I agree with your distinction between the two kinds of fear. This touches on my experience with Stephen King. He likes to tell you exactly how gory an alien lifeform is, and what it looks like. He tries to be realistic. This is even more the case with King-Films, e.g. IT. The tension building is fine, but when I see a giant scorpion spider with teeth I tend to laugh, not to fear. Lovecraft avoids this by narrating not the fearsome elements but their effect on his heroes. (Alas, he often overdoes it.) Because the narration gives us only their perceptions, meaning: only filtered “reality”, we, the readers, don’t get the real stuff. According to Lovecraft mythology we would go mad. You can believe it or not. I often don’t.

I haven’t read your other posts about Lovecraft yet. What do you think about the role of the religious in his work? I don’t speak of the “ancient dieties” but of his choice of words. E.g. he likes to call a colour “blasphemous”, or the geometry.

All of these things were kind of going on during his lifetime; if I had to guess, I’d say that there’s a good deal of merit to the idea that rapid advancement in science and archaeology–especially compared to how slow it had been only a few generations earlier–was a main motivating factor in HPL’s existential anxiety.

Sometimes I think we give people a pass when we say they are products of their times, but I also think sometimes that’s a valid argument. I certainly see differences between my parents and me and between my son and me, and these differences can be attributed to changes in society. Our experiences are just different.

I suppose my problem lies with admiring people who create things I love, and from all you’ve written and from all my son has told me, I think I’d love this guy’s writing minus the chaff. And maybe I don’t have to love the man himself. I’m just prone to that type of worship.

But there are three things: firstly, he was writing nearly a hundred years ago, which I know makes it possible for some people to say, “Well, everyone was really racist back then.” (As opposed to everyone just being mostly racist today.)

Secondly, it’s actually not usually as prominent as that. Even in some of the other stories where he reveals his fascination with “mixed blood,” it’s often at a fantastic level, and rarely the point of the story. I’d definitely stay away from The Horror at Red Hook, though.

Thirdly, I don’t know. From my personal experience, it’s easy for me to just read through and dismiss a lot of that stuff, like: “Chaff, chaff, chaff. Good idea. Chaff. Good idea. Chaff, chaff.” I can see how that might not be more troublesome for people with different backgrounds, though.

I guess that isn’t really helpful. I don’t agree with Lovecraft’s racism, and I certainly don’t think it’s an admirable quality, but as far as his fiction goes, that stuff is all exoterica, anyway.

Jr told me that the main character’s cat is named N-Man. Hmmm. I have trouble separating writers from their work sometimes, but I try my best. And I still feel conflicted about it. My question is how do you separate an artist from their art, especially when their art has offensive aspects to it? It’s easier to do with the visual arts — even with most porn — but written racism is harder for me to ignore. If I agree that a racist writer is a great artist, am I condoning his racism?