Sorcery and Sanctity: A Homage to Arthur Machen

[gveranon]

Bob Dylan - My Back Pages - Another Side Of Bob Dylan - YouTube

[brendanconnell]

I don't view The Great God Pan as "horror" fiction or fantasy so much as a piece of decadent, subversive writing. I think its influences and what it has influenced are two very different things. I think the problem with canonizing figures such as Machen is it actually drains them of their power. These are things that I am thinking about at Machen's 150th birthday. Mind you, isnt it interesting that the book is in 150 copies also, one per year? But anyone who lays claim to the bones of dead people is off the mark. Champion the living before idolizing the dead.

[Druidic]

Brendan brings up a valid point in his remarks about idolizing the dead. Personally, I don’t even idolize the living. I have no ‘heroes’—not gurus, not writers, not rock stars. An author’s life, for example, may be of considerable interest, he may even be an admirable human being, but in the end it’s always the Work that counts. Most of the TLO members, I think, would agree on the folly of holding up sports figures as Heroes for young adults. We know the reality behind the images that the media often presents—before the inevitable fall from grace and the subsequent revelations of drugs, sex and just general obnoxious behavior. Still, there is something basic in human nature that drives people, particularly the young, to seek out heroes. They view them as sources of inspiration and role models; and, yes, maybe the young should have that luxury. But adults? Very often The Great Writer, the one whose books burn with insight, compassion and integrity, turns out to be an absolute stultifying bore; or, worse yet, a drunk who beats his wife, abuses his children and kicks his dog. That may be an exaggeration but not, I believe, an outrageous one. Yes, there are exceptions. A writer like Lovecraft is fascinating because he was--in the flesh--pretty much what you’d expect from his works. No surprises, so to speak. But that’s extremely rare; human beings are flawed creatures and writers, musicians, scientists, athletes, great actors, none are immune to the most appalling human failings.
Value the Work. If the Artist is on the Side of the Angels, consider that a bonus!

	TLO THOMAS LIGOTTI ONLINE

[nomis]

I didn't boycott anything. I have no idea why Mark thinks I did.

[Dr. Valzer]

I also had no idea there was any sort of political tempest surrounding the Machen tribute anthology, let alone that some believed I was embroiled in it.

To put this boycott rumour to rest: I had actually contacted Daniel at Hieroglyphic Press in 2012, expressing my hope to submit a story to this project. But familial issues arose that greatly reduced my writing time earlier this year, so I was forced to reduce my story commitments. Unfortunately Sorcery & Sanctity was one such project. I refuse to just churn out a quick pastiche, particularly when the author being honoured is one who inspires me as Machen does. If I cannot dedicate a proper amount of time to fashion a tale I feel is worthy of the project, I will not submit. It is that simple.

My interactions with Mark have always been extremely pleasant, so I find this recent development both surprising and unfortunate.

Best,
Richard

[Joel]

I've been reading through this thread in growing confusion, trying to work out what the f*** this has to do with me. My agenda regarding this book was to buy it when it was published, and I was (silently) dismayed to learn that the tiny print run had sold out through pre-orders months before publication. End of story. But now I discover that apparently I am responsible for a 'shadow' over the book, and that I persuaded Simon Strantzas and Richard Gavin not to contribute – or at least weighed in with a 'Joel Lane agenda' that put them off. I have said nothing to them or anyone else anyone against this book, I have nothing against this book, and I object in the strongest of terms to my name being used in this invidious, rumour-mongering way. I will be making a complaint to the board moderator. If Mark means that by disagreeing with his various past pro-Roman Catholic polemics I have somehow cast a jinx over his publishing projects, he is crediting me with extraordinary mystical powers. If he means that I have spread a conspiracy against him and his work for political reasons, that is a false and libellous claim and he will be hearing from my solicitor. I look forward to clarification of this matter.

Oh, come now, Joel. For a while now you've had a bee in your bonnet about the fact I don't accept your attempts to act as shop-steward and chief cheerleader for bien pensant thinking in the weird fiction community in the UK. Threatening legal action when confronted with free speech is what I'd expect from a Daily Mail reader and not one with avowed "socialist" inclinations. Alas, it's you that has a track record when it comes to attempts to silence dissent. Usually behind the scenes. It really does you no credit. It's an old militant Trotskyite tactic I'd have thought you might have outgrown by now.

As for Simon Strantzas, he's obviously been upset by the fact that I called him out, privately, regarding previously made remarks he made about awards. Obviously when it comes to public announcements he's not willing to back them up. Fair enough. And I can't publicize those details without breaching trust. But he knows quite clearly what I mean. I think one of the most indicative things though, is his very careful policy of not mentioning my name in any recent interview when asked for a list of significant authors, despite his seeing fit to solicit my approval and an introduction to his first collection back in the early days of his career. So it goes. Do I care for his attention? Not really, but it's amusing to find oneself sought after at one stage and then blanked thereafter for non-artistic reasons.

