Essentially it is one (very) long castigation of Robert E. Howard's Conan stories as being sexist and racist.
Now, there are some ugly racist overtones in Howard. H.P. Lovecraft is even worse. But I think it is quite possible to recognise these difficulties (and grit your teeth at them) while still enjoying the stories for what they are: in Howard's case, old-fashioned adventure yarns, in Lovecraft's case, tales of an uncaring and terrifying amoral universe. Shunning these old pulp authors (as the article suggests) strikes me as rather akin to the religious fundamentalists who hate Harry Potter: the mere fact that an author writing seventy years ago had a different value system from yourself is not in my opinion a really constructive way to go about things.
Therein lies the biggest problem with the article: it argues that since morality has evolved to reject the racist ugliness of the 1930s, we should somehow expect authors long dead to produce works consistent with our morality, rather than theirs. It also means that the likes of Shakespeare or Mark Twain or H. Rider Haggard are in the same boat, and must be similarly shunned.
Edited by Roose Bolton's Pet Leech, 23 February 2012 - 09:12 AM.