I have for some time intended to write a proper critique of , the Substack identity of the nascent literary “movement” that has labeled itself “neo-decadence”. The trouble is, of course, that I am a) incredibly lazy; and b) … well, that’s about it: lazy.2

Of course, we can’t say the same for Neo-Passéism. As they put it: “We have published vastly more real world material—more print books—than anyone criticizing us on here.” I don’t doubt it. Indeed, it is empirically verifiable: Neo-Passéism appears to have had moderate success in the production and distribution of content. This puts them in good company; for instance: the MFA crowd, the Gasda/Barkan types, and Simon Whistler3 (although all appear to be somewhat more successful). All this is to say that, on its own, successful distribution of content does not seem to be a particularly notable aesthetic achievement. While it is certainly evidence of hard work and dedication on the part of the authors, it is not indicative of the quality of the vision; publication does not portend singular excellence. We find that Neo-Passéism is making the same mistake as the MFA crowd: conflating breadth of territory with the greatness of empire. That is the very definition of aesthetic mediocrity.

They continue: “We don’t post terribly much about [our retail offerings]4 on here because…we don’t need to! We have a broad audience, and the orders keep coming in.” Once again, how very capitalist. But it’s more than that. Refusing to champion specific works also has the upshot that you’re not on the hook for defending the work when a reader finds it artistically vacant. If you just rattle off a list of books at me, you’ve made it my problem to separate the wheat from the chaff. If you actually advocate for a work, you have to own that work—you can’t hide behind “well you just didn’t pick one of the good ones; try again.” This is sales by sunk-cost. Does Neo-Passéism advocate for any texts? For my part, I don’t see it happening in a substantial way. If it is happening it is completely drowned out by fledgling attempts at iconoclasm. Of course, in their own words they “don’t have to!” advocate works they value. By only gesturing at an undifferentiated mass of texts, Neo-Passéism makes their project manifestly negative because all of its authority is caught up in telling me what not to like. They do what any good ideology does: drop off a reading list, then explain who the enemy is. (It is here also worth noting that their chosen Substack identity is, itself, the primary boogeyman of their movement.)

To be direct, I do not believe that Neo-Passéism, as a cohort, is truly in love with any text. I don’t believe they have coherent aesthetic commitments that allow for a text to be loved. When I do see their commentary on works that Neo-Passéism seems to value, I see clichéd platitudes and highly specific comparisons—often to other very niche texts. What Neo-Passéism criticism doesn’t do is put texts meaningfully in conversation with one another (not even the text in conversation with itself). They aren’t using texts to mutually illuminate each other; they write carefully measured reviews (or, when writing of an unfavored work, invective), not criticism. As with all their writings, their “criticism” is heavy on quotables, but it betrays no metaphysics at all, let alone aesthetic courage. It is, then, not simply that Neo-Passéism refuses to champion specific works, but also that it fails to champion any coherent aesthetic philosophy—it makes no positive claims.

Finally, Neo-Passéism dismisses critics: “Meanwhile, many of those criticizing us have achieved the difficult feat of posting…flash fiction on a website, or pointlessly complaining that ‘nothing new is being created.’” By this logic readers, not being writers, thus being categorically incapable of commercial publishing success, if they criticize Neo-Passéism must be… jealous? This argument is shallow, self-serving, and dripping with resentment. And Neo-Passéism knows this. They’re not that clueless.

I cannot say what I think Neo-Passéism should do or how they should change themselves. Only they know what their goals are. If their goal is to build a following that will pay for their content, that’s perfectly fine and I congratulate them on a job well done. Very few artists work without imagining an audience. A paying audience. But it is a well-worn axiom that great works often languish with limited readership, while mediocre productions capture public attention. But we must call a spade a spade. Namely, Neo-Passéism, if it is an aesthetic movement, is remedial and produces mediocre works for common readers. Neo-Passéism asks: “why would we pretend to humility when we’ve put in decades of hard work?” It isn’t simply that Neo-Passéism’s successes don’t justify their arrogance. Success doesn’t justify arrogance in the first place. This isn’t some egalitarian fantasy: arrogance qua arrogance needs no justification; the moment we deign to explain our pride is the moment pride becomes insecurity and weakness.