Warthog Asks: St John Starling

What manner of man writes What Manner of Man?

[The banner image for What Manner of Man, used with permission.]

If you were on certain parts of the internet last year, you knew about Dracula Daily, a project on Substack that presented the epistolary narrative of Dracula in chronological order. It was popular enough to spark inspiration for many other serialized works, and amongst the various repackaged classics, I spotted some brand new stories.

What Manner of Man by St John was one of them, promising a tale that would effectively take the homoerotic subtext between Jonathan and Dracula in the first act of Dracula and make it both text and a key consistent element. I was intrigued and signed up shortly after the initial announcement, or around that time at least. Now that What Manner of Man is currently mid serialization I’ve enjoyed reading it as it updates, you can usually find me in the comments section of each chapter.

So when it came to thinking of people to interview (now that I’m doing this as a regular feature), St John came to mind as someone I’d like to ask questions to. I reached out to him for an interview over email, and he agreed to it. Below are the questions I asked and his answers, with minimal editing.

---

Romancing monsters has been a common occurrence in stories for a long time, what do you think it is that keeps drawing people to the idea of romancing the monstrous?

I think it’s so funny that you led with this because I’ve thought about it more than all the other questions combined. It’s a big one and I still don’t really have an answer, but I suppose there must be some deep-laid seed in folk stories and fairytales — this enduring theme of demon lovers and fairy weddings. The first act of Dracula follows the structure of Beauty and the Beast; another distantly-related version of the same story is that of Scheherazade, to whom Jonathan Harker directly compares himself, and her Bluebeard husband. 

So monstrous, supernatural marriages abound in folk stories and fairytales, and the writers of Gothic horror are inspired by those stories. Gothic horror, like What Manner of Man, is largely about the repressed and unconscious, so of course it’s obsessed with sex. All of its monsters are in some way sexual, and frequently queer. When things are condemned from a place of moral authority that makes them alluring to people, you know, the monster is sexy because you’re not supposed to want him.

A lot of the appeal of Victorian Gothic novels for me is how much room they leave for readers to have fun with their villains in a camp way. They may, for instance, wish to romance them.

How would you describe the relationship between Dracula and What Manner of Man? Is it merely the presence of vampires and the serialization of Dracula Daily that link them, or does it go deeper than that?

Well, I’ve always loved the classics of Gothic and supernatural fiction, Dracula in particular, but I never thought I could get away with writing anything in that style myself. It was the popularity of Dracula Daily, then, that gave me the confidence to try a novel like this on modern readers. I thought it would be fun, after more than a century of elaboration on and subversions of classic vampire narratives, to go back to the blueprint and try to write as straightforward a Gothic vampire novel as I could manage. I’m very pleased with the reception so far.

Structurally, What Manner of Man is closely patterned after the first act of Dracula, which is all a sort of queer damsel-in-distress situation. Dracula was present in my mind throughout the development and writing of the novel and several details made it into the final draft which are direct or indirect allusions to it (the name Ardelian means “from Transylvania.”) So Dracula is woven deeply into the fabric of What Manner of Man, but it isn’t intended it to stand in any one particular, definite relation to Dracula beyond that.

What Manner of Man makes it clear that we're not getting everything Father Ardelian wrote about his experiences. How do you decide what to show to the reader and what to hide in the lacunae?

The conspicuous omissions are both a key part of the building subtext of the novel and a structural necessity with the frame, the real-time element, etc. Occasionally they might censor details the reader mustn’t know yet for pacing reasons (but which can’t realistically be left out of a scene entirely) but more often elided passages contain things which I simply think are more effective for not being said.

It’s that Gothic concern with the subconscious, with what the characters are not aware of. The omissions lend extra ambiguity to what Father Ardelian is telling us — they leave the door invitingly ajar for the reader. Many people seem to be getting a real kick out of noticing what’s being avoided, picking up on what Father Ardelian doesn’t want to admit and shouting it back at him.

Has letting readers vote on different aspects of What Manner of Man presented any new challenges to you as an author? Or has it been more of a seamless inclusion for your writing process?

I loved doing the polls! I worked pretty hard at the time to make sure that all the options I presented were details that I felt confident in working with, and I think it paid off. Some of the best elements of the novel have come from the poll winners — Whithern Hall, for instance, exists in its current form because of what people voted for, and the house is virtually a character in itself (as all good Gothic settings should be.)

