This avant-garde anthology that presents and defines the New Weird—a hip, stylistic fiction that evokes the gritty exuberance of pulp novels and dime-store comic books—creates a new literature that is entirely unprecedented and utterly compelling. Assembling an array of talent, this collection includes contributions from visionaries Michael Moorcock and China Miéville, modern icon Clive Barker, and audacious new talents Hal Duncan, Jeffrey Ford, and Sarah Monette. An essential snapshot of a vibrant movement in popular fiction, this anthology also features critical writings from authors, theorists, and international editors as well as witty selections from online debates.
| ||||||||||||
Browse the best books of summer including blockbusters, beach reads, and editors' picks in our Summer Reading Store. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. The VanderMeers (Best American Fantasy) ably demonstrate the sheer breadth of the New Weird fantasy subgenre in this powerful anthology of short fiction and critical essays. Highlights include strong fiction by authors such as M. John Harrison, Clive Barker, Kathe Koja and Michael Moorcock whose work pointed the way to such definitive New Weird tales as Jeffrey Ford's At Reparata and K.J. Bishop's The Art of Dying. Lingering somewhere between dark fantasy and supernatural horror, New Weird authors often seek to create unease rather than full-fledged terror. The subgenre's roots in the British New Wave of the 1960s and the Victorian Decadents can lend a self-consciously literary and experimental aura, as illustrated by the laboratory, where more mainstream fantasy and horror authors, including Sarah Monette and Conrad Williams, try their hands at creating New Weird stories. This extremely ambitious anthology will define the New Weird much as Bruce Sterling's landmark Mirrorshades anthology defined cyberpunk. (Mar.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
From Booklist
The title of this collection of stories, essays, and online discussion threads refers to a subgenre of modern horror that has roots in New Wave literature and the off-kilter fantasy spawned by Weird Tales. In contrast to the eerie nostalgia of Bradbury or the haunting supernaturalism of Lovecraft, the New Weird more often leans toward grotesque urban noir and cross-genre experimentation. The contributors here constitute a multitalented lineup ranging from such veterans as Clive Barker and Michael Moorcock to rising stars, such as Jay Lake and Alistair Rennie. Kathe Koje’s “The Neglected Garden” follows the transformation of a spurned lover who takes revenge by crucifying herself on her ex’s wire fence. China Miévelle, whose celebrated Perdido Street Station (2000) epitomizes the subcategory’s visceral blend of fantasy and realism, contributes a gritty tale about the veneration and inevitable capture of an outlaw cyborg. In the anthology’s final section, an experimental collaboration between seven authors embellishing a plot hatched by Paul DiFillipo exemplifies the New Weird’s propensity for pushing the boundaries of literary invention. --Carl Hays
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
11 of 15 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
A very uneven collection. There were several stories that really stood out which made me want to see more of the authors' work - the ones by Miéville, Swainston, Lake and Rennie in particular - but the rest were largely forgettable.
The forgettable ones usually tended to veer between being strange to the point of plotless (say, "Watson's Boy" by Evenson) or just plotless description ("The Art of Dying" by Bishop").
I'm also not entirely certain that the discussion of "What IS the 'New Weird'?" as a genre really added anything to the tome, as there was no clear cut definition nor concurrence as to if 'New Weird' can be classified, if it has past us by already, or if it is ongoing. A nudge in the direction to the archived discussion in the foreward would have sufficed vice reprinting it as an entire chapter.
On the plus side, I now have more promising authors' short story collections to look for.
The forgettable ones usually tended to veer between being strange to the point of plotless (say, "Watson's Boy" by Evenson) or just plotless description ("The Art of Dying" by Bishop").
I'm also not entirely certain that the discussion of "What IS the 'New Weird'?" as a genre really added anything to the tome, as there was no clear cut definition nor concurrence as to if 'New Weird' can be classified, if it has past us by already, or if it is ongoing. A nudge in the direction to the archived discussion in the foreward would have sufficed vice reprinting it as an entire chapter.
On the plus side, I now have more promising authors' short story collections to look for.
13 of 18 people found the following review helpful
Format:Kindle Edition
In April 2003, M. John Harrison created or appropriated a new genre category called "The New Weird" and tried to kick-start discussion on the internet. Ann and Jeff VanderMeer bring that discussion into the real world where we generalists can join in. But if this book is anything to judge by, "The New Weird" is a make-work label designed to give C-list writers something to talk about, and to sell books to gullible japes like me.
