Talk:New Weird

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] 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)

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... —The preceding unsigned comment was 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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/w/Talk%7ENew_Weird_2084.html"