Quote from: I on January 30, 2023, 12:12:40 PM
It's a little thing called hypocrisy.  It obviously doesn't bother you, but most people take a dim view of it.  This Evil Hat asshole had choices; he didn't have to use Lovecraft's work to make a game.  If he wanted to make a horror game he could have made a generic one, like Chill.  Or if he just HAD to use some IP, he could have based a game on the horror writings of his fellow libtard Stephen King.  But that would have required expensive licensing fees, whereas Lovecraft's work is in the public domain, so this cheap motherfucker just decided to steal somebody else's ideas and then act like his hand was forced or something.

I haven't read the Evil Hat stuff on Lovecraft, but it isn't inherently hypocritical to say both:

(1) H.P. Lovecraft was exceptionally racist, even more than typical for his time,
(2) H.P. Lovecraft was a genius author and visionary,

There's no contradiction here. People can have bad moral and ethical values, and yet still have other strengths.

I've played and run lots of Lovecraft-based games, and I agree with both of those. One can acknowledge his faults as a person while still acknowledging the excellence of his writing.

But if you spend whole page to VS against HPL then it is hipocrytical

Quote from: jhkim on January 30, 2023, 08:26:15 PMOne can acknowledge his faults as a person while still acknowledging the excellence of his writing.

Except they don't. Just like with Rowling, they want to enjoy the material, while shitting on the creator, and excising the creator from the work, like it spontaneously appeared from the void.

They wouldn't even acknowledge the creators created the work, if they didn't need their two minutes of hate, to signal to other wokists not to attack them.

Quote from: jhkim on January 30, 2023, 08:26:15 PMThere's no contradiction here. People can have bad moral and ethical values, and yet still have other strengths.

Lovecraft wouldn't have written his fiction if he wasn't a paranoid, racist, and closeminded man (with a loose grasp of the science of the time). This isn't a "puppy kicker develops a cure for cancer on the side", where you can view the person poorly and respect the work.
This is a "Puppy kicker develops a cure for cancer: it's kicking puppies". Then using the cure he developed, while sneering about it. Don't take it if you think it's unethical. Develop a new one.

Quote from: jhkim on January 30, 2023, 08:26:15 PM

Quote from: I on January 30, 2023, 12:12:40 PM
It's a little thing called hypocrisy.  It obviously doesn't bother you, but most people take a dim view of it.  This Evil Hat asshole had choices; he didn't have to use Lovecraft's work to make a game.  If he wanted to make a horror game he could have made a generic one, like Chill.  Or if he just HAD to use some IP, he could have based a game on the horror writings of his fellow libtard Stephen King.  But that would have required expensive licensing fees, whereas Lovecraft's work is in the public domain, so this cheap motherfucker just decided to steal somebody else's ideas and then act like his hand was forced or something.

I haven't read the Evil Hat stuff on Lovecraft, but it isn't inherently hypocritical to say both:

(1) H.P. Lovecraft was exceptionally racist, even more than typical for his time,
(2) H.P. Lovecraft was a genius author and visionary,

There's no contradiction here. People can have bad moral and ethical values, and yet still have other strengths.

I've played and run lots of Lovecraft-based games, and I agree with both of those. One can acknowledge his faults as a person while still acknowledging the excellence of his writing.

It's not hypocritical to say it.  It's hypocritical to MAKE MONEY off of it.  If he thinks Lovecraft is so bad, why is he encouraging people to read Lovecraft's work?  I mainly got into Lovecraft because of the Call of Cthulhu game, not the other way around.  For example, I previously mentioned a Stephen King roleplaying game.  Actually not a bad idea.  But even if I were rich enough to afford the license to use his IP (and could get it for cheap enough to feasibly still make a profit, which isn't likely), got his permission, and was talented enough to write such a game, I still wouldn't do it.  You know why?  Because I hate the liberal asshole that is Stephen King and wouldn't want to encourage sales of his books or promote him in any way. 

Similar to your opinion of Lovecraft, I simultaneously think King is a great writer while also being a shit of a human being.  The difference in me and Evil Hat, or me and you, is that my standards wouldn't permit me to make money off of this situation, whereas you and your kind, having no standards but double ones, don't see a problem here.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 30, 2023, 10:23:07 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 30, 2023, 08:26:15 PMThere's no contradiction here. People can have bad moral and ethical values, and yet still have other strengths.

Lovecraft wouldn't have written his fiction if he wasn't a paranoid, racist, and closeminded man (with a loose grasp of the science of the time). This isn't a "puppy kicker develops a cure for cancer on the side", where you can view the person poorly and respect the work.
This is a "Puppy kicker develops a cure for cancer: it's kicking puppies". Then using the cure he developed, while sneering about it. Don't take it if you think it's unethical. Develop a new one.