Jeff VanderMeer, in his introduction, spews a lot of post-grad lit major gibberish to persuade us not only that this new category exists, but that it's already dead and he has the right to perform the post-mortem. He claims it's the rightful inheritor of sci-fi's New Wave and the innovative grotesque horror/fantasy of the 1980's. But he never says what New Weird is. And the main text of the book probably shows why.
The editors start with what they call "Stimuli," a selection of stories that nourished the New Weird ethos. But for the most part I can't tell the difference between them and the Old Weird. These authors, including Michael Moorcock, Kathe Koja, and Clive Barker, appear to channel Lovecraft, Poe, and Shirley Jackson. This reads like the Old Weird's Greatest Hits.
But these stories are masterful compared to the section labeled "Evidence." I beg, implore, and defy anyone to explain what makes these stories either New or Weird. Jeffrey Thomas' "Immolation" is bog-standard sci-fi. K.J. Bishop's "The Art of Dying" and Jeffrey Ford's "At Reparata" are fantasies. Apart from a playful attitude toward events, there's little innovative or Weird about these stories
The tales by Brian Evenson, Steph Swainton, Leena Krohn, and Alistair Rennie are--not to generalize--crap. If New Weird means rejecting clear characters, plot, or momentum, then I need to dig out the stories I wrote in junior high, because I'll make a mint. The only remotely inventive story is China Mièville's "Jack." No wonder VanderMeer disparages Mièville in the intro: we can't have schlubs like me reading or caring about our proud subgenre, can we?
The next "Symposium" section attempts to critically parse this subgenre. In addition to several windy, jargon-rich essays by authors from this book, it reproduces the early entries in Harrison's web discussion on what New Weird is and if it exists. Reading this bunch of half-baked cranks justifying their opacity, I am reminded why I dislike criticism as a whole and pop-culture criticism in particular.
I couldn't even finish the "Symposium," much less the "Laboratory" section, in which the VanderMeers prompt writers to add a new round-robin story to a genre they've already declared dead. I found myself steadily losing the will to live. In Harrison's web discussion, Jonathan Strahan describes the New Weird moniker as "a load of old cobblers," and I couldn't agree more.
Hundreds of pages into this tedious exercise, I knew I'd wasted precious reading time. The editors have been given a taxonomic category and felt the need to fill it, although the category has no parameters and the putative genre doesn't exist. Some individual stories are interesting, but the collection is gormless, without any clear unifying ethos. I'm sorry to say, there is no New Weird, and this would-be manifesto is a vulgar attempt to part you from your money.
Jeff VanderMeer, in his introduction, spews a lot of post-grad lit major gibberish to persuade us not only that this new category exists, but that it's already dead and he has the right to perform the post-mortem. He claims it's the rightful inheritor of sci-fi's New Wave and the innovative grotesque horror/fantasy of the 1980's. But he never says what New Weird is. And the main text of the book probably shows why.
The editors start with what they call "Stimuli," a selection of stories that nourished the New Weird ethos. But for the most part I can't tell the difference between them and the Old Weird. These authors, including Michael Moorcock, Kathe Koja, and Clive Barker, appear to channel Lovecraft, Poe, and Shirley Jackson. This reads like the Old Weird's Greatest Hits.
But these stories are masterful compared to the section labeled "Evidence." I beg, implore, and defy anyone to explain what makes these stories either New or Weird. Jeffrey Thomas' "Immolation" is bog-standard sci-fi. K.J. Bishop's "The Art of Dying" and Jeffrey Ford's "At Reparata" are fantasies. Apart from a playful attitude toward events, there's little innovative or Weird about these stories
The tales by Brian Evenson, Steph Swainton, Leena Krohn, and Alistair Rennie are--not to generalize--crap. If New Weird means rejecting clear characters, plot, or momentum, then I need to dig out the stories I wrote in junior high, because I'll make a mint. The only remotely inventive story is China Mièville's "Jack." No wonder VanderMeer disparages Mièville in the intro: we can't have schlubs like me reading or caring about our proud subgenre, can we?
The next "Symposium" section attempts to critically parse this subgenre. In addition to several windy, jargon-rich essays by authors from this book, it reproduces the early entries in Harrison's web discussion on what New Weird is and if it exists. Reading this bunch of half-baked cranks justifying their opacity, I am reminded why I dislike criticism as a whole and pop-culture criticism in particular.
