How do you disown a creator from their work and why?

[Themius]

He's made offensive work and comments against different ethnic groups, who he viewed as being less civilized or bestial. This includes comments against European immigrants and the Jewish, which did bleed into his actual work from time to time. Those are the specific stories/poems people tend to avoid because of their content or never bring up. I don't feel comfortable consuming his literature when I can never know how much of his mythos is inspired from a place of hate.

Think of it as ordering food as a restaurant and you know they spit in certain dishes, but you'll never be sure if don't spit in the others too. I'd rather just not eat there.

There's a particular book The horror at red hook:

One of Lovecraft’s notable tales concerns a troubled detective who comes across a “hordes of prowlers” with “sin-spitted faces . . . [who] mix their venom and perpetrate obscene terrors.” They are of “some fiendish, cryptical, and ancient pattern” beyond human understanding, but still retain a “singular suspicion of order [that] lurks beneath their squalid disorder.” With “babels of sound and filth,” they scream into the night air to answer the nearby “lapping oily waves at its grimy piers.” They live within a “maze of hybrid squalor near an ancient waterfront,” a space “leporous and cancerous with evil dragged from elder worlds.” One could be forgiven for mistaking this space as an evil abyss populated by beasts from the mythical Necromonicon. However, this vignette is from his short story, “The Horror at Red Hook.” And the accursed space is not some maleficent mountain of the The Great Old Ones, but the Brooklyn neighborhood right off the pier. The brutish monsters, conduits for a deeper evil, are the “Syrians, Spanish, Italian and Negro[s]” of New York City.

I'll never read his stuff, and awards shouldn't have his face.

Like could you imagine a black author being awarded something that has the literal face of a person who is venerated, while knowing that they harboured hatred towards them.

- - - Updated - - -

You always separate the art from the artist, period.
Everyone has some stain or mistake or bad things they did in their lifes, doesn't mean whatever they produced isn't exactly just as good as they were, be it a poem, book, work of art, painting, song, videogame or else.

No you do not... art is the expression of the person. So how can you say to separate the art from the artist?

Separating art from artist seems to be the things people say once the artist is dead but they have a shit past. Generally THE ARTISTS VIEWS THEIR ART AS AN EXPRESSION OF THEMSELVES AS A PERSON. An expression of their ideas and thoughts, my writing, my poetry, my music is an expression of me and my feelings and my thoughts. To separate my art from me is just bogus.

Do you think the pieces Chopin wrote that spoke of sadness and despair at the death of his sister should be separated from him and his feelings? The pieces of sadness, disappointment, but hopefulness should be separated?

When Elgar wrote Nimrod, filled with depression and fighting for that hopefulness, a looking forward that both feels sad but again hopeful. That we should separate how he felt and his personal experience from the art?! That is utter foolishness.



How an artist feels, or what an artist believes infects their work, so you should not separate them. When Lovecraft wrote about the monsters, they were Black, Syrian, Italian, Spanish, Jewish. Do you think it serves history or serves understanding of his works to IGNORE HIS OWN INSPIRATIONS which were hate filled?

It does not

[Soliloque]

Think of it as ordering food as a restaurant and you know they spit in certain dishes, but you'll never be sure if don't spit in the others too. I'd rather just not eat there.

This is just an awful comparison. Spitting in someone's dish is an action, we're talking of thoughts here.
You have no idea whether his personal opinions and ideas seeped through into his works.... and you'll never know if your stance is "I'm never gonna document myself on the matter".

If you don't know, inform yourself. Expand your horizons instead of shrinking them. Lovercraft wrote many great stories.

[eschatological]

I believe it's 50 years after they die they no longer have rights. Disney has found a way to scapegoat this, though.

They do this by tying the copyright to their company as opposed to its actual creator. Since the Disney Company has yet to "die" even though Walt Disney is long dead, the 50 years hasn't even started ticking down.

The controversy with Disney is that the copyrights were originally under Walt Disney's personal copyright, and they basically transferred it to the company in some somewhat dubious ways.

