# Weird Stories



## Philip Overby (Mar 26, 2011)

What are your ideas behind writing weirder than normal fantasy?  And I don't mean a world in which elves are blue.  I mean really, really weird.  Most of what I write tends to be weird or some amalgamation of parody or satire.  But I do write serious weird stuff sometimes (including surrealism, absurdism, and the like.)

Most mainstream fantasy doesn't stray to far from the path.  Of course I tend to like writers like China Mieville because he still writes fantasy, but doesn't seem to follow any of the conventions.  In his Bas Lag world he has living cacti, people made of various junk, and insect creatures that paint with their spit.  Writers like Martin and Abercrombie (who I like) are now becoming more of the norm, because that kind of writing is selling now.  But they aren't weird.

Anyway, still hoping to write my story about the barbarian who has to work odd jobs to pay his child support.  I may post some of it in the showcase.  Suffice to say, it is weird...


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 27, 2011)

I love me some weird fantasy. I'm sure I've mentioned my love for MiÃ©ville on the forums before, likely to you directly, and I am also a fan of many a strange book. I love magical realism and surrealism nearly as much as I love fantasy, which is saying something, and I draw inspiration as much from authors like Rimbaud and Borges as I do from Tolkien.


----------



## Ravana (Mar 27, 2011)

Hmm. Define "weird." 

(Yeah, I know: I always start posts with "depends on what you mean by.…" In this case, though, since one of the top publications in the field is _Weird Tales_, it can mean two very different things, depending on who's using the word. I'm guessing from context that you didn't have that use in mind.)

I've read a lot of surrealist poetry–okay, I've read a lot of poetry, period, but I did put some deliberate effort into locating and reading surrealism–along with somewhat less other surrealist lit, and often draw on such elements in my writing, as well as their somewhat tamer Hispanic cousins. Not as fond of absurdism, except when I'm trying to be absurd. (Similarly, I expect to develop a taste for Cubism around the time I take up being a cube.) Philip K. Dick, one of my favorite SF authors, definitely qualified as weird (as did his writing…). To a lesser extent, I'd say the same applies to Samuel R. Delany and Harlan Ellison (and _their_ writing…), and will be thrilled to pieces the day I can successfully emulate any of the three–emulate their writing, that is. One could throw in some more obvious examples such as _Twilight Zone_ as well.

Apart, though, from Delany's _Neveryon_ books–some of his least weird material–none of the above falls into fantasy, save in the broadest sense. I would have actually cited Peake as an example of someone who _was_ "weird" in the fiction field: in spite of the utterly prosaic, non-magical, non-mythic, non-supernatural trappings of his (first two) _Gormenghast_ novels, you constantly have the sense of "there is no possible way this could have ever taken place in the real world"; there's simply no way anyone could mistake it for historical fiction. Which, absent the usual set dressings of fantasy stories, is quite an accomplishment.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 27, 2011)

In my opinion, you pretty much know weird when you see it.  Of course, the definition of weird changes depending on age, generations, etc.  What is one person's weird, may not be another's.

We all know most fantasy follows certain conventions.  Probably about 90 percent of it.  So I guess what I am looking for is fiction inside the fantasy genre that uses conventions of other stranger genres.


----------



## Ravana (Mar 27, 2011)

Then Delany is definitely right for you: _Tales of Neveryon_ comes "first," sorta, though I doubt you'll feel you've missed anything if you start with _Neveryona_… or even one of the other two books. Well, not exactly: you _will_ feel you've missed something, _regardless_ of which book you start with: that's part of the weirdness. (And note that _The Bridge of Lost Desire_ and _Return to Neveryon_ are the same book under two different titles, so don't buy both.) _They Fly at Ciron_, his only other fantasy novel, is, as far as I know, not linked to the others; as I haven't read it yet, I don't know for sure.

And if you haven't read Mervyn Peake's _Gormenghast_, do give it a try. Though you may want to track that down at a library or some such where you can read enough of it to know whether or not you want to buy it (or its sequels).

-

P.S. Hee hee… Ophiucha removed Peake as an exemplar of "normal" fiction. You with me on "weirding" him?


