A

As I’ve said to someone else here already, this article was written and published a good while before that information was shared in the podcast.

From their interview with brainwashed, which you can read in full online:

“Joseph: This is going to put off some of our fans, but I actually hate Lovecraft, both personally and for his writing. I don’t think anyone can deny that he was a shitty person. His whole “cosmic horror” thing mainly came out of his intense racism. And I think that, on a prose level, he was also a deeply shitty writer. I mean his stuff his almost unreadable for me.

That said, I think he was brilliant on an idea level, and that’s definitely where we connect with him. Our Lovecraft book, for me, is a way of leaving behind all vestiges of his writing, including the stupid names of his gods, while keeping the brilliance of his unnerving ideas and images.

Night Vale is often called Lovecraftian, but we never consciously chose to make it that way. I just think Lovecraft, awful writer that he was, has had such an impact on modern horror and science fiction that it’s impossible to work in that field without using some of the ideas he generated. Which kind of annoys me, but I respect the old racist bastard all the same.

Jeffrey: Neither Joseph nor I have ever named our pet a racial epithet.”

Thank you! Hope you enjoyed the new episode yesterday!

Thank you – I hope you enjoy it if you do!

Thank you.

Thank you very much! I know – someone else has previously pointed this out in the comments. This article was actually written and published three months before the character/voice actor name distinction was made public, and there are likely to be other small inaccuracies like this one in the article as the Night Vale world is expanded upon in the podcast. Glad you’re enjoying it!

Thank you very much. I think it’s really important to both be inclusive with the use of the word queer, and to look individually at different identities that fit within the term, because the term queer itself initially developed to designate political coalitions that form a really interesting context of how we categorise sexuality. It doesn’t have to be either looking at identities as queer or exclusively looking at each individual identity making up LGBTQIA; it can definitely be both.

Other than that, I completely agree with you. Every act of categorisation has implications and problematic aspects, especially when they’re being applied to a notion as complicated and multitudinous as human sexuality, and I don’t know that there’s a solution to these paradoxes.

Thank you very much.