Contraryon, thanks for taking the time to engage, and for always living up to your moniker. Believe it or not, we do value this input, and all critical input in general.
To clarify things here, Neo-Passéism is a single specific project of Neo-Decadence; taking it to stand in for the whole is missing the point. Presumably if we’d spent all our time spamming about specific books we’ve written, this would have constituted “championing a coherent aesthetic philosophy”? As it stands, we are planning to release more explicitly Neo-Decadent material (manifestos, complete stories and novellas, etc.) once our 50 entry NP project concludes.
To us, most of the recent criticism seems to come down to:
“If you’re against THIS, then what are you FOR?”
Given that there is only so much time in the day, until now we’ve posted lists of our print books, which lay out everything we are FOR in fairly precise detail.
The purpose of the NP project in its current form is to clarify to ourselves various aspects of the retrograde aesthetic tendencies we perceive in the 2020s. With that said, we don’t consider this an entirely destructive/negative task at all: more like clearing the way for further creation.
Thanks for engaging back. And, for my part, I do want my contrarianism to be productive, so I appreciate you taking the input.
With regard to the distinction between the Neo-Passéism Substack account, and the broader project, the point is taken. But, Neo-Passéism does seem to be the primary contact point on Substack for the project. In any case, my critique should be read as directed towards the Substack account rather than Neo-Decadence as a whole.
> Presumably if we’d spent all our time spamming about specific books we’ve written, this would have constituted “championing a coherent aesthetic philosophy”?
This is actually quite the opposite of what I mean. "Spamming" for me would be something like, going through the Goodreads reading list and doing a blurb about each book. This is the same thing as the reading list, just doled out one item at a time. What I'm talking about is much different. Some of those books are better than the others. Ideally, in a set of books that large, some of those books should be vastly superior to others. One of the reasons that I cast aspersions on your aesthetic commitments is because, when it comes to works that you're championing, you seem to be giving equal precedence to all works.
Such a thing is not possible. Audrey Szasz's Teleplasm, as an aesthetic object, is manifestly superior to something like Brendan Connell's Metrophilias. Metrophilias, in turn, is a more coherent aesthetic object than Matthew Gasda's "The Sleepers" or David Szalzy's "Flesh." And one of those is a Booker Prize winner. If I could figure out how to finish a prose project, I'd write something about how I come to that ranking. But that's what I think you should spend more time on. There's a hierarchy. Name it and defend it. This by itself would differentiate you from the static; the contemporary milieu is basically allergic to any suggestion of superlative and singular excellence. Like Audrey Szasz.
Now, in the interest of undermining myself, it is appropriate to be clear that these are my commitments. If you truly hold an egalitarian view, I can respect that, it's just that tossing a dart at the list isn't my ideal way of acquiring new books.
But, what can I say? In politics I'm socialist and all that, but in art I'm a fairly rabid elitist with major aristocratic pretensions. Just cream for me, if you please. I learned that from Barthes.
@Siobhán M. La Grippe’s comment here says it best, but I’ll add that I’m constantly trying to get people to read the ND books I think are IMMENSELY DESERVING of attention, and have written several articles on this theme. One attached here: I think it contains several nearly completely neglected masterpieces; the Elytron Frass novel MOIETIES in particular is truly experimental on form, content and prose levels and easily matches any classic avant-garde work of the 20th century (the author seems to have stopped writing since, seemingly having accomplished everything he set out to do). Connell’s more recent works like HEQET and UPUAUT are also fairly singular (the latter especially).
This year at NP we’re planning a monthly review series of recommended books published within the past 2-3 years. Some will be ND or ND-adjacent and some won’t. TELEPLASM by Audrey is one I’d like to include.
But, again, I have books of my own to write, and on top of editing, organizing, publishing books AND the Neo-Passéism Substack AND day job(s), I only have so much time. Over time though, a lot more of the overall scope will become clear.
Thanks for taking the time to read. I’m working on something of a response to @Siobhán M. La Grippe’s comment. It give me an opportunity to take my own medicine can clarify my own commitments.
And thanks for the recommendations. I’ll check them out.
I can accept the idea that there are "obvious" cases where one book is superior to another, when the criteria we apply to such judgements come up against inescapable contrasts. For example, any Neo-Decadent book is necessarily superior to, say, Atlas Shrugged. However, this is more due to the utter beshittedness of Atlas Shrugged than due to something inherent in the ND work. (Not to present myself as a "negative nelly.")
I'm actually explicitly against the idea that there is a hierarchy of aesthetic approaches, but I am in favor of trying to articulate why a work speaks to us aesthetically, largely in terms of aesthetic coherence. Both Szasz's Teleplasm and Connell's Metrophilias cohere and thus succeed, because they are based around making clear aesthetic choices and following through on those choices. (Amusingly, I think that Teleplasm is the one Szasz book I don't prefer to Metrophilias.) In this sense, you've hit the nail on the head regarding why these are superior to Gasda's The Sleepers: the ND work is aesthetically coherent, while Gasda's work is not.
