Hey,
I just thought I would start a thread about that constantly debated genre known as 'New Weird'. Now I know there has been a lot of debate about this genre and what it includes (or by a few if it even exists) however that all did begin a few years ago (2003 I believe?) and has started to die down now. The loose formations of the New Weird has started to form into something more concrete, the nature of this is yet to be fully revealed. For examples think of Jeff Vandermeer's City of Saints and Madmen, China Mieville's Perido Street Station and K J Bishops The Etched City. For a more defined idea of what the New Weird is I urge people to read Ann and Jeff Vandermeer's edited collection 'The New Weird' published by Tachyon. For what it is worth though the way I explain the New Weird is that it is one of the latest in many movements within speculative fiction, its base is in the New Wave of the 1960's and 70's (Michael Moorcock etc) and the New Horror of the 80's and 90's (Clive Barker etc), it seeks to break down the walls between fantasy, horror, sci-fi and literature in general. It is marked by themes revolving around the city, transformations of both a physical and often horrific variety and a distain for Tolkien style high fantasy and the like.
Are other people writing in a similar vein this year?
Also what do people think of the genre, the debates around it, China Mieville, Vandermeer etc etc?
----------
However, some may argue that, to them, art should transcend political division, unifying people in their common humanity. They forget, it seems, that masters and slaves do not quite share anything in common, least of all any notion of humanity.
- Omar Ba
2,062 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 04 48
I honestly NEVER heard of this sort of thing. But isn't this a whole lot like 'Urban Fantasy'?
----------TVtropes: The bible for writers and readers that will ruin your life.
www.tvtropes.org
16,844 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 05 00
Its different to Urban Fantasy in that it is set in an entirely made up world (unlike the modern world with supernatural elements of Urban Fantasy), so the world that the book is set in is totally fantasical but also written in a very anti-high fantasy way so little if any dragons/evil wizards/brave knights/ epic battles between medeival military armies etc.
----------Also i think that it draws its ideas from different sources and breaks down the divide between the genres more so than Urban Fantasy and the like.
However, some may argue that, to them, art should transcend political division, unifying people in their common humanity. They forget, it seems, that masters and slaves do not quite share anything in common, least of all any notion of humanity.
- Omar Ba
2,062 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 05 10
*checks Wikipedia*
Hmmmm, sounds most like a deconstruction of High Fantasy to me, but I am probably still wrong.
I think the problem with these sort of genres is that they are trying to hard to 'be different' and subvert every trope that they get their hands on, while forgetting that there is a reason why they original stories were liked so much.
But that's just me.
----------TVtropes: The bible for writers and readers that will ruin your life.
www.tvtropes.org
0 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 06 22
I doubt you'll have much luck explaining New Weird to the people here. Most of them are after all readers and writers of the sort of thing New Weird is emphatically not, and they're probably not at all familiar with the kind of Fantasy New Weird draws from. You get the same thing when you talk about Sword & Sorcery - people tend to interpret it as a variant of the Fantasy they're familiar with, when it is in fact a different approach altogether.
I think New Weird's a servicable term to indicate writers and works with a certain common attitude. But that's as far as it goes or should go. If New Weird becomes an effective label the endeavour's failed and it'd be time to move on. I guess it's inevitable that'll happen sooner or later, but it seems to me New Weird is just a means to an end anyway.
M. John Harrison deserves mention as an inspiration for the New Weird writers. As far as I know - and that's not necessarily very far - he's the one writer whose work (especially his Viriconium books) most embodies what the New Weird is about.
As I understand it the aim is to write stories that maintain a feeling of alienation - stories that not only avoid existing definitions but avoid definitions of their own. Fantasy, like Horror, loses it's tension when things are defined and explained. A lot of it doesn't have any true tension to start with because it promises everything will be explained - insofar as it doesn't follow established conventions anyway.
Anyway, I'm still catching up with the old weird, so I haven't delved into the new one that much. I read Miéville's Perdido Street Station and The Scar, but found them too long and worldbuildy to my tastes. I intend to give his shorter work a chance though.
Vandermeer's City of Saints and Madmen on the other hand was a riot. Comedy, horror, romance and giant squids. It's a big metafictional bag of tricks.
40,598 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 06 52
I’ve, honestly, never heard of it. I wouldn’t mind learning more about it. It sounds interesting… I haven’t read any of the authors you mention. Strangely, although I never write them, I enjoy reading sort of… high fantasy-type stories and ones where modern people end up in magical worlds (which are sometimes not quite high fantasy). I also read a lot of stories outside of the fantasy genre (mystery, sci-fi, non-fiction).
