Lovecraft was mega racist and fucked up but dismissing his work as 'tentacle monsters' or reducing it to a Cthulhu plushie just handed handwaves away the need writers have to reckon with the role he played in their craft.

Sometimes racists make great art (often, even!) and pretending as though their work was somehow inevitable or an albatross on art itself by virtue of that racism is not only absurd, but reinforces a 'good art can't be racist' morality that ALLOWS racists to flourish in the arts.

Every time we dismiss a racists work by saying "they were shit" we excuse ourselves of the responsibility to be critical of artists that aren't shit. If every racist makes bad art and holds back the form, then good artists who spur progress are above the need for examination.

Bad news everyone, the history of 'great art' is largely a history of racism, imperialism, and oppression, from Laskaris to Leni.

Lovecraft wrote great things that changed art. He was also v fucked up and analysis of those great works should reflect that.

The Hugos were a missed opportunity to present Lovecraft's work in the modern context that critics and scholars have been working to build around him for years. We wouldn't give Birth of a Nation a Retro Oscar today without comment, as though it were any other film.

We can't pretend yesterday's pioneers weren't carrying their prejudices with them, or that they didn't break the ground that they did. We're just training ourselves to ignore the racism of today's pioneers.