When judging any artistic work based on aesthetic criteria, the process of judging coherence is distinct from that of determining how the work speaks to us. This latter attribute is what prevents any ranking or hierarchy. The various members of the Neo-Decadent movement should not be expected to consistently agree on aesthetic coherence, but even if we were to do so, our personal experiences would still prevent a consistent ranking, as we interact with art in ways that are inseparable from ourselves. None of this prevents us from speaking about and writing about the work that we personally celebrate, and that we tend to elevate as a group, but it does mean that the naming of superlatives is not possible.
It's also worth considering the difference between rejecting the idea of "singular excellence" because you believe that artistic preference is entirely subjective and rejecting it because you believe that the question of aesthetic excellence is done a disservice by positing singularity. The former is what you complain about in the context of the contemporary milieu. The latter is my position.
Thanks for taking the time to respond! I’m actually going to respond in another post because it’s going to represent a broader clarification my commitments.
I, specifically, view Neo-Decadence as a primarily "positive" set of ideas, that is about aesthetic experimentation as a means of living a more satisfying life when satisfaction is so hard to find. That's a main point of my Neo-Decadence Manifesto on Consciousness, which came out at the end of last year, not to shill my own work too much.
I haven't had a chance to post much on my my personal account lately, having been mostly working on the group posts and other projects, but I have posted several book roundups that specifically do almost exclusively talk about what I like, including discussing Neo-Decadent works that I like.
Neo-Passeism posts have many names in them. Putting many of those names in any search engine reveals books that the contributors have written. One can see that they are well-received, at least by their audience.
I first became active in the Neo-Decadence community about a year ago, after having read many of the books I mention above, which I found by doing just what I suggest: searching for the authors. I have found the group to be welcoming and passionate. In the spaces where we communicate with one another, we are encouraging, and very often discuss the books that we love. It is much less common to discuss what we do not like. This is, of course, not something for which I can provide evidence.
Just to be clear, my critique is substantially directed at Neo-Passeism as an online identity representing Neo-Decadence, as opposed to Neo-Decadence itself. I do have my critiques of that, but I'm not prepared to articulate it. With this post I was primarily concerned with addressing the note that I cited.
It came to me this morning just before reading this that there are likely acerbic wags on this website of exceptional talent, but this website being what it is, not many people find them.
Contraryon, thanks for taking the time to engage, and for always living up to your moniker. Believe it or not, we do value this input, and all critical input in general.
To clarify things here, Neo-Passéism is a single specific project of Neo-Decadence; taking it to stand in for the whole is missing the point. Presumably if we’d spent all our time spamming about specific books we’ve written, this would have constituted “championing a coherent aesthetic philosophy”? As it stands, we are planning to release more explicitly Neo-Decadent material (manifestos, complete stories and novellas, etc.) once our 50 entry NP project concludes.
To us, most of the recent criticism seems to come down to:
“If you’re against THIS, then what are you FOR?”
Given that there is only so much time in the day, until now we’ve posted lists of our print books, which lay out everything we are FOR in fairly precise detail.
The purpose of the NP project in its current form is to clarify to ourselves various aspects of the retrograde aesthetic tendencies we perceive in the 2020s. With that said, we don’t consider this an entirely destructive/negative task at all: more like clearing the way for further creation.
Thanks for engaging back. And, for my part, I do want my contrarianism to be productive, so I appreciate you taking the input.
With regard to the distinction between the Neo-Passéism Substack account, and the broader project, the point is taken. But, Neo-Passéism does seem to be the primary contact point on Substack for the project. In any case, my critique should be read as directed towards the Substack account rather than Neo-Decadence as a whole.
> Presumably if we’d spent all our time spamming about specific books we’ve written, this would have constituted “championing a coherent aesthetic philosophy”?
This is actually quite the opposite of what I mean. "Spamming" for me would be something like, going through the Goodreads reading list and doing a blurb about each book. This is the same thing as the reading list, just doled out one item at a time. What I'm talking about is much different. Some of those books are better than the others. Ideally, in a set of books that large, some of those books should be vastly superior to others. One of the reasons that I cast aspersions on your aesthetic commitments is because, when it comes to works that you're championing, you seem to be giving equal precedence to all works.
Such a thing is not possible. Audrey Szasz's Teleplasm, as an aesthetic object, is manifestly superior to something like Brendan Connell's Metrophilias. Metrophilias, in turn, is a more coherent aesthetic object than Matthew Gasda's "The Sleepers" or David Szalzy's "Flesh." And one of those is a Booker Prize winner. If I could figure out how to finish a prose project, I'd write something about how I come to that ranking. But that's what I think you should spend more time on. There's a hierarchy. Name it and defend it. This by itself would differentiate you from the static; the contemporary milieu is basically allergic to any suggestion of superlative and singular excellence. Like Audrey Szasz.
