Clint’s comment > Likes and Comments

45 likes · 
Comments Showing 1-1 of 1 (1 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by China (new)

China Miéville I enjoyed the whole New Weird thing, though as so often with debates that take place a lot online, the tenor and content of much of the flaming that followed it filled me with a combination of irritation, amusement and despair. Whether it was successful depends on what you think it was for. I thought it was in part for attempting to make some sense of a cluster of concerns and texts that were in some nebulous way historically and aesthetically specific and linked, and I think, though in an inchoate way, that yes it was successful at starting that process. It swiftly became, as all such moments do, a marketing term, and at the point where in my judgement that aspect outweighed the helpful epistemological/taxonomic/aesthetic aspect, I said – without disavowing or judging – that I wouldn’t be speaking about it any more, because it had had its moment.

I wouldn’t say it was ‘important’ to participate in any literary moments: it might be fun (with reservations, it was), it might be interesting (it was), it might be illuminating, it might be inspiring (check, check), but important? I’m unconvinced. The other aspect of it, though, as with all literary moments, was the performance – all manifestoes, movements, moments, are provocations and performances, and at that, I thought it was a blast while it lasted. It helped that it had the best literary movement name ever, in my opinion. And I’m not bigging myself up: I didn’t come up with it. (I think M John Harrison did.)


back to top