Fascinating article, Mazin. Very interesting. I told you before how I use magic for my writing. And see stories as a kind of magic and fiction writers as magi. I told you how I invented my own system of vision magic. Which I later discovered was similar to Chaos Magic. I use visions to bring other dimensions into this reality through magic symbols (letters, words), projecting the images into peoples' minds (reading). The visions are brought from other realms through hallucination and dream (I'm also schizophrenic, so it's a good use of an otherwise debilitating illness). One difference I notice between my magic and many other systems of magic/occult practice, is rules. My magic is not bound by rules or convention, to which I have to conform. It's more chaotic and disorderly. Havoc. Many of my stories are made by this magic and many incorporate these visions in the story. I enjoyed reading your article about these things and look forward to more. Perhaps there's a book waiting to be written on this subject? Not sure if one already exists. Maybe an idea for your future projects, if ever you want to do a nonfiction book. I'd buy it, for sure. Keep up the good work.
I don't mind at all. I actually invented my magic to overcome schizophrenia. At the time, I'd been written off forever. I'd come out the funny farm and got addicted through self medication as alternative to antipsychotics, which are poison. Many of the meds I was on from age 15- early 20s are banned now for causing death. I invented a magic based on bits I read about witch doctor/tribal magic men and gipsy magic, mixed with pop imagery. I was inspired by an episode of 'Kung Fu' with David Carradine. In the episode, he is injured or ill (can't remember) and is taken in by a woman and given opium as medicine which he becomes addicted to. He has a vision where he battles his demon and overcomes his illness. I used visualisation of huge Japanese style monsters, which I fired laser beams from my eyes to shrink them down and shot them with a revolver, like a wild west outlaw, ran in and beat them to the floor with my fists, kicked them and stamped on their heads. I pissed on them and sometimes got down and fucked them in the arse. I even shat on their bodies. I dominated these monsters that had possessed me till then and saw it as an exorcism. I used these visions to overcome schizoid delirium, inability to function and addiction. By my early 30s, I was well enough to work after 11 or 12 years of disability benefits and, although it was a struggle and I still had schizophrenia with hallucinations, etc. I functioned to a much higher degree than my teens and 20s. I became more ill again in my mid 40s and unfortunately, had to stop working again. I started to write late in life, as I told you before, and used visions, dreams and magic to write. I also converted hallucinations/delusion/paranoia into usable visions to both inspire/create and as material for stories. I invented the magic myself, as I say, from fragments of 'shamanic' rituals I'd read about and pop culture relevant to me. I later discovered this was very similar to Chaos Magic, in that it was ancient magic, stripped down to bare bones, with cultural, religious beliefs removed and modern culture and relevant influence applied as imagery and symbol. This is one of the reasons I struggle with antipsychotics, as they switch off some of these powers. Sometimes, I become unwell because I don't like to take them and have to go back on them. But I try as much as possible to use magic to fight my condition and convert negative elements of my illness to magical creativity for fiction.
Not sure if there's a word limit to these replies but the end of that last comment is cut off from where I'm looking. It says something like... "and use it to write fiction."
It's an interesting idea to use systems like I Ching and Tarot to make stories. I think we talked about Burroughs before and his use of magic in writing. Have you read any Mary Butts' stories? I think she was involved in occult practice and worked with Crowley for a while. I'll have to investigate further how she used magic in her writing..
Mary Butts was the great granddaughter of Sir Thomas Butts, who was patron of William Blake. She was brought up on Blake and was fascinated by the mysteries as a child. She later got involved in occult practice and Crowley. For her fiction, there's a book called 'Mary Butts the Complete Stories' which has all her published short stories and a couple of unpublished too. Also, A novel called 'Armed with Madness' is interesting.
Yeah. All her titles are interesting. I forgot to say, I want to read another of her books called 'Ashe of Rings' which apparently is her 'Joycean' half conscious thinking effort in fiction.
Forgot to say, Armed with Madness is currently unavailable on it's own, as far as I know. You can get it though if you buy, 'The Taverner Novels: Armed with Madness and Death of Felicity Taverner' which also has Death of Felicity Taverna, which I haven't read yet. It's about £25, I think. You might be able to get a used copy cheaper.
Great piece! FWIW, I find Michael Fried's "Art and Objecthood" invaluable when thinking about this sort of fiction (as well as all art, to be honest). With some generative works, like most conceptual writing, the artist is looking for a process they can turn on which will create the artwork for them; indeed, the whole point is to make only one decision, then accept whatever text results (which might even be indeterminate, in that running the process at different times will product different results). Michael Fried would call such works "objecthood" because they lack internal formal cohesion (hence their indeterminacy), and the only thing we can say about them is whether or not we find the results interesting. It's like nature, where things create forces and conditions that cause other things to happen, but it can go any number of ways, and there's no meaning to any of it. Rocks are just rocks, no matter what they wind up look like.
