Getting a movement on
Thanks to Vera and Mary Anne, a couple of contrarian notes on movements in general and the Next Wavelets in particular (for a general primer on the wavelet thing, see Mike's set of relevant links):
Paul Melko has a little to say about literary movements; most notably, his 2/17/03 entry has some entertaining failed sf literary movements. My favorite:
Suburban Fantasy: A movement epitomized by double-income-no-kid heros chasing after dragons in their SUVs.
Meanwhile, Lynn Booker doesn't like slipstream; according to her 2/12/03 entry, it's "genre without . . . balls." But that entry goes on to call for new improved fiction that, for me, falls well within the bounds of slipstream ("Give me fresh myths that work for today"), so I guess it's partly a question of definitions. (She also (2/11/03 entry) doesn't like SH, alas, or current short speculative fiction in general.)
Meanwhile, the new fiction editor of the New Yorker, Deborah Treisman, has this to say about movements (from an interview with her in Book magazine):
I'm not sure I really believe so much in movements. I think sometimes there are just coincidences brought about by cultural change. And suddenly a certain number of people of talent appear. But they all seem to spring up individually, and then we lump them together because it's easier to talk about them that way. ... I think you go through lulls, and then suddenly a bunch of people crop up and they may not have anything to do with each other except that they somehow feel empowered to start writing at the same time.
(She also says that people who submit directly to the New Yorker fiction editor "probably [aren't] all that savvy about publishing and probably not about writing either." Pet peeve alert: I find it annoying that so many editors conflate lack of knowledge of local submission norms with lack of writing ability. It's true that writers should learn the submission norms; it's true that editors (me included) find it annoying when writers don't; but it's not true that failure to do so equates to lack of writing talent.)
My current thought on the subject of waves: I like the sense of excitement engendered by the idea of a Movement and/or a set of New Wavelets, and I think talking about it is a great way to stir up interest, and I'm enjoying the conversations (though they seem to've died down a bit lately; perhaps there's only so much talking one can do on this subject before it's time to go do some fiction writing) and I think the participants are cool (and good writers). But I also think any Movement that takes itself too seriously will founder. So far, I think pretty much everyone involved in these discussions has retained a sense of fun/playfulness about the whole thing, which I think is all to the good.
As I noted over in a comment over in Jenn's journal last week, I'd like to see these be among the hallmarks (or perhaps watchwords) of a new movement: Fun, Inclusiveness, Diversity, and Openness (to new ideas and influences). Call it FIDO for short. Maybe I should add Experimentalism and make that acronym DIFOE? But the further addition of Transcendence (of genre) might give us FOETID, so maybe I should just give up on acronyms for the nonce.