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 27, 2011)

Yeah, I was like "mmm, yeah, fair enough, maybe I don't read enough normal fantasy to balance this scale..."  Awesome book, and a big influence, regardless of which side of that sentence Peake gets listed. I must say, the art nerd in me takes a lot of influence from paintings, as well. Bosch, Dali, whatnot. Good stuff, and generally a fair bit more to work off of if you want surrealist inspiration. Although there are a few good authors. I mentioned magical realism before, and I stick with that. I think it's interesting to apply some of those ideas to a proper fantasy novel, but it does make it pretty strange and - perhaps most importantly - fantastical.


----------



## kjjcarpenter (Mar 27, 2011)

Would "The Chronicles of Narnia" classify as weird? You've got talking animals, gnome-like creatures that sleep on their backs and use their foot as an umbrella, doorways between worlds in inexplicit situations and even a wood in-between all worlds. If anything, its probably the weirdest set of novels I've ever read, but still one of the best.


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 27, 2011)

It's sort of tough to draw the line between 'fantasy' and just 'weird'. I think talking animals are still just in the typical fantasy zone - enough stories have them - but those gnome things are a bit more strange, to be sure. I'd still probably call Narnia just typical fantasy, in the end. There are enough stories with doorways between worlds and talking animals for the little odd elements to just seem odd in the story, as opposed to the whole thing being abnormal.

I think of weird as something very foreign, something unfamiliar. It's a world that is - of course - fantastic. But it is also perhaps a bit unnerving. There are things very fundamentally different about it that aren't explained, or whimsical. These people might all only have one eye, and that is just not addressed. It doesn't have to be creepy or horrific or anything, but I think it has to seem somehow... well, weird.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 27, 2011)

I wouldn't classify Narnia as weird.  Like Ophiucha said, talking animals and gateways to other worlds are pretty common fantasy fare nowadays.  Was it weird when it was first released?  Probably so.  

To me, weird stories don't call attention to the fact they are weird.  Also like others said, the story doesn't so much call attention to these weird happenings.  They just are.  In Narnia, the characters all remark how strange it is for talking animals and gateways to other worlds.  To me, if the characters are always commenting on how strange or weird everything is, then it's not truly weird.

Ok, now I'm confused...but I know what I'm trying to say...


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 28, 2011)

Yeah, that's basically my thoughts as well. The unexplained fantastic. I think it's why I liken it to magical realism. In that... genre, I guess you'd call it, magical things happen on Earth without any explanation or comment. For instance, in _Everything Is Illuminated_ by Jonathan Safran Foer, a character looks into a telescope and sees her future. It is a necessary plot point that she sees her future, and it impacts the rest of her actions, but at no point does she say "holy shite, I just saw the future!" or "how the eff did I just see the future?" It just sort of... is. I think the 'weird' subgenre of fantasy takes that to the extreme by placing it _in_ a fantasy world, where _everything_ is like that, and just not addressing much - or any - of it. They take things that we'd be unfamiliar with, but rather than stopping for a moment to say "the Nazgul are blah, blah, blah, blah, blah," you're just sort of left to figure it out from the text, or maybe never figure it out at all.


----------



## Ravana (Mar 28, 2011)

Can't really see classifying Narnia as anything other than straightforward fiction. Talking animals are staples going back as far as recorded myth; passages between worlds, ditto (though caves were admittedly more traditional than clothes presses); big umbrella feet go at least as far back as Herodotus, I believe, and certainly as far back as the Middle Ages. If anything, Narnia is appallingly derivative. Which doesn't make it any worse a read (well, not the first four books, at least).

Let's face it, though: it doesn't hold a candle, in terms of "weirdness," to a pair of books written roughly eighty years before it, involving a seemingly unending string of talking animals, passages between worlds courtesy of a rabbit burrow and a mirror, and some of the most brilliantly twisted (yet formally correct!) logic ever to grace the pages of English literature. 

I really can't think of many examples of weird fantasy, unless one wants to include stories with overtly supernatural ("horror") elements. One that has come to mind since my initial post–I suppose it could fall under "fantasy"; it is in any event surreal enough–and one I'd be somewhat surprised to learn anyone else here has read, is _The Blind Owl_ by Sadeq Hedayat: think a Persian version of Borges. Anyone who enjoys Borges or Garcia Marquez would probably find it well worth tracking down. (It's actually available online, though the presentation is somewhat ugly.)


