Weird Fiction discussion

The Fisherman is usually classified as a horror novel. That's mainly because people doing the classifying don't know what weird fiction is. Sometimes they'll call it Lovecraftian, or some such, which gives them even less excuse for their ignorance in my opinion.

Anyway, it won the 2016 Bram Stoker Award for Best Novel. Despite that fact, the novel is controversial. People I have heard discuss it either consider it a masterpiece, or an overblown piece of drivel. No one I know has ever staked out a middle ground position on it. This fact can be witnessed by the fact it has a sub-4.0 Goodreads rating. The novel has no shortage of haters. I need to mention that it is lovers of horror fiction that can tend to dislike this book. I've never heard someone who likes weird fiction disparage it.

Wikipedia provides the following synopsis, which I will place in spoiler tags: (view spoiler)["Abraham, or Abe as he prefers, is a widower who struggles to find peace after his wife's death. After a bout of alcoholism, Abe uses fishing to find peace. Abe forms a friendship with his coworker Dan, who recently survived a terrible accident that left him a widower as well. After some weekends of fishing Dan suggests the pair try out Dutchman's Creek, a mysterious fishing spot with a cursed past that is rumored to bring back lost loved ones. On their way to the creek, they stop at a diner and are warned of the dangers of Dutchman's Creek; ignoring the warning, the two men continue on their way. At the creek they come face to face with the mysterious "Der Fisher", who is attempting to catch the primordial Leviathan. They are faced with the choice to help him and regain their lost loves or defy him and fight for survival. (hide spoiler)]

Reception: Martin Cahill of Tor praised the novel saying "Langan's novel is deliberate, elegant, and beautifully written; the horror and trauma of these two men is explored to the bone, and in the end, knowing them so well only makes the horrors to come that much more terrifying." Terrence Rafferty of The New York Times remarked, "Langan writes elegant prose, and the novel's rolling, unpredictable flow has a distinctive rhythm, the rise and fall of its characters' real grief."

Other reviewers such as Publishers Weekly praised Langan's imagery but felt the story within the story bogged down the novel."

This novel has been sitting on my shelves unread for years. I am glad to finally have this opportunity to dust it off and give it the reading I intended to when I bought it five years or so ago.

Looking forward to it!😁

looking forward to it!!! And being on Audible, it'll get done quicker and in parallel to the Saphire Goddess that I still have to finish. I have annother 5 hrs to finish the Terry Pratchett tale I am currently listenning to, and then to Fisherman!

One chapter in already and I am finding the real stuff my maturer nightmares are made of. Surprising as it may be, I think the author was very smart to keep significant narrative distance from his characters here at the start. It's more than sad enough already even though we do not see the details of the romance or either decline. Any closer would be unbearable.

About 40% in. This book is really really good. Real piece of literature. You get to really care for the characters, and the way the story progresses - or perhaps a better verb would be unveals- is just right.

I like the story within story. For my personal taste, more complex is [almost] always more interesting.

I've read chapter one, and it's so easy to become invested in the narrator's life, his past experiences of hardship and what fishing means to him. Sure, if it continues like this for too long, there's a real danger here of the story just becoming another brooding pityparty, but right now, I genuinely respect what he has to say and want to take his reminiscence and grief seriously. I really care and listen.

I also appreciate the foreshadowing at the beginning, where he basically gave us a short summary of what was going to happen. It was enough to widen my eyes without spoiling too much, and I don't mind currently that we're not jumping straight to it, but rather get grounded first in a human soul. And knowing there's definitely going to be some weird shit happening eventually makes me eager. Not impatient, it's more like I'm getting into a giant hot spring of words and just soak in it for a little while, anxious to see what kinds of creatures lurk beneath the surface.

I think this is hands down one of my favorite readings from this group, not counting the House of Leaves. I still can't say I understand the underlying mythology, but that's ok.

Still enjoying it a lot after chapter two. It got even better. So heart-wrenching!

I am through the third chapter now and am thoroughly enjoying it. I see the modern trend in weird fiction that has been going on almost a decade now. Namely, to start the story firmly in the real world for the first third or half, hinting only that something more is afoot or going to begin at some time, and then introducing more and more fantastic elements as we go. I really appreciate this sophisticated style of weird fiction so many of our most recent authors in the genre are practicing.