[Soliloque]

Like could you imagine a black author being awarded something that has the literal face of a person who is venerated, while knowing that they harboured hatred towards them.

I can't, and neither can you.
Perhaps that black author as a mature adult and professional at his craft will be understanding enough to realize that ability in writing (and related awards) has nothing to do with someone's political stances, biases or mistakes.

That black author will be thankful for having had his talent recognized, regardless of pointless stuff.

Separating art from artist seems to be the things people say once the artist is dead

Not really, it's what most normal people do when approaching art regardless of the status of the author.
I couldn't care less whether Leonardo Da Vinci hated X or Y with a passion, his works are still beautiful. I hardly give a damn whether Lovecraft had a prejudice towards those groups of people (one of which I belong to), I'll still appreciate his stories 100%.

It's a sad state of being when you shut yourself out of art because of politics and human prejudices and mistakes.
You're the one losing out here.

[eschatological]

He's made offensive work and comments against different ethnic groups, who he viewed as being less civilized or bestial. This includes comments against European immigrants and the Jewish, which did bleed into his actual work from time to time. Those are the specific stories/poems people tend to avoid because of their content or never bring up. I don't feel comfortable consuming his literature when I can never know how much of his mythos is inspired from a place of hate.

Think of it as ordering food as a restaurant and you know they spit in certain dishes, but you'll never be sure if don't spit in the others too. I'd rather just not eat there.

But where is that line? C.S. Lewis and JRR Tolkein both had some troubling racist views, and it easily seeped into their works. The Tarkaan people in The Chronicles of Narnia were obvious Middle Eastern stand-ins, and their "false god" Tash was diametrically opposed to Aslan, who represented the Christian god. Narnia itself was a land made of the countries of Archenland and Narnia, where blonde haired, blue eyed people were the rulers, including two of the four Pevensie's from the stories we all know about Narnia (The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe). Tolkein's representation of the greedy dwarves were an obvious stand-in for the Jews, and how "willing" they were to do anything for their treasure hoard of the dragon Smaug. Then, of course, the Easterlings with their Oliphants, all dark-skinned people, joined Sauron, while Rohan was clearly based on Spain and Gondor on France, two Western countries, while Bree/the Shire represented England and especially the English countryside.

I still read those works, and I reflect on their misguided, racists analogues they put in their works....but it doesn't stop me from caring about those works.

[Themius]

I can't, and neither can you.
Perhaps that black author as a mature adult and professional at his craft will be understanding enough to realize that ability in writing (and related awards) has nothing to do with someone's political stances, biases or mistakes.

That black author will be thankful for having had his talent recognized, regardless of pointless stuff.



Not really, it's what most normal people do when approaching art regardless of the status of the author.
I couldn't care less whether Leonardo Da Vinci hated X or Y with a passion, his works are still beautiful. I hardly give a damn whether Lovecraft had a prejudice towards those groups of people (one of which I belong to), I'll still appreciate his stories 100%.

It's a sad state of being when you shut yourself out of art because of politics and human prejudices and mistakes.
You're the one losing out here.

So you can't imagine a black author winning an award for sci-fi???? And you mean only "immature" people would feel insulted? I mean say you win an award for coming up with war tactics, and then when you go to accept the award you learn it is in the bust of Hitler because they consider him a great tactician, not that they're nazi's just that they recognise him on his war capabilities alone and ignore all the atrocities.

You think if Avraham Aronowitz feels insulted at getting a bust of Hitler that he's just being immature?

Normal people you mean people who like to pretend atrocities never happened?

Also did you just ignore the video, the music, the inspiration?

Do you know what inspiration means?

If an artists inspiration for monsters is "black people are all monsters!" you mean we shouldn't then view the writing through the lens of racism which it factually is,

[Soliloque]

Do you think the pieces Chopin wrote that spoke of sadness and despair at the death of his sister should be separated from him and his feelings?
When Elgar wrote Nimrod, filled with depression and fighting for that hopefulness, a looking forward that both feels sad but again hopeful. That we should separate how he felt and his personal experience from the art?!

