Have you ever read a book, seen a movie, heard a song you really enjoyed, that really resonated with you... and then found out something less-than-savory about the creator?
Jason and I have been watching Lovecraft Country recently. In the first episode the main character, who is black, is walking along with an older black lady after they were stranded when their bus broke down and only the white passengers were provided with alternate transportation. The other passenger mentions that she saw him reading while they were on the bus and asks him what his book was about. He tells her he was reading A Princess of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs, and goes on to describe the beginning of the book - a former Confederate officer is lost in the desert and stumbles upon a portal to Mars.
"Wait... a Confederate officer?" She asks.
"Ex-Confederate," he clarifies.
She scoffs "once a Confederate, always a Confederate."
He shrugs, and admits that he can separate the character from his origin and enjoy the story.
Lovecraft Country takes place in the 1950's, and so far all the episodes are dripping with period accurate racism and misogyny. (It's a very good, show, don't get me wrong, but it's not Hairspray.) Some of the characters in the show are fans of H.P. Lovecraft; others remind them that he was racist.
And, while I'm not trying to excuse racism, antisemitism, xenophobia, or anything else that Lovecraft is commonly accused of, I am saying that he is a product of his time. Casual racism, antisemitism, xenophobia, misogyny, and a whole host of other bothersome things were commonplace and unremarkable in the early 20th century. Many authors of classics would fall into those same categories if we examined them closely. How many older books have you read with "tricky" Jews, "lazy" or overly-servile blacks, "untrustworthy" immigrants (Irish, Italian, Mexican, whatever), "barbaric" middle-easterners, and delicate wilting violet heroines who need a big strong man to save them?
Dickens had Fagan; Shakespeare had Shylock and Othello (or specifically, the “malignant and a turbaned Turk” that Othello called a “circumcisèd dog,” and killed).
I'm not saying we should ignore the prejudices of the past... but I'm also saying that we should not completely disregard an author (or, more specifically, their works) if there is merit once we look past the author's shortcomings. This is 2020, and I'd like to think we're more inclusive as a society now than in 1920, and 1820, and 1620.
And what are we writing today? Who are today's paragons who will be seen as problematic in 20, 50, 100 years?
An example of how viewpoints can change, even within a lifetime, would be J. K Rowling.
In the late 1990's when the Harry Potter books first came out, her books were frequently challenged for sorcery and witchcraft. (Which, really, is like challenging Sir Cumference and the Dragon of Pi for use of geometry.) A few years later, when filming one of the later films (I want to say Half-Blood Prince) there was a big to do about J. K. Rowling announcing that Dumbledore was gay. Some people were in an uproar, announcing that she was promoting "the gay agenda" in addition to witchcraft. Others hailed her as progressive - the wise mentor character is gay! How fabulous! And now... it's almost as though things have come full circle.
Earlier this year, Rowling got into, well, a row (to use the British) online with none other than Daniel Radcliffe about whether or not transgender women were "really" women. A large number of her fans and followers, who had seen the books as so accepting, so inclusive, such a fantastic allegory for transformation, becoming who you truly are, found that their hero, their paragon, had fallen and her pedestal was crumbling.
Many people started saying "J. K. Rowling didn't write this world, this universe that I so identify with - Daniel Radcliffe did! Hermione did! Someone else, anyone else!" And, while I am not defending her comments, I think it's a shame to try and excise the author from the work.
J.K. Rowling is 55 years old. Many of her fans who are upset are in their 30's, 20's, maybe even teens. I'm not saying "older generations don't get it,"... but when I first started reading Harry Potter in 2000, I didn't know a lot of gay people (or, rather maybe didn't know a lot of people who had come out). Not only did I not know anyone who was transgender, I didn't know such a thing existed. (Yes, I was sheltered.) That was 20 years ago.
Now I know enough about the LGBTQ+ world, spectrum, color wheel to know that I really don't know a lot about it. And that's OK - I'm open to knowing more, I'm open to learning and letting people be who they want to be. And, I also know that as a 38-year-old white woman writing in 2020 that there may be things that I write that my daughter's generation, or her children's generation read and think, "Oh, god, why would she say this? What a horrible person!" I hope not, but I know that society moves on, and grows, and changes, so who am I to say what will be acceptable in the year 2120?
But, back to Lovecraft. I guess the point of what I am trying to say is this: if you find the world of Lovecraft intriguing, read it, and don't worry about the author. If you find John Carter's post-Civil War adventures on Mars thrilling, read them, and don't worry about his background. If you love Harry Potter, for goodness's sakes, put on your house scarf and wave your wand and don't worry about J.K's tweets. Just read what you want, and enjoy yourself. Don't let an author take their world away from you.
#BannedBooksWeek2020