Neo-Decadence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nirvana In Karma
  • Start date Start date
Neo-Decadence is explained in the Brendan Connell manifesto, which should still be available online with a bit of handy Googling.

Anyway there are probably some general lifestyle traits that Neo-Decadent writers share:

1. Doing cocaine, amphetamines, acid and Hydrox cookies every week.
2. Being in better shape than you really need to be (more shredded than the majority of people around you) or in worse shape than you need to be (i.e. you walk to work every day and have access to healthy food but are still fat and eat at Wendy's and Arby's all the time).
3. Having sex with more than ten people a week.
4. Being able to name at least sixty clothing designers and having detailed opinions on them all.
5. Attending High Mass in Latin just to be hardcore, despite not technically "believing" in anything.
6. Having no children, or having more than five.
7. Spitting in the street every time an academic or anyone who has attended a "Writing Workshop" walks by.

If you overheard people talking at two different tables and simultaneously heard them making the following statements:

"Global warming doesn't have anything to do with people, the planet is just warming up naturally."

"UNIQLO makes clothes that are cheap and easy to wear, I like their 'normcore' style."

If you instinctively felt the urge to throw your drink at the person defending Uniqlo rather than the climate change denier, you're probably Neo-Decadent. Your rational mind might then be like 'Climate change deniers are a bigger problem than fast fashion,' but the important thing is the initial impulse.
 
This would be far easier if actual examples of such stories were provided. I think I can see how some Isis's own fiction or some Crisp stories would fit into this. Can't say the same about majority of Ex Occidente releases, bar some exceptions, as most of their authors are consciously imitating continental European writers from late 19th and early 20th century, often with appropriate historical settings for their fiction. So, close to direct opposite of what you appear to be going for...
 
Some representative examples of Neo-Decadence:

"The Last Mermaid" and Life of Polycrates by Brendan Connell.

I Wonder What Human Flesh Tastes Like by Justin Isis

All God's Angels, Beware! by Quentin S. Crisp

Daughters of Apostasy by Damian Murphy
 
The upcoming anthology will establish a lot of this and make things a bit more clear; it has a great introduction from Daniel Corrick (Evans on here) that lays out much of the groundwork. I don't feel that I've personally done much work in this area yet, although I feel like the third collection and upcoming novel will be more definite examples.

A lot of the Ex Occidente writers have until now focused on historical settings, but I don't see Neo-Decadence as being backwards-looking, although that's part of it; it's more Janus-faced and can include things set in the future as well as some post-Naturalist work set in the present. I am going to be interviewing Damian Murphy soon and I think this will reveal a lot of our shared concerns and common approaches, writing fiction as practicing occultists, etc.
 
Hidden X said:
This would be far easier if actual examples of such stories were provided. I think I can see how some Isis's own fiction or some Crisp stories would fit into this. Can't say the same about majority of Ex Occidente releases, bar some exceptions, as most of their authors are consciously imitating continental European writers from late 19th and early 20th century, often with appropriate historical settings for their fiction. So, close to direct opposite of what you appear to be going for...
Click to expand...

Pretty much all of the stories in Ballard's Vermilion Sands are good examples of what I'd consider futuristic Neo-Decadence. Technology is put at the service of a languid, elitist aesthetic venture which is itself growing out-moded and succumbing to entropy.
 
I'm not sure to what extent it's really possible to avoid writing science fiction if you're going to write anything set in the present. "Literary fiction" mostly seems like a dodge that's relying on outmoded forms (Victorian novel, etc.) and assumptions (human beings are like "characters" who "develop" or change over time; life is a plotline). Ballard was simply ahead of the game in realizing this fifty years ago. We're clearly living in a cyberpunk dystopia so I'm not sure how it's possible to pretend "literature" is about village manners or some character's marriage prospects anymore, despite a bunch of academics wishing it were otherwise.
 
This thread is making me feel very old and unhip.

*returns to reading Victorian novel about relationship problems*
 
Will a table of contents be announced soon? I’m pretty sure I’ll dig the book, whether or not I fully grasp just what the #%$& neo-decadence actually is!
 
I'll start by saying that I think Ligotti would be a perfect candidate for something like a movement in literature called "neo-Decadence."

However, speaking as an anti-historicist, I actually believe the literature of the 19th century is qualitatively better than most contemporary literature due to their respective cultural climates. A 19th century writer was less likely to be concerned about where he or she stood with respect to the historical genre they were participating in; they were more concerned with the "universal" aspects of the human condition. On the other hand, a lot of writers nowadays seem far too preoccupied with subversion for the sake of subversion, Joyces' Ulysses being a good example. There's an obsession with leaving the past behind, which I think is ultimately detrimental to writing as an art form. A writer from the 19th century would've looked to the past for inspiration, not to reject the present, but to find something of value from his or her predecessors. And it wasn't because they rejected historicism; it was because historicism was never a part of their "worldview" (or whatever one wants to call it). What we have from the 19th century are a number of great men and women who wrote great literature, people who wrote about myriad things which transcend historical periods. The same goes for people such as Lovecraft, Ligotti, Machen, etc. We believe in the quality of their work because they struggled against time as well as literary genres.

