Is Lovecraft too racist for gaming?

Absolutely. I think that’s the friction in the discussion. Most people agree that Lovecraft was a racist even above the norm for his time. The conflict comes from taking that knowledge and applying it to his work. If you know his views, is Call of Cthulhu inherently racist? I’d say that certain parts are. Can you then turn that story into other media without the bigoted baggage? I think so, but it’s hard for me to tell because of my weakness for Lovecraft.

Lovecraft didn’t write about Koreans, but I understand that had Lovecraft put some in his stories, they undoubtedly would’ve been some filthy “Oriental” criminals or a “mongrel” race of cultists. That’s just how he rolled. It puts me in a weird spot because I know what his feelings would’ve been on me and my family (also a dollop of heathen miscegenation) but I still love his horror.

He certainly wrote about Asian people in similarly bigoted ways, just not specifically Koreans. There’s an evil tribe called the Tcho-Tchos either in his stuff or another Mythos author (pretty sure his stuff, though) who are of course debased, corrupt, etc and live in what was then French Indochina, now Vietnam and neighbors, as a particularly gross example. But there’s other stuff.

On some level, I think that maybe those works are inherently less racist when read from our current context, than they probably were originally.

Back when Lovecraft wrote them, folks had much less exposure to other cultures, and were more likely to apply Lovecraft’s presentations in a more general sense across a group of people (since they probably didn’t actually know anyone from that group anyway).

Today, we know that people from southeast Asia aren’t weird cultist tribes and stuff, so any depiction of a weird isolated group in that region is naturally interpreted differently by a modern reader.

As I think of it more, I think this is perhaps why I never considered some of this stuff overtly racist or xenophobic. In reading it, my mind never made the leap to “everyone from that region is like this,” because I already knew that they weren’t. Any depiction of some weird enclave of mutant cultists was just that… weird and creepy as a result of their associations with elder alien god things, not as a result of their race.

Oh totally. I still have my old Call of Cthulhu pen and paper RPG books, and the stuff about the Tcho Tcho cannibals with their unsavory Oriental restaurants makes me cringe a little to this day.

There’s a lot I like in this thread, but I think this is the bit I agree with most. I certainly see the point that it becomes more obviously racist once you know Lovecraft’s views, but I’m also not sure that we really have to respect the author’s intent that much.

For sure. Lovecraft’s work has been very successfully taken out of context. That’s a success, not a failure.

We’ve done that so well that a lot of people seem to struggle to notice the original, in context meanings.

In terms of gaming, I think it’d be bad to just say, “We shouldn’t reference any of this stuff any more”, because this stuff is cool.

I mean, you guys remember Silicon Knights’ “Eternal Darkness”? That game was awesome.

Alone in the Dark. That was so Lovecraft. I loved it.

I said this earlier in the thread but I still think it’s better to take the cosmic horror approach without specifically referencing the creatures, deities and so forth that Lovecraft and even later Mythos authors came up with. Not only does this avoid any racist baggage that may be attached, but horror tends to lose its power the more familiar it becomes, and so many people have gone to the Mythos well at this point (often in ways that fundamentally misunderstand the themes and make them just more monsters to be shot) that it just isn’t very scary anymore. Or at least takes a lot of effort to make that way.

(I mean, I think the original stories hold up, where not too offensive, but pop cultural references? Eh.)

It’s a variation of Bowdlerism and was considered as ridiculous in 1836 as it is now.

Just to expand on the example I used earlier, that of the much beloved Roald Dahl being an anti-Semitic shitmonger of the highest order, when Roald Dahl Day came around this year, the focus from many was condemning his views and not celebrating his life (boycotts of dress up for Roald Dahl Day at schools etc) whilst at the same time appreciating his work.

This pragmatic distinction between a content creators views and politics and their actual work isn’t hard to do.

I don’t think the article is suggesting banning anything, just that Lovecraft is overused and problematic, both of which are at least plausible positions to take. I mean, it’s a brief opinion piece, not a manifesto. This reminds me of discussions around Anita Sarkeesian’s videos where she articulates carefully that “it’s both possible and even necessary to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of [it].” (emphasis added) Of course this in no way insulated her from the internet hordes accusing her of advocating censorship.

