Hmm, it appears that someone needs a refresher in what the
confirmation bias actually is.
Quote:But when the echo chamber of Lovecraftian fandom starts repeating the notion that HPL was a purely cosmic writer and a staunch rationalist, then an objective reassessment, in my view, becomes necessary
I am not sure to whom this particular straw man notion refers, but it certainly isn't attributable to me. I've never claimed that Lovecraft is "purely" anything, and neither, I'll wager, has anyone else who is knowledgeable about him and his work.
As to the reference to an "objective reassessment", I can only hope that this is intended as a joke.
One other note about Callaghan's assertions and strategy. On the one hand, he seeks to view Lovecraft through the lens of an obsolete and mostly discredited form of psychology; in other words, through a theory. Then, later, he adduces facts about Lovecraft's behavior (albeit in highly loaded and emotive language) as if they were instances of
res ipsa loquitur (literally, not legally).
Neither approach is the least bit persuasive: The first relies on arguments whose premises are highly dubious(Freudian psychology), and the second tries to dispense with argument, altogether.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 5 Dec 11 | 04:18PM by Absquatch.