Ligotti and Aickman

[nomis]

Joel Lane says on another thread...

"Interestingly, Ligotti is (or has been) an Aickman sceptic: he describes Aickman's work as "a closetful of cliches" hidden behind a contrived difficulty of reading. If it weren't for that, one could draw parallels between the two writers as creators of allegorical weird tales – 'The Bungalow House', for example, strikes me as quite Aickmanesque. Perhaps it's worth doing regardless. "

To which I say: Yes, please. Let's draw the parallels. Or am I right in thinking many here have not read Robert Aickman's work?

[MadsPLP]

A quote from David Tibet's interview with Ligotti in AKLO:

Quote

Tibet: Robert Aickman? Ligotti: A writer that many people assume that I like because his "strange stories" are so obscure. They are indeed.

It's always struck me as odd that Ligotti doesn't like Aickman, because I think have a profound pessimism in common. Maybe it's because Aickman's stories were more interested in their characters and their emotions, but that is only a very half-baked theory.

[qcrisp]

Aickman is the best writer of strange/weird/supernatural whatever-you-want-to-call-them stories I have EVER read. Bar none.

I was intending to write something about this on my own blog, but I might venture something here. The Lovecraft test for the merit of a strange tale is the point of eldritch freaky weirdness it reaches at its least mundane point. Judged by such a criterion, I would say that Aickman is not the best writer of weird tales. Some of his works - such as 'The Hostel' - would still be candidates to be amongst the best of this kind of work, but there are clearly others who are better at the concentrated spine-tingle, etc.

Lovecraft's criterion is a useful one, I think, as it cuts through a lot of anti-genre snobbery. However, it also reinforces in-genre snobbery by encouraging one to focus only on one very narrow aspect of writing. Aickman's writing has far more than the narrow aspect of the spine tingle to recommend it.

In conclusion, I might say something like, while Aickman is not the best weird fiction writer ever, he's the best writer ever to work in weird fiction. (I realise I've slightly contradicted my opening sentence here. As far as I have favourites, though, and as far as I recognise and care about piffling genre distinctions, I'd still say that Robert Aickman is my favourite writer of weird fiction.)

[Nemonymous]

For many years, Robert Aickman has been one of my four favourite fiction writers (with Elizabeth Bowen, Marcel Proust and Thomas Ligotti).
His stories, for me, are not Weird in the sense of the Weird tradition but Strange/Absurd and I think Aickman has far more in common with Ligotti than he does with, say, Machen or MR James or Blackwood.
It is is pointless to fathom one writer's assumed view of another writer, but to compare the works as pure texts and then release any specific genre / authorial shackles from any consideration of them. Chasing the noumenon of each canon of works. Immersing oneself in them without any didactic follow-through. My above four favourite writers are (were), of course, separate people, but their works can work better when morphed together in the mind. Aickman (for me) is one of the four cornerstones of the plinth - and other writers' texts contribute their own 'forms' to the gestalt sculpture (for all of us) eventually on that plinth.

[Ascrobius]

I've had discussions with Tom about Aickman before, and I always knew that Tom was generally not a huge fan of RA's work, though do I consider myself to be a fan of Aickman's writing in a minor sense of the word. In the upcoming Weird Tales interview, Tom was asked a questioned that was related to "blackness" and "the crumminess of existence" that inspired a reply in which Aickman and many other authors are mentioned. While I wish I could give the exact quote from the interview, I don't believe the issue has been released yet so I really can't, but read it when it's out and you'll see Tom's discussion of "vulgarity versus urbanity", if you will. It's toward the end of the interview and it sheds at least a little light on his feelings regarding the writings of Robert Aickman and others.
Tim

