My World Fantasy Convention schedule and info

I'm attending the World Fantasy Convention from October 27 to 30 in Columbus, Ohio. I'm both covering the convention for the media like I did at Worldcon (follow me at @jasonsanford to see my coverage) and taking part in two panels.

I'll also be giving away signed limited edition copies of my novelette "Blood Grains Speak Through Memories," published earlier this year by Beneath Ceaseless Skies. If you see me feel free to ask for one.

My panels:

Friday at 1 pm, DELAWARE CD
Fantasy Emerging from Crisis
. Are there trends in fiction that can be tied to global crises? E.g., certain kinds of fantasy emerged from the instability that led up to WWI. The Lord of the Rings is a clear response to the Great War. Are there directions we can anticipate with near-future environmental conflicts (water wars), destabilizing natural disasters, rising seas, income inequality issues, etc. perhaps leading to more political works (especially considering the popularity of Game of Thrones)? 9/11 produced Lavie Tidhar’s World Fantasy Award winning Osama and also inspired stories by Lucius Shepard, Richard Bowes, Jack Ketchum, and others. Fantasy inevitably arises from the zeitgeist. It can also come right out of the headlines. Chris Phillips, Jason Sanford (m), Gary K. Wolfe, Chrisopher Husberg, Caroline Yoachim

Saturday at 9 pm, DELAWARE CD
Strange Drugs
. Opium and the like have always had a romantic allure. How about imaginary drugs? Alice in Wonderland? Clark Ashton Smith? How does the fantasy pharmacopeia differ from the real thing? What kind of drug do you take to see into the future or enter another world? Brady McReynolds, Jason Sanford, Anya Martin, Alvaro Zinos-Amaro, E.J. Stevens (m)

I considered not attending this year's con because of all the controversy surrounding World Fantasy. However, the con is local to me and I already had a ticket. More importantly, the convention also responded to criticism by vastly improving their program. And, as always, the main attraction of any con is seeing all the people I like and admire in the genre community.

So we'll see how the con goes. And I'm definitely looking forward to seeing everyone.

Disturbed by Lovecraft, whose racism and hate weren't merely a product of his times

Note: I write a monthly column for the Czech SF/F magazine XB-1. The magazine's October 2016 issue is a special horror-themed edition and I was asked to write about the problematic heritage of H. P. Lovecraft. Which I did. The column caused a bit of controversy when it was published, with a few readers saying Lovecraft wasn't racist or was merely a product of his racist times. Below is the English version of the column in this month's XB-1 along with a follow-up response I wrote, which was published on the magazine's website.

Disturbed by Lovecraft

In the “foreweird” to the acclaimed anthology The Weird, edited by Ann and Jeff VanderMeer, Michael Moorcock writes “the appeal of the weird story is precisely that it is designed to disturb.”

Perhaps no 20th century writer has disturbed more people than H.P. Lovecraft. While Lovecraft was relatively unknown when he passed away in 1937, his body of work — including the stories which formed the basis of the "Cthulhu Mythos" — lived on, as did the works of the Lovecraft Circle, a group of writers published in the seminal magazine Weird Tales with whom Lovecraft regularly exchanged letters. These writers used aspects of Lovecraft’s Cthulhu stories in their own works, keeping Lovecraft’s themes and ideas going.

One of these authors, August Derleth, even founded the publisher Arkham House expressly to keep Lovecraft in print. Derleth also wrote many stories in Lovecraft’s universe, even — controversially — using Lovecraft’s notes to create new stories, which Derleth then listed as being co-authored by himself and Lovecraft.

But more on other authors writing Lovecraftian fiction in a moment.

You may have noticed I’m not bringing up the themes and elements of Lovecraft’s fiction. The reason for this is there’s little need. Not only have far better writers than myself examined and critiqued Lovecraft’s fiction, the mythos behind his stories have arguably become more famous than his fiction itself. The entire world has embraced Lovecraft’s view of “cosmic horror” complete with tentacled elder gods and powerless humans and the wrath of an evil universe. These themes have become so well-known they’re almost cliches.

As Ann and Jeff VanderMeer wrote about Lovecraft in The Weird, he “believed that life is ultimately incomprehensible to human beings and the universe is a cold, hostile place.” This Lovecraftian worldview has permeated far and wide into the greater culture, just as the paranoid worldview of another famous genre author — Philip K. Dick — has likewise spread far and wide.

