Resolved: Bizarro Is Not A Horror Sub-Genre
Welcome to the Cushing Bizarro Debate Society. Today we come to debate the resolution: “Bizarro Is Not A Horror A Horror Sub-Genre”.
Now, let me start off by saying that I know that there’s not necessarily any malice behind the belief that Bizarroville is just one of the neighborhoods in the sprawling Horror community. To the contrary, it’s an assumption that’s sometimes made with a positive (even flattering) connotation. It’s not unusual to hear the ocassional author or editor make the remark that they’d like to see bizarro coronated — like Clive Barker in the old Stephen King blurb — as “the future of horror”.
Just as frequently heard, though, are the laments of fans of what I’ll call (for lack of a better word) “traditional horror”. They don’t know quite what to make of the bizarros (Are they doing tongue-in-cheek-extreme horror, comedic horror? Whatever this weird stuff is, it doesn’t tickle my fancy. I’m outta here).
And that, my friends is why it’s important this topic be discussed more often. That’s the reason why any genre label is important. I’ve heard the whole “genre labels are just marketing tools” spiel. But by dismissing them as “just” marketing tools, one risks minimizing the importance of providing the reader with good customer service by giving them a fair idea of what to expect.
If a fan of traditional horror picks up a bizarro book expecting something similar to the latest King, Koontz, or Keene release, then bizarro is, in a sense, being set-up to fail. More importantly, the reader is being set up to be disappointed.
I’ve had this debate with a few friends before, and this is the point where they usually raise a couple of objections such as…
- “But Nicole, I was there when bizarro was first coming up, and all of those guys were on Shocklines and other horror forums. They started out with a lot of connections to the horror community”
To which I respond: Yes, historically, there is a big horror influence in bizarro. I get it. My very first exposure to bizarro (before it was even “bizarro”) was attending a reading by Carlton Mellick III at Horrorfind many, many years ago.
But influence does not a sub-genre make. There are many, many other influences on bizarro besides horror. There’s influences as high-falutin as Dada and the Surrealists and as lowbrow as Troma Films. Literary influences like Kafka and cinematic influences like Jodorowsky and David Lynch. Even as far as genre influences go, you can find at least as many science fiction and fantasy influences in bizarro as you can horror influences.
- Objection #2 goes something like this: “But if it’s not horror, what is it?”
This question is answered in detail at the website Bizarro Central. Basically, bizarro is the genre of the weird. The literary equivalent of the “cult” section at the video store. Just as a horror fan reads to get the experience of “scary” and a romance reader reads to get the experience of “swoony”/”sexy” the die-hard bizarro fan reads to get the experience of “weird”/”trippy”. It can be weird/trippy with a side of thought-provoking, weird/trippy with a side of funny, or weird/trippy with a side of scary, (or, my favorite, a weird/trippy buffet where I can pick up sides of all three) but the point is for it to be weird/trippy.
- So are you saying that if I’m a horror fan, I shouldn’t buy a bizarro book?
Not at all. Despite everything I’ve written, there are lots of people who enjoy both bizarro and horor (and even authors — John Skipp, Gina Ranalli, Cameron Pierce, and Andersen Prunty come to mind — who freely write in both genres). Just like there are lots of people who enjoy both horror and science fiction (and write in both genres) or horror and fantasy.
To say that a horror fan shouldn’t read a bizarro book would be like saying someone who enjoyed France shouldn’t travel to Italy. Maybe they should, or maybe they shouldn’t. But they should at least be made aware of when they’re crossing the border, so that they can make their mind up for themselves.
All that having been said, what are your opinions? I welcome any and all feedback (so long as it’s respectfully expressed — by my subjective standards). Whether you agree with me, disagree with me, or even take issue with my premise, feel free to contribute to the debate by adding your comment to this thread. I’m just interested in starting a positive discussion.
Litgressive 
Whle Bizarro is not an “official” sub-genre of horror, it’s easy for many to consider it one due to the many horror-laced Bizarro books/stories. If nothing else, it gives the horror genre a much-needed kick in the pants.
I agree, totally! I think the connection comes from the really surreal horror stories that were written in the past. I can see how the the totally weird horror, like Lovecraft, could then morph into something that’s not horror, but is weird. Most of the bizarro I’ve read I wouldn’t classify as horror at all, because it’s often not dark and not scary, just ironic and sarcastic.
It’s hard to focus just on the literary influences. Particularly with the work of authors like Carlton Mellick III and Cameron Pierce, cinematic influences abound.
But if I were to focus *just* on the literary influences, I’d say the family tree goes something like this…Poe influenced Lovecraft…who influenced Ligotti…who influenced some Bizarros.
True–then again you have novels by Tim Waggoner such as PANDORA DRIVE and LIKE DEATH which are 100% bizarro AND horror. A lot of Poe’s clasic stuff is quite strange, too.
I regret that I haven’t yet read any of Tim’s stuff — but he was a phenomenal writing instructor (he taught a revision class that I took at Context). I’ll have to check out his work.
I stand by my point that the defining element of the bizarro genre is weird, though — not horror.
Nicole—without a doubt about the weird thing.
Interesting topic.
The first Bizarro book I ever read (purchased from HORROR mall) was Mother Puncher by Gina Ranalli. A wonderful book, that, in my opinion, owes more to Orwell and Huxley than Lovecraft or King. Certainly not horror.
How about Shatnerquake by Jeff Burke? Science Fiction all the way. No horror here.
But then you have something like Apeshit by Carlton Mellick III. A slasher flick on acid. If this isn’t horror, then I don’t know what is. (Which is entirely possible.)
So, three different bizarro novels, reflecting three different “genres.” Why is bizarro so closely associated with horror? Is it because some consider horror itself to be a “fringe” genre? (I can’t count the number of times I have been told “I only read ‘real’ books.” when I mention my love of horror.)) Is it because many people find the ideas in general horror fiction to be bizarre? (I agree with Nick, in that many mass market horror novels I have read would certainly fit under the bizarro banner.)
I can’t answer these questions. Maybe horror fans are more open to new ideas. Maybe that is just wishful thinking on my part. If labeling bizarro as a sub-genre of horror gives it exposure, is that a bad thing? Bizarro deserves to stand on it’s own. Hopefully, as more people are exposed to the works of Ranalli, Prunty, Krall, Mellick, etc., bizarro will be able to cut the horror umbilical and find it’s own footing, becoming a full-fledged genre in and of itself.
I agree, in that bizarro in and of itself is not a subgenre of horror. It does come to mind, however, because the stories I’ve read by Ranalli are Tim Burton-esque in nature and Burton, as we all know, does “dark and weird” very well, most of it with a strong horror influence.
But bizarro in and of itself, to me, is that which is weird and that’s all. Makes me wonder if sub-categories might be needed (not to complicate things) kind of like how Romance has a ton of sub-genres beneath it.
Lovecraft himself drew lines between horror and “weird fiction”.