My stories tend to take place on other worlds and in modern-type places – sort of a blend of urban fantasy and science-fiction, but set on worlds I create myself. However, from the sounds of it… this subgenre (?) has horror elements too – which my stories don’t really have. I’ve got… some things I’ve been told are creepy (I had a character whose stalker mailed him a human hand), but I can’t maintain the fear-inducing feel that a horror story requires.
----------Death toll: 7 named, about 181 unnamed
1,339 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 07 52
Theres a nice gross insulting over-generalization.
That may be a claim, but I fail to see that there is really any basis to support it.
----------"To practice any art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow. So do it." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
2009-Brother Monkey, Brother Lion, Sister Crow2009 -Bunnystar Galactica Psychic Bunnies IN SPACE
23,542 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 08 15
I think a lot of New Weird is a bunch of pretentious faffing about in the dark -- 'dark' in all senses, as a lot of it seems to mistake unrelenting grimness for literary merit (and as an unapologetic pulp hack, I say screw literary merit and give me a good story). Sometimes it can be great in a way I deeply envy. I could say the same of all genres and subgenres, though, even the ones I don't usually like.
I'm not a fan of deconstructions, though; my partner, for instance, loves New Weird, and what's 'pretentious faffing' to me is 'literary greatness' to them. YMMV.
60,204 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 08 43
I have read this entire thread, and the Wikipedia entry, and I still have no idea what the hell it is. Most attempts to explain it seem to describe its origins than actually say what it's about.
My hipster sense is tingling! It just sounds like a modern extension of HP Lovecraft and the like, "weird" authors of the early 20th century before modern horror, SF and fantasy were really defined. Which is fine. I just don't understand all the gnomic babble about it.
0 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 08 42
That's quite the achievement. I fail to see how this argument could end up being any good whatsoever.
0 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 09 01
That is SO my genre. Lovin' it.
----------(morgan says hello =P)
------------------------------------
2008- Niamey's Mountain-WON
1,339 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 09 10
That's quite the achievement. I fail to see how this argument could end up being any good whatsoever.
The ball is in your court first to prove that all fantasy authors previously were using approaches that are somehow not the same as the approaches used by those identified as "the new weird".
All authors approaches are different and I see nothing to substantiate any broad claim that there is an inherrent common denominator to the approach that is (or is not) present in all previous fantasy authors that is not (or is) present in "the new weird".
----------"To practice any art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow. So do it." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
2009-Brother Monkey, Brother Lion, Sister Crow2009 -Bunnystar Galactica Psychic Bunnies IN SPACE
8,728 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 09 39
My 2 cents
'New Wierd' is just our way or trying to classify a book that doesn't fit in the pigeon holes we've already labelled, fantasy, sci-fi, horror, etc.
I don't know about the rest of you but I don't restrict my reading to just one genre and I find it perfectly acceptable to combine the genres into one book and just call it fiction or put it in whatever genre dominates. I've read all of China Meiville's books and love them. They're dense and viseral and I really enjoy his worldbuilding. According to his bio he has a degree in anthropology which lends itself handily to his work.
Would you exclude Naked Lunch or Clockwork Orange as 'New Wierd' just because they weren't written in the last decade? Are they sci-fi? Urban fantasy?
Ah, work interferes...
0 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 09 50
Where did that ball come from? I think there's been a miscommunication here. I wasn't talking about "all fantasy authors previously". I was saying that Sword & Sorcery, like New Weird, comes out of different approaches to Fantasy than what most people in the genre are familiar with. That you can't explain what it is by just saying "it uses urban settings" and so on, because people might still picture it as "Dragonlance in a city with talking mushrooms" or whatever and that doesn't help anyone.
22,831 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 09 57
You weren't talking about "all fantasy authors previously"; you were talking about all fantasy authors here. In my case at least you're right. I'd never heard of New Weird previously, and judging from what I've seen on this thread I'm not particularly inclined to find out more. But it's still a pretty big assumption for you to make, and that's all you're being called on here - we want you to back that up. Why do you think we won't understand? Simple enough question.
60,204 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 10 03
The problem is that you at least seem to be assuming someone who reads and/or writes high fantasy can't understand another style of storytelling. Try actually describing it and maybe we'll find out. Saying that it sits between soft SF, horror, and fantasy is a good start. Saying that it's incomprehensible to high fantasy fans because we are conditioned to imagine everything with dragons and castles and shiny wizards is not.
1,339 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 10 21
Where did that ball come from? I think there's been a miscommunication here.
I did indeed misread your prior comment. My bad.
"I fail to see how this argument could end up being any good whatsoever." We are probably in agreement on that point, now that I am actually reading the sentence accurately!