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp

Aickman is the best writer of strange/weird/supernatural whatever-you-want-to-call-them stories I have EVER read. Bar none. I was intending to write something about this on my own blog, but I might venture something here. The Lovecraft test for the merit of a strange tale is the point of eldritch freaky weirdness it reaches at its least mundane point. Judged by such a criterion, I would say that Aickman is not the best writer of weird tales. Some of his works - such as 'The Hostel' - would still be candidates to be amongst the best of this kind of work, but there are clearly others who are better at the concentrated spine-tingle, etc. Lovecraft's criterion is a useful one, I think, as it cuts through a lot of anti-genre snobbery. However, it also reinforces in-genre snobbery by encouraging one to focus only on one very narrow aspect of writing. Aickman's writing has far more than the narrow aspect of the spine tingle to recommend it. In conclusion, I might say something like, while Aickman is not the best weird fiction writer ever, he's the best writer ever to work in weird fiction. (I realise I've slightly contradicted my opening sentence here. As far as I have favourites, though, and as far as I recognise and care about piffling genre distinctions, I'd still say that Robert Aickman is my favourite writer of weird fiction.)

[Sotto voce.]

Psst! You said 'The Hostel'. I think you meant 'The Hospice'.

JK

[Soukesian]

I'm sure I've read that Aickman derived his stories from dreams, or fantasies recalled from half-sleep. This would certainly account for their enigmatic detail and dreamlike flow.

Although Ligotti's work does contain enigmatic and very personal elements, his stories seem to me to be much more consciously crafted - it's easier to say what they are about and how they resolve - and that's the key difference.

Not taking away from either writer, though - I think they're both great. But I can see why fans of one might not get on with another.

[Soukesian]

In terms of parallels, on the other hand, I'd say they definitely do share a bleak view of the world, though I think Aickman is reacting against decadent modernity, rather than the human condition as a whole.

Quote Originally Posted by Soukesian

In terms of parallels, on the other hand, I'd say they definitely do share a bleak view of the world, though I think Aickman is reacting against decadent modernity, rather than the human condition as a whole.

'The Stains' is pretty damn misanthropic and miserablist. It's nihilistic to the nth degree.

The thing about Aickman is, there's no way round him. He followed a path all the way through to its final destination, and anyone seeking to follow a similar path can only ever be second best. His work is so strange, nihilistic, misanthropic and eerie that it quite simply cannot be bettered. No disrespect to TL, but that must be terribly dispiriting, like battling through to the North Pole only to find a flag planted there by someone else proving that they beat you to it. Seriously, Aickman is like a Mozart or Beethoven figure towering over everyone else, and anyone who seeks to emulate too many of his characteristics risks being branded a Salieri.

In my opinion, the sensible thing to do is to step back and distance yourself from Aickman, and instead draw upon your own personal influences, and other writers of equal importance. Much as I admire and fear Aickman, I revere and delight in the prose of Walter de la Mare, whose visions were of a dreamier, less subversive nature. Furthermore his prose glides gracefully across the page, whereas Aickman sometimes strikes me as an eccentric painter, whose bizarre, oddly constructed sentences are like the angry, experimental daubs of one who seeks to create disharmony. Perhaps it is more productive to cherry-pick (albeit subconsciously) from a wide range of other sources rather than follow in the footsteps of one person. I for one am suspicious of writers who churn out nothing but pastiches of those three genre giants, Aickman, (M.R.) James and H.P. Lovecraft.

But to return to TL. Putting on my Devil's Advocate hat for a moment, combined with a flame-resistant fire-suit, could TL's disdain (perhaps not the right word, but you know what I mean) for RA be Oedipal in nature? It can't be pleasant to be continually compared to a writer who casts such a patriarchal shadow over a genre you work in. What's more, comparisons with Lovecraft, Poe or other much earlier writers are somewhat invalidated by the fact that TL and RA set most of their tales in the present, employing contemporary language and exploring broadly similar human conditions e.g. despair, disillusionment, misanthropy, nihilism, loneliness, social isolation etc. And rather like M.R. James, both writers allow a sense of sinister, ambiguous dread creep into situations which often started out commonplace and normal, whereas Poe and Hodgson immediately thrust us into weird netherworlds where the landscapes are as fantastical as they are implausible.

I'm not saying my speculation stands up to scrutiny or has any genuine validity. I'm just suggesting a reason for TL's curiously negative opinion about Aickman. I know that TL has a fondness for vintage British drama and television so doubt very much that it is anti-British prejudice on his side, but clearly he has an issue with RA which is as mysterious as the work of both grim scribes.

JK