Now, in the interest of undermining myself, it is appropriate to be clear that these are my commitments. If you truly hold an egalitarian view, I can respect that, it's just that tossing a dart at the list isn't my ideal way of acquiring new books.
But, what can I say? In politics I'm socialist and all that, but in art I'm a fairly rabid elitist with major aristocratic pretensions. Just cream for me, if you please. I learned that from Barthes.
@Siobhán M. La Grippe’s comment here says it best, but I’ll add that I’m constantly trying to get people to read the ND books I think are IMMENSELY DESERVING of attention, and have written several articles on this theme. One attached here: I think it contains several nearly completely neglected masterpieces; the Elytron Frass novel MOIETIES in particular is truly experimental on form, content and prose levels and easily matches any classic avant-garde work of the 20th century (the author seems to have stopped writing since, seemingly having accomplished everything he set out to do). Connell’s more recent works like HEQET and UPUAUT are also fairly singular (the latter especially).
This year at NP we’re planning a monthly review series of recommended books published within the past 2-3 years. Some will be ND or ND-adjacent and some won’t. TELEPLASM by Audrey is one I’d like to include.
But, again, I have books of my own to write, and on top of editing, organizing, publishing books AND the Neo-Passéism Substack AND day job(s), I only have so much time. Over time though, a lot more of the overall scope will become clear.
https://xraylitmag.com/justin-isis-recommends-neo-decadence-a-wardrobe-tour/interviews-reviews/
Thanks for taking the time to read. I’m working on something of a response to @Siobhán M. La Grippe’s comment. It give me an opportunity to take my own medicine can clarify my own commitments.
And thanks for the recommendations. I’ll check them out.
I can accept the idea that there are "obvious" cases where one book is superior to another, when the criteria we apply to such judgements come up against inescapable contrasts. For example, any Neo-Decadent book is necessarily superior to, say, Atlas Shrugged. However, this is more due to the utter beshittedness of Atlas Shrugged than due to something inherent in the ND work. (Not to present myself as a "negative nelly.")
I'm actually explicitly against the idea that there is a hierarchy of aesthetic approaches, but I am in favor of trying to articulate why a work speaks to us aesthetically, largely in terms of aesthetic coherence. Both Szasz's Teleplasm and Connell's Metrophilias cohere and thus succeed, because they are based around making clear aesthetic choices and following through on those choices. (Amusingly, I think that Teleplasm is the one Szasz book I don't prefer to Metrophilias.) In this sense, you've hit the nail on the head regarding why these are superior to Gasda's The Sleepers: the ND work is aesthetically coherent, while Gasda's work is not.
When judging any artistic work based on aesthetic criteria, the process of judging coherence is distinct from that of determining how the work speaks to us. This latter attribute is what prevents any ranking or hierarchy. The various members of the Neo-Decadent movement should not be expected to consistently agree on aesthetic coherence, but even if we were to do so, our personal experiences would still prevent a consistent ranking, as we interact with art in ways that are inseparable from ourselves. None of this prevents us from speaking about and writing about the work that we personally celebrate, and that we tend to elevate as a group, but it does mean that the naming of superlatives is not possible.
It's also worth considering the difference between rejecting the idea of "singular excellence" because you believe that artistic preference is entirely subjective and rejecting it because you believe that the question of aesthetic excellence is done a disservice by positing singularity. The former is what you complain about in the context of the contemporary milieu. The latter is my position.
Thanks for taking the time to respond! I’m actually going to respond in another post because it’s going to represent a broader clarification my commitments.
I, specifically, view Neo-Decadence as a primarily "positive" set of ideas, that is about aesthetic experimentation as a means of living a more satisfying life when satisfaction is so hard to find. That's a main point of my Neo-Decadence Manifesto on Consciousness, which came out at the end of last year, not to shill my own work too much.
I haven't had a chance to post much on my my personal account lately, having been mostly working on the group posts and other projects, but I have posted several book roundups that specifically do almost exclusively talk about what I like, including discussing Neo-Decadent works that I like.
Neo-Passeism posts have many names in them. Putting many of those names in any search engine reveals books that the contributors have written. One can see that they are well-received, at least by their audience.
I first became active in the Neo-Decadence community about a year ago, after having read many of the books I mention above, which I found by doing just what I suggest: searching for the authors. I have found the group to be welcoming and passionate. In the spaces where we communicate with one another, we are encouraging, and very often discuss the books that we love. It is much less common to discuss what we do not like. This is, of course, not something for which I can provide evidence.
Thanks for reading!
Just to be clear, my critique is substantially directed at Neo-Passeism as an online identity representing Neo-Decadence, as opposed to Neo-Decadence itself. I do have my critiques of that, but I'm not prepared to articulate it. With this post I was primarily concerned with addressing the note that I cited.
You’re either being willfully ignorant here or simply haven’t engaged enough with the body of content.
It came to me this morning just before reading this that there are likely acerbic wags on this website of exceptional talent, but this website being what it is, not many people find them.