I've only read Joel Lane's The Terrible Changes and This Spectacular Darkness (a collection of essays), but from that alone I'd rank him far above any of the recent New Weird I've encountered. Rhys Hughes, Mark Valentine (his non-fiction in particular), Rebecca Lloyd, Adam S. Cantwell, and George Berguno are among the few contemporary authors that keep up my interest. I'm only silent on Quentin Crisp because I've yet to read his work, and that's only because my bilbliophilia is forcing me to hold out until I can afford Out There and Erith later this year.
Isn't this "Quiet Horror"? Pretty sure I've seen that term mentioned on Facebook. I wonder what the most extreme evolution of this style would be and exactly how quiet it could become before it's no longer horror? Presumably a story with a plot like "an old lady thinks something mildly unpleasant but tactfully keeps it to herself"?
I'm not sure - I suspect the style arose from the relative popularity of Object Oriented Philosophy within the Weird Fiction community. There's also not much more of an extreme left when a critically acclaimed author is already trying to freak out his readers with a mirror bolted atop another mirror. Horror doesn't require death and dismemberment, but there does have to be some sort of threat, and that threat needs to both plausible and sympathetic. From outside the Weird Fiction community echo chamber, the entire premise of the "horror of ordinary objects" looks like an unconscious rehashing of old sitcom gags about effeminate men fainting from the sight of mice or having to touch something dirty. If it becomes a popular trope with Weird Fiction, I wager it will push away a lot of readers.
I feel like the classic horror authors could also be more harshly criticized. Sometimes they are but I think that a lot of us have bought into the idea of the Old Masters at a time in our lives when we were less critical and more willing to overlook certain flaws that we grown accustomed to (film fans are especially guilty), and new authors with a different set of flaws are less likely to get that benefit.
I disagree. In the last decade or so, Lovecraft, Machen, James, etc. have gained something of a rabid fan base - but even then, with Lovecraft at least, there's also been an equally rabid backlash. In terms of critical assessment from other authors, however, I've never seen anyone pulling punches - charges that Lovecraft is long winded, James repetitive, and Machen dry are standard. And literary criticism of these authors is still incredibly shallow; I just received the OWC hardcover edition of M.R. James today, and the editor, Darryl Jones, takes the now seemingly old fashioned interpretation that James' horror stories are all about a gay man's fear of touching vaginas.
On the other hand, there is something of siege mentality within current Weird Fiction. Before all the political controversies, Laird Barron was quickly condemned for making fun of Ligotti, Samuels, and Strange Horizons, and then in turn Jeff Vandermeer got jabbed for - horrors of horrors - giving Laird Barron a mediocre review on Amazon. My take is that authors are expected to muzzle their opinions in order to trade blurbs and protect each other's sales, which from the consumer end - which is my end - I find extremely disingenuous, especially now that personal politics is fair game for a take down. When it comes to squabbles over politics versus writing, the later might actually improve output - or at least deter stories where people get freaked out by bathroom mirrors and beef jerky.
