Made it about 100 pages. I hated the first 4 stories so decided that it just wasn't for me. A City of Saints and Madmen lured me into thinking I would like New Weird, but I guess not.

A lot of it was just the super casual violence and rape; I'm just not in the mood for that kind of stuff any more. Maybe it was the book being frontloaded with male authors and I'd enjoy female authors more, but then does it really count as me having read the book?

This was a very interesting examination of the New Weird as a genre movement (or potential movement?) The first two sections of the anthology included a variety of short stories, which of course are the main draw to the book. The stories were hit or miss for me; I liked most of them to some degree, although one of them (unfortunately the first story in the book, which made me hesitant initially) my brain just repeatedly rejected and I eventually had to DNF. That said, a few of these stories I'd have given 5 stars, and the majority fell somewhere in the 3 or 4-star range of enjoyment. I'd imagine that there's something in here for everyone (unless you're really not into the idea of weird fiction, in which case, what are you doing reading this review in the first place, silly?)

The next section included and excerpt from an internet message board conversation that initially sparked the idea for the anthology as well as several non-fiction essays written by a various authors and editors discussing whether or not they believe in the New Weird as a movement in general and, in the case of a series from foreign editors, what their perception is of the New World's presence in their country. This I found interesting from the perspective of a writer, but if I didn't write I probably would have skipped it.

The last section is actually a "round robin"-style story where seven authors got together and took turns adding onto a New World story, telling their own mini-narratives within a world of their shared creation. I did not try to internally rate this section because it was more experimental, but the story was an interesting read, if unique in its structure.

In general, I think this book makes a good introduction to weird fiction (at least as it stood in the 2000's) and could also serve as a text of sorts for a writer interested in expanding their writing in that direction (keeping in mind that part of the argument of the non-fiction part of this book in the first place is that an over-emphasis on labels can be dangerous because writers shouldn't be writing to fill a specific genre but rather to tell a specific story). ( )

I enjoyed the stories, but I didn't really enjoyed the essays around them. ( )

Overall, not a bad anthology, mixing elements of horror, sci-fi and fantasy. Most of the stories are not original to this book, so if you're a fan of the authors, it's likely you've read them before. They tend toward the dark, extreme and often grotesque and disgusting, so if that's not your scene, you probably won't enjoy.
My main issue with the book is its tendency toward navel-gazing. It should have just stuck with presenting the work, rather than going on and on about how to define the term "new weird," reprinting online forum arguments, and asking random industry people what they think of it. The introduction is also 'weirdly' full of China-Mieville-hero-worship. Not that Mr. Mieville doesn't necessarily deserve it, but it was slightly odd. Basically, I don't care about ultra-narrow genre-defining; let's just skip to the stories, and let them speak for themselves!

Contents:

Introduction
“The New Weird: ‘It’s Alive?’ Jeff VanderMeer

Stimuli
M. John Harrison “The Luck in the Head”
Michael Moorcock “Crossing into Cambodia”
Clive Barker “In the Hills, the Cities”
Simon D. Ings “The Braining of Mother Lamprey”
Kathe Koja “The Neglected Garden”
Thomas Ligotti “A Soft Voice Whispers Nothing”

Evidence
China Mieville “Jack”
Jeffrey Thomas “Immolation”
Jay Lake “The Lizard of Ooze”
Brian Evenson “Watson’s Boy”
K .J. Bishop “The Art of Dying”
Jeffrey Ford “At Reparata”
Leena Krohn “Letters from Tainaron”
Steph Swainston “The Ride of the Gabbleratchet”
Alistair Rennie “The Gutter Sees the Light That Never Shines” (original)

Discussion
“New Weird: The Creation of a Term”
Michael Cisco “‘New Weird’: I Think We’re the Scene”
Darja Malcolm-Clarke “Tracking Phantoms”
K. J. Bishop “Whose Words You Wear”
“European Editor Perspectives on the New Weird” (featuring the views of Michael Haulica from Romania, Martin Sust from the Czech Republic, Hannes Riffel from Germany, Konrad Waleski from Poland, and Jukka Halme from Finland)

Laboratory (Original round-robin story)

“Festival Lives”

Preamble: Ann and Jeff VanderMeer
View 1: “Death in a Dirty Dhoti” Paul Di Filippo
View 2: “Cornflowers Beside the Unuttered” Cat Rambo
View 3: “All God’s Chillun Got Wings” Sarah Monette
View 4: “Locust-Mind” Daniel Abraham
View 5: “Constable Chalch and the Ten Thousand Heroes” Felix Gilman
View 6: “Golden Lads All Must…” Hal Duncan
View 7: “Forfend the Heavens’ Rending” Conrad Williams

Recommended Reading
Biographical Notes
( )

Individual story ratings for the fiction. I did not care much for the genre discussion pieces in between.

M. John Harrison – "The Luck in the Head" (***)
Clive Barker – "In the Cities, the Hills" (***)
Michael Moorcock – "Crossing into Cambodia" (***)
Simon D. Ings – "The Braining of Mother Lamprey (****)
Kathe Koja – "The Neglected Garden" (**)
Thomas Ligotti – "A Soft Voice Whispers Nothing" (***)
China Miéville – "Jack" (***)
Jeffrey Thomas – "Immolation" (****)
Jay Lake – "The Lizard of Ooze" (***)
Brian Evenson – "Watson's Boy" (****)
K .J. Bishop – "The Art of Dying" (***)
Jeffrey Ford – "At Reparata” (***)
Leena Krohn – "Letters from Tainaron" (**)
Steph Swainston – "The Ride of the Gabbleratchet" (***)
Alistair Rennie – "The Gutter Sees the Light That Never Shines" (****)
Laboratory (Original round-robin story) "Festival Lives" (**)

On the whole this was certainly worth reading but never great. ( )