Talk:New weird

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 26 February 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Soudeaforbes. Peer reviewers: Amdoubleu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this a genre or merely a marketing device?

Isn't there some debate over whether the New Weird is anything more than a marketing device? the only thing particularly new about the New Weird is the authors. Speculative catholic 14:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Editing it down a little. Whoever wrote all that Lovecraft stuff in, awesome, its interesting but it belongs in Lovecraft. I removed the assertion that Cyberpunk is a major part of recent literature because it isn't NPOV. (I'm not trying to argue you with, it just doesn't belong here.) I added another critique of New Weird I heard somewhere. I think what this article really needs is a quote from one of its authors explaining the genre. Lampros 20:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression New Weird was a non-entity. Looking at the list of supposed New Weird authors on this page... Well, for one, Jeff VanderMeer is quite vocal on the fact that he is not a New Weird author--he considers himself a Magic Realist/strange fiction writer. I'd heard that Miéville was trying to move away from the New Weird label, and I'm fairly sure Justina Robson is considered hard Sci-fi. M John Harrison is usually noted as an inspiration to many of the authors labelled New Weird, not a New Weird author himself. In reality, I don't think there's ever been a New Weird - someone came up with a label, and then others jumped in to make associations and definitions, and ended up with a 'movement' that doesn't exist, and a list of authors they called New Weird who--for the most part--didn't know a thing about it until other people started telling them. Enthralled 23:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

How would you all feel about Cory Doctorow's addition to this list? Granted, he may not care one way or another if he's "New Weird," but it seems that for the most part, neither do any of these other authors. --AlexandertheP 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think Cory Doctorow's work is "new weird" - Magic Kingdom is straight science fiction, for instance. --lquilter 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Cory was brought up as possibly New Weird in the original discussions on TTA, as was Charles Stross. --Pleasantville 13:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should the New Weird if it exists start with Lovecraft? Surely if it exists it starts with Mary Shelly who was the first to combine Science, Fantasy and Horror. As indeed did Poe, HG Wells, Stevenson and Arthur Machen just to mention some of the other writers who have done the same all of which were read by Lovecraft. In fact it seems to me this new weird is just the old weird.

If Harrison is the first New Weird writer then Lovecraft is not important as he had little influence on Harrison who prefered Machen.

Liggotti is a horror writer in fact he has said he is one of the few real horror writers there is. Reynolds is clearly SF. --Machenphile 19:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

My experience of fiction labelled as "New Weird" is that it is often written by those who can't be bothered to make their imaginary worlds internally consistent... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzy Lizzy (talk • contribs) 16:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• As to whether it's a "legitimate" genre or merely a marketing device -- genres are all to a greater or lesser extent marketing devices. --lquilter 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion seems to have died down with little consensus. It ought to get wrapped up, and the disputed-template dropped. --lquilter 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the laster poster. Perhaps Jeff VanderMeer's New Weird anthology scheduled for publication in the Spring of 2008 will clear things up (or add more fuel to the fire).

Doesn't really matter what any of us say, by the time VanderMeer's New Weird Anthology gets published the New Weird will mean whatever he says it means (and rightfully so). So how about lquilter's suggestion to wrap this discussion up and drop the disputation? Can we do that? We all seem to agree about what the New Weird may or may not encapsulate, isn't that good that enough?

I beleive Cory Doctorow's Someone Comes To Town Someone Leaves Town could definetly fit into this category even though his other books are pretty cut and dry as sci-fi. Another overlooked part of this would be the two New Wave Fabulists collections, which are just as vague but hold to the same basic principles of New Weird. Another example that I think is very similar is the Bizarro genre, ie. Carlton Mellick III and the collection Bizarro Starter Kit (Orange). I think thats a pretty good sign of a movement, the three have sprung up independently but have very similar ideals. They could all be branches of the same tree, but the definitions are so broad that it could also signify this as not even being a real genre. I guess it all gets rather sloppy when the borders contain so much. -Non User Feb 14 2007

Hmm. Is there any reason why Gene Wolfe (for The Book of the New Sun and quite much of his shorter fiction) or Jack Vance (for The Dying Earth series) would not be included? Both match all the requirements listed here for transcending or blurring genre borders and having their roots deep in the pulp soil. Mlop 20:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The last post regarding this dispute is over three months old at this point. I think it's fairly clear in the article that there are differing views on what the label is and is not. As such I removed the disputed template. Dames pi 14:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

New Weird discussion

I have just posted the lost archives of the big New Weird discussion (June 2003):. Make what you will of it. Pleasantville 21:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ghostbusters?