I'll ask Dan C. about the information I've gleaned. If it turns out to be erroneous I'll be sure to make a public apology to those involved.

Mark S.

[Mr. Cheev]

Quote Originally Posted by MadsPLP

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Cheev Joel Lane and Jean Genet, huh, Evans? It makes one wonder what this boycott was all about. Joel Lane, Simon Strantzas, Richard Gavin, Allyson Bird, Laird Barron, the entire voting membership of the BFS, Those "behind the scenes" at TLO (aka Ligotti), etc. It's strange how certain individuals attract so many intolerant personal and political agendas. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Erm ... I don't think the people you mention here are "behind the scenes" at TLO.

You misread my post. Perhaps it was my fault for not referencing the thread. I was just giving another example of his perceived enemies.

http://www.ligotti.net/showthread.ph...leting+account


While I'm sure Mark is pleased with his phrase "a bee in your bonnet" the key word of his last post is "gleaned", which means he fabricated the entire supposed incident. He gleaned the persecution the same way a delusional paranoid gleans that the people across the street, talking and laughing, are talking and laughing about him. Perhaps I am being unduly harsh. He obviously needs some help. But the duration and tone of his posts give one the impression that he would rather be a martyr to the cause. They do so love their martyrs.

[nomis]

Quote Originally Posted by mark_samuels

As for Simon Strantzas, he's obviously been upset by the fact that I called him out, privately, regarding previously made remarks he made about awards. Obviously when it comes to public announcements he's not willing to back them up. Fair enough. And I can't publicize those details without breaching trust. But he knows quite clearly what I mean. I think one of the most indicative things though, is his very careful policy of not mentioning my name in any recent interview when asked for a list of significant authors, despite his seeing fit to solicit my approval and an introduction to his first collection back in the early days of his career. So it goes. Do I care for his attention? Not really, but it's amusing to find oneself sought after at one stage and then blanked thereafter for non-artistic reasons.

Okay, so let me get this straight: I am involved in a cabal with Joel Lane against you because you don't feel I talk about you enough in interviews?

I'm not sure when I was called out privately about awards. I've looked back at my interaction with you, Mark, and the last email we exchanged about awards was in 2009. Since then, as I've spoken about elsewhere, I changed my attitude on a number of things about the genre significantly. I realized that this worrying about other people and their awards is meaningless, that for me to succeed does not mean anyone else has to fail. There is room in the genre for everybody. If I once said anything different, likely in reference to Ms. Bird and her British Fantasy Award, or Mr. Unsworth and his World Fantasy Award nomination, I long ago left all of that behind me. I'm more than happy for any successes they've had, before and since then. They deserve it. No one wins or gets nominated for awards without someone liking their work, after all. I'm just glad to have people who like my work, and want me to continue writing. That's what matters most to me.

I don't really understand what you think I owe you, Mark, but if it helps at all here is goes: Mark, thank you again for writing an introduction to my first collection. Also, "Apt. 205" was an important story for me early in my career, so thank you very much for writing it. I enjoyed White Hands, and Glyphotech very much.

Also, let me express my sorrow that you are so bothered by any of this, that you feel affronted in some way. I wish you'd spoken to me about it, as it seems to have poisoned you against me for some reason. It's too bad. You're a remarkable author, any time your work comes up, people agree. Why you're wasting time with this bitterness and paranoia is beyond me. I'd much rather see you devoting your energies to new work.

I hope someday you can find yourself in a more positive place. If you'd like to talk privately about any of this, my email address has not changed.

[Druidic]

Mr. Cheev was Barron's attack on Samuels in "More Dark" evidence of a paranoid delusional state? Nemonymous called it the cruelest bit of 'satire' he had ever encountered, if I recall correctly. (I made my feelings known about Barron's tastelessness in my review at Amazon; I don't boycott but I make sure my voice is heard). Also, having the regrettable misfortune to find genre interviews and reviews of interest, I read them; and, strange to say, for a writer whose book The White Hands was heralded so enthusiastically just a handful of years ago, and whose subsequent The Man Who Collected Machen was praised by many members of this forum just a short time ago, I have noticed the surprising absence of Samuels name in these pieces. I suspect he's not into networking too heavily.
I know NOTHING about this 'boycott' deal and could care less. I'm not taking sides. Samuels is a fine writer and has, I believe, been getting the shiny point of the stick for awhile. Writers are often prickly and touchy creatures like many other human beings (read my previous post) and Samuels may be no different. I have no knowledge of that. But I'll support the artist by buying his work. After all, when it comes to the bottom line, quality is all that counts.