Absolutely. I hardly care whether their inspirations were pure or tainted when crafting their respective works of art, if they're beautiful I'll appreciate and enjoy them nonetheless.

Every human being has done or thought something reprehensible in their lives, if your plan is that you'll only enjoy art made from "pure" beings you might as well lock yourself in an empty room and just keep sleeping there, you won't find any art worth consuming.

So you can't imagine a black author winning an award for sci-fi????

......yeeeah, I suggest you reread my post.
I mean, c'mon.

Also enough with the "hitler" comparisons, they're way too juvenile at this point.

[Themius]

But where is that line? C.S. Lewis and JRR Tolkein both had some troubling racist views, and it easily seeped into their works. The Tarkaan people in The Chronicles of Narnia were obvious Middle Eastern stand-ins, and their "false god" Tash was diametrically opposed to Aslan, who represented the Christian god. Narnia itself was a land made of the countries of Archenland and Narnia, where blonde haired, blue eyed people were the rulers, including two of the four Pevensie's from the stories we all know about Narnia (The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe). Tolkein's representation of the greedy dwarves were an obvious stand-in for the Jews, and how "willing" they were to do anything for their treasure hoard of the dragon Smaug. Then, of course, the Easterlings with their Oliphants, all dark-skinned people, joined Sauron, while Rohan was clearly based on Spain and Gondor on France, two Western countries, while Bree/the Shire represented England and especially the English countryside.

I still read those works, and I reflect on their misguided, racists analogues they put in their works....but it doesn't stop me from caring about those works.

I've smelled chik-fil-a before and though "smells alright... but homophobia... so nah" and this was me turning down free food.

You could appreciate something is or could be good without throwing much of your own weight behind it.

I personally have never read Tolkein or C.S. Lewis. The world of Narnia turned me off from the religious standpoint.

- - - Updated - - -

Absolutely. I hardly care whether their motivations were pure or tainted when crafting their respective works of art, if they're beautiful I'll appreciate and enjoy them nonetheless.

Every human being has done or thought something reprehensible in their lives, if your plan is that you'll only enjoy art made from "pure" beings you might as well lock yourself in an empty room and just keep sleeping there, you won't find none.



......yeeeah, I suggest you reread my post.

I could say ignore work created by people who I find reprehensible because they are.

Again do you think Avraham is immature for not liking getting the bust of Hitler? He should see past his actions or beliefs and instead focus on just his war tactic traits?

[LeGin Tufnel]

He's made offensive work and comments against different ethnic groups, who he viewed as being less civilized or bestial. This includes comments against European immigrants and the Jewish, which did bleed into his actual work from time to time. Those are the specific stories/poems people tend to avoid because of their content or never bring up. I don't feel comfortable consuming his literature when I can never know how much of his mythos is inspired from a place of hate.

Think of it as ordering food as a restaurant and you know they spit in certain dishes, but you'll never be sure if don't spit in the others too. I'd rather just not eat there.

OK, yep. That’s interesting isn’t it because there’s a clear distinction between an author’s prejudices bleeding into their work and existing outside their work. E.g., so regardless of Woody Allen’s faults, I can still watch something frothy like Sleeper.

- - - Updated - - -

When Elgar wrote Nimrod

Dude... let's leave Elgar out of this. That's a step too far.

[Soliloque]

I could say ignore work created by people who I find reprehensible because they are.

Sure, go ahead.
But be aware that you're the one losing out.

At the end of the day you've got to ask yourself: "Do I love art more than I hate those people?"

To me the answer is clear.
If Hitler happened to also be an amazing sci-fi author I'd read his works with pleasure.

Again do you think Avraham is immature for not liking getting the bust of Hitler? He should see past his actions or beliefs and instead focus on just his war tactic traits?

Same as my previous answer. I don't know how Avraham would react, and neither do you.

Perhaps he would focus on just his war tactic excellence. No way to know.

[Themius]

Sure, go ahead.
But be aware that you're the one losing out.

At the end of the day you've got to ask yourself: "Do I love art more than I hate those people?"

To me the answer is clear.
If Hitler happened to also be an amazing sci-fi author I'd read his works with pleasure.