----------



## Kate (Apr 8, 2011)

Have you read anything by Haruki Murakami?  Most of his novels are what I'd call weird fantasy.  He typically gets characterised as "magic realism" or "surrealism" but I'm not sure either are applicable.  "Weird, realistic fantasy" fits better for me, if you have to label his work.  His novels Wild Sheep Chase, Wind Up Bird Chronicle, and Kafka on the Shore are the best examples. Strange, metaphysical, fantasy, horror... "weird realistic fantasy."

BTW I'm a massive Murakami fan, and I can't say enough good things about his work or the impact he has made in my life. Some of his work is straight fiction, but I suggest read it all. Yes, as I said, massive fan.


----------



## Ravana (Apr 10, 2011)

Kate said:


> Have you read anything by Haruki Murakami?  Most of his novels are what I'd call weird fantasy.  He typically gets characterised as "magic realism" or "surrealism" but I'm not sure either are applicable.  "Weird, realistic fantasy" fits better for me, if you have to label his work.  His novels Wild Sheep Chase, Wind Up Bird Chronicle, and Kafka on the Shore are the best examples. Strange, metaphysical, fantasy, horror... "weird realistic fantasy."



Dang–and here I thought I was the only person who'd read him. (You left out _Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World_, by the way.  ) Yes, definitely, I'd put the majority of his work under "weird," in the broadest sense; probably magic realism would be the closest out of existing genre labels.


----------



## Kate (Apr 10, 2011)

Another Murakami fan! Cool!! (Apparently the official word is 'Harukist').

I thought he was a bit of an unknown until I started talking about him to a few people after reading Kafka on the Shore.  There are fans _everywhere_. Not sure I like that idea though.... Did you know he was up for a Nobel prize last year? How cool is that. Sad that he didn't win, he sure deserves that level of accolade.  Perhaps he'll have another shot this year with the new 1Q84.

I haven't read Hard Boiled Wonderland yet.  I own it though (I own all of his novels, proudly displayed in their own special shelf - looks like a Murakami shrine). After I devoured Kafka ots, After Dark and Wind Up Bird in a few days, I decided I was going to savour the rest of his novels, never reading more than one a month, and never two in a row.  *sigh* just thinking about Murakami sends me into a fan girl state of bliss...


----------



## Ophiucha (Apr 11, 2011)

I love me some Murakami, and it isn't too hard to find someone who reads him in more general literary circles, but in fantasy communities? There seems to be a bit of widespread hatred for magic realism, overall.


----------



## Kate (Apr 11, 2011)

Ophiucha said:


> There seems to be a bit of widespread hatred for magic realism, overall.



There does? 

I prefer magic realism to a lot of other genres of fantasy.


----------



## Ophiucha (Apr 11, 2011)

Kate said:


> There does?
> 
> I prefer magic realism to a lot of other genres of fantasy.


 I quite like it as well, certainly more than the typical swords and sorcery sorts of stories, but the consensus I've found tends more towards "it's just a bunch of anti-fantasy literary snobs writing about magic and not wanting to admit to it." Terry Pratchett, even, said it "is like a polite way of saying you write fantasy", and I seem to recall one person (I can't recall who) calling it fantasy written by South Americans.


----------



## Kate (Apr 11, 2011)

Ophiucha said:


> I quite like it as well, certainly more than the typical swords and sorcery sorts of stories, but the consensus I've found tends more towards "it's just a bunch of anti-fantasy literary snobs writing about magic and not wanting to admit to it." Terry Pratchett, even, said it "is like a polite way of saying you write fantasy", and I seem to recall one person (I can't recall who) calling it fantasy written by South Americans.


 
I'll choose it over sword and sorcery, and if i'm honest most types of high fantasy, any day.  That's an interesting observation that I've never really noticed.  I suppose it does gravitate to the more literary type of work.  Good old Terry Pratchett - I thought "speculative fiction" was the way grown ups admitted they write/read fantasy.


----------



## At Dusk I Reign (Apr 12, 2011)

I include all kinds of weird stuff in my fiction. Some of it's based on mythology, some on religion, some has a sci-fi bent, and the rest spews out of what passes for my brain. I hate the fantasy genre. It's a ghetto, and no-one with any self-respect should willingly allow themselves to be herded into one. Fantasy shouldn't be about ticking boxes in a checklist. It should be about letting the imagination roam free. If this means weirdness holds sway, so be it.


