The ’rror

The Haunted Mirrors

Ego non sum…

     Evangelium secundum Ioannem XVII, xiv.

The old palace had a thousand corridors, ten thousand mirrors, squares, ovals, and diamonds, which remained bright and clear for all the dust and cobwebs that surrounded them, specking not with the autumn rain that fell through rents in the roof, cracking not in the fierce frosts of midwinter, ever fascinating, ever fearful to the youths and maidens of the villages therearound. For no mirror reflected faithfully, or so ’twas said, having always some sorcerous taint or anomaly, whereby, on early corridors, the faces reflected were not quite those of him or her who stood before them, being distinct in some particular of eye or mouth or cheek, of hair or tint or scarring, as though a brother or sister looked out, not a twin; and on later the faces reflected began to alter more strongly, more unsettlingly, seeming to partake of different nation and race; and on last of all, seen by very few, the faces reflected began to depart the bounds of humanity, borrowing form and feature from beasts, birds, and fish.

But horrider than these, found here and there in the palace, were mirrors wherein viewers saw themselves become giant insects, myriad-eyed, with nodding antennæ, finger-like jaws or coiled proboscis, or else arachnids, crustaceans, or worms, whereat some fled in horror or fainted where they stood, and few indeed could watch the transformations for long. Kinder mirrors might stand a stride or two away, natheless, wherein faces became now flowers, great and glorious, now crystals of many and gorgeous facets or polyhedra of polished metal, reflective themselves within a reflection. But these mirrors too could trouble the brain and linger in dreams, being sorcerous equally with the rest, nor did it seem right that fragrance should leak from the flowers and notes chime from the crystals and polyhedra. Wherefor no mirror in the old palace could be viewed with impunity, save by the dullest-witted, the stupidest, and these too feared to come before one or another of two mirrors said to be horriblest of all.

In one of these, the viewer would see himself seemingly true at first, then note that months were passing in the mirror for moments before it, whereby one aged before one’s very eyes, skin wrinkling, nose expanding, jaw collapsing. And if one watched unwisely long, one saw death possess the face and a haze of maggots eat it to bare and grinning bone.

In the other of these mirrors, the viewer saw somewhat more disturbing still, save to a rarest few: namely, naught at all where a face should have looked back, as though one existed not and the world flowed on unaffected.

Ein Licht im Nichts

„Soweit wir erkennen können, besteht der einzige Zweck der menschlichen Existenz darin, ein Licht in der Dunkelheit des bloßen Seins zu entzünden.“ — Carl Jung (1875-1961)

• “As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being.”

Pig Brother Is Watching You…


Tu le connais, lecteur, ce monstre délicat, — Hypocrite lecteur, — mon semblable, — mon frère! — Baudelaire


The Slaughter King — Incunabula’s new edition
Kore. King. Kompetition. — win a signed edition of this core counter-cultural classic…

Kore. King. Kompetition.

Incunabula have re-printed that core counter-cultural classic The Slaughter King, first published in 1996. To celebrate this auspicious occasion, here’s a competition to win a signed copy of the classic. To be in it with a chance to win it, please read the afterword to the new edition, then answer the questions and complete the tie-breaker.

Épilogue écrit trente ans après le roman

I hadn’t read or seen a copy of The Slaughter King for more than twenty years when Dave Mitchell contacted me and told me he wanted to re-publish it. I said no at first, but Dave is persuasive and so the Beast is Back, brand-new for the twenty-first century. I still don’t want to re-read it and, on balance, would prefer never to have written it.

Then again, I did get to know three fascinating people by writing it: a psychologically complex serial-killer fan called David Slater; a necrotropic gargoyle fan called David Kerekes; and (sorry to say this, but it’s true) an EngLit graduate called James Williamson. James ran Creation Books and was a crook, but also intelligent, imaginative and genuinely devoted to books and literature. The dysmorphic duo of deviant Davids were dim-but-devious adolescent voyeurs and genuinely devoted to scopophilia and slime-sniffing. They were the editors of the key counter-cultural journal Headpress and simul-scribes of the seminal snuff-study Killing for Culture.

I’ve never been interested in transgressive films or images myself and the deviant Daves did nothing to make me re-think my prejudices about those who are. Trying to hold an intelligent conversation with either Psicolo or Princess Dai was like trying to eat soup with chopsticks. Thin soup. And bendy chopsticks. However, I did learn two very interesting things about myself from Psicolo and Princess Dai: that I am homosexual and that I am a keyly committed core component of the coprophile community. Wow. Well, what was it thæt Teuto-Toxic Titan of Transgression said in Princess Dai’s book about his noxious necrophile narratives? Oh, yes: “Sorry to disappoint you”, lads, but you got it wrong. I am right, though, to say of Psicolo that he is, for some reason or other, very anxious to avoid attracting the attention of the police. I’m also right to say of Princess Dai that he has the soul of a lawyer, the mind of a cop, the intellect of a Daily-Mail reader and the psychology of a chav.