Same as my previous answer. I don't know how Avraham would react, and neither do you.

Perhaps he would focus on just his war tactic excellence. No way to know.

You're truly going there. You truly think a jewish person being insulted at being gifted a bust of Hitler as being immature.

Either that, or you realise how bogus your claim is that now you're saying "oh we just don't know how he'd react"

I made Avraham, he's my fucking hypothetical, Avraham says "why am I getting a bust of Hitler.. .the guy hated people like me, the fuck is this?"

[Soliloque]

You're truly going there. You truly think a jewish person being insulted at being gifted a bust of Hitler as being immature.
Either that, or you realise how bogus your claim is that now you're saying "oh we just don't know how he'd react"

I didn't say anything about a jewish person being insulted at being gifted a bust of Hitler as being immature.

What I said is that we don't know how they'd react. We're not them. I've been saying this from the beginning, that's why I gave you the advice of rereading my initial response.
All you have is speculation.

[Rozz]

But where is that line? C.S. Lewis and JRR Tolkein both had some troubling racist views, and it easily seeped into their works. The Tarkaan people in The Chronicles of Narnia were obvious Middle Eastern stand-ins, and their "false god" Tash was diametrically opposed to Aslan, who represented the Christian god. Narnia itself was a land made of the countries of Archenland and Narnia, where blonde haired, blue eyed people were the rulers, including two of the four Pevensie's from the stories we all know about Narnia (The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe). Tolkein's representation of the greedy dwarves were an obvious stand-in for the Jews, and how "willing" they were to do anything for their treasure hoard of the dragon Smaug. Then, of course, the Easterlings with their Oliphants, all dark-skinned people, joined Sauron, while Rohan was clearly based on Spain and Gondor on France, two Western countries, while Bree/the Shire represented England and especially the English countryside.

I still read those works, and I reflect on their misguided, racists analogues they put in their works....but it doesn't stop me from caring about those works.

That's for each person to decide. I can't undo what bad they've done, but I can appreciate the good that inspired readers and other fantasy writers after them. I won't fault people for still reading or enjoying stories by these authors and there are still parts of those stories I enjoy myself, but as I said: I'll pick and choose my battles.

- - - Updated - - -

OK, yep. That’s interesting isn’t it because there’s a clear distinction between an author’s prejudices bleeding into their work and existing outside their work. E.g., so regardless of Woody Allen’s faults, I can still watch something frothy like Sleeper.

That's fair but for some artists, it's never really clear when it does/doesn't. If I don't feel comfortable, I just won't partake

- - - Updated - - -

I'll never read his stuff, and awards shouldn't have his face.

Like could you imagine a black author being awarded something that has the literal face of a person who is venerated, while knowing that they harboured hatred towards them.

For me this also plays into it: I feel it's reasonable to not want to associate with an artist that has repeatedly targeted your culture or others in their work.

[Themius]

I didn't say anything about a jewish person being insulted at being gifted a bust of Hitler as being immature.

What I said is that we don't know how they'd react. We're not them. I've been saying this from the beginning, that's why I gave you the advice of rereading my initial response.
All you have is speculation.

"I am saying we don't know how they'd react"

It's a hypothetical, I told you how they'd react.

Also the black author and bust of Lovecraft was real

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...as-prize-image

One of those writers was the World Fantasy award winner Nnedi Okorafor, who discovered Lovecraft’s racist 1912 poem On the Creation of Niggers following her win, and blogged about how “conflicted” it made her feel. “A statuette of this racist man’s head is in my home. A statuette of this racist man’s head is one of my greatest honours as a writer,” she wrote.

Last year’s winner, Sofia Samatar, who took the best novel prize in 2014 for A Stranger in Olondria, raised the issue in her acceptance speech, saying that “I can’t sit down without addressing the elephant in the room, which is the controversy surrounding the image that represents this award”. She told her audience that it was “awkward to accept the award as a writer of colour”, and thanked the board for taking the issue seriously.

Is she immature? Was her response "bad and improper" to you?