People who haven’t read Dick’s stories still know his worldview, even if they don’t know his name. The same with Lovecraft.

And Lovecraft’s reputation is intimately bound with stories created by other writers. As I mentioned, fellow Weird Tales authors wrote stories using Lovecraft’s tropes and mythos, a trend continued by even more writers after his death. Today the list of authors who both write Lovecraftian stories or have been influenced by Lovecraft read like a who’s who of horror and dark fantasy and includes China Miéville, Clive Barker, Robert Bloch, Stephen King, Gemma Files, Laird Barron, Storm Constantine, and many more. In addition, Lovecraft has also had a major influence on the visual storytelling mediums, from video games to films like Alien and Ghostbusters, both of which contain major Lovecraftian elements.

But despite this acclaim, Lovecraft has also never been more controversial.

Part of this controversy is because Lovecraft was not a great literary wordsmith — as proof, read his story "The Cats of Ulthar," which is more an idea of a story, a summary of a story, than a true story with fleshed-out characters, developed plot, and rising and falling action.

Yet the larger reason Lovecraft is so controversial has little to do with his storytelling manner. Instead, it’s the beliefs which formed the core of his own self and permeated into his writings. You see, Lovecraft was a hardcore racist and antisemite. Meaning he would have implicitly rejected many of the authors who have carried on the tradition of his stories, or authors who received the World Fantasy Award with his likeness on the award statue, such as Nnedi Okorafor.

And no, Lovecraft wasn’t merely reflecting the racism and hatred of his times. Some of his contemporaries were extremely disturbed by his racism and pointed out the issue to him, to no avail.

It is difficult to separate Lovecraft’s racism from his stories. For example, “The Horror at Red Hook" is both one of Lovecraft’s most well-known stories and one of his most racist, with Lovecraft describing Aryan civilization as being all that stands against the “primitive half-ape savagery” of lesser races.

This aspect of Lovecraft’s writing makes him a difficult author to totally embrace in this day and age. African American author Victor LaValle grew up reading and loving Lovecraft’s stories even as he was appalled at the racism in Lovecraft’s life and stories. In response, LaValle wrote his powerful 2016 novella The Ballad Of Black Tom, which directly deals with all these issues even as it works the “The Horror at Red Hook” into something totally new, re-imagining the story and the Lovecraftian mythos so they’re seen through the eyes of a black man in 1920’s America.

Some Lovecraft fans complain about such re-examinations of Lovecraft’s racism, believing it is an attempt to remove Lovecraft from his place in the genre he helped build. But this view is nonsense. Lovecraft's influence on dark fantasy and horror isn't going to disappear merely because people are aware of the troubling aspects of his life and writing.

No, Lovecraft's legacy is secure because of all the authors and creators who took his ideas and ran with them. Most people are able to appreciate Lovecraft's influence on horror and dark fantasy while also acknowledging the negative aspects of his life and work.

You can see this dual attitude clearly in Nick Mamatas’ new novel I Am Providence, which is a murder-horror mystery set at a Lovecraft literary convention. In the novel Mamatas has one of his characters sum up Lovecraft’s influence as follows:

“What Lovecraft did do, better than anyone, was radically decenter the human experience from the art of fiction. Critics, or people who just don’t ‘get it,’ complain that Lovecraft’s characters are paper-thin cyphers who faint at the slightest hint of cosmic horror lurking in the ink-black sky. Correct, but that is a thematic strength, not an auctorial weakness. We are alone in an infinite universe, or so far from anyone else out there that it hardly matters. If we were to encounter alien life-forms … they might destroy us, accidentally or from an ethic of pure malevolence.”

I believe that quote sums of why Lovecraft’s vision still holds such power. And before anyone thinks Mamatas is fawning over Lovecraft, his novel also rips Lovecraft apart for the moral failings of his life.

Stories embracing Lovecraft's universe while also critiquing Lovecraft's views are how it goes these days, and that’s not a bad thing.


Response to those who say Lovecraft merely reflected the racism and hatred of his times

H.P. Lovecraft lived in what has been called the nadir of American race relations. Because of this many people attempt to excuse Lovecraft’s racism and anti-Semitism as merely being a product of his time.

However, Lovecraft’s racism and anti-Semitism went far beyond the norm even of those horrific times. And as times changed, Lovecraft didn’t change with them, instead sticking firmly to his racism and anti-Semitism.

