First off, let me apologize for stamping you with the "PRIVILEGE" stamp without qualifying or acknowledging that I don't know you personally, and therefore have no idea what you may have experienced or are still experiencing in your own life. Really, sincerely, I'm sorry. Even if you don't fall into one of the groups that experience historical and organized discrimination, oppression of all types stings, and injustice is injustice no matter how widespread it is. So again, I'm sorry.
Given that, this discussion really fascinates me. I've been really struggling with this question over the last year as both a reader and writer - that is, how do I enjoy (and CAN I enjoy) works with problematic elements, or those written by problematic authors? I'm finding your perspective interesting and challenging, as you're vastly more well-read than I am, and I think you bring something to the table with the editorial eye.
A lot of this would also have to do with my general feeling that Horror is a inherently "reactionary" genre (although not necessarily conservative). It can have progressive aspects at times, but the deep-seated roots of it are inextricably tied to our infant fears of dismemberment, our juvenile fears of being overpowered, our adolescent fears of the opposite sex and our own bodies, and our adult fears of mortality, dissolution, pointlessness and ordering systems other than our own. It's hard to get good, progressive, positive thoughts from such works - although it is, as I said, occasionally possible - but the majority of the levels that Horror operates on the reader are reactionary. And to me, that's one of the wonderful things about it, it keep us honest about our worst tendencies. It reminds us of our bad selves and makes sure we're never too comfortable looking in the mirror. The honest and widely-read horror reader can never be very smug about anything. But again (and, again, not meant sarcastically) being a white male I guess I can just assume the reactionary stance is interesting without knowing or feeling the pain it can cause in others so perhaps there's an unavoidable smugness right there, for me).
You know, I hadn't considered the distinctiveness of horror as a genre. I must confess I don't read much horror, and generally don't seek it out when I'm looking for something new to read. I'm not opposed to horror in the least, but I just haven't gravitated toward it up until this point in my life. I recently started listening to Pseudopod on the strength of 1) my love of PC and EP, which translates to an overall faith in the staff of EA, 2) the strong, enthusiastic recommendations of other PP listeners, and 3) my sincere admiration for and faith in the PP editorial staff. #3 is key, because there is no lower bar to how "bad" horror can get, and bad horror is
really, really bad in ways you don't normally see in bad fantasy or SF. But I think since you're coming at this question as a connoisseur of horror, it makes complete sense to say that revulsion and disgust and even dehumanization might be healthy and desirable things to experience and wrestle with in the genre.
I'll be honest - I actually expect writers to realize that rocks are gonna be thrown at them by great works - some of those rocks are the challenges of great work and some are the cultural baggage of the writer and their times (and I nearly said "just the baggage" but I guess this qualifier devalues the hurt the rock target might feel) and I'd still be surprised and somewhat dismayed if a burgeoning young horror writer never read any Lovecraft (note I didn't say "all Lovecraft"), even if they get the received wonder of his "cosmic horror" from other sources, because they also heard the stories contained ideas that might hurt them or haunt them
I suppose I still think there's a distinction between struggling with your inner demons to become a better a writer, and choosing to avoid certain classics because of elements that personally wound you. I think that if, say, racism, is already your day-to-day waking reality, Lovecraft isn't going to teach you anything about racism you don't already experience nonstop all the time. He might teach you something about cosmic horror, but only if you're able even to get to it through the racism.
Maybe it would be helpful to use an analogy here. Imagine that you are a chef (and for the purpose of this exercise, I ask anyone reading to pretend you're an average straight white male, regardless of your background). You and a group of your friends who are all chefs are going to dinner at a place called the Classics Cafe. This cafe is famous for its rotating schedule of internationally-renowned chefs who take turns each night preparing a menu for the diners.
Tonight, Chef Lovecraft is on the menu. You all receive your dishes and begin to eat. You're enjoying yourselves very much until your friend Bill, who happens to be a black man, exclaims, "Hey, there's crap in my food!" He passes around his plate, and sure enough, you all see that there is a small amount of feces buried underneath the smoked fish. Everyone checks their own plates, and it's the strangest thing: only the people of color have been served crap along with their fish. So you call the waiter over, and he explains that Chef Lovecraft's philosophy is to serve a little crap to his diners of color, and therefore nothing can be done about it.
But you're all hungry, and Lovecraft after all is a
very famous chef, so you all discuss what to do. "The taste isn't
that bad," says Bill, gamely putting on a smile as he takes another bite. "I think I can eat around it and enjoy the taste anyway."
"
I can't," says your friend Lisa, who is also black. "The taste and smell just overwhelms everything. It's so distracting I can't even concentrate on whatever it is people rave about when they eat Lovecraft. I'm going to have to pass." She politely shoves the plate away and nibbles on bread the rest of the meal. The other people of color take various positions along this spectrum. Some decide to keep eating, and some decide to refrain.
Those of you whose dishes are perfectly edible discuss how to proceed. Everyone can
see the crap on your friends' plates, but you can't
taste it the way they can. You care about these people, so it certainly disgusts you, but you're not really sure just exactly how bad it tastes for them, especially considering how wildly opinions vary within the group of people served the tainted plates. Some of you decide to enjoy Lovecraft's expertly prepared dish anyway after acknowledging the awfulness some of your friends experienced. You're chefs, after all, and you're trying to build your palettes so you can be better chefs. Others are a little more bothered, and keep pulling the conversation from the smoky flavor back to the crap, which irritates the people who want to talk about the fish. Your great-uncle Stanley (who is boorish and inconsiderate, but hey, he's family) is one of the latter. He exclaims, "That's not crap, it's chocolate! If it weren't for all the political correctness, we'd all be able to enjoy our meals, but some people just want to be victims and ruin it for the rest of us!"
A few are so upset by the crap in their own or friends' food that they gather their things and leave, saying they'll rejoin you for dinner next week. You 17-year-old niece Julie takes the opportunity to leave with them, saying, "I don't want to eat this boring old racist Lovecraft crap when I can just grab a cheeseburger at McKoontz's across the street!"
------------------------------
Long story short... I think I can agree that any genre writer should at least
attempt to read stories they know will contain a serving of crap prepared especially for them, but it's very possible that the crap itself will make it difficult to appreciate what made that story/author famous to begin with. It will wildly vary from person to person, and when it comes down to it, it's Lovecraft's fault his works include racist elements and not the reader's fault, so the blame should rest squarely on him if some of the horror writers of the next generation don't benefit from his influence. This is true of any other story or author who incorporates casual elements of discrimination. It's a decision that may end up limiting your audience, because it's not the responsibility of the people being served the crap to eat around it, although some of them may graciously choose to do so.
If I can get the rights to stories I want we'll eventually have a Pseudopod showcase on the figure of the Femme Fatale in Horror, an inherently sexist figure, no doubt, but a recurrent (and, reactionary) figure of note all the same - because I honestly do believe that we must treat the readers as adults and assume they realize that expectation as well. I like to assume people will find it interesting or illuminating, but I run the risk of alienating or upsetting a large section of our female listenership if what you say in your post is true.
I'm certainly intrigued, and promise to give it a listen and post an opinion when/if it runs. Like I said before, I have a lot of faith in you and the rest of the editorial staff, which makes a huge difference because I know it's not Uncle Stanley choosing the stories or making suggestions on how I should feel about problematic elements. As I said before, acknowledging the problem up front is extremely helpful in moving past the crap to a discussion of the rest of the elements.