This is one of the best posts I've read on a forum LOL!

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 30, 2023, 10:23:07 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 30, 2023, 08:26:15 PMThere's no contradiction here. People can have bad moral and ethical values, and yet still have other strengths.

Lovecraft wouldn't have written his fiction if he wasn't a paranoid, racist, and closeminded man (with a loose grasp of the science of the time). This isn't a "puppy kicker develops a cure for cancer on the side", where you can view the person poorly and respect the work.
This is a "Puppy kicker develops a cure for cancer: it's kicking puppies". Then using the cure he developed, while sneering about it. Don't take it if you think it's unethical. Develop a new one.

If Lovecraft was a living author making a percentage, then I could understand boycotting Lovecraft to deny him a percentage. But given that his works are in the public domain, I think it's ridiculous to demand that anyone who condemns his racism also boycott his works.

I despise this bowdlerization and sanitization of history, saying that one needs to put on blinders and not be exposed to anything objectionable. History has objectionable things. Bad people can create great works. And it is foolish to deny their existence and refuse to acknowledge them.

I encouraged my son to read Lovecraft, because he's a great writer and was hugely influential. However, I also told him that Lovecraft was racist as fuck, because that is the truth and an important part of him and his works.

Shrieking Banshee, I agree with you that Lovecraft's paranoia and racism were integral to his passion for writing, and show up throughout his stories. On the other hand, his talent wasn't because of that. His talent meant that he could express his feelings with shocking clarity. If writing about Lovecraft, I think all that would be important to say. Likewise, if someone had a book based on Vincent Van Gogh, I'd expect writing about his self-destructive urges, because they were important to understanding him and his work.

When do the Marxists finally unperson Lovecraft? Is it after they milk his works for every single nickle they can? Do they rename him Hatedestroy because he's "racist as fuck"?

The hand-wringing is laughable and 100% expected. God forbid you read an author who is literally a product of his time and not care about his personal beliefs that he doesn't profess in great detail in some sort of preface to all his works...

Quote from: jhkim on January 31, 2023, 02:45:55 AM

If Lovecraft was a living author making a percentage, then I could understand boycotting Lovecraft to deny him a percentage. But given that his works are in the public domain, I think it's ridiculous to demand that anyone who condemns his racism also boycott his works.

I despise this bowdlerization and sanitization of history, saying that one needs to put on blinders and not be exposed to anything objectionable. History has objectionable things. Bad people can create great works. And it is foolish to deny their existence and refuse to acknowledge them.

In other words, it's not that you have a problem enjoying the works of bad people, even profiting off them, you just don't think bad people should be able to profit from their own labors.

Quote from: jhkim on January 31, 2023, 02:45:55 AM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 30, 2023, 10:23:07 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 30, 2023, 08:26:15 PMThere's no contradiction here. People can have bad moral and ethical values, and yet still have other strengths.

Lovecraft wouldn't have written his fiction if he wasn't a paranoid, racist, and closeminded man (with a loose grasp of the science of the time). This isn't a "puppy kicker develops a cure for cancer on the side", where you can view the person poorly and respect the work.
This is a "Puppy kicker develops a cure for cancer: it's kicking puppies". Then using the cure he developed, while sneering about it. Don't take it if you think it's unethical. Develop a new one.

If Lovecraft was a living author making a percentage, then I could understand boycotting Lovecraft to deny him a percentage. But given that his works are in the public domain, I think it's ridiculous to demand that anyone who condemns his racism also boycott his works.

I despise this bowdlerization and sanitization of history, saying that one needs to put on blinders and not be exposed to anything objectionable. History has objectionable things. Bad people can create great works. And it is foolish to deny their existence and refuse to acknowledge them.

I encouraged my son to read Lovecraft, because he's a great writer and was hugely influential. However, I also told him that Lovecraft was racist as fuck, because that is the truth and an important part of him and his works.

Shrieking Banshee, I agree with you that Lovecraft's paranoia and racism were integral to his passion for writing, and show up throughout his stories. On the other hand, his talent wasn't because of that. His talent meant that he could express his feelings with shocking clarity. If writing about Lovecraft, I think all that would be important to say. Likewise, if someone had a book based on Vincent Van Gogh, I'd expect writing about his self-destructive urges, because they were important to understanding him and his work.

Lovecraft may not make any money off of his stuff, but by making a game based on his work you're encouraging people to read his work and therefore be exposed to his ideas.  I mean, your son now may one day give his cat a politically incorrect name!  Oh, the horror!  Oh, and nice going, lecturing your kid on what opinions to form while reading Lovecraft, instead of just handing him the book and letting him form his own ideas.   That would be like handing my kid some Stephen King and saying, "Son, this guy's a great horror writer, but you're not allowed to agree with any of his ideas like (a) all Christians are evil, (b) the U.S. government is bad and out to get you, but only when it's run by Republicans, Democrats are OK, and (c) there's no such thing as a bad convict, they're all good people wrongly convicted of crimes and oppressed by a conservative fascist system."  I will give you credit for allowing your kid to read Lovecraft though; most liberals wouldn't even do that.