Not to mention the intellect and psychology of the late Diana Spencer, quondam Princess of Wales. Princess Di was “fascinated by the forbidden”, you know, and in between cuddling kiddies with cancer often visited a high-security hospital for the criminally insane called Broadmoor. She also liked transgressive images, spying and lashon hara (as we say up north). I can easily imagine her avidly watching some of the noxious necro-narratives deviantly dissected in Killing for Culture. In short, Princess Di was Headpressean, because Headpress and its edgily esoteric editors never provided an alternative to the voyeurism and other vices of the mainstream. Instead, they provided an exaggeration of mephitic mainstream maggot-culture. Dave Mitchell saw that instantly. Alas, it took me much longer.

And what about The Slaughter King? Is it Headpressean too? Is it “fascinated by the forbidden” à la Princess Di and Princess Dai and Psicolo? No, I hope it’s too literary and logophilic for that. And too intelligent. Dave Mitchell thinks it critiques mainstream maggot-culture rather than contributing to it. If he’s right, good. If he’s not, so it goes. Which reminds me to add: although Kurt Vonnegut wasn’t an influence on The Slaughter King, Ed McBain was. Oh, and “Épilogue écrit” etc is a pretentious and presumptuous reference to Huysmans’s À Rebours (1884), which is a very good book and also an influence on The Slaughter King.

Simon Whitechapel, Carlisle, 23×25.

The Slaughter King — Incunabula’s new edition


Kompetition Kwestchuns

1. What does “Psicolo” mean?
2. What is the point of using “thæt”?
3. What else do we say up north?

Tiebreaker

Please say why The Slaughter King is a core counter-cultural classic in 23 words or fewer.


N.B. Entries by any and all bigots, racists, sexists, transphobes, homophobes, lesbophobes, Islamophobes, neo-Nazis, palaeo-Nazis, and past, present or future members of the I.D.F. are especially welcome. Fans of Guns’n’Roses, otoh, are banned.

Der Pharao des Farnen

Clark Ashton Smith and some ferns in 1958 (Eldritch Dark)

I, too, am capable of observation; but I am far happier when I create everything in a story, including the milieu. This is why I do my best in work like “Satrampa Zeiros”. Maybe I haven’t enough love for, or interest in, real places to invest them with the atmosphere that I achieve in something purely imaginary. […] As for the problem of phantasy, my own standpoint is that there is absolutely no justification for literature unless it serves to release the imagination from the bounds of everyday life. I have undergone a complete revulsion against the purely realistic school, including the French, and can no longer stomach even Anatole France. […] Well, I must put a scientific — or at least a pseudo-scientific — curb on my fancy if I am to sell anything. — Clark Ashton Smith, letter to H.P. Lovecraft, 9th January 1930


The Wine of Words: Valorizing the Verbiviniculture of Clark Ashton Smith

Ho Rhodornix

Y Rhosyn a’r Wylan

There’s a rose at Number Seven,
Tho’ the air is wintered now,
And it glows at Number Seven,
In the brain behind thy brow.

There’s a gull that turns the stillness
Of the air above thy head:
’Tis the gull that spurns the illness
Of the creed where color’s dead.

There’s a rose at Number Seven;
There’s a gull that turns the air:
And what glows at Number Seven
Is the spurner turning there.

Vers d’un Veuf

El Desdichado

Je suis le Ténébreux, – le Veuf, – l’Inconsolé,
Le prince d’Aquitaine à la tour abolie :
Ma seule étoile est morte, – et mon luth constellé
Porte le Soleil noir de la Mélancolie.

Dans la nuit du tombeau, toi qui m’as consolé,
Rends-moi le Pausilippe et la mer d’Italie,
La fleur qui plaisait tant à mon cœur désolé,
Et la treille où le pampre à la rose s’allie.

Suis-je Amour ou Phébus ?… Lusignan ou Biron ?
Mon front est rouge encor du baiser de la reine ;
J’ai rêvé dans la grotte où nage la syrène…

Et j’ai deux fois vainqueur traversé l’Achéron :
Modulant tour à tour sur la lyre d’Orphée
Les soupirs de la sainte et les cris de la fée.

Gérard de Nerval, Les Chimères (1856)


The Misfortunate One

I am the Dark One, – the Widower, – the Inconsolable,
The Prince of Aquitaine in the ruined tower:
My only star is dead, – and my star-studded lute
Bears the black Sun of Melancholy.

In the night of the tomb, thou who consoledst me,
Give me back Posillipo and the Italian sea,
The flower that so pleased my desolate heart,
And the vine where the tendril entwines with the rose.

Am I Love or Phoebus?… Lusignan or Biron?
My brow is still red from the queen’s kiss;

I dreamed in the grotto where the siren swims…

And twice victorious I crossed the Acheron:
Fingering in turn from Orpheus’s lyre
The sighs of the saint and the cries of the fairy.

