I really appreciate everyone's comments. So much to think about...
I do agree that it is somehow easier to "overlook" the negative traits of long-dead artists than it is for contemporaries. I am not sure why that is. Perhaps it is, as mentioned by Janet, Lisa and slim cat, the idea of financially supporting that sort on nonsense seems more immediate and impactful? Like chewyspaghetti referenced, my daughter, too, used to adore Harry Potter, but no longer wishes to support Rowling's work. Not that it matters at this point, as the whole Harry Potter machine has made unbelievable amounts of money, but I wonder if we will see its popularity fade in the future as the young people of today take issue with Rowling's views and choose not to purchase the books and movies and products for their own children.
And while I certainly understand that some people idolize sports figures (like Sal warns against) or famous people - especially those that are popular for children or young people - I guess I have never felt that artists, authors or creators had to be held to a higher standard, as Carla says. Indeed, I find it incumbent upon everyone not to say stupid things in public, not make racist jokes, etc. I am not outraged when I find that prominent people or even people I admired are selfish, arrogant or even cheating on their spouses. It might sadden me, but people are people, and no one is perfect (or nice all the time to their adoring public). This part ties in with the responsibilities of certain groups of people that Suz talks about - just like scientists are expected to review papers from others without compensation, dealing with fans is part of being a celebrity. Yes, it might be awful and annoying to have people always wanting your picture, but it must also be nice to be paid millions to be an actor. No one is in a good mood all the time, but it is part of the responsibility of the job to a certain extent. But it is most certainly NOT their job to read manuscripts, read potential screenplays, or otherwise donate their time and talent to those interested in their help. My daughter is an artist and reinforces the idea that art (whether that be sketching, painting, writing, making movies, metalwork, sculpture, weaving baskets, carving, etc.) is the artist's labor. Because others sketch or journal for fun doesn't mean that those skills are not worthy of value and compensation. I very much agree with Suz that people have unrealistic expectations of those in many fields of work.
But now I am just meandering. Back to Lovecraft. I guess I just wish I knew what to DO with the fact that he was a dreadful human being. I/we/society really can't stop purchasing anything that was influenced by his work because almost everything in certain genres was influenced by (or even blatantly copied from) his work. He had no descendants, so none of the money is going to support him or his family personally (indeed, he lived in extreme poverty during his lifetime), so is there any purpose in even trying to avoid it?
Oh, and regarding the gaming culture (especially video games), there is no question that it remains the domain of the young, white, misogynistic (and often racist, anti semitic and homophobic) male. However, the people who PLAY the games don't determine the how amazing or lame a particular game is in its lore. And RPGs not played in the video realm depend almost completely on the DM/GM and other players. The lore that Lovecraft inspired is deep and amazing.
Perhaps I should just take it as inspirational that so many wondrous things came from such a vile man? Indeed, Suz, it is very, very complicated.
Oh, and Sloper, those essays are AMAZING. And, of course, there's Lovecraft right at the top.