You may have thought it outlandish, but I didn't pull that out of my arse. What I said was based on reality it was the reality.

[Soliloque]

"I am saying we don't know how they'd react"
It's a hypothetical, I told you how they'd react.
Also the black author and bust of Lovecraft was real

Is she immature? Was her response "bad and improper" to you?
You may have thought it outlandish, but I didn't pull that out of my arse. What I said was based on reality it was the reality.

I didn't say "bad and improper" either.
But like it or not we're not talking of a "best person" award here, but "best writer"... and that guy IS an amazing writer.

And that's what counts.
Sure he might've harboured racist opinions or prejudices, but those are secondary to his worth as an author and the context in which this award exists, so I don't see reason why his face should be pulled because some people might get conflicted feelings that are ultimately unrelated to writing ability.

[Themius]

I didn't say "bad and improper" either.
But like it or not we're not talking of a "best person" award here, but "best writer"... and that guy IS an amazing writer.

And that's what counts.
Sure he might've harboured racist opinions or prejudices, but those are secondary to his worth as an author and the context in which this award exists, so I don't see reason why his face should be pulled because some people might get conflicted feelings that are unrelated to writing.

"I mean I don't see why the face of this racist should be pulled from awards, the guy who wrote "On The Creation of Niggers" who cares!"

People of colour care? White people who actually care about racism and how minorities feel, care?

You drive stick don't you? Because you are one shifty person, you've shifted arguments so much...

[eschatological]

I mean, Lovecraft isn't even a good writer. All his writing talks about a vague sense of dread, and it's vague precisely because he doesn't have the skill to describe it. Everything is just out of sight or an unimaginable horror, because he can't imagine it.

[Soliloque]

"I mean I don't see why the face of this racist should be pulled from awards, the guy who wrote "On The Creation of Niggers" who cares!"
People of colour care? White people who actually care about racism and how minorities feel, care?
You drive stick don't you? Because you are one shifty person, you've shifted arguments so much...

I haven't shifted any argument.
My point is the same it was at the beginning: do you love art more than you hate the person?

Can you separate quality art from a shitty person?

I love art more. So to me prejudices and mistakes and stuff like those are secondary, forgettable.
To you they're primary... I get that. Race and racism overshadows everything.
But I don't see the good in it.

You're just gonna lose out on art.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, Lovecraft isn't even a good writer. All his writing talks about a vague sense of dread, and it's vague precisely because he doesn't have the skill to describe it. Everything is just out of sight or an unimaginable horror, because he can't imagine it.

Wrong, the horror that isn't explained is often the most effective.
You plant seeds in the mind of the reader through clues and let their imagination fill in the rest, which often results into a "customized" monster in the mind of the reader that turns out to be unsettling and scary much more than a carefully described, pre-established one.

It's the same concept behind certain movies keeping the creature out of sight for a long time during the scenes, letting the spectator depict their own fears.

Lovecraft is outdated compared to today's standards and culture, but he's not a bad writer and certainly not lacking in ability. There is a reason if he's still mentioned today.

[LeGin Tufnel]

I’m having to Google Lovecraft... I’d never heard of him.

Why does his wiki page barely touch on this?

Yes, I would choose not to buy / consume / read his writing because, clearly, the man’s racist / fascistic beliefs permeated his output.

What I find more interesting, though, is where the prejudices of the author of the work are less discernible.

So many examples. Just one. Terry Gilliam. Sexist or not? Weinstein apologist? Would you stop you watching his movies?

[jonnysensible]

I’m having to Google Lovecraft... I’d never heard of him.

Why does his wiki page barely touch on this?

Yes, I would choose not to buy / consume / read his writing because, clearly, the man’s racist / fascistic beliefs permeated his output.

What I find more interesting, though, is where the prejudices of the author of the work are less discernible.

So many examples. Just one. Terry Gilliam. Sexist or not? Weinstein apologist? Would you stop you watching his movies?

What about Bowie being a nonce?
Or chuck berry?
Or iggy pop?
Or jimmy page?
Or well basically any ailing rockstar who had a groupie scene.

I think its hard to seperate the artist from the art.