----------"To practice any art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow. So do it." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
2009-Brother Monkey, Brother Lion, Sister Crow2009 -Bunnystar Galactica Psychic Bunnies IN SPACE
30,483 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 10 49
As China Mieville is one of my favorite modern authors, I do have to say I have an affinity for the New Weird genre. I also like the (old) Weird genre, and I certainly have distinct elements of it in my own writing.
I interpret the genre to be defined something like this: Fantasy that takes place in an alternative world, however in a world developed to at least the level of 1900 Earth, and up to a speculated 2100 Earth. It may be slightly less developed, usually going into steampunk territory, or it may be a bit more developed, in a sci-fi/cyberpunk setting. The amount of actual magic varies greatly within the genre, ranging from essentially none to a strange Lovecraftian level. That is to say, magic and magical beings exist, however they are both darker and more mysterious. They are less human, certainly, and there is a lot more of a focus on worldly matters that happen because of otherworldly matters, rather than simply the otherwordly matters. New Weird may focus more on politics caused by dragons coexisting with humans, rather than a dragon rider going on an epic quest. Other sections, however, are simply dark, modernized low fantasy - with little or no magic. Some, however, would argue that it is simply modern Weird Fiction, and should be seen as nothing more than modern authors of the same sort as Lovecraft, Eddison, Blackwood, etc.
----------"I would my love could kill thee; I am satiated
With seeing the live, and fain would have thee dead.
I would earth had thy body as fruit to eat,
And no mouth but some serpent's found thee sweet."
20,594 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 10 54
So... umm... what was the Old Weird? Was there even such a thing or are we just needing to overclassify stuff again?
1,339 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 10 58
Yeah, I think I will just make it a policy to stay out of any "genre" or "cliche" threads. They tend to bring out the worst in me!
----------"To practice any art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow. So do it." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
2009-Brother Monkey, Brother Lion, Sister Crow2009 -Bunnystar Galactica Psychic Bunnies IN SPACE
30,483 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 10 59
@Darkmoon: Most 'Old Weird' writers wrote before genres really became a solidified thing. Weird is basically an indistinguishable blend of fantasy, horror, and sci-fi (sometimes only two) written from 1910 to 1940, or so. It's a bit like the 'Gothic' genre. It really only works to describe novels written in the Gothic era that had that style, and not so much modern works with a similar style.
----------"I would my love could kill thee; I am satiated
With seeing the live, and fain would have thee dead.
I would earth had thy body as fruit to eat,
And no mouth but some serpent's found thee sweet."
855 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 11 02
The problem with defining New Weird is that there's just not a lot of work out there. There's Mieville's trilogy, and then mostly a bunch of short fiction. Okay, that's an exaggeration. There's The Etched City, and Veniss Underground, The Year of Our War, Viriconium, etc... I'd argue that you could interpret The Light Ages as streampunk, which has its own issues with definitions and boundaries. Similarly with The Iron Dragon's Daughter, although I'd say it seems closer to the New Weird than Light Ages,
I would like to nominate the Deepgate Codex, by Alan Campbell as falling under New Weird as well.
Personally, I love what New Weird I've read, and am always on the lookout for more.
A lot of my writing takes inspiration from it, though I would hesitate to say I write it, as I'm not much into the "literary" aspects of the genre in regards to my own work.
I think mine falls more easily under "dark, urban, secondary world mythic fiction", which I have abbreviated as "chimney-punk".
----------All lines are arbitrary; otherwise, we wouldn't have to draw them. ~Nicholas Vesiri
http://atsiko.wordpress.com
22,831 / 50,000
Oct 15, 2009 - 11 03
So: Kim Harrison's Dead Witch Walking. It's set in an alternate timeline of the real world - modern day, but instead of the Space Race and landing on the moon, the cold war led towards germ warfare and a plague that wiped out most of humanity and opened the door to fae and witches and such coming out because they'd been immune and weren't in the minority anymore. It's sort of dark urban fantasy/mystery set against a backdrop of dealing with the political and cultural fallout from discovering that magic and monsters are real. Is that New Weird, or just plain alternate universe urban fantasy?
(For the record, I hated the book, but that was because I thought most of the plotlines were badly handled; there were many aspects of the genre I liked.)
0 / 50,000
Oct 16, 2009 - 03 29
Well, not all, but most of them yes.
Someone who just reads High Fantasy won't, not until they familiarise themselves with the other style. I'm not suggesting they couldn't do that, but they'd have to if they wanted to know what the other thing is all about.
You also couldn't really explain what High Fantasy is to someone who is (miraculously) unaware of it, even though that's a pretty well defined genre. You'd give them some books to read first, and then you could talk about it. I mean, the New Weird description quoted on the Wikipedia page seems solid enough to me, but then I already know more or less what they're on about.