Lovecraft’s hateful views were a major concern of his wife Sonia Greene, who was Jewish. Sonia was extremely disturbed by Lovecraft’s anti-Semitism and repeatedly raised this issue with Lovecraft, as related in this Wired article which states “Greene told a biographer later that she kept reminding Lovecraft about her own background, but it didn’t seem to dissuade him from his fear of Jews and other immigrants.”

Sonia even once confronted Lovecraft on how she was a member of a group he despised, to which he responded by saying she “no longer belonged to these mongrels.”

Despite Sonia repeatedly raising these issues with Lovecraft, she later wrote, “Whenever we found ourselves in the racially mixed crowds which characterize New York, Howard would become livid with rage. He seemed almost to lose his mind.”

It’s likely even Lovecraft knew his views were not the standard racism and hate of his day. Otherwise, why would he have worked so hard to defend his views? An example of this is related in S.T. Joshi's A Dreamer and a Visionary: H.P. Lovecraft and his Time. Joshi describes how Charles D. Isaacson wrote an essay on racial tolerance which also attacked the film Birth of a Nation for inciting “racial hatred.” In response Lovecraft wrote that “Mr. Isaacson’s views on racial prejudice … are too subjective to be impartial.”

Isaacson responded with an essay attacking Lovecraft, saying that the author “is against tolerance of color, creed and equality, upholds race prejudice…”

The year this exchange took place? 1915. Even that long ago people were willing to call out Lovecraft for his racism.

Lovecraft’s friend Wilfred Branch Talman also noted Lovecraft’s racism, although unlike with the Isaacson exchange Talman merely dismissed Lovecraft’s “racist viewpoint” as being part of the bizarre 18th century aristocratic pose Lovecraft affected. But the fact that Talman even noticed Lovecraft’s racism during one of the most racist times in American history speaks volumes about how bad Lovecraft’s views were.

The idea that Lovecraft’s racism and anti-Semitism wasn’t merely a product of his times is also taken up by many of the people who have studied the author’s works in recent years. For example, in the intro to The Mammoth Book of Cthulhu: New Lovecraftian Fiction, editor Paula Guran writes “Lovecraft’s prejudice seems, at the very least, somewhat more pronounced than many of his contemporaries.”

Guran’s view is echoed by China Miéville in his introduction to At the Mountains of Madness: The Definitive Edition by H.P. Lovecraft, where Miéville writes “Two things are sometimes adduced to excuse (Lovecraft). One is that it was 'the time' — people were just 'like that' back then. This is an unacceptable condescension to history: people were emphatically not all like that.”

As I stated in my original XB-1 essay, despite Lovecraft’s racism and anti-Semitism his legacy is secure because of the many authors and creators who have taken his ideas and run with them. In addition, most people are able to appreciate Lovecraft's influence on horror and dark fantasy while also acknowledging the negative aspects of his life and work.

But none of that means we should ignore or excuse his racism and hate.

The world has always been a very interconnected place

One of the skeletons unearthed in the Roman-era London cemetery.

One of the skeletons unearthed in the Roman-era London cemetery.

Note: An archaeology thread from last week, originally posted on my Twitter account.

As a former archaeologist, I'm not shocked by the discovery of possible burials of people from China in Roman-era London.

The world has always been a vastly interconnected place, with trade & movement of people throughout history & across vast distances.

As stated in the history article above, the cemetery in Roman-era London not only contained people from China but from Africa & around the world.

This suggests that neighborhood of Roman-era London had a very diverse population. And guess what — this London cemetery is not the only archaeological site in the world with such findings.

When I worked as an archaeologist we'd often find artifacts & burials suggesting extensive trade and travel among historic peoples.

Despite this truth, we often paint history as monochromatic, as if only Anglo-Saxons lived in England & Romans were only from Italy & so on.

This distortion of history carries over into our fiction & stories, turning Renaissance Europe into a whites-only affair as only 1 example.

If you write stories set in historic times, don't give current cultural biases free rein in your fiction. Instead, truly research & explore.

And as you write historic stories, know that just like today the past was an extremely interconnected world.

See also



World Fantasy tries again with programming

Early this morning a new World Fantasy Convention 2016 program was posted on their Facebook page. The new program is credited to both Darrell Schweitzer and Ellen Datlow. Only a month ago Schweitzer and WFC were roundly criticized for the original program, with Sarah Pinsker, Jim Hines and many many others pointing out flaws including a panel on “Spicy Oriental Zeppelin Stories," more mentions of H.P. Lovecraft "in the program than all women or works by women COMBINED," almost no mentions of any fantasy stories from the last two decades, no international fantasy, no mention of any authors of color, and many other issues.