Interesting. I didn't know it was a modern trend, but third chapter through as well and I have to agree with you; it's a gratifying approach to the genre.

Yes. I've seen the trend most in Victor LaValle's and Silvia Moreno-Garcia's work, but lesser-known writers in weird fiction anthologies are writing in that style now too. Not exclusively, but more than half. I guess I can add John Langan to that list.

Hey there everyone, bit off-topic here but I just wanted to let you know I'm still around and interested in the group. I got sick and busy around holiday times last year and didn't have much free time for a while. I look forward to joining in the April group read, so I'll see you there.

Feel better, Dave! Seriously, give Fisherman a read, I loved it so much!

Thanks :) and I'll check it out. From the discussion here it sounds pretty interesting.

Dave J. wrote: "Hey there everyone, bit off-topic here but I just wanted to let you know I'm still around and interested in the group. I got sick and busy around holiday times last year and didn't have much free t..."

You know, I was actually wondering where you went and hoped you would come back. I'm glad you'll join us again soon :)

Zina wrote: "Feel better, Dave! Seriously, give Fisherman a read, I loved it so much!"

Actually, I am halfway through this novel now, and if I had to rate it would only give it two or three stars at present. The first part was reasonably interesting. I wanted to see how these two men were progressing in their friendship as they both tried to handle their grief.

That's the first quarter of the book. The second and third quarter chronicles an abrupt shift back into time a half century or more with completely different characters. I am much less interested in this story of a reanimated corpse and how the villagers try to deal with the problems it's causing.

I have no doubt that in the last quarter the author is going to weave these two stories together. But that's three quarters of the book with two completely different stories. So far, that's not working for me. I have real misgivings about the second story in particular because so much of what is happening is taking place off-camera. I despair the author will ever provide an adequate explanation, or if by the time he finally does, I will have read so long without one that I won't much care when one finally comes in.

Just want to say, if you're busy, or need to finish up another work this month for another group maybe, I say go for it. It's only eight days until we start next month's group read anyway.

I completely agree with Dan on this one. I LOVED the first part of the book, it was destined to be one of the greatest novels I'd ever read, until we get into the other stories. That completely killed the momentum for me. I have no issue with meandering into other plotlines and weaving them together, but I did not enjoy the other stories anywhere near as much as I did with the framing story. The prose in general is undeniably fantastic and I'd happily read Langham's next novel, but I'd be cautious of similar disappointment.

I suppose, my ADHD-addled brain makes me naturally predisposed to meandering stories since my brain works like that anyway :) But I also think I loved the next stories actually more than the very first one. Having lived around those places, this coming to life of the immigrant tales read somehow very close to my heart. I am also easy to please, so there's that :D

I'm loving this, About 20% through. Not what I was expecting. Good story, Well written, Not really weird though.

BUT, really enjoying it.

Cordelia wrote: "I'm loving this, About 20% through. Not what I was expecting. Good story, Well written, Not really weird though.
Just get a little further in! :D :D it'll be weird all right

Zina wrote: "Cordelia wrote: "I'm loving this, About 20% through. Not what I was expecting. Good story, Well written, Not really weird though.
Just get a little further in! :D :D it'll be weird all right"

You are right. Now at 69%. It's pretty weird. But I feel that this middle part is overlong - I'm starting to get a bit bored with it, Cant wait to get back to the two widowers. Want to find out what happens with their fishing and how they deal with their grief,

Yuck! My review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

I finished this book today, and I have mixed feelings about the story in the middle, and I didn't like the last part very much. I still think I will end up rating it four stars when I write my review. I enjoyed most of it.

Dan wrote: "Zina wrote: "Actually, I am halfway through this novel now, and if I had to rate it would only give it two or three stars at present. The first part was reasonably interesting. I wanted to see how these two men were progressing in their friendship as they both tried to handle their grief.

That's the first quarter of the book. The second and third quarter chronicles an abrupt shift back into time a half century or more with completely different characters. I am much less interested in this story of a reanimated corpse and how the villagers try to deal with the problems it's causing.

