Posts Tagged ‘Lovecraft’

website-logo

Welcome back folks. Ellen Datlow doesn’t need much of an introduction. Master Editor and anthologist she’s turns out some of the best specfic books each year. When she’s not editing fiction submissions for Tor.com, or making ghastly hybrid Kong dolls, she’s working on any number of short fiction anthologies, including her perennially anticipated ‘Year’s Best Horror’ anthology.  A big thanks to Ellen for stopping by my blog to answer a few questions.

datlowkong
Q. Tell us a little about yourself and your background?

ED: I grew up the Bronx and then Yonkers, NY. Moved to Manhattan in 1973 and stayed. I’ve always been an avid reader of many different kinds of fiction, although
now I mostly read sf/f/h-and crime novels, for fun.
I’ve been editing short stories since around 1980 when I started work at OMNI Magazine. Before that I worked in mainstream book publishing for a few years.

Q. What draws you to horror generally, and was there a defining moment where you decided to get into fiction editing or was it a more organic process?

ED: I’ve always been interested in horror since I was a child, reading story collections from my parents’ library —Bullfinch’s Mythology, stories by Guy de Maupassant, Edgar Allan Poe, and Nathaniel Hawthorne. I loved fairy tales and my mother read me Oscar Wilde’s sad sad stories under a tree in front of the Bronx apartment in which we lived.

This taste for the weird and fantastic developed, and further immersed me in what I refer to as “edgier” fiction, since my late teens. This doesn’t only include horror, but also science fiction, some contemporary fantasy, crime fiction.  But for horror specifically, the tone of unease can make the most mundane setting deeply disturbing and I like that.

As soon as I came to understand that there were jobs in the publishing world editing fiction, I jumped into that profession. But it took me several years to move from mainstream trade publishing (which at the time meant the companies publishing mainstream fiction and non fiction hardcovers and trade paperbacks) to actually working with short fiction at OMNI.

OMNI was my first magazine job and that was the one that started me on the rest of my career trajectory. I moved from editing mostly science fiction and fantasy at OMNI to also editing horror with my first non-OMNI anthology, Blood is Not Enough. From then on, while continuing as Fiction Editor at OMNI (and adding horror to the fiction mix) I started choosing the horror half of Terri Windling and my The Year’s Best Fantasy and Horror in the late 80s and editing more fantasy and horror anthologies than science fiction. I’m just getting back into sf by acquiring it for Tor.com (in addition to fantasy and horror).

 Q. Do you ever write any of your own fiction?

ED: No

 Q. What is your favourite horror story (if you can name a single one!) and what about it specifically rustled your jimmies?

ED: I have too many to name, but I’ve reprinted several of my favorites over the years and I occasionally pick up new favorites.

 Q. You’re a well known anthologist, so is the short story your favourite form of fiction? What about the short form do you like so much?

ED: In sf/f/h yes. Especially in horror. I think supernatural horror fiction works best at lengths shorter than the novel. It’s extremely difficult to maintain the “suspension of disbelief” required for readers who do not believe in the supernatural. Short fiction can have more immediate impact than a novel.  Novel editors and I kid each other. I say novels are bloated short stories. They say short stories are truncated novels.

As far as editing short fiction, up through novella length (I have edited several novels), shorter fiction is less unwieldy than a novel. I don’t feel as competent editing novels, although if I did it more often I’d probably get better at it.

 Q. What are you working on at the minute?

ED:
Editing the stories I’ve acquired for Black Feathers, a mostly all-original anthology of bird horror coming out next year from Pegasus Books

Editing the stories for Children of Lovecraft, an original Lovecraftian anthology,  coming from Dark Horse this fall (I think).

Finishing my introduction to Nightmares: A New Decade of Modern Horror -all reprint-Tachyon, out this fall. Follow -up to Darkness: Two Decades of Modern Horror.

Finishing my summary of the Year in Horror 2015 for The Best Horror of the Year Volume 8-Nightshade,  out this summer.

Editing the stories I’ve acquired for Tor.com in the last few months.
Catching up on my Tor.com submissions (and no, it’s not an open market).

Switching back and forth among all the above tasks. (and in between, answering these interview questions)

 Q. What attracts you to editing ? And is there any quality or skill etc that makes a good horror editor, specifically?

ED: I love seeing stories by favorite authors before anyone else does (when having commissioned them for an original anthology or looking at them for Tor.com) and I love working with writers to make their stories the best they can be.

