And I have no basis to base my judgment on these people, where is a line between hero and a villain?

Everyone is human. Everyone is flawed. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, "every saint has a past." No historical figure is without criticism or error, and if you think that is the case you haven't looked hard enough.

In the case of pulp studies, the most notable issue is that during the times when pulps flourished (1910s-1950s), the United States of America was knowingly and openly racist, sexist, and homophobic. That is not to say that every individual embraced or embodied those prejudices, but they were all touched and influenced by them to some degree - and that includes their fiction. Including several pulp writers that have gone on to posthumous prominence like H. P. Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard.

Keep in mind, neither of these guys was a member of the KKK, and there is no evidence that they participated in violence against any individual because of their race or sexuality - but "He didn't participate in an actual lynching" is a very low bar. They still participated in a culture of discrimination, and what is more important, they wrote about it.

On the other hand, the negro represents a vastly inferior biological variant which must under no circumstances taint our Aryan stock. The absolute colour-line as applied to negroes is both necessary & sensible, whereas a similar deadline against Jews (though attempted by Hitler) is ridiculous.

• H. P. Lovecraft to J. Vernon Shea, 29 May 1933, Letters to J. Vernon Shea 133

Such comments are indefensible. Nor should they be defended. The purpose of the historian is neither to write a hagiography or render moral judgment; it is to uncover and help interpret the past. If I were to explain this passage, I would need to go into the scientific racialism of the period when Lovecraft lived (1890-1937), which was used by many as justification for their prejudices (and policies of law such as segregation); I would also need to point out that those some "scientific" findings were themselves being proven wrong during the 1930s by biologists such as Franz Boas, and that Lovecraft's clinging to already-being-disproven theories represents his own desire to justify his prejudices rather than confront the harsh reality that the beliefs he has held his entire life had been wrong. I would need to go into detail to explain how Lovecraft's understanding of Jewish peoples and cultures changed throughout his life, and the rather murky and complicated relationship he had with the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, who came to power in Germany in 1933. I might touch on how "Aryan" came to prominence and the confusion of its meaning with "white" or "Caucasian" - and how Lovecraft used and understood the term.

This is one excerpt from a single letter; Lovecraft wrote tens of thousands, and his published correspondence fills over twenty volumes - and is still being published. In addition to this he has five volumes of fiction, a massive compilation of poetry, and five volumes of miscellaneous essays.

A lot of material to go through, and there's a lot of racism. Does that make Lovecraft a villain? Some folks think so. In 2015, following a petition, the World Fantasy Award which had previously born Lovecraft's name and likeness was retired, specifically over the issue of his racism. Yet Lovecraft's fiction and literary creations are still tremendously popular and influential.

Contemporary audiences are always going to bring the syntax of their own era to the evaluation of the past. Today, that may mean a re-evaluation of Confederate monuments, or the legacies of other historical figures. Their accomplishments are not forgotten, nor diminished, but the celebration of their achievements has to be balanced by an understanding of both the greater context in which they acted and the ongoing legacy of what they did.

It is not for historians to decide who is a hero or a villain; to neither sanctify or demonize. We strive for greater understanding.