"New Weird" + over-description

[AMCrenshaw]

Anyone notice? Drawn-out, imaginative description that leaves very little to the reader's imagination?

ex. "The City & The City" or any Mieville novel barring King Rat, or "The Etched City" by KJ Bishop.



"Grottoes."

[Polenth]

All of the 'New Weird' stories I've read have been short stories, and they've left a lot to the imagination. I don't think it's something you have to do for the style.

[shaldna]

i personally hate over-descriptive writing.

[proxy]

What is New Weird, exactly? I've read an interview with a supposed author of New Weird fiction, but he just kept saying the words "irreal" and "nuance" over and over.

[Polenth]

What is New Weird, exactly? I've read an interview with a supposed author of New Weird fiction, but he just kept saying the words "irreal" and "nuance" over and over.

From the stories I've read, I see it as more of a movement than a genre. A darkly surreal story becomes New Weird because the author identifies as being a New Weird author. Otherwise, people would just call it weird, surrealism, etc.

[MumblingSage]

I've read some 'Old' Weird stories that were pretty overdescriptive as well (Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath has several passages that stand out). It might be a habit of the territory, where the writer is describing something so outlandish they don't think the reader can picture it without a lot of help. Or I might be just speculating here.

[badducky]

I don't understand people who don't want descriptive writing. One of the hallmarks of artistic speculative fiction is lavish world-building, with intricate sentence work. (Not just New Weird writers, but all sorts of authors)

I think saying there's too much attention to description is actually a symptom of something else entirely, and it has to do with you as a reader. How are you reading these stories? Are you looking for your own preconceived notion of what the fiction should be, or are you reading it and experiencing what the work is, itself. When there's nothing technically wrong with a story, like THE CITY & THE CITY, critiquing it in such a way says more about you than about the work itself. In fact, my experience with that Mieville piece was the exact opposite. I thought so much was left to the imagination that it created a marvelous "Other" space in my head.

I think what you're saying when you're talking about descriptions as problematic is that you were in the mood for something with a really quick pace, and instead picked up something slow and moody, which did not suit your mood. To call Mieville slow troubles me. I've found - to me - his pacing moves too quickly more often than not, and I wish he would slow down and chew some scenery.

Different strokes for different folks I guess. Some people like James Patterson, after all.

Check out Tachyon Publications' anthology "NEW WEIRD" edited by Ann and Jeff VanderMeer for a fantastic introduction to the form.

[AMCrenshaw]

Actually I don't tend toward fast-paced stories. That's not it at all. Simply that I prefer prose that relies on good details (which is, mind you, descriptive) more than overwhelmingly sluggish prose. I did admit up-front I think the description is imaginative.

But I think whatever fascination with the movement rested in the intersection of politics with archives of grotesqueries -- that's at least what it seemed to me after reading the New Weird Anthology. Something strangely familiar about this movement and Bolano's 'visceral realists'.

AMC

[brokenfingers]

I'm another one who tried to read Mieville and found his writing not to my taste. Over-written is a good descriptor.

To me, the writing wasn't invisible at all. I was very much conscious of his style the whole time. And that interfered with my enjoyment of the story to the point where it became a chore to read it.

[Aggy B.]

I'm about half-way through The Scar. The description does sometimes strike me as unnecessary. It's not that it isn't cool or well-written (although it is sometimes over-written) but it pulls me out of the story to stop and spend a page on something that has no direct bearing on the action of the story. (This coming from someone who adores Peake's Gormeghast.)

I dunno. I was eager to read Mieville because of the connection to steampunk, but my expectations haven't been met. :(

[Liosse de Velishaf]

I love New Weird, and I think the wonderful atmosphere and sense of depth in Mieville's work stems almost directly from his writing style. I would not label it "over-descriptive" at all, though I suppose "dense" might be applicable in some cases.

Of course, I like other styles of prose as well.