I work with dozens of writers at any given time on multiple projects. It helps to be “open” to possibilities. Reading all year round for a Best Horror –or Best anything
one is exposed to all different kinds of writing ranging from light fantasy, to science fiction, to the darkest horror. So I’m constantly discovering new writers who I can tap for
the other anthologies or magazine/webzine projects on which I’m working.

Being able to work with a writer closely and not imposing one’s own taste on the work at-hand is crucial. It is not my story, it’s the writer’s. I think this might be more
difficult for writer-editors. I am not a writer, have no interest in being one, and so I believe I sometimes have a clearer eye to what a story needs.

On the other hand, not being a writer-I sometimes cannot help the author “fix” their story. There are very few “story doctors” in the field of the fantastic, but those writer-editors who are, are invaluable to some writers.

Editing can not be taught. It’s not something that can be learned if one don’t have an innate talent for it, but it can be honed.

Editing has two major components: first, an eye for what’s great or could be great-that’s the acquisition part of being an editor. You need to learn to trust your own taste. And you need to be able to say no. This story doesn’t work for me. It’s very difficult turning down stories by friends and/or by well-known writers whose names you know would help sell your anthology or an issue of your magazine.
There’s always the possibility that the writer will never submit another story to you again. Or if it’s a friend, that they’ll never speak to you again. (this latter never happened to me with friends, but it did happen to Robert Sheckley, who was Fiction Editor of OMNI for 1 1/2 years before I was promoted (and was my boss).

As I read a new story submission I’ll be judging it subconsciously. I may take notes if I like the story but have questions during that first read. Sometimes if I’m not sure what’s going on within the story, I’ll ask the writer to tell me in her own words. Then I can figure out if some of that explanation needs to be in the text on the page. If the writer is being intentionally oblique I may go along with that-or not.  If we can’t agree on what the story needs, I’ll suggest they try it elsewhere.

The second part takes place after I commit to buying the story. It’s the actual sitting down and getting down and dirty with the words on the page.
The story will probably get two almost separate edits-the substantive edit during which I ask questions and make suggestions about the overall arc of the story, including character/intent/or if there are aspects that don’t quite work. And a closer edit that entails some line editing.

Finally, a few months later I prepare the ms for production, where it will be copy edited and proofread. My preparation requires one last line edit, which is just what it sounds like. I go over the story line by line and ask more questions/make suggestions about repetition of words or phrases, and checking that the author is actually saying what she intends.

Some stories need a lot more revision than others. Some only need a light edit. Whether a story needs a lot of work or a little is not necessarily related to the author’s experience.

Being a good editor requires sensitivity, kindness, and honesty. To paraphrase something Ben Bova told me when I was starting out at OMNI, no one sets out intending to write a bad story.  Writers work to the best of their ability at any given time. I try to keep that in mind when I’m reading really bad fiction, but don’t always succeed.

Writers can be extraordinarily sensitive to criticism of their work, so I make it a point of being gentle when editing someone for the first time. But once I’ve worked with someone a lot, I’m a often more blunt, figuring they know by now that if I didn’t like the story, I wouldn’t be working with them on it.

 Q. Who is your favourite woman writer?

ED: I have no one favorite writer, male or female. Just as I have no one favorite story of all time.

 Q. Are there any projects involving other women that you’re looking forward to or would like to get on board with?

ED: I’m very much looking forward to reading Livia Llewellyn’s new collection Furnace (I have the arc).

Elizabeth Hand’s new Cass Neary novel, Hard Light, out this April. Great crime fiction with a wonderfully unlikable protagonist, with touches of the supernatural thrown in. I read it in manuscript and loved it.

Other than that, I’ve no idea what’s coming out in 2016. I’m still immersed in 2015
for a few more weeks.

Q. What book/s are you reading at present and what is in your TBR pile?

ED: I’ll be starting to read for the Best Horror #9 in a few weeks so will be deep into short fiction then. But of the few novels I’ve recently received in the mail: I’m in  the middle ofStiletto by Daniel O’Malley, follow-up to his wonder novel The Rook. TBR: Mr. Splitfoot by Samantha Hunt, Lovecraft Country by Matt Ruff, The Everything Box by Richard Kadrey, The Mark of Cain by Lindsey Barraclough (I like her first novel Long Lankin a lot)

 Q. Are there any challenges have you encountered that are unique to being a woman in the horror genre, or can you describe some of the challenges have you faced that are complicated by your gender?

