The New Weird Anthology-Part Three

From December 2017, updated for 2026.

I am looking at the authors whose work appeared in the 2008 anthology The New Weird, edited by Ann VanderMeer and Jeff VanderMeer. This list is in chronological order by the date of composition or publication of their individual works. Michael Moorcock, who wrote his story in 1979, comes first. He is first in other ways, too.

"Crossing into Cambodia: A Story of the Third World War" (1979) by Michael Moorcock

Born in London in 1939, Michael Moorcock is the oldest writer represented here. He came to fame as the editor (1964-1971, 1976-1996) of the British New Wave science fiction magazine New Worlds. Note the modifiers: New and New. There, I think, is the impulse: to ride a new wave, to discover new worlds, to make and forge something new, something the world has never seen before. This is the impulse of the young writer, artist, and thinker. It's also the impulse of the political progressive, radical, or revolutionary. In the world of arts and ideas, the impulse towards newness has yielded, since World War II, neorealism in Italian cinema, nouvelle vague in its French counterpart, bossa nova in Brazilian popular music, and British and American new wave music of the 1970s and '80s. Neo-, nouvelle, nova, new. 

In the world of arts and ideas, an impulse to newness is usually innocuous. In fact it often reinvigorates old forms. It is in politics--or when politics crosses over into the world of arts and ideas--that the burning desire to make something new becomes so dangerous. In striving for newness, in attempting to make a new society by throwing off the old one, by starting over again at year zero, the people behind so-called progressive political systems have murdered, starved, tortured, and imprisoned countless millions of their fellow human beings. What is claimed to be new--misery, poverty, murder, oppression--is actually as old as time. In any case, it's no coincidence that the authors of what is called "the New Weird" tend towards political progressivism. So is their aim to politicize weird fiction and fantasy? I believe so, judging from Mr. VanderMeer's introduction to The New Weird. Michael Moorcock, their progenitor, is an anarchist, pragmatist, Marxist, and socialist. He makes that clear in his writings. The authors of "the New Weird," politicized or even radicalized as they may be, would seem to follow in his footsteps. The sub-genre itself seems to exist in a direct line of descent from something he helped create, the original British New Wave. So what again is new about "the New Weird"?

If science fiction is discontinuous from other genres [an idea I haven't discussed just yet], then there was, at least in its early years, the possibility that something new could be brought into the world. New scientific discoveries and new technological developments allowed for newness in the arts. That newness seems to have worn out in the immediate postwar era, though. In his editorship of New Worlds, Mr. Moorcock wrote and encouraged the writing of a new kind of soft, sociological, political, and philosophical science fiction that departed from the conventional hard, scientific, technological, and action-oriented science fiction of the 1920s through the 1950s. In addition, the New Wave was about making science fiction more literary. I can't argue with any of that, and I have enjoyed science fiction from the 1960s and '70s written under the influence of the New Wave.

Following the pulp era, science fiction certainly needed higher literary standards. One result of the New Wave may be that some more literary authors--Cormac McCarthy, Margaret Atwood, Walker Percy--have also indulged themselves in writing science fiction, without fear of shame or opprobrium. But conventional science fiction authors have closed in on finer literature from the other direction, too. I don't know whether we're there yet, but there may come a time when science fiction and fantasy are continuous with a higher or finer literature. (Continuity--there's that concept again.) Maybe someday there will even be a Nobel Prize winner among authors of genre fiction. (If Bob Dylan can win the prize, why not someone who writes about talking squids from outer space?) I believe attaining a higher literary quality or a merging of genre fiction with finer literature was also a goal of "the New Weird."

According to the Wikipedia article on him, Michael Moorcock has written in reaction to or unfavorably of H.P. Lovecraft, Robert E. Howard, J.R.R. Tolkien, Robert A. Heinlein, and many other authors considered to be conservative or reactionary. For a more in-depth discussion of this topic, read Mr. Moorcock's essay "Starship Stormtroopers" (1977; 1984). There's a lot of the typical leftist claptrap in "Starship Stormtroopers," but don't let that stop you: it's an interesting, engaging, informative, and well-written work. Reading it also helps to illuminate the issue at hand, for Michael Moorcock and the New Wave seem to have shared with the authors of "the New Weird" a desire to throw off the past and to dismiss or discard the writers and works of the past.

So, it seems to me that the inspiration and model for "the New Weird" of today (actually yesterday, as its eponymous anthology was published nearly two decades ago--more on that in a minute) is the New Wave of the 1960s and '70s. These supposedly new sub-genres or sub-sub-genres are of the same essence (1):

• Both are in reaction to older and supposedly more conservative authors, conventions, styles, forms, etc., each in its respective sub-genre, New Wave in science fiction and "the New Weird" in weird fiction. That reaction is often extremely fierce, angry, and dismissive. In fact, the fierceness, anger, and dismissiveness of current authors towards their predecessors seems to be an identifying feature of supposedly new literary movements.