I removed the following and bring it here for discussion:

Ghostbusters, for example, contains the monstrous Zuul and the "gateway to our world" (a fantasy element), proton packs (science fiction), and ghosts (horror). The interaction of fantasy-horror elements with science fiction technologies is a popular idea in a great deal of contemporary fiction.

This was tacked on to the end of the paragraph about H. P. Lovecraft, and I see the Lovecraftian connection, but there is not much attempt made to really relate this to the rest of the article. Granted that the definition of New Weird is rather plastic, but is this really relevant? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Weird fiction

The article feels like it's dealing with something that isn't properly established and is named thus mostly in reference to "weird fiction". Perhaps this is just one of the things worth mentioning in a Weird fiction article? Currently weird fiction redirects to horror fiction, but it's not equivalent as its a genre that takes from Gothic, supernatural and nascent science fiction to help establish currently defined genres like horror, some forms of fantasy, and science fiction. Who is like God? (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is it?

After reading through the article three times, I still have no idea what the hell "New Weird" IS. Apparently many people have contributed, editing things in and out, but not one has been able to actually define "New Weird" ... I suggest this entire article be tossed until such time as a real article can be written about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.96.1 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this person. What the heck is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.117.186.18 (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That is sort of the problem with it as a literary movement as such--there was lots of attempts at discussion of what the heck it was--but it was one(hence it having a problem). You can't make it into something it wasn't.--Pleasantville (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

bizarre sentence

It has even been dismissed as a marketing ploy, albeit a very deliberate and self-conscious one. Excuse me, but how in the world could a marketing ploy, or any kind of ploy, be anything but "deliberate and self-conscious"? That's what ploy means. And I concur; this article seems to be about nothing; why the heck does it even exist? I only looked at it because it was linked on the page about "slipstream" fiction -- another puff of vapor in itself. 72.229.55.245 (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Same here. I think my IQ dropped reading these two articles. This one especially should be deleted or redirected to something else more substantive and defined. 216.185.5.2 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Major Revisions (2020)

I've made some significant changes to the article including getting rid of the Influences section and adding a History section instead. I did the revision in a sandbox so I'm just copying over the comments I made on that sandbox's talk page.

M John Harrison as Originator of term

The citation given for the claim that M. John Harrison first used the term "new weird" in the Tain's introduction does not support that or mention it at all. I tried to find the introduction to the Tain but copies of The Tain are exorbitantly expensive and not available digitally, neither is the introduction. Weinstock's 2016 essay, "The New Weird", does credit Harrison with the phrase but as part of a 2003 forum post. I've changed the Wiki post to match this information.

I found a citation to support the original 2002 claim. Soudeaforbes (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

History

I've made a significant expansion to the history section, which previously just listed influences from three authors (from the 3 main weird fiction eras).

I added more detail to the history section and changed the layout a bit to make the timeline more readable. Soudeaforbes (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Definitions

I've reorganized and expanded on the definitions section.

I moved the original last paragraph about the origin of the 'weird' description to the history section. It's not really about the features or definition of new weird literature so it made more sense in the history section.

I added another definition to the first paragraph. Although the Vandermeer definition is well accepted (it seems), the Swainston definition is important to include because it is part of the original discussion of the genre's definition.

I added a quote from Mieville to the second paragraph on genre non-conformity for balance. The critiques from reviewers seemed to describe the genre fluidity as a negative feature but it is also considered a positive aspect for some authors. Soudeaforbes (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I also ended up removing link to the Cisco essay as it's no longer online and updating the link to Reid's book. Soudeaforbes (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Given the revision and the use of several new citations, I've removed the "additional citations needed" box. Soudeaforbes (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)