ED: In my early years in book publishing I encountered “class” discrimination more than gender discrimination. Not being a “Yalie” I was not given the opportunities a younger female Yalie was in the publishing house I worked at for 3 years.

After that, only in the typical wishy washy bias that if I’ve included more than three or four women in an anthology, that means the anthology is “all women” -so not to me personally but basic to the whole “women in publishing” problem.

I’ve been very lucky in that I’ve been in a position of some power for many years (since OMNI). Although when I was first promoted to Fiction Editor at OMNI, I had beer sprayed at me by a drunken malcontent at a publishing party, who thought he should have gotten the position of Fiction Editor. And a few years later, a writer took a couple of verbal potshots at me at a party while he was drunk. He blamed me for something my male boss was forced to do (by our publisher at the time). Year’s later (once he sobered up for good), he apologized–although I don’t think he even remembered what he’d said. Did those things happen because I was female? Probably. Because a male would have likely punched the assholes out they knew it :-).

 Q. Why is Women in Horror month important/not important to you?

ED: Every month should be “women in horror” month. When that happens we won’t need a specific month to point out our accomplishments.

 Q. What advice would you give to aspiring writers or editors?

ED: For writers, make it easy for people to contact you. There are many times I’ve tried to track a writer down and if I have to work too hard at it,
I’ll give up. Use a dedicated email address for professional contacts-CHECK your email regularly. Don’t make contact forms hard to manipulate.
Don’t ever private message an editor asking them to look at your page, your work, or anything else like that. It’s unprofessional and really annoying.
Cannibalize cannibalize cannibalize. If you finally give up trying to fix a specific story/novel. Don’t toss it out, use pieces of it for something else some day.

Read someone’s slush pile. This is for aspiring editors and writers. It will put things in perspective. Read widely, fiction and nonfiction.

For Editors: Be kind to writers who submit work to you.
If you seriously want to write, don’t be an editor. It will sap your energy. Being a good editor is hard work.

Ellen Datlow Links:

Website: ellendatlow.com

Twitter: @EllenDatlow

Facebook: www.facebook.com/EllenDatlow

 

Advertisements

world-fantasy-awards-flickr-640x480

 

Originally I thought to write a piece regarding the change of the WFA from a bust of Lovecraft to something different, but I realised there just so much to talk about that it can’t be tackled in just a few hundred words, hence the “Part 1” in the title.  In coming days, I hope to post a follow up to delve into things a little further. I think this is a worthy and timely topic for discussion and hope that I have something of value to add to that discussion.

A couple of weeks back,  folks that run the World Fantasy Convention came out and stated that they’re no longer going to use the a bust of author Howard Philips Lovecraft, designed by artist Gahan Wilson, for the World Fantasy Award.

As first reported by Locus Magazine:

David G. Hartwell, co-chair of the World Fantasy Convention board, announced during the 2015 World Fantasy Awards that the current award trophy is being retired after this year.

The trophy, known informally as the “Howard,” is a bust of author H.P. Lovecraft designed by Gahan Wilson. In recent years, many writers, editors, and readers in the field (notably World Fantasy Award winner Nnedi Okorafor and nominee Daniel José Older) have called for the trophy to be changed, considering Lovecraft an inappropriate choice for the award due to his racist views. A design for the new trophy has not yet been announced.

Indeed, on November 10, Lovecraft biographer and editor, ST Joshi released the text of an letter he sent to David G. Hartwell, Co-chair of the World Fantasy Convention board:

I was deeply disappointed with the decision of the World Fantasy Convention to discard the bust of H. P. Lovecraft as the emblem of the World Fantasy Award. The decision seems to me a craven yielding to the worst sort of political correctness and an explicit acceptance of the crude, ignorant, and tendentious slanders against Lovecraft propagated by a small but noisy band of agitators.

I feel I have no alternative but to return my two World Fantasy Awards, as they now strike me as irremediably tainted. Please find them enclosed. You can dispose of them as you see fit.

Many authors have spoken, some more vociferously than others, about the need to change this award in several years.. including WFA winners Nnedi Okorafor, Sofia Samatar and others.

