Scott Nicolay

[Ronald]

_Ana Kai Tangata_ is a recently published book of short and medium length weird fiction, by Scott Nicolay.

Most of the reviews of the book are highly positive, though it got a negative review from S.T. Joshi.

Also, Scott Nicolay published an aesthetic manifesto, which can be read here:
http://weirdfictionreview.com/2011/11...

[Steve]

I very much agree with 1-5, 8 and 10.

[Canavan]

I’ll try and keep this brief.

I picked up Ana Kai Tangata a while ago, primarily because I feel an obligation to support the publisher, Fedogan & Bremer. To date I’ve only had the chance to skim the contents and, at the risk of jumping the gun, have concluded that Nicolay's stuff is probably not really my cup of tea. I’ve put it on my TBR pile, but not very high up.

Second, I’m not a big fan of such aesthetic manifestos. For every tenet espoused by Nicolay, I can probably think of at least one good or great story that violates it. I assume that every writer worth his or her salt is guided by some more or less fuzzy set of internal principles that dictates both what ideas are expressed and how they are expressed. But why limit yourself beforehand in such a seemingly ironclad manner? It’s like purposefully donning a set of artistic blinkers.

On the other hand as far as Joshi is concerned — pretty much what Randolph said. I can often admire and appreciate his scholarship, but his literary opinions — and, more importantly, the way he conveys those opinions — often make me cringe.

[Steve]

"The preceding manifesto and VOW OF CHASTITY is not intended to harm or insult any other writers, particularly established authors more successful and accomplished than myself. Most of all, it is not intended as judgment on existing work. It is an aesthetic statement of where I myself want to go with my own weird fiction."

As a reader, #1 encompasses what I don't want to read, unless the author does something different with them, such as They Hunger or World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War. In addition to that, I would add any novels with historical or literary figures and monsters, e.g. , Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

[Canavan]

Steve (quoting Nicolay) said (in part):

The preceding manifesto and VOW OF CHASTITY is not intended to harm or insult any other writers, particularly established authors more successful and accomplished than myself. Most of all, it is not intended as judgment on existing work. It is an aesthetic statement of where I myself want to go with my own weird fiction.”

I get the point you’re making here, Steve, and I do appreciate that Nicolay isn’t admonishing those who aren’t adhering to his dicta. My previously expressed negative reaction has more to do with the presumed utility of any such manifestos/proclamations in general rather than the validity of the specific points they may incorporate. If you look at the lengthy comment section which follows Nicolay’s 2011 article, my views on the matter are probably pretty close to the ones expressed by Jeff VanderMeer and Paul Jessup. I particularly like the idea of approaching these kinds of rules as challenges.

On the other hand, I fully admit that I’m not really sure how seriously Nicolay means for us to take this manifesto. In one breath he speaks about swearing a “vow of chastity”, but later (in the comments) he predicts that he will probably end up breaking some or even all of his 10 rules. So perhaps I’m taking this all a bit too seriously.

Also from Steve:

As a reader, #1 encompasses what I don't want to read, unless the author does something different with them, such as They Hunger or World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War. In addition to that, I would add any novels with historical or literary figures and monsters, e.g. , Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

As to your last point, a good deal of Kim Newman's literary career is built on just this kind of thing. Personally, I got a little tired of it after a while, but I really enjoyed the first of his “Dracula” books, Anno Dracula , which mashed up historical and literary characters. I similarly liked Neil Gaiman’s story “A Study in Emerald” (a mixture of Doyle and Lovecraft) which, on reflection, probably overstepped a slew of Nicolay’s constraints. I guess my feeling on this is that there are no bad genres, just bad examples one can point to in any of the various genres. Of course, perhaps that’s merely a restatement of your comment, Steve, about writers doing something “different” with a trope.