in the South), anti-Semitism reached it's peak, and many historians consider the 20s and 30s to be the nadir of race relations in America (post Reconstruction). The sad truth is that Lovecraft's racism was very much within mainstream standards of the era, which, again, was a particularly ugly time. This doesn't vindicate Lovecraft for the hateful things he wrote of course and I've got no problem with people bringing attention to it. But saying he was exceptionally racist for the era kind of lets the rest of America off the hook.

But just for the moment, let's assume that Lovecraft was exceptionally bigoted even by the standards of his time. So what? Lovecraft wasn't a particularly wealthy man, he wasn't politically connected, and he wasn't even a very successful author during his lifetime. He was never in a position to do a lot of harm and what honors he does currently receive aren't because of his racist beliefs.


Me too. I think we're all still struggling to come to terms with the problematic nature of a lot of the literature we grew up loving. And the struggle will be an ongoing process rather than something with a definitive end.

I don’t find it that difficult. Most works fall into a few categories.

Books whose sole purpose was to make a case for a bad/evil idea. Books like Hitler’s Mein Kampf which was required reading when I was in college 16ish years ago. Books like this are valuable in understanding history so as not to repeat it but have no other redeeming qualities.

Then there’s books which don’t primarily make a case for anything bad/evil but have such things in the backdrop as seemingly normal/commonplace. IMO One can reasonably like these works despite such depictions.

Then there’s books which don’t have anything evil or bad in them but for which the author is known to think/believe/practice evil or vile things. Ideas and art stands or falls on their own merits regardless of the author and so I find nothing wrong with these works.

Which leads us to to another question. Buying a book isn’t simply you acquiring the book. The author also gets proceeds (unless it’s a used book). So in some sense your money is going to those who wrongly use it. I can see the case for not buying their goods, but our society would fail to function if everyone stopped buying things from those they disagreed with or found highly immoral because none of us see eye to eye on everything and all of us have character faults - especially when the past no longer shields us from or prior actions. I’m worried that this path leads to a rather non functioning world - or one where totalitarianism reigns.