Hue Views

The fact is, we none of us enough appreciate the nobleness and sacredness of color. Nothing is more common than to hear it spoken of as a subordinate beauty, — nay, even as the mere source of a sensual pleasure; and we might almost believe that we were daily among men who

“Could strip, for aught the prospect yields
To them, their verdure from the fields;
And take the radiance from the clouds
With which the sun his setting shrouds.”

But it is not so. Such expressions are used for the most part in thoughtlessness; and if the speakers would only take the pains to imagine what the world and their own existence would become, if the blue were taken from the sky, and the gold from the sunshine, and the verdure from the leaves, and the crimson from the blood which is the life of man, the flush from the cheek, the darkness from the eye, the radiance from the hair, — if they could but see for an instant, white human creatures living in a white world, — they would soon feel what they owe to color. The fact is, that, of all God’s gifts to the sight of man, color is the holiest, the most divine, the most solemn. We speak rashly of gay color, and sad color, for color cannot at once be good and gay. All good color is in some degree pensive, the loveliest is melancholy, and the purest and most thoughtful minds are those which love color the most.

• John Ruskin, The Stones of Venice, Vol II, Chapter 5, xxx

Eye-Dentity Politics…

In terms of core issues around key notions of maximal engagement with Aldapuerta’s The Eyes (1996), a coupla corely key counter-cultural conundrums coalesce compulsively in the crania of all competent committed contemplators of the Counter Culture…

The first (of course) is that of why all Aldapuerta acolytes are so slim, good-looking, intelligent, imaginative, neurosis-free, psychosis-free, rigorously abstemious from drink, drugs and pornography, and inflexibly adherent to William S. Burroughs’ keyly core counter-cultural commandment of “Mind Your Own Business and Leave Other People Alone…”

The second (also of course) is the ultra-esoteric, über-exciting and endlessly enticing enigma of Aldapuerta’s identity

I myself spend six or seven hours every day on a daily basis contemplating this core counter-cultural conundrum… “Who is Jesús Aldapuerta?” I ax myself on repeat.

And I think – I think – I’ve finally cracked it.

The supposed Spanish writer Jesús Aldapuerta is really the undoubted English writer and former politician… Jeffrey Archer.

Here’s the proof…

The initials are identical: J.A.

Jeffrey Archer = J.A.
Jesús Aldapuerta = J.A.

Coincidence? No. This is the literary equivalent of leaving your monogrammed handkerchief at the scene of the crime.

Both spent time in prison

Archer did two years for perjury. Aldapuerta allegedly had several stints in Spanish jails for offences including petty theft and micturating on nuns from a second-floor balcony.

Both love extravagant lies

Archer invented CV details, fake charities, and imaginary meetings with the Queen. Aldapuerta invented an entire biography (born 1953, tortured by Franco’s secret police, ate his own manuscript, etc.). Same inclination to pathological mendacity.

Both vanished at convenient moments

Aldapuerta “died” in 1988 and no identifiable corpse was ever photographed. Archer “retired” from politics in 1987 after a tabloid sex scandal. Translation: he needed a gap year in Madrid to write necrophile sestinas under a new passport.

Shared obsession with eyes

Archer titled one novel A Prisoner of Birth — birth = eyes opening. Aldapuerta’s masterpiece is literally called The Eyes. Both men clearly have an Oedipal eye-fetish that Freud would need a bigger couch for.

Aldapuerta was never seen in the same room as Jeffrey Archer

Classic doppelgänger logic. Whenever Archer is signing books at Harrods, Aldapuerta’s ghost is allegedly pushing daisies in Madrid. Suspiciously convenient.

The ultimate smoking gun: the lost manuscripts

In 1992, Archer claimed he accidentally burned an entire unpublished novel in his garden. In 1988, Aldapuerta supposedly ate his only copy of The Eyes sequel. Only one man could be that clumsy with priceless manuscripts.

And there you have it. Jeffrey Archer is Jesús Aldapuerta, and the transgressive literary world has been punk’d for four decades by a Tory peer with a fondness for disembowelment metaphors.


A fractal based on juggled eyeballs

S’éteignent, S’encroûtent, S’allument…

« Des soleils s’éteignent & s’encroûtent, des planètes périssent & se dispersent dans les plaines des airs ; d’autres soleils s’allument, de nouvelles planètes se forment pour faire leurs révolutions ou pour décrire de nouvelles routes, & l’homme, portion infiniment petite d’un globe, qui n’est lui-même qu’un point imperceptible dans l’immensité, croit que c’est pour lui que l’univers est fait, s’imagine qu’il doit être le confident de la nature, se flatte d’être éternel, se dit le roi de l’univers ! » — Baron d’Holbach, Système de la nature (1770), Partie 1, Chapitre 6

“Suns are extinguished or become corrupted, planets perish and scatter across the wastes of the sky; other suns are kindled, new planets formed to make their revolutions or describe new orbits, and man, an infinitely minute part of a globe which itself is only an imperceptible point in the immense whole, believes that the universe is made for himself, flatters himself that he is eternal, calls himself king of the universe!”


Post-Performative Post-Scriptum…

Mais… Mens Major Est Quam Materia…