• Both strive to make something new of old genres, but that impulse to newness may not be exclusively or even most importantly towards artistic, literary, or aesthetic innovation. The impulse to newness may actually be more powerfully driven by leftwing political philosophies of various stripes: Marxism, socialism, progressivism, anarchism, nihilism, the New Left (there's that word New again), critical theory, political correctness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism, radical environmentalism, the cult of global warming, etc.

• Both strive also towards higher literary standards and towards a confounding of categorization, a crossing over, bending, or merging of genres, ultimately perhaps a convergence of genre fiction with mainstream literature.

So, New Wave did all of that to science fiction, but that began more than sixty years ago. It may have been new then, but it can't be new now. The impulse to newness makes us need something new new. So maybe what New Wave did to science fiction in the 1960s and '70s can be done to weird fiction today [or eighteen years ago, when the anthology was published]. Maybe an old genre or sub-genre can be remade as a politically progressive new sub-genre called "the New Weird" in which the authors, conventions, styles, and forms of the past are overthrown, dismissed, discarded, or even forgotten. In the process maybe literary standards can be raised as well. Maybe that's where Michael Moorcock came in, and maybe that's why he was represented in The New Weird, for what he did with the New Wave in Britain appears to be the model for what Ann VanderMeer and Jeff VanderMeer tried to do with "the New Weird" in America and elsewhere. In other words, they may have tried to make something "new" by simply copying something that was done before, in fact nearly fifty years before. (2) If that was their plan, they should have made quicker work of it: the New Wave in science fiction lasted a couple of decades before supposedly being overtaken by cyberpunk. (3) If the publication of the VanderMeers' anthology marked the beginning of "the New Weird" as a sub-genre or sub-sub-genre (or maybe what they wanted was to make it a supergenre), then it was already approaching obsolescence when it was still hot off the press, for we live in an era--a progressive, science-fictional era--in which anything done a year or even a month ago is already old hat. And on top of all that, the VanderMeers lost their showcase for their ideas, in the form of Weird Tales, just as Mr. Moorcock had in New Worlds, in their case in 2012 when Marvin Kaye gained control of the magazine. In the world of today, what's an editor attempting a revolution to do when he loses his or her magazine?

Note

(1) Even the names are of these two sub-genres are similar. It's as if the proponents of this supposedly new thing stood on the edge of a chasm, shouted "New Wave," and heard back the echo "New Weird." One problem is that "the New Weird" is such an awkward construction. At least wave is a noun. Put new in front of it and it rolls pretty trippingly from the tongue. Beyond that, everyone knows what a new wave is and everyone wants to ride it. Ask anyone what is "the New Weird" and you're likely to get back a blank stare. No one seems to know. Actually, I think I know: "the New Weird" is [or was] hype. And not very successful hype. It was an attempt to make something new by copying something old that was once new, i.e., new more than four decades before. It appears to me to have been something that has been tried so often before: an attempt by an intellectual (or pseudo-intellectual) of whatever merit to make a name and a place for himself in the world and in the history of ideas. This striving for notice is especially prominent in democratic societies, those in which every man is responsible for his own status but in which all men are made equal and reduced to the same level. Leftists claim to love democracy, but it is in a democracy that they are most frustrated in their desire to rise above everyone else.

(2) First in print in 1926--100 years ago this month--Amazing Stories was the first science fiction magazine in America. The term science fiction hadn't even been invented yet when it first appeared on the newsstand. Thirty-eight years later--in 1964--Michael Moorcock assumed the editorship of New Worlds. In other words, the New Wave was older in 2017 (when I wrote) than was magazine science fiction as a whole when Mr. Moorcock arrived at New Worlds. Even cyberpunk is getting pretty long in the tooth. Remind me again, what exactly is new about all of this?

(3) You might date the beginnings of cyberpunk to the arrival of William Gibson's Gothic science fiction novel Neuromancer in 1984. Cyberpunk is supposed to have grown out of the New Wave. Because of that, I'm not sure anyone can say that the New Wave actually came to an end. (Beginnings and endings, first and lasts are always hard to state.) In any case, note that the first two stories in The New Weird are also from 1984. It may have been that what is called "the New Weird" was really just a continuation of the New Wave, mixed with other genres, including cyberpunk, then shaken, stirred, and given a new name. In other words, the so-called "New Weird" wasn't new at all. By the way, notice the pun: Neuromancer ≈ New Romancer. And remember the name of the protagonist from the very loose movie adaptation of William Gibson's cyberpunk novel: Neo from The Matrix (1999). Newness. Always newness.

New Worlds, August 1967, under the editorship of Michael Moorcock and with a cover design by Eduardo Paolozzi. Even Marxists know that sex sells.

Text copyright 2017, 2026 Terence E. Hanley