Year's Best Weird Fiction edited by Simon Strantzas

[Canavan]

I read through the first story, “Rabbit, Cat, Girl” by Rebecca Kuder, over lunch yesterday. Hmmm. I’m still mulling over my reaction to this one... It’s interesting from a stylistic standpoint — the story plays out in a nonlinear way and is told by a more-or-less unreliable narrator, leaving the reader to ferret out what has happened. That’s not too terribly hard, but I’m still a bit in the dark about author intent with respect to the meaning of various symbols/objects/events — what’s the deal with the rabbits and cats other than the obvious connection to the Alice story? And what are we to take away from the nature of the transformative process being described?

✭✭✭½

[Canavan]

You can find an interview with the guest editor of this book, Simon Strantzas, on the Weird Fiction Review web site; see here. In the interview, he amplifies a bit on comments made in his introduction to the book about what, in his opinion, constitutes weird fiction; about his selection criteria for choices; about the previous volumes; etc.

[Bill]

I quite enjoyed the openness and language of "Rabbit, Cat, Girl". I do agree that I probably won't remember it for long though.

Yeah, "Violet..." is very "Colour out of Space". I liked the last section with the transformations. But I really don't enjoy the kind of prose in the early sections.

[Bill]

"Blood" is hilarious. These "grumpy Brits have life-changing experiences in France" stories, like Brian Evenson's wonderful "Seaside Town", kind of explain Brexit, haha.

I remember skimming some Shearman collection, and deciding it was too wordy or clunky or something for me. But "Blood" is very well done.

[Bill]

Enjoyed Brian Conn's elegant "The Guest". And of course Evenson's "Seaside Town". The Aickman piece is no "Ravissante", though it's not without its moments. I'm afraid I'm not impressed by the rest of the offerings after "Blood".

[Bill]

Ramsey Campbell's "Fetch" was quite enjoyable, but I thought it could be tighter. I liked the final denouement, but it was telegraphed way in advance.

Hello hello, anybody still reading this?

[Canavan]

Bill asked (in part):

Hello hello, anybody still reading this?

Yes, I was planning on reading some more this weekend. I mean, we are only 5 days into the month.

[Bill]

Randolph wrote: "I have a question. If The Strangers did not have Aickman's name attached to it would anyone have given it a second thought?"

I can't remember much of it already.

[Marie-Therese]

I'm just starting the Aickman story, so no thoughts on it as yet.

I've found this collection just middling so far. 'Blood' was excellent (unlike Bill, I've enjoyed Shearman's work before) and 'Seaside Town' was still fine and creepy even after reading it just a week or so ago in Aickman's Heirs (also edited by Simon Strantzas). But the other stories here all seem somehow unfinished and lacking in impact. There's nice prose in many of them and the story begins to build well but then just drops off into vagueness or cliche. I found this same thing (stories that seemed to lack impact, that just wandered off because the author seemed unable to marshall their ideas and bring them round) in the Aickman's Heirs anthology, too. Maybe Strantzas and I just have differing ideas of what makes an effective short story (which seems odd because I quite like his own fiction).

[Canavan]

“Violet Is the Color of Your Energy”.

(view spoiler)[I know that the parallels have already been mentioned by others, but it’s impossible to read this without thinking about Lovecraft’s “The Colour Out of Space”. I actually prefer the Bulkin story; the Lovecraft story is (to my way of thinking) over-rated. (hide spoiler)]

✭✭✭✭

[Canavan]

“The Rooms Are High”.

Lesser Oliver, in my opinion. This story seems to take a long time to gain traction, and after a meandering start finally ends up in a place I found uninteresting and somewhat obscure.

✭✭½

[Marie-Therese]

Canavan wrote: "“The Rooms Are High”.

Lesser Oliver, in my opinion. This story seems to take a long time to gain traction, and after a meandering start finally ends up in a place I found uninteres..."

I agree with you about this, although I frequently find sub par Oliver better than many writers' best. Still, despite some brilliant character sketches ("Hoppy" is so creepy and malevolent, I find I can't stop thinking about him), this story never seemed to quite get off the ground and I'm not really certain where it would have gone had it done so. It seemed to me that there were elements of more than one story (which I don't want to go into here so as not to spoil it for others) sort of jumbled together without much design in this one.

[Bill]

Marie-Therese wrote: "But the other stories here all seem somehow unfinished and lacking in impact."
I was also rather disappointed with this collection (and Aickman's Heirs). My take is it's actually very difficult to pull off the kind of tense, open-ended story that excites me like Aickman's "Ravissante".

[Bill]

Randolph wrote: "I've found the Strange Tales series from Tartarus Press to be much more rewarding."

Recommendations/links please? Thanks.

