"Adventuring was more a hobby. We're writers, really."

[captain_ziggy]

Hey, remember that one time H.P. Lovecraft and Charles Fort teamed up with Nikola Tesla's robot son to defeat an eldritch horror from beyond the stars?



No? Well, we have to fix that then.

5 pages and 1 panel from the first issue of Atomic Robo and the Shadow From Beyond Time after the jump



So, to start our story, Robo's stuck studying at home while Tesla's away on business when he gets some unexpected guests. Realizing that they won't go away if he just ignores them, he answers the door.

Did I mention Lovecraft was racist? Because he's racist.

Reeeeaally racist.

Anyways, Fort and Lovecraft need to see Tesla right the fuck away and won't take no for an answer. This wouldn't be a problem if he wasn't halfway across the world and not expected to return for another three weeks, so the world is doomed and will likely end within the hour.

Wait, how do these two know Tesla anyways? Fort has the answer to that:


Long story short: Fort, Tesla and Lovecraft's dad (who was America's top secret occult investigator) all teamed up and used Tesla's death ray to zap an extradimensional alien out of existence - only they kinda fudged the physics on it, so they didn't actually kill it.
So where did it go?

Want to find out what happens next? Well, go get the comic then. It deserves money.


And for those on dial up (or who want larger scans), behold!

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/7818/atomicroboandtheshadowf.jpg
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/7818/atomicroboandtheshadowf.jpg
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7818/atomicroboandtheshadowf.jpg
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/7818/atomicroboandtheshadowf.jpg
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/7818/atomicroboandtheshadowf.jpg

Comments

[proteus_lives]

"deserve some retroactive pulling down."

I'm not sure I agree with that. That means a lot (if not most) historical writers, artists, poets, politicians and scientists are on the dock.

I guess it depends on your definition of pulling down but as former history major I got it drilled into my head not to apply 2000s standards to different eras.

[q99]

Just because we can take their works without applying the modern context to them, doesn't mean that we can't also examine them in that context if we wish, or note that if we put them in a story with someone who has relatively modern sensibilities (or even still-archaic but different ones) they can come off as hilariously racist.

[proteus_lives]

Certainly so.

Examining and re-examining old folks in different contexts has led to some of my favorite works.

I guess it all depends on your topic/subject, your audience and the point you're trying to make.

[golden_orange]

But I'm not just criticising him for being a racist, I'm criticising him because in this particular case he allows his racism to fundamentally affect the quality of his work (for me, anyway). Yes, lots of artists, writers, poets, politicians and scientists of the time may have held or even expressed views similar to Lovecraft's at the time, but like captain_ziggy says, they didn't all write stories in which someone's racial identity is supposed to be a shocking and horrifying plot-twist (even if something similar was a common fictional trope). You make a good and valid point about not applying modern standards to past situations, but that's not a 'get-out-of-criticism-free' card; I may indeed be applying a post-2000 mindset to a past work, but it's the only one I've got, and according to it "Medusa's Coil" is rendered completely absurd in a way I can't get past. So in that sense, yes, I fully believe that he deserves being pulled down on that score.

Though if we are going to approaching Lovecraft from the standards of the time, however (and you're right, it's not entirely fair to not consider the contemporary standards of the day) it's perhaps worth noting that according to various sources I've read even by the standards of his time many of Lovecraft's views on race were quite extreme.

[proteus_lives]

You're right it's not a get out it free card.

And HPL isn't and shouldn't be immune to criticism. But after reading about the man, it's not just his views on race that were extreme, it's view of the entire world.

HPL is a weird case because I'm in awe of him and pity him at the same time. The entire world was his "Other" to be feared.

[espanolbot]

I did read somewhere that the reason why so many of his stories involve half-human hybrids (half-fish creature, half-monkey, half-eldritch beastie) was due to his phobia of mixed race people.

[glprime]

The best example I can give was learning more about Rudyard Kipling than "He wrote The Jungle Book."

Yes, he was a staunch British Imperialist and wrote The White Man's Burden, but reading the text of his poems (including my favorite, We and They) and learning more about the entirety of his life and how the fallout of World War I changed him as it did so many others, there's a greater depth to the man than a 21st century reading of broad strokes could give you.

[proteus_lives]

Kipling is a great example about this topic.

[schmevil]

But this is casual literary criticism, not a historical discussion. Books can be interpreted any number of ways without harm coming to them or their dead authors. I'm not sure I really understand your objection?

[proteus_lives]

Not an objection, more of a caveat or asterisk.

I'm always just worried that people will disregard good literature if the author holds an objectionable view.

Plus, with HPL, I feel like it's a complicated subject.

[schmevil]

Ok, I get you. I do think it's a good idea to continually challenge the canon, in particular.

[darrylayo]

I haven't read any HP Lovecraft, but based on my second-hand knowledge, I'm not sure I'd necessarily see the "goodness" to his literature.

It's not going to be easy to dismiss or gloss over being a punchline when you're the horrific negro.


On the other hand, I have a great deal of appreciation for EC Segar, and many older cartoonists. But then still on the first hand, the majority of racism of older comics doesn't seem from my first-hand reading, to contain the level of hate described in these second-hand accounts of Lovecraft.