In the field of literary criticism there is a device known as the Implied Author (as opposed to the Author).  This Implied Author v.s Author relationship was referred to by T.S Eliot in his essay Tradition and Individual Talent, as “The Man Who Suffers and The Mind which Creates“.  The Man Who Suffers (i.e the Author)is the real life human being, the guy out there paying the bills and buying his hayfever medication from the pharmacy, raising his kids and working a day job.   The Mind Which Creates (i.e the Implied Author)  is the sense that we as readers get of the author and their personality,  or perhaps their views, or even their hopes and dreams.  This is a giant bone of contention between formalists of which T.S Eliot was one (i.e literary theorists and critics concerned with the form of a text) and those who seek to view the text through a more wider biographical lense and to take into account the time and place and the circumstances of the author before and during the time the work was written.

Ever the formalist, T.S Eliot wrote:

The analogy was that of the catalyst. When the two gases previously mentioned are mixed in the presence of a filament of platinum, they form sulphurous acid. This combination takes place only if the platinum is present; nevertheless the newly formed acid contains no trace of platinum, and the platinum itself is apparently unaffected; has remained inert, neutral, and unchanged. The mind of the poet is the shred of platinum. It may partly or exclusively operate upon the experience of the man himself; but, the more perfect the artist, the more completely separate in him will be the man who suffers and the mind which creates; the more perfectly will the mind digest and transmute the passions which are its material.

What Eliot is getting at here is that there is, particularly in the best of writers, a separation between the person of the writer and his creative mind, so that an author who might be a miser, or a complete jerk, or recluse can write stories and characters that are generous, and loving and outgoing. And vice versa!  Sure there are obvious exceptions to any rule, … a writer who is a jerk might write a mean story full of jerk characters, which mirrors his own life and experiences completely, but there is enough truth here that we can rationally recognise it.

Notwithstanding its lack of scholarly fides, I’m using wikipedia’s definition of the implied author here because, frankly, I like it.

The implied author is a concept of literary criticism developed in the 20th century. Distinct from the author and the narrator, the term refers to the character a reader may attribute to an author based on the way a literary work is written, which may differ considerably from the author’s true personality.

Author Saul Bellow once observed that it was not surprising, with all the revision that goes into a work, that an author might appear better on the page than in real life.

I love that last part. It’s so true. It’s like reading Orson Scott Card fiction and then reading his political views. Or listening to Eric Clapton play, before you find out he’s a big racist jerk.

Anyway,  lets take a look at HPL, shall we? Who was the Implied Author presented to us on HPL’s page?  Who was Lovecraft “the man”?

Lovecraft, the man, was a nervous recluse who, after his father died of syphilis in an insane asylyum, was raised by his mentally ill mother in Providence, Rhode Island.  He had extended periods of mental breakdown. He was an atheist and enamoured with science although was unable to pursue science as a serious academic study when he dropped out of highschool before graduation (on account of his poor mental health). He was a racist and held a lot of objectionable views. He briefly married a Jewish woman who later left him and he moved back to providence to live with his Aunts.  His views, which I personally find completely puerile and repulsive, are well known and extremely well documented owing to the fact that HPL was an amazingly prolific letter writer. He exchanged correspondence with a wide variety of figures, including notable writers of his time and those who would come along to be greats in their own right, including Clark Ashton Smith, Robert Bloch etc. You can read more of his biography here and here.

Lovecraft viewed the Anglo-German (Teutonic) race as the pinnacle of evolution. He viewed southern Europeans and Asians as inferior races.  He held the deepest contempt for Blacks and Australian Aboriginals which he considered little more than animals, incapable of creating their own civilised societies and civilizations.  He considered America to be the Anglo-Saxon civilization transported to another continent and improved through a more democratic political environment, but sharing the same values, qualities and roots as that of its Western European forebears. HPL hated multiculturalism and insisted that only a small number of non-whites be admitted into the United States or the nation would come to ruin, although, interestingly, he held there to be some value in other non-white cultures as long as their people stayed in their own countries and separate from white civilization so as not to retard the progress of Anglo-saxon/teutonic civilization.  In various of his letters he foresaw the need to “get rid” of non-whites from America should they ever come to threaten the stability and Anglo-Saxon fabric of  the nation. One or two comments that he made were very close to, if not actually, calls for ethnic cleansing. For the purposes of brevity I’m not going to post all the text from his letters, but if you’re unaccustomed to his views, you can read about his views and read discussion of his views herehere, here, here, here, and all over the internet.