Is historical accuracy a priority for you when writing What Manner of Man?

A lot of care and research has gone into it! I think that’s the only way to get the subtle details that enrich and add depth to a story of this kind. So I do try my best to ensure that everything is reasonably plausible that should be. At the end of the day, though, this is a work of imaginative supernatural fiction. I don’t recommend anyone uses it as a textbook!

Do you think writing What Manner of Man has helped you along the path to fully understanding the lure of the monstrous romance?

Oh, well, when I said I didn’t really have an answer to the question of what it is that keeps drawing people to this subject matter, that wasn’t to imply that I didn’t understand the appeal of monster romance on an individual level.

I’m a deviant, a pervert, etc. and I’ve always been drawn to literary monsters for reasons which include but are not limited to their association with the transgressive, the richness of their history in written fiction, and their supreme usefulness as vehicles of metaphor.

How would you say the figure of the vampire has evolved since the publication of Dracula?

Thoroughly!

They’ve certainly exploded in popularity. Vampires were an obscure enough creature of folklore when Dracula was published that Bram Stoker’s text doesn’t expect the reader to necessarily know what they are. You’d do better to ask a pop culture historian than me but I think the greatest overall change to vampires in fiction is probably that they’re now sympathetic, romantic figures by default — something to do with the 1970s; Anne Rice, Frank Langella’s Dracula portrayals (stage and screen), a generation of artists coming of age who’d had their sexual awakenings watching Hammer films.

With the focus on the subconscious in Gothic literature, have you looked into psychology for your own writing, or do you keep your exploration of those themes focused on the literary?

Inasmuch as all writers have, at some point, to develop their own understanding of what goes on inside other people’s heads. But that’s psychology in the general sense. I’m assuming you’re asking about psychology as in the scientific discipline — probably the influence on What Manner of Man that comes closest to psychology is Erotism: Death and Sensuality by Georges Bataille, but it’s more philosophy. Bataille was a librarian, not a doctor. It’s not a bad idea, though — reading psychology texts as background for Gothic fiction. Maybe I’ll try it next time.

In the preface we're given a small narrative regarding how we're able to read Father Ardelian's journals and letters, which includes yourself as a friend of Father Ardelian's grandnephew. The St John who transcribed what he could of Father Ardelian's writing, and the St John who wrote the whole book and is responding to my questions, is there a meaningful difference between them?

I couldn’t possibly say.

Would you encourage other authors to try letting polls decide on details for their writing?

Plenty of great writers have used elements of randomness as a part of their creative process (William S. Burroughs’ cut-up technique, Brian Eno’s Oblique Strategies, Sylvia Plath’s tarot cards, etc.) but whether I’d recommend someone try reader polls specifically would depend entirely on individual goals, circumstances, etc.

What I can say is that it’s a good thing to try if one of your goals is to cultivate a particularly engaged audience. Polls are fun for people to do, it gives people a sense of connection to the book. Your book’s relationship with its audience is a bigger part of being an author now than it has been in the past, and it’s helpful to go in with an idea of how you want that relationship to take shape.

Generally speaking, when do you do your historical research for works like What Manner of Man? Before starting the draft, after the first draft, or some other point in the process?

All of the above, honestly. The research never ends. There’s research which has to be done as part of brainstorming the original premise (inspiration research), then various research throughout the outlining process (making sure all key details are roughly plausible.) There’s a break while I write the first draft or so in which ideally no research at all happens (breaks up the flow.) Then, once the serious editing starts, it’s solid wall-to-wall research again (checking terminology, adding in details, etc.)

Sometimes it’s that you’ve included something in your book you don’t know the first thing about (I don’t sail, I don’t fence, and I have never even briefly been a Roman Catholic priest) and sometimes it’s to include a useful detail or phrase you’ve sifted out of twenty pages of Catholic drivel (don’t do this.)

Optional bonus question: What are some traits your ideal monster lover would have?

I’ll have you know I’m the monster in the relationship.

---

That’s the interview, thanks again to St John (and his editor) for agreeing to and making the time for it. I had fun conducting this interview, hopefully you had fun reading it. You can read What Manner of Man yourself by clicking on this link. And you could also press some of the shiny little buttons below.