I have no doubt that in the last quarter the author is going to weave these two stories together. But that's three quarters of the book with two completely different stories. So far, that's not working for me. I have real misgivings about the second story in particular because so much of what is happening is taking place off-camera. I despair the author will ever provide an adequate explanation, or if by the time he finally does, I will have read so long without one that I won't much care when one finally comes in.

Just want to say, if you're busy, or need to finish up another work this month for another group maybe, I say go for it. It's only eight days until we start next month's group read anyway."

To me, the first part was more than interesting; I thought is was really well written; it made me sad and it made me feel for them quite strongly, and when they became fishing buddies, oh boy did I smile. So that first part was gripping.

I really wanted to just stay with them, but at the same time, I didn't mind going back in time to hear about what happened to all of these other people. I thought it was interesting the way more and more strange things happened, and I liked the weird elements, like the fisherman and the leviathan. Especially Lottie's vision in the closet, which made my eyes go wide and my heart beat faster in a way only weird fiction can.

I just expected the story in the middle to be much shorter. It should've been, because I think giving more space to Dan and Abe would've worked a lot better. Why make us care so much about them, only to leave them behind for most the novel? I also think, perhaps because of this, that there were too many other characters introduced along the way. Even though I was thourughly engaged at least two thirds of the way, I lost track of who people were several times and often didn't get any time to care enough about them before we moved on to the next one.

So when we got back to Dan and Abe at the end, my emotional connection to them was sort of lost, and I kept reading with a mild disinterest. It was actually kinda boring towards the very end.

I still think the first and middle part is good. I just don't think the complemented each other very well. It's like you say, Inidigo, there was so much promising momentum at the beginning that trailed off.

I have three minor questions to ask before I post my review, though.

First question relates to these lines on page 31:

"Besides, there didn't seem to be anything wrong with the guy. He didn't go to pieces the way that I had. Sure, there were days when the shirt he was wearing was the same one we'd seen him in yesterday, or his suit was wrinkled, or his tie stained, but there were enough single men at the office about whom you could notice the same or similar things for such details not to strike you as too serious."

I think I could get why, in a mindset of an office worker with a strict dress code, you'd react to someone having a wrinkled suit or a stained tie. I personally wouldn't care, but formal attire and pristine clothes is probably required many places. But I didn't think wearing the same clothes two days in a row would warrant a reaction. I think the implication that it might be a "serious" thing if a man in a relationship would have worn the same shirt two days in a row seems silly to me. I thought it was completely normal to wear the same clothes at least two days in a row, whether you're single or not. I don't see how being in a relationship is relevant, and I think you shouldn't be washing your clothes too often in terms of durability either, but anyways, that striked me as an odd thing to say.

Question two: Did anyone else question why the car burst into flames and why the truck exploded? Is that even possible? Burning and/or exploding cars are just a Hollywood invention thing to make things look cool, right?

Question three: I don't know the page number, but the Fisherman wasn't a real Schwarzkünstler, right? Does anyone remember? I think this was the reason the professor was able to challenge him. I wonder if there actually exists real ones somewhere and what they're capable of, when he managed to do all of that. They probably should've been able to sense what he was doing, right? Or even stop him or do the same more effectively. Just made me wonder.

And oh, has anyone heard about the subjectile before?

"“The ocean is everywhere. Not only does it stretch to the horizon in all directions, it’s under everything as well. I don’t mean underground, I mean – it’s fundamental, you might say. If what’s around us is a picture, then this is what it’s drawn on. Reverend Mapple had a word for it, the subjectile. Lottie said it was like, if you could cut a hole in the air, black water would come pouring out of it.” (141)"

I tried reading about it online, as it is an actual thing, but I don't understand. Can anyone explain in simpler terms what it means?

One final question, what did the Fisherman ultimately wanted to achieve? To amass enough magical power to get his family back?

It's the base on which an artistic work is built upon; it can be practical but is more hypothetical, like creating a sculpture on the ocean. The subjectile would be the ocean. I've also read about it in practical form, like building a sculpture on cardboard, but then the meaning gets convoluted, like being in the physical and hypothetical simultaneously.