With Calvino and the Oulipo, we can see that they're working within inherited forms (e.g., the novel), and using processes and procedures to help them find unexplored space inside that form. (The fact that they remain inside that form is crucial; it provides the ultimate constraint on the project.) A given project's chosen constraint, then—using the Tarot deck, say—is meant to throw off, or even prevent, the conventional arrangement of the elements of the form. It's like a whack on the side of the head that allows the artist to see alternate ways those components can be assembled (or, as Roman Jakobson would put it, the added constraint leads to a shift in dominant). But at the end of the day, the novel is still a novel, and can be judged as a novel, not some mere thing. (It's a statue instead of a rock.)
Thing is, there’s always a constraint/s. Calvino seems to vary, sometimes he’s using his constraints as a starting point à la ‘If on a winter’s...’ Which, re your comment about how it’s still gotta be judged as a novel, has the advantage of being a good one (or many good ones...) The problem is when it becomes an art Of constraint. I wonder if you think the latter is a gimmick then, in the strong sense of the word...
Right, there are countless constraints on any given work of art. For instance, if I write a novel, I'm limited by the vocabulary words that I know, not to mention my understanding of what a novel can be, all the ways that it can go (which might not be very many). Which, very broadly speaking, is what Roman Jakobson meant by his concept of "the Dominant," that being an attempt to explain why, in a given time and place, works of literature tend to look like one another, inhabiting only a small range of possibilities. Jakobson argued that writers start out by assuming some basic formal arrangement as "inviolable," which constrains the work and forces it into a smaller range of possible outcomes. (E.g., the reason why most MFA stories look the same is because their authors have accepted, either consciously or not, an array of formal constraints as being indispensable: that literary fiction has to be a realist first-person or third-person-limited "character study" with a static plot and loads of similes and an epiphanic final line...) The members of the Oulipo adopted arbitrary constraints in order to force themselves out of those conventional arrangements (which they thought of as being limitations on their own imaginations) and into new territory in order to explore new formal arrangements.
Re: gimmicks, I think you're right, and maybe we can say it's when the constraint fails to find a compelling new formal arrangement, and thereby reinvent the form? It's been too long since I read the Castle of Crossed Destinies, and can't remember how good it is, although the fact that I can't remember it all that well is probably evidence that it's one of Calvino's weaker works. But if I use a tarot deck to write a novel, and the resulting work is fairly generic and unimaginative—something I could have written without the deck—then using the tarot would seem a gimmick, just a means of slapping a fresh coat of paint on an otherwise mundane novel.
Fascinating article, Mazin. Very interesting. I told you before how I use magic for my writing. And see stories as a kind of magic and fiction writers as magi. I told you how I invented my own system of vision magic. Which I later discovered was similar to Chaos Magic. I use visions to bring other dimensions into this reality through magic symbols (letters, words), projecting the images into peoples' minds (reading). The visions are brought from other realms through hallucination and dream (I'm also schizophrenic, so it's a good use of an otherwise debilitating illness). One difference I notice between my magic and many other systems of magic/occult practice, is rules. My magic is not bound by rules or convention, to which I have to conform. It's more chaotic and disorderly. Havoc. Many of my stories are made by this magic and many incorporate these visions in the story. I enjoyed reading your article about these things and look forward to more. Perhaps there's a book waiting to be written on this subject? Not sure if one already exists. Maybe an idea for your future projects, if ever you want to do a nonfiction book. I'd buy it, for sure. Keep up the good work.
Thanks Rob! Have you watched Grant Morrison talk about chaos magic. Although for my money, Alan Moore was always wizard of choice.
If you don’t mind me asking do you find that magical systems helps you manage your schizophrenia or utilises it ?
I don't mind at all. I actually invented my magic to overcome schizophrenia. At the time, I'd been written off forever. I'd come out the funny farm and got addicted through self medication as alternative to antipsychotics, which are poison. Many of the meds I was on from age 15- early 20s are banned now for causing death. I invented a magic based on bits I read about witch doctor/tribal magic men and gipsy magic, mixed with pop imagery. I was inspired by an episode of 'Kung Fu' with David Carradine. In the episode, he is injured or ill (can't remember) and is taken in by a woman and given opium as medicine which he becomes addicted to. He has a vision where he battles his demon and overcomes his illness. I used visualisation of huge Japanese style monsters, which I fired laser beams from my eyes to shrink them down and shot them with a revolver, like a wild west outlaw, ran in and beat them to the floor with my fists, kicked them and stamped on their heads. I pissed on them and sometimes got down and fucked them in the arse. I even shat on their bodies. I dominated these monsters that had possessed me till then and saw it as an exorcism. I used these visions to overcome schizoid delirium, inability to function and addiction. By my early 30s, I was well enough to work after 11 or 12 years of disability benefits and, although it was a struggle and I still had schizophrenia with hallucinations, etc. I functioned to a much higher degree than my teens and 20s. I became more ill again in my mid 40s and unfortunately, had to stop working again. I started to write late in life, as I told you before, and used visions, dreams and magic to write. I also converted hallucinations/delusion/paranoia into usable visions to both inspire/create and as material for stories. I invented the magic myself, as I say, from fragments of 'shamanic' rituals I'd read about and pop culture relevant to me. I later discovered this was very similar to Chaos Magic, in that it was ancient magic, stripped down to bare bones, with cultural, religious beliefs removed and modern culture and relevant influence applied as imagery and symbol. This is one of the reasons I struggle with antipsychotics, as they switch off some of these powers. Sometimes, I become unwell because I don't like to take them and have to go back on them. But I try as much as possible to use magic to fight my condition and convert negative elements of my illness to magical creativity for fiction.