Now that we’ve examined The Man Who Suffers/Author… let’s inspect The Mind Which Creates/Implied Author.

One need only make a close reading of his works to see his xenophobic loathing for any non-white and non-western European people in fact permeate the content and form of his written work.  The Shadow Over Innsmouth, is a tale of degenerate creatures crawling out of the sea and mating with human beings, was basically just a projection of his fears about immigration, inter-racial breeding,  multiculturalism etc. In which the narrator is exposed to the degenerate invaders and, at the end of the story, learns that he has their blood too and lapses into an almost religious kind of ecstasy, in just the same way that Lovecraft accuses non-whites of in many of his tales.  See here for a close reading of some of the text.  Lovecraft almost always introduces non-white characters, multiculuralism generally, inter-racial marriage and inter-racial sex, non-English languages ,etc… in terms of scorn, derision and in a wholly dehumanising fashion.

Charles Baxter rightly comments:

Racism is not incidental to Lovecraft’s vision but is persistent and essential to it. Ethnic minorities and monsters are, for him, often interchangeable. In his stories it is not unusual for a character to undergo a transformation into a creature from whom all humanity has been leached out, turning him into a foreign-seeming thing, an immigrant, whose attributes are both unpredictable and repellent.

A classic example of this is from  The Horror At Redhook, with its descriptions  of  New York’s multicultural society and the obvious implication that non-whites are destroying the city:

The population is a hopeless tangle and enigma; Syrian, Spanish, Italian, and negro elements impinging upon one another, and fragments of Scandinavian and American belts lying not far distant. It is a babel of sound and filth, and sends out strange cries to answer the lapping of oily waves at its grimy piers and the monstrous organ litanies of the harbour whistles. Here long ago a brighter picture dwelt, with clear-eyed mariners on the lower streets and homes of taste and substance where the larger houses line the hill. One can trace the relics of this former happiness in the trim shapes of the buildings, the occasional graceful churches, and the evidences of original art and background in bits of detail here and there—a worn flight of steps, a battered doorway, a wormy pair of decorative columns or pilasters, or a fragment of once green space with bent and rusted iron railing. The houses are generally in solid blocks, and now and then a many-windowed cupola arises to tell of days when the households of captains and ship-owners watched the sea.
From this tangle of material and spiritual putrescence the blasphemies of an hundred dialects assail the sky. Hordes of prowlers reel shouting and singing along the lanes and thoroughfares, occasional furtive hands suddenly extinguish lights and pull down curtains, and swarthy, sin-pitted faces disappear from windows when visitors pick their way through. Policemen despair of order or reform, and seek rather to erect barriers protecting the outside world from the contagion.

Other examples from his fiction compound the impression we get of his racist views.    Take the description of the black boxer in Herbert West: Reanimator as one example:

The negro had been knocked out, and moment’s examination showed us that he would permanently remain so. He was a loathsome, gorilla-like thing, with abnormally long arms which I could not help calling fore legs, and a face that conjured up thoughts of unspeakable Congo secrets and tom-tom poundings under an eerie moon.

There is no doubt that Lovecraft was a racist of the highest order and that his personal views he held influenced his fiction writing to the point that they (fear of the other/unknown/etc) are one of its central aspects.   He certainly fails T.S Eliot’s test for who is “the most perfect artist”, because it would seem that here was very little or no separation between his personal and creative spheres.  In Lovecraft’s case, The Man Who Suffered WAS the Mind Which Created. 

So what do I think?

I’m honestly so damn tired of people being outraged about everything all the time. So sick of everyone having some cause to champion. It sets my teeth on edge, even when I agree with why they’re outraged. (Largely because I don’t like people generally, and I’ve got enough of my own problems and can rarely handle worrying about the problems of others). My inner misanthrope, who may also be my inner privileged white misogynist, sometimes wishes everyone would just shut the the hell up. I try very hard, however, to recognise this as a character flaw and as objectionable and pray the better part of myself and logic prevails.  Therefore, I understand that things that don’t affect me or that I could care less about, do affect others and they do care about those things.  I can put myself in someone else’s shoes.