I'm not (and couldn't be) a spokesperson for the New Weird, and even if I was you couldn't judge it on my description. If anyone wants to know what it is (insofar as you can pin it down) they'll read some of it. And if anyone wants to dismiss it as being pretentious or what have you, well, you really don't need an excuse for that.
In fairness I'll say that I do concider Fantasy readers as a group to be unaware of the history or the extend of the genre. But I put that down to inclination rather than ability.
No biggie, I'm just glad we're not headed for one of those arguments.
28,934 / 50,000
Oct 16, 2009 - 06 50
**ponders**
It's been a while since I've read Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere but I'm suspecting it may well fall into the New Weird. Actually... he sometimes DOES get too literary for mainstream fantasy.
But that's just my opinion.
----------27,632 / 50,000
Oct 16, 2009 - 07 42
Dark, literary, alternate-world fiction with 'monsters' and political or social commentary (in-world, not satirical)?
Do I have it right?
It doesn't sound all that different from some urban fantasy.
----------www.MLoriMotley.com
855 / 50,000
Oct 16, 2009 - 09 52
Define urban fantasy :)
Most UF has little social commentary except maybe on feminism, is unabashedly non-"literary", and focuses on common mythological beings. It's also not quite at the same level of dark, and it uses less tropes common to horror.
----------All lines are arbitrary; otherwise, we wouldn't have to draw them. ~Nicholas Vesiri
http://atsiko.wordpress.com
60,204 / 50,000
Oct 16, 2009 - 10 04
Most UF has little social commentary except maybe on feminism, is unabashedly non-"literary", and focuses on common mythological beings. It's also not quite at the same level of dark, and it uses less tropes common to horror.
That's what I figured- I'm not too, too familiar with urban fantasy but it seems that it would still deal with a more traditionally fantastic vibe, rather than pushing it into the supernatural, which is the idea I'm getting about this- the borderlands between fantasy and horror.
0 / 50,000
Oct 16, 2009 - 10 32
So...what I am reading, is that this New Weird literary movement is essentially taking the dregs of each genre rather than the popular middle, and combining it into one story. It's urban fantasy...but darker so that it encroaches on horror. It's horror...but to scare is not the purpose. It takes place in a fantasy world...but said world isn't the classical version of fantasy worlds.
It's a hodge podge of genres, but instead of taking the dominating genre (I'm sure the books mentioned don't have each genre trait in equal parts. Even within sub genres, there is an awful lot of lee way) as the "label" for the book, the term New Weird is utilized so that it artifically stands out/ is therefore not subject to "pidgeon holing."
It truly isn't a new concept, its now just named.
----------In your dreams....anything is possible.
16,844 / 50,000
Oct 16, 2009 - 17 47
Just a few comments,
I generally agree with Shunjin's definition as well as the ones closer to it. The main features of the New Weird are it's blending of genre's and using those more fringe parts of the genres.
I do find it a little odd that not that many people seemed to have heard about it, China I thought to be pretty well known along with Jeff Vandermeer. Also yeah John M Harrison does fall under New Weird (at least most of the time :P).
One more thing though,
naming and defining a movement in speculative fiction doesn't necessarily mean constraining it, some of the best New Weird has come out since the broad subgenre has been discussed and talked about. Trying to come to grips with what these novels and their authors are about in no way undermines their quality, one thing i don't particularly like is the postmodern wank about their being no genres. However at the same time I don't like the way alot of fantasy classicists i suppose you could call them make genres into barriers.
This is why I like New Weird so much!
It riffs of the main spec-fic sub genres but at the same time recognizes they are there and tries to take the more weird, horrific, fantastical, political aspects of them and combine them.
Edit: one more thing I remember someone posting here about how when defining New Weird it seemed more like your defining the origins of it or where it comes from rather than it. This is necessary to a large extent. Like with other genres you have to go back to their origins in order to understand why they exist etc. The movements in spec-fic that came before hand influence the latter.
----------However, some may argue that, to them, art should transcend political division, unifying people in their common humanity. They forget, it seems, that masters and slaves do not quite share anything in common, least of all any notion of humanity.
- Omar Ba
18,093 / 50,000
Oct 16, 2009 - 18 07
I think that one of my favorite books falls under this category: The Iron Dragon's Daughter, by Michael Swanwick. It's gritty and strange, and I didn't know that there was a name for the kind of "fantasy" that it is, but it always struck me as something all of its own.
I also have Perdido Street Station on my bookshelf, but I haven't read it yet!
----------2009: Wol-Bryne (continuation)