But that's so like you! You must put in your oar!

[sovay]

To all of you who expressed your condolences for Nora, thank you. Her parents are setting up a scholarship fund in her name—and a lawsuit—and I will post updates on both as I have them.

Is "mythpunk" now recognized as a valid subgenre of fantasy? I dislike labels, but as an exercise in tetrapyloctomy, I am trying to determine the distinction between this coinage and Terri Windling's "mythic fiction."

Lastly for everyone who shares my love for Balliol's portrait collection, this one really is by John Singer Sargent, circa 1911:



It is my only weakness.

Comments

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I think you could say that there are two kinds of movement -- the conscious kind, with manifestos and wotnot (e.g. cyberpunk), and the more nebulous kind, where a bunch of people just start writing about the same kinds of stuff because it happens to be in the air (e.g. new weird, as much as that was ever a movement at all). Which might more accurately be called a trend.

I certainly agree that if there's anything at all to mythpunk, it's the latter sense. Which is to say:

a combination of writers' interests and an editor's tastes.

That's exactly what it is, but, to borrow a Firefly-ism, that's not nothing. At least, not from where I'm sitting. I have no idea how commercially successful Prime has been/is, but in broad terms it's been critically successful, and I think you could argue for their catalogue being influential -- part of a general shift in what is understood as "genre fantasy"; I'd point to China Mieville and Link/Grant taking over the fantasy side of the year's best as other markers. I'm thinking on my feet here, and probably conflating UK and US trends more than I should, but ...

We're not the Inklings, or even the Scribblies. I don't know how much we bounce.

Fair enough, but you are on first-name terms. :)

Yolen, Carter and Beagle all sound like reasonable candidates for filing alongside Gilman under "influences" to me -- I bet your comrades have read them, too. As with all these things, there's sort of a critical mass effect, once there's a visible group you can point to. Though I sincerely hope it doesn't snowball so much that it becomes a default label. I end up grinding my teeth at least once a month at an unthinking use of "new weird" in some review somewhere by someone who clearly has no idea what the writers behind NW actually meant by it.

I wonder how this intersects with Dora's New Romanticism?

Dunno, but it's my sense (from her association with the IAF if nothing else) that she's more given to movementising, and perhaps a more self-conscious writer than the average ...

[sovay]

Which might more accurately be called a trend.

That description I won't argue with.

I end up grinding my teeth at least once a month at an unthinking use of "new weird" in some review somewhere by someone who clearly has no idea what the writers behind NW actually meant by it.

Out of curiosity—which is? I was on a panel this summer at Readercon that had to discuss the New Weird, and I think our results were inconclusive . . .

reasonable candidates for filing alongside Gilman under "influences"

Greer Gilman, actually, was not one of my early influences. (Though I have a cousin who read Moonwise when she was thirteen, so it does happen. She's pretty sure it did something to her head.) I think I discovered her with "Jack Daw's Pack" in 2001; we've been in regular correspondence since 2004. She introduced me to Waterson : Carthy.

I bet your comrades have read them, too.

I can hazard guesses, but I have no real idea. I should attempt a poll.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Out of curiosity—which is?

Well, I suppose I don't have an Official Truth to dispense. But I know that it's not meant to mean "things vaguely reminiscent of China Mieville's work". The original discussions aren't online any more, but there are some quotes and comments on the quotes here, and it seems fairly clear to me that in broad terms NW is a statement of intent, not a type of fiction. And in broad terms, the intent seems to me to be (a) the fantastic for its own sake, not metaphorical or allegorical, (b) a freedom of content, based on the idea that it's not really meaningful to talk about "science fiction" vs "fantasy", (c) acknowledging that the choices writers make when telling stories are political choices. So (I think) you (a nonspecific "you", there) can't decide to write a new weird story, because there's no common ground of tropes, but you can try to be a new weird writer. Or could have done, anyway; Mieville's gone on record as saying that as far as he's concerned NW is over, and I think M. John Harrison feels much the same -- it was more a moment than a movement, it made its point, it's done.

It seems strangely apt that the wikipedia page is (a) largely nonsense, and (b) has a note at the top saying that "The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed."

I should attempt a poll.

That's almost always a sound idea. :)

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

and I think M. John Harrison feels much the same

In accordance with prophecy.