[Bill]

Canavan wrote: "“The Rooms Are High”.

Lesser Oliver, in my opinion."

Totally agree. I was looking forward to this, having visited an English seaside town a few months ago and stayed in an old-fashioned little hotel. (Nothing weird happened.) But this story didn't do anything for me.

Maybe if they had included one of Oliver's drawings to help set the mood...

[Bill]

Sadie Bruce's "Little Girls in Bone Museums": loved the idea, hated the writing.

[Marie-Therese]

'The Bone Girls' story also did not work for me. The idea was intriguing but it was poorly executed and poorly developed. The child character used in the framing was just annoying; neither she nor her grandmother added any depth. They were padding and irritating padding at that. *bleh*

I felt equally disenchanted by a number of the other stories in the book: they presented some intriguing scenarios but the writing was mediocre to downright poor and too often I felt like the authors had no clue as to how to take a strong initial premise and develop it as a fully realized story. Just having a powerful feeling or a need to speak out is not enough in fiction (especially not in a short story which puts strict limits on both author and reader). Authors need to shape their argument and give it life and power within the limits of the form they've chosen; I really didn't feel most of the writers here fully understood that. There were lots of good intentions (intentions and ideas I wholeheartedly support and agree with) but not a whole of lot of effective storytelling.

I was disappointed in this volume. I think there are much better weird fiction writers and stories out there and I think this was a poor selection overall. Strantzas chose too many of the same mediocre writers he featured in 'Aickman's Heirs', too few that are really world-class and at the top of their game. Michael Kelly in his introductions to this volume and the one before it makes reference to certain publishers not allowing him rights to stories he would have liked to have reprinted and maybe that accounts for certain names not making it into the series, but, overall, I do wonder at the narrowness of what's been chosen for inclusion in these books so far, the fact that virtually everyone featured in these books is writing in English as a first language, is American, Canadian or from the UK, is wedded to a fairly straightforward narrative style. I just feel like there could be a whole lot more "weird" in the 'Best Weird Fiction' and I'm a bit sad that I'm not getting it.

[Marie-Therese]

Randolph wrote: "I liked the Rousseau story. A nice fictional fugue on a true event: the mauling of Jean-Jacques by a Great Dane."

I loved this story. I read it earlier this year in Vacui Magia: Stories, L.S. Johnson's self-published collection of short stories. If you like her voice in this, you may want to check out the collection. Not every story worked for me completely but I found the book compelling overall and the best stories are really quite memorable. She's a writer I intend to follow.

[Bill]

Marie-Therese wrote: "I think there are much better weird fiction writers and stories out there and I think this was a poor selection overall."
Maybe we can construct our own Best Weird Fiction collection! (Umm, that's if we can agree on them.) Would love to hear recommendations. (Randolph, what do you recommend from Tartarus Press?)

[Marie-Therese]

A group I follow elsewhere (not on Good Reads) does monthly strange/weird story reads and the chosen stories come from all decades (centuries, too!). Perhaps in January, when we've all had time to recover from the hectic pace of winter holidays, we could each choose a story we think really exemplifies in some way an aspect we like of the weird tale.

On Tartarus Press: Bill, have you read Darkscapes by Anne-Sylvie Salzman? Her style is perhaps a little different than some of the better known Tartarus writers (more open-ended, less overtly horror, more "continental" or international, I suppose) but I really liked this collection. I'd also highly recommend the 'Strange Tales' series if you can find them.

I have a couple of the Rhys Hughes story collections published in ebook form by Tartarus but haven't yet read them. They sound intriguing though, particularly if you like a bit of humour with your horror.

[Bill]

Marie-Therese wrote: "Bill, have you read Darkscapes by Anne-Sylvie Salzman?"
Nope, sounds very intriguing. Thanks for the recommendation! It's on my to-read list, though those Tartarus hardcovers are not cheap...

[[deleted user]]

I haven't read the entire collection yet, but I did immediately read the Bartlett story, which I thought fine, but perhaps not his best work. Certainly felt more... cinematic in structure than some of his other work I've enjoyed. Bartlett might have had a screen adaptation in mind while writing this, aiming for film rights first, a la Mark Millar, ie the unkindest comparison I could ever make. The languid introduction, with its LA setting and domestic banality, felt all too perfunctory and conventional in the classic Hollywood horror style. It seems, as Marie-Therese so astutely observes, that Stranzas is an excellent writer, but perhaps doesn't have the requisite critical eye for a Year's Best anthology of weird.

[Marie-Therese]

Randolph wrote: "Of all three I by far liked the first edited by Laird Barron."

I liked the Koja edited second volume best. It seemed more diverse in tone and setting and I appreciated that. The Barron volume would be second in my ranking, with this most recent volume placing last.