It's a way to look at art and canvas as object and subject theoretically, what would you create if the ocean was your foundation?

Does that make any sense? It's been a day, but that's what I remember; I'd have to research some. I know some artists define it differently, but I think my explanation is the foundation.

Hmm. I'm not sure. Is it like a thought experiment, you mean? Or a metaphor? You pretend that whatever you're making is created on or in something that's not really there? That the canvas is said ocean or a forest or whatever?

A thought experiment is a good way to look at it. But then it turns into an existential question, like if the painting is bad, it's because the subjectile was bad, it "betrayed" the artist. The "foundation" ruined the painting.

And then it's also referred to as something that extends beyond the foundation, stretching into the ground that surrounds it.

After I get some rest I'll refresh my mind on the subject. It's a thought experiment but it's also the "heart" of your work. I know I'm making it more complicated.

I'll be back if I can break it into two sentences. My nose its touching the keyboard.

This is Antonin Artaud's use of it:
----------------------------------------------------------
The first time Artaud used the word was in a letter to André Rolland de Renéville, ‘Herewith a bad drawing in which what is called the subjectile betrayed me.’

In 1946, ‘This drawing is grave attempt to give life and existence to what until today had never been accepted in art, the botching of the subjectile, the piteous awkwardness of forms crumbling around an idea after having for so many eternities labored to join it. The page is soiled and spoiled, the paper crumpled, the people drawn with the consciousness of a child.’

Nicolai Alexander wrote: "I have three minor questions to ask before I post my review, though.

First question relates to these lines on page 31:

"Besides, there didn't seem to be anything wrong with the guy. He didn't g..."
about the shirt - it's an American thing. They are like that much of the time. Like, people willl notice if somebody wears the same shirt or somethingg. Big houses, affluence, big washing machines, no European concern for water. but judging by literature, they were like that even before washers and dryers and all that modern stuff.
I don't think he really was the real Schwarzkünstler, but he sure picked up a thing or two.
Cars burst into flames :'( My wonderful friend, actually heck, he was everybody's best friend, a truly amazing guy perished a couple years ago due to car fire. The sheer cosmic injustice of such horrifying prolonged torturous death for such a GOOD HUMAN still upsets me. He llived a few weeks, you know. In a hospital, they cut his legg off, they cut his arm off, crap, I diggress.

Nicolai Alexander wrote: "One final question, what did the Fisherman ultimately wanted to achieve? To amass enough magical power to get his family back?"
That, I think yes - but I thought, maybe more. Like, getting the Leviathan/fates/whomever to answer for what they done, to right it somehow - maybe I am reading too much into it.

Found it! This is heavy art theory, which gets theoretically absurd but fun. It gives you a visual of subjectile space. You'll see why it's hard to explain.

Nicolai, I kind of agree with you; it's a metaphor created with real materials but is hypothetical art that exists in the artist's mind.

Oh! "A living metaphor!" I think that works.

Watch 33:50 where she mentions subjective space, then she talks untill 34:50. Then it gets good with a great example, especially when they talk about what's in the tube. Stop around 37:40.
https://youtu.be/r2evdWIOUJM?si=e94gz...

#1 If one does not change one's shirt daily, there's a better than even chance one will on the second day emit an unpleasant B.O. smell such as the one frequently encountered on a European mass transit system including airplanes. Many Americans sufficiently familiar with that particular European experience have concluded the majority might be hygienically challenged.

Additionally, wearing the same shirt two days in a row, if done frequently, meaning more than once, signals to middle class Americans either poverty, bad hygiene, or some other serious issue or type of neglect is probably occurring. Video game addict maybe? If one does not wish to send that signal, then in the U.S. one does not wear the same clothes, underwear never, shirts rarely if ever, on consecutive days.

I also shower, using soap and shampoo, every morning, 365 days per year. It's how I start my day. I do often wear pants two or three days before they go into the wash, sometimes even on consecutive days, if the pants are non-descript enough not to attract notice. I have thin legs, so pants are not against my skin all day. I might rehang a perfectly clean shirt on occasion, if I have not sweat a drop during the day, to be worn again one day next week, never on the following day. I imagine I'm fairly typical of most middle-class Americans in these respects.