And I don’t know; I don’t really believe in slippery slopes. I generally trust that people are capable of nuance (unless they’re Republicans.) Is Huck Finn hard to read, especially aloud, for many modern readers? Yeah, but most folks make some determination about how to handle it and do that. (The linked essay by Michael Chabon is one of my favorite pieces of writing about reading.) I think that’s true of all of the works you mentioned.

Back then, they referred to it as “studio notes.”

And it’s often necessary. Ugh, two thoughts at the same time…weight…excruciating…

I used to think that. Upon actually reading the piece, I kinda feel trolled, tbh.

While the Eurogamer piece never suggests banning anything, it’s also taking a pretty hard stance against Lovecraft and his work in any form. It’s not simply promoting a critical awareness of how Lovecraft is used and referenced, or anything nuanced about taking the good and leaving the bad. Sam is pretty unambiguously saying we need to abandon it entirely.

Yep. I can remember two racist passages from his tales that were more ‘specific’, yes, but in general most “npc” were beastly or savage or incredibly backwards or repulsive, or a fanatic from the jungle or etc etc. Asian men, black people… yes, but also decadent French descendants, or inbred American from solitary villages, or they were devil worshippers that came from Europe, from the old colonies in the East coast, or the also American white men in some fishing villages with a particular look like fish-men…
It was all the same shit.

I guess he wasn’t racist if he insulted them and compared them with animals because they were white!

edit: I think he was racist in these tales, but it was more a subtext, as in: why that obsession of everyone that wasn’t him and the little city he knew to be ignorant, or filthy or dangerous, or a fanatic or almost an animal? Why always choose that theme? I think we all know the answer.

Is he a white man? There a nuances between this attitude coming from the minority lens or the white majority. If he’s a white man, appropriating this issue for his own gain (ie money from eurogamer, social standing or tribalism) then I’m even more likely to oppose his opinion. Especially seeing how this culture war bullshit creates as many enemies as it does allies, an article like this might do more harm than good.

Sam is a trans woman. Not that that matters in this particular case.

Man person
He they

Fascinating, if sometimes uncomfortable, discussion. I have used Lovecraft in class, namely “The Shadow Over Innsmouth,” specifically because of how it deals with issues of race and class. Indirectly, often, but very much woven through the narrative. And really, in that story, the real horror Lovecraft intends for you is not the fish people, or the Deep Ones, but the fact that the narrator, who you think is a regular white dude like yourself (assuming at the time Lovecraft would be writing for white males mostly), turns out to be a fish dude himself! Horrors of miscegenation! One in the woodpile! Etc.

For me Lovecraftian fiction is at its heart about what folks upthread called cosmic terror, the sense of the futility of humanity in the face of the immensity of the universe, the total irrelevance of all human creations, religions, and beliefs, and the inevitability of our enslavement or destruction by vast forces that are all but incomprehensible to us. All the tentacles, bug-eyes, blobs, or whatevers are incidental to this psychological trauma. That makes the genre pretty much eternal.

As to the question of artist and their art, I am always conflicted. I’m Jewish but listen, occasionally, to Wagner, who I see as a brilliant composer as well as a wretched human being. I won’t listen to Ted Nugent any more because his current political activities annoy me (but he’s still alive, so there is a difference I think). Generally, as a historian, I try to view things with an eye towards context. I’ll read the Declaration of Independence, even agree with a lot of it, although I hear tell old Tom J. was a slaveholder. Every case is sort of different. Lovecraft is of an era, even if he’s a very extreme example of it in many ways, which doesn’t excuse him personally. His work exists, for me, as something both connected to him and separate from him. I would never use his work in class (or, I guess, in a game) without dealing with the context and unpacking a lot of the subtexts, though one would do that differently in different media of course.

There’s a ton of Lovecraftian fiction being written today by people of all races and gender identities (check out Caitlin Kiernan’s Black Helicopters, for instance, for an example), and I’m pretty sure these folks are damn well aware of Lovecraft’s racism and classism. In fact, they turn that on itself in their construction of horror within the Lovecraftian paradigm, often in very imaginative ways.

Great post. Thanks!

Well put, Wombat. Much more eloquent than what I was working on.