I can discover more in a single story by Poe or a poem by Baudelaire, for instance, than I can from most of the fiction produced today. In other words, I don't think Poe or Baudelaire are "outdated" - quite the contrary. Of course, one can use other writers as an example. The point is that we've become far too preoccupied with genres as well as "originality" for the sake of originality. I'm intrigued by the idea of "neo-Decadence," but I hope it isn't infatuated with historicism. I hope it's a continuation of the various themes explored by the great writers of the past, not a rejection of said themes because they're supposedly "outdated."

I'm not deliberately throwing punches at anyone here, so I hope no one misconstrues the above as a personal attack. I'm just disclosing my thoughts concerning the subject itself.

EDIT: In my perverse "worldview," Sophocles and Ligotti are contemporaries. They eat at the same table.
 
I don't like it when people slam old work just for being older work, but I also don't like it when people praise older work just for being older work, which happens far too often. Tradition for tradition's sake bothers me as much as modernity/progress for modernity/progress' sake.

That being said I think it's undeniable literature is in a worse place than it was, largely due to the illiteracy of the age and an increased disdain for artistry. I'm not at all in agreement that today's popular entertainment is as sophisticated as, generally speaking, the great Victorian novels were.
 
Neo-Decadence does not (and of its nature cannot) encompass all of literature. I write at this at greater length in my introduction, but what I am really comparing Neo-Decadence with is the original Decadence and modern attempts to imitate it (which largely fail because the authors fixate on period tropes).

James said:
I don't like it when people slam old work just for being older work, but I also don't like it when people praise older work just for being older work, which happens far too often. Tradition for tradition's sake bothers me as much as modernity/progress for modernity/progress' sake.
Click to expand...

This tends to be my view too. In practice I find myself enjoying older works more often, but this is because they're often better written and tackle more interesting themes than modern stuff. There's no reason why people can't explore these problems as they emerge in a modern setting though (in fact it is imperative that they do).
 
Where can I find the first Neo Decadent manifesto? And this AC Evans book? Unavailable everywhere
 
Last edited:
Reposting:

First Manifesto of Neo-Decadence

by Brendan Connell

1. Words are only words, a somewhat artificial simulation of nature, and should not be given too much importance. Slick writing should be tossed out like men with sweaty hands, mass-produced objects, and food in Styrofoam cups.

2. Never imitate yourself. The writing should be artificial and shallow, without contrived emotions. Then maybe something will be realised. There is already enough sadness in life. Soak the book in gasoline if it must be soaked in something.

3. Character development is synthetic. It should be resorted to only with a certain amount of shame.

4. If it be political let it lurch to the left, burrow underground so that tall buildings tumble off their hinges.

5. Story arcs should only be used to hang oneself with. Nothing is ever resolved. Nothing progresses.

6. Syntax should be dredged out of old books, trimmed off of far-away planets, stripped from dreams. Trivial things should be said in a grandiose manner meant to disgust collegiate scribblers and make the lips of pseudo-great novelists twist in anger.

7. Kublai Khan was a modern. Things fell apart a long time ago. We are already living in the ruins of civilisation. There’s nothing to celebrate. When you toast, make sure you smash your glasses together. This kind of writing should be the same. Harmony is overrated.

8. Forget about the sound of cars, missiles, clever machines and originality, since nothing is less original. There are enough monsters and demons in the real world without needing to look elsewhere.

9. Great developments don’t come about by listlessly trying to please the crowd. They’ll forget in a minute. If the only thing left is a fragment, it better be good. If you’re lucky, you’ll end up like some choliambic poet.

10. There’s nothing wrong with writing a lousy book. Just make sure it’s really lousy. There is nothing worse than competence.

11. Neo-Decadent writers will honour the fragmented, the contorted, the unfinished, the unpublished. Realising there is no glory, no reward, no lavish suppers or dancing on tables. Living in obscure lanes and remote canyons, things will be written in unread languages or translated from the language of lizards and snakes, plagiarised from deep wells and signed with hands wet with the dew of rotting fruit.

12. Nothing comes to an end. Let a little light shine through the darkness and remember that when the universe collapses in on itself you can read the novel back to front.
 
Amusing though it may be, this manifesto (as with Wilde's) frequently seems completely contrary to the best examples of the genre.

...unless Father Torturo/Tetrazinni and Dorian Gray are to be considered exceptionally poor executions of their authors' respective visions...
 
A quote from that review:

"The price of £35.00 will be deemed high by some but its possession is worth every penny."

Ho ho ho... what lightweights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top