I got banned from a literary group!

[frobbert]

Goodreads has a rather excellent group called Literary Darkness, devoted to horror literature. It's led by a guy called Robert Dunbar, who is supposed to be an excellent horror writer. I have yet to check out his work so I can't comment on that. What I do know is that for some reason mr. Dunbar hates H.P. Lovecraft, and he likes to show said hatred every now and then by posting links to derogatory articles about Lovecraft. Which is fine by me. No accounting for taste, right? Anyway, yesterday he posted this article, to which I replied with these two words: "Snobby shit"

...and today I found out the guy banned me, defriended me, the whole shebang 

It's not that I mind or anything (I don't). It's just that I don't get it. What's so bad or offensive about saying "snobby shit" 

[Jor el]

LOL

You must've hit a sore spot.

[black]

After slogging through that highly pretentious article you linked, I have come to the conclusion that Robert Dunbar is wack.

Snobby shit, indeed.

[neighbor664]

Fuck that snobby shit!

[mortlock]

gay..

[The Shocker]

gay..

For being in a literary discusion group.

[JkFlesh]

Huge fan of Lovecraft here so obviously I think that guy is a twat.

[frobbert]

Huge fan of Lovecraft here so obviously I think that guy is a twat.

Absolutely. Still, his books do get great reviews..
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_13?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=robert+dunbar&sprefix=robert+dunbar%2Caps%2C460

[Beta Cloud]

Huge fan of Lovecraft here so obviously I think that guy is a twat.

he thinks you're a twonk.

[mortlock]

gay..

For being in a literary discusion group.

yep..

[TannisRoot]

Got to love his characterization of Lovecraft readers as, "intellectually undefended."

[gritty_fingers]

Technically a lot of Lovecraft's work is overwritten; So in that sense I can understand the criticism that was given to him.

However in terms of originality and generally creepiness, Lovecraft is the best. He was the guy who wrote horror without the usual tropes like ghosts, witches, vampires, etc. He started a whole new evolution of ideas to the horror genre.

So you take the good with the bad.

[yiyiyi]

It's not a literary discussion group if people who disagree with the moderator are ousted/banned. The moderator is totally out of line to block you.

FYI, Dunbar's books are published by "Leisure Books":

Effective September 2010, Leisure Books, along with the remainder of Dorchester's mass market paperback lines, were canceled as print publications. Future titles were slated to be available only as e-books.[5]

[RalphSnart_2]

Never read any Lovecraft. Although from the snippets in said article and the bad movies I've seen, he seems right up my alley.

I get the general gist of the critique...

• Monsters are immature (except as analogy).
• Lovecraft was sexist and racist and that shit just ain't acceptable (never mind that the same labels could likely be applied to innumerable other authors of his time).
• He was afraid of sex, so let's read a lot of Freudian stuff into everything (I've heard the same about Hitchcock, but nobody holds it against his art).
• He was not well traveled (because that's a prerequisite to writing people well).
• He was a nerd! (aren't all writers?)

But what? Is it the subject matter or the man? Seems to be both, but neither, because we are seemingly not flushing the whole genre down the toilet, except when we are, such as in the early reference to the horror nerds in the back of the class.

Stephen King is quoted on the sexual aspect, which is appropriate because he's a guy that sure has his own writerly tics. And rarely leaves the sparsely populated state of Maine.

Point being that you could knock any writer like this. I take it the guy is just sick of hearing Lovecraft worship + reading half assed Lovecraft wannabes. I'm nowhere near as well read as him so I really can't imagine. But I like a lot of dorky shit, and I've seen it all disparaged, so I can recognize critic's tics. Same old song and dance.

[SpaceTrucker]

^I think your right. The fact that his works are hard to make into a movie without cgi means something to me. His critique sound snobby and douche and he writes financial books? gtfo!