I couldn't even finish the "Symposium," much less the "Laboratory" section, in which the VanderMeers prompt writers to add a new round-robin story to a genre they've already declared dead. I found myself steadily losing the will to live. In Harrison's web discussion, Jonathan Strahan describes the New Weird moniker as "a load of old cobblers," and I couldn't agree more.
Hundreds of pages into this tedious exercise, I knew I'd wasted precious reading time. The editors have been given a taxonomic category and felt the need to fill it, although the category has no parameters and the putative genre doesn't exist. Some individual stories are interesting, but the collection is gormless, without any clear unifying ethos. I'm sorry to say, there is no New Weird, and this would-be manifesto is a vulgar attempt to part you from your money.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
I made the mistake of reading the introduction and essay portion of this book first...
Gah! Such annoying insecurity on the part of intellectual-wannabes that can't be satisfied that the label is selling ("OMG! I've been genrefied!!!").
How many times can a person use 'text' in one sentence? There are some good attempts at the record books in the 'The New Weird' essays section.
I had to put the book down for about a month so the stink could clear before I got on to reading the actual stories... but I'm glad I persevered. Not everything is shiny but there is gold in the ashes... as is usual with anthologies. I just wish the editors had found the fortitude to cut out the masturbatory non-fiction portions of the book and include more actual fiction... leave the Deconstructionist ramblings for the online forums (where I can safely ignore them).
Gah! Such annoying insecurity on the part of intellectual-wannabes that can't be satisfied that the label is selling ("OMG! I've been genrefied!!!").
How many times can a person use 'text' in one sentence? There are some good attempts at the record books in the 'The New Weird' essays section.
I had to put the book down for about a month so the stink could clear before I got on to reading the actual stories... but I'm glad I persevered. Not everything is shiny but there is gold in the ashes... as is usual with anthologies. I just wish the editors had found the fortitude to cut out the masturbatory non-fiction portions of the book and include more actual fiction... leave the Deconstructionist ramblings for the online forums (where I can safely ignore them).
Most Recent Customer Reviews
4.0 out of 5 stars
An anthology of the Other.
Taken as a whole, this collection of "New Weird" stories might be overwhelming in its surreal, boundary-breaking excess, but read little by little, these examples of "fantastic"... Read more
Published 12 months ago by Nathan Shumate
5.0 out of 5 stars
An essential addition to your SF/F/H library
It's easy to imagine two different readers reacting in opposite ways to The New Weird. One might find it delightfully odd; the other might find it as terrifying as Kafka on LSD. Read more
Published on February 4, 2011 by Terry Weyna
5.0 out of 5 stars
A snapshot of the strange
The New Weird was not a typical literary movement, and this is not a typical anthology. It aims to do more than simply collect the defining stories of the New Weird movement. Read more
Published on February 4, 2011 by J. Wood
4.0 out of 5 stars
The subgenre's definitive antho
Until I picked up this anthology, I was only tangentially aware of New Weird. I'd heard of China Mieville; I'd read some short work by Jay Lake, Jeffrey Ford and Paul Di Filippo;... Read more
Published on February 4, 2011 by William Freedman
3.0 out of 5 stars
A Mixed Bag of Wriggling Treats
Okay, here goes:
The New Weird: three-quarters anthology, one quarter manifesto.
There are a few good stories in here, like Clive Barker's much reprinted,... Read more
The New Weird: three-quarters anthology, one quarter manifesto.
There are a few good stories in here, like Clive Barker's much reprinted,... Read more
Published on June 17, 2009 by W.W.
4.0 out of 5 stars
New, Weird, Fun
I randomly bought this book at an event where the VanderMeers were promoting their newer "Steampunk" collection. Read more
Published on December 9, 2008 by Mateus Marx
2.0 out of 5 stars
Pseudoweirdos
In speculative fiction there are many anthologies claiming to define a hot new sub-genre, with editors explaining why the selected stories fit the label, and why that label should... Read more
Published on June 26, 2008 by doomsdayer520
5.0 out of 5 stars
A sample of what the next generation of horror, science fiction, and...
A look at the darker side of the world with horrifying rituals, insane festivals and more disturbing imagery are to be found in this exciting new short story collection - "The New... Read more
Published on May 6, 2008 by Midwest Book Review
4.0 out of 5 stars
Not Free SF Reader
I thought this anthology would be interesting, and it doesn't disappoint.
There's an introduction by VanderMeer, J. Read more
There's an introduction by VanderMeer, J. Read more
Published on March 22, 2008 by Blue Tyson
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
Listmania!
|
|