Quote from: Brad on January 31, 2023, 06:08:06 AM
When do the Marxists finally unperson Lovecraft? Is it after they milk his works for every single nickle they can? Do they rename him Hatedestroy because he's "racist as fuck"?

The hand-wringing is laughable and 100% expected. God forbid you read an author who is literally a product of his time and not care about his personal beliefs that he doesn't profess in great detail in some sort of preface to all his works...

That... over-simplifies it. To be fair to the other side for a moment, Lovecraft was not "a product of his time". Or, at least, he was not only a product of his time. He was a product of his time, his peculiar upbringing, and possibly his own mental demons. He was known to be notably xenophobic even by his contemporaries. In the same way we shouldn't try to memory hole him for wrongthink or something, we shouldn't try to soft-sell his foibles. Lovecraft was an odd duck.

Twain is "a product of his time" when he has a character known as "Nigger Jim". Tolkien was a "product of his time" for not having a suitably progressive cast of characters... And yes, I vomited in my mouth a little writing that. But Lovecraft... went a little beyond things like that.

Quote from: I on January 31, 2023, 11:33:01 AMThat would be like handing my kid some Stephen King and saying, "Son, this guy's a great horror writer, but you're not allowed to agree with any of his ideas like (a) all Christians are evil, (b) the U.S. government is bad and out to get you, but only when it's run by Republicans, Democrats are OK, and (c) there's no such thing as a bad convict, they're all good people wrongly convicted of crimes and oppressed by a conservative fascist system."

I would be far more concerned that your kid would grow up to think being a hack writer was okay.

I'm a little late in replying seeing as I brought it up, but yes, my issue is the double-standard at play.  If you think that someone is such an awful human that his corpse should be dug up and paraded through the streets before being strung up as a pinata for black children, you should not be engaging in a financial endeavor based off of that person's work.  Nobody remotely sane could ever say that Lovecraft was not racist; you can get into the weeds about how racist compared to general 1920s people, or how his mental illnesses directly led to the work he produced, but dude was all about some racism, so if you're inclined to sob about it while flagellating yourself in a horse hair shirt, maybe write your game about someone else's stuff.  Don't try to have your cake and eat it too.

Quote from: I on January 31, 2023, 11:33:01 AM
Lovecraft may not make any money off of his stuff, but by making a game based on his work you're encouraging people to read his work and therefore be exposed to his ideas.  I mean, your son now may one day give his cat a politically incorrect name!  Oh, the horror!

You might be full of hand-wringing horror at the idea of people being exposed to different ideas, but I think it's a positive.

Quote from: I on January 31, 2023, 11:33:01 AM
Oh, and nice going, lecturing your kid on what opinions to form while reading Lovecraft, instead of just handing him the book and letting him form his own ideas.   That would be like handing my kid some Stephen King and saying, "Son, this guy's a great horror writer, but you're not allowed to agree with any of his ideas like (a) all Christians are evil, (b) the U.S. government is bad and out to get you, but only when it's run by Republicans, Democrats are OK, and (c) there's no such thing as a bad convict, they're all good people wrongly convicted of crimes and oppressed by a conservative fascist system."  I will give you credit for allowing your kid to read Lovecraft though; most liberals wouldn't even do that.

Do you actually disagree that Lovecraft was racist? I don't consider that to be imposing an opinion. It's like saying that Orwell was anti-totalitarian or that Upton Sinclair was socialist. It's completely obvious from any study of the author. If I hadn't said that, then my son would likely have come back to me saying "Why did you recommend to me these racist stories?"

Quote from: Brad on January 31, 2023, 06:08:06 AM
The hand-wringing is laughable and 100% expected. God forbid you read an author who is literally a product of his time and not care about his personal beliefs that he doesn't profess in great detail in some sort of preface to all his works...

Saying he is "literally a product of his times" is completely meaningless, unless you actually believe that other authors were literal time travelers. Every author is a product of their times. And yes, for classic authors, I consider it normal to read some about their life and beliefs. Nearly every literary book has an introduction that describes the author.

I find sanctimony to be off-putting and, in the case of Evil Hat, hypocritical and hostile.

You want to make a game based off Lovecraft's work, just do it. Don't shame your readers or lecture them on the proper way to enjoy it. As someone who owns a few Lovecraft story collections and board games, I can say that nobody shames their own customers except for looney RPG authors.

Include a short bio of the guy and some commentary, but leave the judgement to the reader. This is common sense and what normal creators do.