Also: to hell with people who complain that one cannot apply modern cultural standards to works of bygone eras. To hell with them. You can and you should. There's no honor whatsoever in taking off one's rational cap and pretending to (or...sincerely) empathize with evil people.

You can read the man who thinks blacks are horrific, you can read Hitler's autobiography, you can read Little Nemo in Slumberland, you can do ALL of this, with clear conscience. But don't use that as an excuse (as far too many "open minded literary readers" do) to uncritically romp in wonder through the hate and ignorance of simple men.

Don't do it.

[salinea]

Well said.

[proteus_lives]

Excuses?

No, context.

"to hell with people who complain that one cannot apply modern cultural standards to works of bygone eras. To hell with them. You can and you should. There's no honor whatsoever in taking off one's rational cap and pretending to (or...sincerely) empathize with evil people."

I disagree. I'm too much of a historian to do that. It's not honest.

And this was exactly what I was talking about. You will never see the dark beauty of HPL's work because of his mental problems. I find that regrettable.

[darrylayo]

Ew.

Don't talk to me about "dark beauty." Don't appreciate your condescending attitude. You may feel you're a "historian," but shutting your brain off to what you know to be evil isn't "honest" either.

[proteus_lives]

If that was condescending, I apologize. That wasn't my intent.

My remarks were about not "shutting off" the brain. It is my opinion that cases like this must be approached with an open mind. If HPL was just some simple tract writer with an axe to grind, then you wouldn't be hearing from me about it. But it's not that simple.

You have to examine the books you read, the writers you love, the history behind them. The history of the era that gave birth to them. HPL for example had probably the darkest worldview you'd ever encounter. His entire life was wrapped in fatalism and nihilism. His entire worldview was rooted in fear. Fear of everything. The entire world was his "Other". Cloistered, sheltered and sick and almost completely disconnected from the human race. A sad, sick and brilliant man. Worthy of examination and thought.

And here's why. You say you have never read Lovecraft but in a way you have. He created and pushed so many of the tropes in sci-fi/horror/fiction that in the indirect way, you have read a lot of Lovecraft.

That's why the questions should never be settled, the discussion never cease and the book never stop being read.

[abbadie]

Well put; sadly, arguments based on something that is basically right, such as the iredeemable nature of racism, are expounded, details are easily swept under the rug. Ironically, even stories by HPL which do not touch the subject are ultimately avoided due to this strange "prejudice". While Lovecraft did write a couple of awful pieces, his disgusting racist poem is a piece from his teens, before he re-thought many things; and "Medusa's Coil" was indeed a revision of a (now lost) original draft by his client Zealia Bishop,a lady who felt at home writing gothic romances but attempted a few sad pieces of horror, which HPL expanded with much better concepts whenever possible. It is more than likely that Zealia's original story was a trite and tasteless "the evil heiress was a Voodo black witch with snake hair!" and HPL added all the weird stuff in the middle of the story as well as giving the nature of her hair a less simplistic nature (the only good idea in the story IMHO).

The real argument against the portrayal of Lovecraft in this comic should be quite simply that his racism is increased into great heights of out-of-character reactions, and is a plain misportrayal. By all accounts, Lovecraft was never anything but polite and (when adult) even respectful toward black people when he interacted with them, keeping his prejudices to himself. He would never have said a single of these things which, while funny, create a very far-fetched caricature of the man.

I still blame Sprague de Camp for the exaggerations concerning Lovecraft's prejudices, since that became the central subject of his awful biography. Meanwhile, better biographies are less-known and quoted, and further research that shows how Lovecraft's obsolete radicalism toned down and shifted somewhat in later years is virtually unknown. I'm not saying he abandoned his racial issues, but that he was progressively outgrowing his bigotry and political vices. How many people are aware that he was leaning towards the communism he used to deride in his later years?

Mod note - second strike

[greenmask]

This is your SECOND OFFICIAL WARNING. This is what they call a "second strike" and you are now suspended from the community for the next fourteen days, after which you will be allowed to return. Please note that if you receive one further warning you will lose the ability to post on this community.

A comic where the usual lighthearted, energetically wacky tone can't easily be abandonned to give a nuanced critique of the racist themes in Lovecraft's work, where the creators have chosen to benefit from HP's work with cosmic/eldritch horror themes and have admirably also chosen to address the fact that they are benefitting from a man who produced extremely racist work in the most suitable way for their own story is not the place to try to force everyone to see how producing racist work might not, in your opinion, make an author the worst person ever forever.

No post is the place to use the blunt and silencing language that you have chosen. You say It is my opinion that cases like this must be approached with an open mind. Saying "opinion" does not not negate saying must - your opinion that you must look at these cases this way is acceptable; stating your opinion that everyone must do so is not.

You have to examine the books you read, the writers you love, the history behind them. You may mean "I must" or "it is fortuitous to" - but you are saying that you know the best way to approach (in this case) historical figures of racism and that for somebody to choose otherwise is wrong. That's just rude.

Suggesting that people talk less about racism, for whatever reason, has the knock-on effect of dismissing the impact of said racism.

Talking about "dark beauty" in a thread about racism is asking for trouble, basically. It's not only condescending to suggest that objection to racism is hurting the other commenter, it's also a phrase similar to language used by opressive, exotifying collonialist white people in order to fuirther objectify black people.

[benicio127]

This is such a great comment.