----------



## Digital_Fey (Apr 12, 2011)

I love magical realism, but I'd hesitate to classify it with 'fantasy'. It's a genre all on its own really, even if the borders are sometimes a little blurred. Some of the most deliciously weird fantasy I've read has been online, and is (unfortunately) still unpublished. I tend to steer clear of writers who take their 'weirdness' too seriously - it's a style best served with lots of subtle humor.



			
				At Dusk I Reign said:
			
		

> Fantasy shouldn't be about ticking boxes in a checklist. It should be about letting the imagination roam free. If this means weirdness holds sway, so be it.



Completely agree. The 'checklist' attitude seems to be very prevalent in YA fantasy these days, and the result is a genre that's embarrassingly replete with cliches.


----------



## At Dusk I Reign (Apr 12, 2011)

Digital_Fey said:


> The 'checklist' attitude seems to be very prevalent in YA fantasy these days, and the result is a genre that's embarrassingly replete with cliches.


Sadly, the mentality is not confined to YA. Ever since the structure of the genre was defined, too many authors have felt compelled to labour under the yolk. It's why I gate genres in general and the fantasy genre in particular. It seems to me to be a barrier to creativity, rather than the launching board it should be.


----------



## Ravana (Apr 13, 2011)

Kate said:


> Did you know he was up for a Nobel prize last year? How cool is that. Sad that he didn't win, he sure deserves that level of accolade.  Perhaps he'll have another shot this year with the new 1Q84.



Fortunately, the Nobel Prize is judged on the author's whole body of work, so he can be re-nominated annually until he gets it (or dies: it's not awarded posthumously.) He probably faces a bit of an uphill battle, but not as much as he would had he been classified under the dreaded SF/fantasy labels. Plus, there's only been one Asian winner in the past forty-odd years (and only three in the history of the prize… not counting Turkey as part of Asia), and there's a certain amount of sentiment toward seeing more non-Euro winners. (Scandinavia in general, and Sweden in particular, tends to be somewhat over-represented… go figure.) Since the last Asian winner (Oe) is now pulling for him, that should help, too–certainly in ensuring he keeps getting nominated, if nothing else.

I'm still hoping for a "real" (that is, someone who's known primarily for) SF/fantasy winner. Unfortunately, I have a difficult time imagining either or the two best SF authors getting it, for various reasons–and I frankly can't see any working fantasy authors bringing it in. Oh, well: some day.…


----------



## Ophiucha (Apr 13, 2011)

I've been bitter since the day I was born about Jorge Luis Borges never getting the Nobel Prize.


----------



## Kate (Apr 13, 2011)

Digital_Fey said:


> I love magical realism, but I'd hesitate to classify it with 'fantasy'. It's a genre all on its own really, even if the borders are sometimes a little blurred.


 
If it's possible to disagree with a hesitation, I'd disagree with this.  I've no doubt that magic realism can be and should be classified as fantasy. All genre borders are blurred. A lot of commentators refuse to even acknowledge genres as a useful tool of analysis because of this. I'm not one of them. Magic realism and all of its variants is a sub genre fantasy because it relies on fantastical elements - magic, surrealism, metaphysical realism, miracle, lots of different things.  It's not high fantasy, but neither is a lot of urban fantasy.

I'd like to ask why your hesitations?


----------



## Kate (Apr 13, 2011)

Ravana said:


> Fortunately, the Nobel Prize is judged on the author's whole body of work, so he can be re-nominated annually until he gets it (or dies: it's not awarded posthumously.) He probably faces a bit of an uphill battle, but not as much as he would had he been classified under the dreaded SF/fantasy labels. Plus, there's only been one Asian winner in the past forty-odd years (and only three in the history of the prize… not counting Turkey as part of Asia), and there's a certain amount of sentiment toward seeing more non-Euro winners. (Scandinavia in general, and Sweden in particular, tends to be somewhat over-represented… go figure.) Since the last Asian winner (Oe) is now pulling for him, that should help, too—certainly in ensuring he keeps getting nominated, if nothing else.
> 
> I'm still hoping for a "real" (that is, someone who's known primarily for) SF/fantasy winner. Unfortunately, I have a difficult time imagining either or the two best SF authors getting it, for various reasons—and I frankly can't see any working fantasy authors bringing it in. Oh, well: some day.…


 
I meant that with iQ84 there might be an increased awareness of his work, and more justification for him to win.  Yeah, I'd also agree that his win is unlikely given his style and even nationality, but even a nomination is nothing to be sneezed at.


----------