The original World Fantasy program didn't focus on world fantasy as much as a regressive dream of what world fantasy has never been.

So is the new program better? In general it appears to be, although I'm still picking through the details. Among the changes:

  • The panel “Spicy Oriental Zeppelin Stories” has been replaced with "A Golden Age of Contemporary Asian Fantasy," which will explore "the growing body of work by writers from Asia and the diaspora, who interrogate, reinterpret, and develop the literary traditions of their countries and cultures of origin (among other literary traditions and cultures, including the 'West') in a globalized context."
  • Instead of 10 panels about Lovecraft, there are now only 2, one of which is titled "On Beyond Lovecraft" and covers HPL's complicated legacy by bringing in Victor LaValle’s The Ballad of Black Tom and Caitlin Kiernan’s “Black Helicopters.”
  • More panels on recent fantasy authors, including a memorial to Terry Pratchett, who died last year.
  • Many more works by women covered in the panels.
  • A panel on "LGBT Characters in Modern Fantasy," focusing on recent developments in the genre.
  • A panel on fantasy and horror in translation.
  • A panel on ladies with swords, focusing on the lore, legend, and image of the female swashbuckler.

Err, that last panel I'm taking a wait and see attitude with because what it covers will depend on who is on the panel (meaning I hope the panel is more than a love fest discussing chainmail bikinis). And to a large extent all of these programming changes will depend on who WFC picks to be on the panels and who moderates.

I wish WFC had started totally from scratch with this year's program, which they obviously didn't do. But overall these changes are positive. It appears some of these changes were taken from Guerilla WFC, which put forward a truly innovative WFC program, which is a good sign. I'm also sure Ellen Datlow had a positive effect on the changes, as did everyone in the genre who justifiably ripped apart the previous program.

Update: The new program is now on the official WFC 2016 website. Go there to see the schedule.

March of the living dead lit mag submissions

Interesting thread over on the Facebook page of author Martin Ott. To quote:

Getting organized to do a few submissions and noticed I still had a large number of submissions from last fall sitting in lit mag online submission queues: Tin House (not a surprise), Missouri Review, LIT Magazine, Idaho Review, Southern Review, Harvard Review (they tend to be slow), among others. Most of the work is fiction (some isn't). Are other writers experiencing the same trend?

Answer to that last question: Yes. Big yes. A hell yes yes.

And it's worse than that Facebook thread makes out. When I contacted Martin Ott to ask if I could quote his post, he told me that one of his recent submissions to Granta took 579 days for a response. Dang!

As an author, let me say this is BS. Short fiction, poetry and essay submissions shouldn't take this long. In our instant connection world no submission should disappear down a literary magazine's slush pile hole for more than three months unless an editor specifically contacted you to say they need more time to consider your work.

I say this because — sarcastic yet eye-opening truth time — when a lit mag takes a year with a submission it's not like your story or poem or essay spends all that time being read and re-read and critically dissected on its literary merits by a group of editors sipping hot toddies from crystal glasses in a candle-lit room.

No, your submission sits within an in-box pile of unseen electrons on a server or, less frequently, in a box in the corner of a cheaply made cubical, until some student intern or underpaid editorial assistant reads the first few paragraphs of the story and rejects it.

One year's wait in the slush pile comes down to a few seconds of face time with an editor.

I know this because I edited a literary magazine, storySouth, for many years. While I no longer edit the magazine I remember dealing with my own slush pile. And before you ask, yes, I sometimes took longer than three months with submissions. We all make mistakes. But I tried to not make that my pattern. And there's even less need for long waits today, what with all the cheap and easily available submission management systems out there.

I wish I could issue a call to arms over this issue. Urge authors to fight back by both shaming literary magazines which take too long with their submissions and not submitting to these places. But part of the problem is that fewer and fewer of the biggest literary magazines are accepting unsolicited submissions. And many of those that do now charge a submission fee, which is a separate irritation for writers.

All I can do is raise awareness of the issue. And point out to lit mags that magazines in the science fiction and fantasy genres rarely charge submissions fees and usually return submission in under three months. A few, like Clarkesworld and Lightspeed, even have reputations for dealing with most submissions in only a few days.

Maybe lit mags could learn a few things from their genre brethren.

(Note: Yes, I take this very personally. I once received a rejection letter from a lit mag six years after submitting. Need I say more?)