#2 I do not know how frequently cars explode into flame, or if that's more a movie thing. I have often wondered that myself.

#3 I think Langan left the question of whether or not the Fisherman was a real Schwarzkünstler, whatever that is, ambiguous. Didn't he leave the question of whether the Fisherman was even a real person ambiguous too? The many dangling plot threads was one of the reasons I am not a fan of this novel, though when the third part became so ridiculous, I stopped thinking that was the novel's most serious issue.

#4 Subjectile strikes me as one of those pretentious literary criticism terms deconstructionists like. If I substitute the word "basis" for it, I find that works.

Most literary and artistic criticism is pretentious, but a fun game nevertheless.

Mr. James wrote: "A thought experiment is a good way to look at it. But then it turns into an existential question, like if the painting is bad, it's because the subjectile was bad, it "betrayed" the artist. The "fo..."

Based on what you said here, and before I'm seeing the video you found, it sounds like the subjectile could also be the very inspiration itself, which you base your work upon, as if you're applying your own creative self to it. It's possible to replace "inspiration" with "influence", a subconscious one or not. I suppose that sounds a lot like "life imitating art, art imitating life", but I'm not well versed in this area.

Mr. James wrote: "Found it! This is heavy art theory, which gets theoretically absurd but fun. It gives you a visual of subjectile space. You'll see why it's hard to explain.

Nicolai, I kind of agree with you; it..."

Oh, right, a metaphor makes more sense now! It's like you're saying that something physical is a representation of something abstract, something real a representation of something imaginary, something objective a representation of something subjective?

Zina wrote: "Nicolai Alexander wrote: "about the shirt - it's an American thing. They are like that much of the time. Like, people willl notice if somebody wears the same shirt or somethingg. Big houses, affluence, big washing machines, no European concern for water. but judging by literature, they were like that even before washers and dryers and all that modern stuff.
I don't think he really was the real Schwarzkünstler, but he sure picked up a thing or two.."

Oh, I was wondering whether or not it was a cultural thing, like on a national level or state level, whether it was part of the character's personality or something Langan himself just reacts to personally.

Zina wrote: "Cars burst into flames :'( My wonderful friend, actually heck, he was everybody's best friend, a truly amazing guy perished a couple years ago due to car fire. The sheer cosmic injustice of such horrifying prolonged torturous death for such a GOOD HUMAN still upsets me. He llived a few weeks, you know. In a hospital, they cut his legg off, they cut his arm off, crap, I diggress."

Oh no, that's horrible! I'm so sorry for your loss, Zina!

Zina wrote: "Nicolai Alexander wrote: "One final question, what did the Fisherman ultimately wanted to achieve? To amass enough magical power to get his family back?"
That, I think yes - but I thought, maybe mo..."

That's not a bad interpretation, I'm just wondering if you could remember any particular scene that might suggest this?

Dan wrote: "#1 If one does not change one's shirt daily, there's a better than even chance one will on the second day emit an unpleasant B.O. smell such as the one frequently encountered on a European mass transit system including airplanes. Many Americans sufficiently familiar with that particular European experience have concluded the majority might be hygienically challenged.

Additionally, wearing the same shirt two days in a row, if done frequently, meaning more than once, signals to middle class Americans either poverty, bad hygiene, or some other serious issue or type of neglect is probably occurring. Video game addict maybe? If one does not wish to send that signal, then in the U.S. one does not wear the same clothes, underwear never, shirts rarely if ever, on consecutive days.

I also shower, using soap and shampoo, every morning, 365 days per year. It's how I start my day. I do often wear pants two or three days before they go into the wash, sometimes even on consecutive days, if the pants are non-descript enough not to attract notice. I have thin legs, so pants are not against my skin all day. I might rehang a perfectly clean shirt on occasion, if I have not sweat a drop during the day, to be worn again one day next week, never on the following day. I imagine I'm fairly typical of most middle-class Americans in these respects."