Not sure if there's a word limit to these replies but the end of that last comment is cut off from where I'm looking. It says something like... "and use it to write fiction."
I'll have a look at Grant Morrison talk about chaos magic. I ain't seen it. Not seen Moore either. I know Burroughs was into it.
It's an interesting idea to use systems like I Ching and Tarot to make stories. I think we talked about Burroughs before and his use of magic in writing. Have you read any Mary Butts' stories? I think she was involved in occult practice and worked with Crowley for a while. I'll have to investigate further how she used magic in her writing..
I’d not heard of Mary Butts, shall check her out. Where’s a good place to start?
Mary Butts was the great granddaughter of Sir Thomas Butts, who was patron of William Blake. She was brought up on Blake and was fascinated by the mysteries as a child. She later got involved in occult practice and Crowley. For her fiction, there's a book called 'Mary Butts the Complete Stories' which has all her published short stories and a couple of unpublished too. Also, A novel called 'Armed with Madness' is interesting.
Cool thanks for the tip. Also ‘Armed with madness’ - what a great title !
Yeah. All her titles are interesting. I forgot to say, I want to read another of her books called 'Ashe of Rings' which apparently is her 'Joycean' half conscious thinking effort in fiction.
Forgot to say, Armed with Madness is currently unavailable on it's own, as far as I know. You can get it though if you buy, 'The Taverner Novels: Armed with Madness and Death of Felicity Taverner' which also has Death of Felicity Taverna, which I haven't read yet. It's about £25, I think. You might be able to get a used copy cheaper.
Great piece! FWIW, I find Michael Fried's "Art and Objecthood" invaluable when thinking about this sort of fiction (as well as all art, to be honest). With some generative works, like most conceptual writing, the artist is looking for a process they can turn on which will create the artwork for them; indeed, the whole point is to make only one decision, then accept whatever text results (which might even be indeterminate, in that running the process at different times will product different results). Michael Fried would call such works "objecthood" because they lack internal formal cohesion (hence their indeterminacy), and the only thing we can say about them is whether or not we find the results interesting. It's like nature, where things create forces and conditions that cause other things to happen, but it can go any number of ways, and there's no meaning to any of it. Rocks are just rocks, no matter what they wind up look like.
With Calvino and the Oulipo, we can see that they're working within inherited forms (e.g., the novel), and using processes and procedures to help them find unexplored space inside that form. (The fact that they remain inside that form is crucial; it provides the ultimate constraint on the project.) A given project's chosen constraint, then—using the Tarot deck, say—is meant to throw off, or even prevent, the conventional arrangement of the elements of the form. It's like a whack on the side of the head that allows the artist to see alternate ways those components can be assembled (or, as Roman Jakobson would put it, the added constraint leads to a shift in dominant). But at the end of the day, the novel is still a novel, and can be judged as a novel, not some mere thing. (It's a statue instead of a rock.)
Thing is, there’s always a constraint/s. Calvino seems to vary, sometimes he’s using his constraints as a starting point à la ‘If on a winter’s...’ Which, re your comment about how it’s still gotta be judged as a novel, has the advantage of being a good one (or many good ones...) The problem is when it becomes an art Of constraint. I wonder if you think the latter is a gimmick then, in the strong sense of the word...
Right, there are countless constraints on any given work of art. For instance, if I write a novel, I'm limited by the vocabulary words that I know, not to mention my understanding of what a novel can be, all the ways that it can go (which might not be very many). Which, very broadly speaking, is what Roman Jakobson meant by his concept of "the Dominant," that being an attempt to explain why, in a given time and place, works of literature tend to look like one another, inhabiting only a small range of possibilities. Jakobson argued that writers start out by assuming some basic formal arrangement as "inviolable," which constrains the work and forces it into a smaller range of possible outcomes. (E.g., the reason why most MFA stories look the same is because their authors have accepted, either consciously or not, an array of formal constraints as being indispensable: that literary fiction has to be a realist first-person or third-person-limited "character study" with a static plot and loads of similes and an epiphanic final line...) The members of the Oulipo adopted arbitrary constraints in order to force themselves out of those conventional arrangements (which they thought of as being limitations on their own imaginations) and into new territory in order to explore new formal arrangements.
Re: gimmicks, I think you're right, and maybe we can say it's when the constraint fails to find a compelling new formal arrangement, and thereby reinvent the form? It's been too long since I read the Castle of Crossed Destinies, and can't remember how good it is, although the fact that I can't remember it all that well is probably evidence that it's one of Calvino's weaker works. But if I use a tarot deck to write a novel, and the resulting work is fairly generic and unimaginative—something I could have written without the deck—then using the tarot would seem a gimmick, just a means of slapping a fresh coat of paint on an otherwise mundane novel.