I’m white (anglo-celtic stock with a spattering of Western European)  but my lovely wife is of an arab background. Our inter-racial marriage and our three beautiful daughters would probably be the kind of “hybrid filth” that Lovecraft mentioned in The Horror at Red Hook.  So I can sympathise with Nnedi Okorafor when she said:

Anyway, a statuette of this racist man’s head is in my home. A statuette of this racist man’s head  is one of my greatest honors as a writer. A statuette of this racist man’s head sits beside my Wole Soyinka Prize for Literature in Africa and my Carl Brandon Society Parallax Award (an award given to the best speculative fiction by a person of color). I’m conflicted.

I can also relate to Usman Tanveer Malik who mentioned in one Facebook comment words to the effect that Lovecraft is hardly representative of “World Fantasy” and that awards should be something that is inclusive of people if wants to market itself as the “World Fantasy” award.  Which, ultimately, is probably the most important aspect here. In my opinion, the World Fantasy Award should be an award that should not be anglo-american centric.

Indeed, as Lenika Cruz mentions in The Atlantic:

On some level, Joshi’s frustration is understandable. The nebulous field of weird fiction wouldn’t be the same if it weren’t imbued with the spirit of Lovecraft’s strange, dark creations. And the question of how much to separate a cultural figure from his or her personal beliefs has always been an uneasy one. But Joshi’s claims are myopic. Lovecraft’s removal is about more than just the writer himself; it’s not an indictment of his entire oeuvre. The change is symbolic but powerful—it’s a message to the next generation of writers, artists, and editors that they belong in the genre of science fiction and fantasy.

With this in mind, I largely support the move to change the WFA from a bust of Lovecraft to something different. I don’t think Lovecraft is representative of world fantasy, even if I do love his stories ..(if not for him, Jack Ketchum [who’s mentor Robert Bloch was actually the protege of HPL] and Stephen King, I may not even be a writer). If Lovecraft’s bust had been the World Horror Award, I may (tentatively!) have been less supportive as he’s clearly a towering figure in horror genre, even if he was an odious racist. But fantasy? No way.  As the shit-stirrer par excellence (yet amazingly talented and knowledgeable author and editor) Nick Mamatas mentioned recently, while we view Horror as a distinct genre (which leads many of us to question HPL’s suitability to be linked to the award), if anything, it is more appropriately  a sub-genre of Fantasy in general. I can’t help but feel that if we follow this line of logic and view HPL’s work as part of a Fantasy sub genre, he’s still a just single author from a sub-genre and hardly, in my opinion, representative of the genre as a whole.

I suggest we all take a collective chill pill. Whether you think the so-called “Social Justice Warriors” are not worth Lovecraft’s literary fingernail or not (like Vox Day), changing the appearance of the award doesn’t take away from the achievements of Lovecraft.  Nor, does it change his effect and stature in fiction. Nor will it mean less people will read Lovecraft.  It doesn’t take away from fans, authors or editors who like Lovecraft of write or edit Lovecraftian fiction — most of you are great people and those writers and editors amongst you are extremely talented individuals. Beyond that, you can’t insult the dead. HPL seriously doesn’t care (he’s dead) and his place in literary history is assured.  Those who want the change have their opinion (which is a legit concern to them and many others), and you have yours. You can lobby the World Fantasy Convention with your own views on the matter if you want, as can authors or fans of any other persuasion.

So, I say, let’s just make the award an elf, or a dragon, or a unicorn or make it a plaque and not a bust or idol of something at all — and then can we just get on with the business of writing, reading and enjoying new fiction. 

Update:

Since I drafted this post a whole bunch of stuff has gone down, including ST Joshi’s wife yelling at an author and saying he’s now blacklisted from any press where Joshi works, not to be over-shadowed by Joshi coming out and saying Ellen Datlow is immoral and that she’s opportunistically released lovecraftian works while backstabbing his corpse by seeking to get the “Howie” replaced as the WFA bust.    You can find some of this on Joshi’s website.  As far as I’m concerned, this is beyond the pale and I think ST Joshi owes Ellen a public apology.  Wow. You crossed the line, dude. Sit down.

I am writing a supplementary post delving into greater detail regarding some of the issues surrounding this current furor which I believe to be quite pertinent to the discussion, namely that of free speech, tradition, privilege and his legacy and effect on current race discourse.