I think perhaps the matter of hygiene is a seperate issue and topic of discussion, where I would begin by acknowleding that we all have our individual needs: some people need two showers a day, others can go several days without emitting any noticable body odours. Each person's needs depends on these bodily differences, the climate where they live, what kinds of daily activitites they engage in etc..

I do wonder if you might be pulling my leg a little here, though. I don't for one second believe that many Americans "have concluded the majority" of people in a "European mass transit system (...) might be hygienically challenged". Not unless I see any data that supports this, that is. And I know you're aware that Europe consist of many different countries with an array of different cultural norms. In any case, as I mentioned, I was curious as to why this particular occurence of wearing the same shirt more than one day was brought up in the book in this manner. If it's just a cultural thing, that answers my question, which is fine.

Whether or not you should change your shirt every day is a seperate issue, and the same goes for whether or not it warrants a reaction or response, and whether or not that makes you judgemental or not. I have no strong opinions on these matters; I was just puzzled. Especially by the single or not aspect. Wouldn't a single person be more inclined to change clothes more often? I mean, wouldn't they be more incentivized to impress strangers/potential new partners? And that you get more complacent in a relationship as the years go by? But that's another seperate discussion, hah :)

Dan wrote: "#3 I think Langan left the question of whether or not the Fisherman was a real Schwarzkünstler, whatever that is, ambiguous. Didn't he leave the question of whether the Fisherman was even a real person ambiguous too? The many dangling plot threads was one of the reasons I am not a fan of this novel, though when the third part became so ridiculous, I stopped thinking that was the novel's most serious issue."

Hmm. You might be right; it's probably just ambiguous and up for interpretation. I think that if you can do all the things this Fisherman did, though, you've earned the title of Schwarzkünstler!

Nicolai Alexander wrote: "Oh, right, a metaphor makes more sense now! It's like you're saying that something physical is a representation of something abstract, something real a representation of something imaginary, something objective a representation of something subjective?

That's how I like to look at it, and you and I are a consensus so that's what it means. Others will disagree and add some other element, like "redefining space" within the contours of living and abstract space, etc, etc.

But I think you and I can a agree it's a subjective "art concept" formed in the mind that's forced into the pragmatic world, like in the video, where he makes a "space" that will help him levitate surrounded by a tube of blood, urine, and probably ketchup, while lying on dark earth. He sure as hell didn't look like he was levitating, but it's the thought that counts.

Art theory: fun for the whole family!

Mr. James wrote: "Nicolai Alexander wrote: "Oh, right, a metaphor makes more sense now! It's like you're saying that something physical is a representation of something abstract, something real a representation of s..."

Yes, you're absolutely right! :D

Here is my review of the book, by the way, if anyone might be interested. Four stars!

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

I always read your reviews with great interest, Nicolai, and this one was no exception. Much of what you write corresponded with the way I felt about the novel, except maybe I found the study on grief and its effects less compelling than you. Having read The Dogs of Babel, I can't help but compare their treatments of that subject (emotionally dealing with the loss of a beloved spouse), and Langan's came off as such a distant second. Also, you were far more tolerant of that second section, and the shortcomings of everything overall, than I was, although you did point out the same shortcomings.

One thing really did strike me in your review, and that was that you were pretty negative overall of much of the book. We both felt like that third part, the climax, the point for writing the book, didn't in the end work. Your review read like a book a reviewer would rate at most three stars. It left me wondering what exactly you liked about the book so much that you gave it four.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Dan wrote: "I always read your reviews with great interest, Nicolai, and this one was no exception. Much of what you write corresponded with the way I felt about the novel, except maybe I found the study on gr..."

Yes, you are absolutely right. My overall assessment of the book corresponds more closely to a three star rating, but the star rating scale (or any fixed rating scale) is not an exact science after all. The first part was more compelling to me than that third part was boring. My dissatisfaction in general with the negative aspects of the book weren't as strong as my satisfaction with the positive ones.

So perhaps it's closer to a 3 or 3.5, but the feelings that Langan evoked in me while I read, the way he stimulated my imagination and the amount of time I was throughly engaged (before I got bored) simply gave more weight to one end of the scale than the other.