Never Again Anthology...

[Gray House]

Quote Originally Posted by Nemonymous

The weird fiction genre is specifically mentioned. Can anyone ‘describe’ this genre? Most of the writers in the book seem to be Horror writers.

It has been my impression that Weird fiction is Horror, but Horror is not necessarily Weird. Weird fiction seems to be a somewhat vaguely defined genre. I think it often contains elements of genres other than Horror but is always horrific to some degree and usually contains some violation of the perceived natural laws of the universe. I think perhaps Weird fiction is defined to a large extent by the feeling it conveys, like Horror is, whereas Science Fiction, for example, is defined more by its subject matter. I think possibly one must read a large number of the writings that are said to be Weird--which I have, but still I don't feel up to the task of describing the feeling of Weirdness--to gain an understanding of what Weirdness is.

[Nemonymous]

Thanks, I agree with that, from my own point of view.

I am sure this 'Never Again' anthology is going to be a great one (one I intend to real-time review when I get my pre-ordered copy) - but I am fascinated by its being called 'Weird Fiction', since there are many competing definitions of Weird and New Weird, to my mind - and the book seems (from the authors' names alone) 90% of it as the pure Horror genre tradition, as I've grown to know it since I started reading it in the Sixties. Not Weird as it is now seeming to grow to be as Steampunk and SF and Slipstream and Interstitial, not Lovecraft and Ligotti. Or am I wrong?

On my new blog thread mentioned above, I am campaigning for Weird Weird....

PS: "Weird Weird" was first coined (by me?) in 2004 here:
http://nightshadebooks.com/discus/messages/8/2128.html

[Nemonymous]

Interesting point about the alleged 'Conservatism' of Horror (or Weird?) here: http://shocklinesforum.yuku.com/repl...l#reply-157473

[nomis]

Quote Originally Posted by Nemonymous

Not Weird as it is now seeming to grow to be as Steampunk and SF and Slipstream and Interstitial, not Lovecraft and Ligotti. Or am I wrong?

Up until VanDemeer's anthology started appearing on my radar this year, I've considered "weird" to encapsulate writers like Ligotti, or those influenced by the European traditions. Perhaps Aickmanesque fiction as well, though those tales might further be broken into "strange" -- the term Aickman himself preferred.

Thus, I think of Mark Samuels work as "weird" where I would not say the same about Joel Lane's work. I enjoy them both, of course, so really the terms mean nothing beyond a short-hand for grouping authors together. I might just as well call them both "Strantzasian" as they are bound by my enjoyment of the work.

[Nemonymous]

Quote Originally Posted by nomis

Up until VanDemeer's anthology started appearing on my radar this year, I've considered "weird" to encapsulate writers like Ligotti, or those influenced by the European traditions. Perhaps Aickmanesque fiction as well, though those tales might further be broken into "strange" -- the term Aickman himself preferred. Thus, I think of Mark Samuels work as "weird" where I would not say the same about Joel Lane's work. I enjoy them both, of course, so really the terms mean nothing beyond a short-hand for grouping authors together. I might just as well call them both "Strantzasian" as they are bound by my enjoyment of the work.

I think if Samuels is Weird, so is Lane.

But here is New Weird:

Wikipedia (Links)

New_Weird

[nomis]

It seems to this humble reader that the "New Weird" movement is simply one that groups writers of a certain moment and visibility level together. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but the "old" weird is generally accepted to represent the European strain of writers from the past, and thus this "new weird" movement has simply opted the name.

But perhaps I'm wrong and there are antecedents. I try not to pay too much attention to it. After all, you and I disagree on whether Samuels and Lane are both weird or not, and really it doesn't matter, does it? Isn't the work more important? After all, naming movements while they're happening seems a bit premature, doesn't it?

[Nemonymous]

Pleased to read that this anthology had a good launch at the BFS in the last few days. But disappointed that I haven't received my pre-ordered copy - which I intended to real-time review. Meanwhile, I note someone else has been able to review it, though: http://beyondfiction.wordpress.com/ Pleased it's a good review, however.

[Joel]

Hi Des. The pre-ordered copies are now being sent out – the book only reached us just before the launch. The review you refer to was, of course, of a PDF. Your copy will reach you very soon.

[Joel]

P.S. And the convention only finished yesterday, we haven't had 'a few days' in between.

bump!

Mark S.