Horror or Weird Fiction

[Nemonymous]

https://www.facebook.com/des.lewis.90/posts/1931868966828307?pnref=story

Post by https://www.facebook.com/des.lewis.90/posts/1931868966828307?pnref=story.

[T.E. Grau]

In my (worthless) opinion, Weird Fiction is a sub-genre of Horror Fiction.

Descriptions of what makes a tale Weird instead of just merely Horror vary by individual, but that's how I see it.

I'm not sure if country of origin plays into the categorization (as the aesthetics of the story acts as the largest determining factor), but I could be wrong.

[luciferfell]

I have always seen it as Weird Fiction as a huge genre umbrella with Horror, Fantasy, and SciFi falling under it. There is a lot of Weird fiction that definitely could not be called Horror. I think most of Jeff Vandermeer's work, for example, would be Weird but not Horror. Or Cisco's work. Or Ruthanna Emrys's work. But I think all Horror could be considered to be Weird fiction.

[Mr. Veech]

"Horror" strikes me as a contemporary label with a very limited meaning.

I view Weird Fiction as an extension of Gothic literature, which is more or less an extension of Romanticism. Romanticism itself was partially the dark underside of the Enlightenment. It's about the impotence of "reason" in the face of existence.

Not all weird fiction is horror. Walter de la Mare's The House and Arthur Machen's The Great Return are examples of positive stories that deal with themes of supernaturalism or alternative layers of existence, which to me are probably the two most common themes of the genre and the closest to constants.

By that same token, not all horror is weird fiction. One would hardly refer to Psycho or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre as weird fiction. Sheer madness if you do. Not all horror is necessarily trying to frighten the reader wither, which further muddies the water. .

Genre labels are generally imprecise and somewhat useless, so as always they should only be prioritised by those interested in marketing or those looking to simply save time in conversation. There are few things more tedious to debate than genre labels, but my preferred names are gothic and ghostly fiction over horror or weird.

[Knygathin]

I think "supernatural fiction" is the best overall term.

"Weird fiction" hearkens back to the days of Weird Tales magazine. The term "weird" is still used today and understood, especially by the initiated. But to the general public, I believe the supernatural meaning that we, the historically knowledgeable, automatically ascribe to "weird", comes across as a blank, and instead to them the term has a negative resonance, simply meaning "odd" in an annoying way. In today's materialistic age the word "weird" has lost its supernatural significance, and is regularly used instead to describe a socially disturbed individual or circumstance.

I think "weird fiction", specifically, is supernatural fiction with a strong element of fantasy to it. Strange and and colorful environments, bizarre creatures, outré physical conditions, etc. Like in the stories of H. P. Lovecraft and C. A. Smith. As opposed to for example the work of Algernon Blackwood, which gives a supernatural perspective on reality, mainly on a spiritual level, but without much fantasy to it.

[Ibrahim]

I'm with mr. Veech; we're just trying to come up with new names for what is essentially The Gothic.

Although i wouldn't link it to the enlightenment as a counterbalance - that would make the enlightenment appear more rational than it was.

There is the sense that The Gothic describes a Lack, though - something lost. That lack could very well have been reason, and The Gothic may paradoxically have been more reasonable, more enlightened to look at the French Revolution and see the horror instead of the fraternité, liberté and egalité...

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

I think the problem with calling it gothic is that most weird fiction would seem insufficiently gothic.

[Mr. Veech]

Quote Originally Posted by Robert Adam Gilmour

I think the problem with calling it gothic is that most weird fiction would seem insufficiently gothic.

Certainly, there are always exceptions. However, I think the "masters" worked firmly within the Gothic tradition on some level. I think Poe, Machen, Blackwood, James, Bierce, Lovecraft, Aickman, and Ligotti fit the description well.

I personally love the label. It might be said that the Weird redefined (or broadened the scope of) the Gothic. It would be interesting to hear what Joshi and Cardin think. In any case, I don't think "horror" is informative; I think of Halloween or Saw when I think of horror.

EDIT: We can't forget the Southern Gothic, of which Padgett's Secret as well as Wehunt's Greener Pastures are both contemporary examples.

[Gnosticangel]

Mr. Veech wrote, "Certainly, there are always exceptions. However, I think the "masters" worked firmly within the Gothic tradition on some level. I think Poe, Machen, Blackwood, James, Bierce, Lovecraft, Aickman, and Ligotti fit the description well."

As I love these great Gothic writers above all, I would agree completely with this except that the area of "exceptions" contains some rather large categories, from the Symbolists and Decadents, to the Fabulists, Surrealists and on through Magical Realism.

Perhaps everyone doesn't see these as part of Weird Fiction, but surely Rodenbach, Huysmans , Quiroga, Calvino, Borges, Buzzati, CA Smith, Lafcadio Hearn, Michael Cisco and Rhys Hughes belong there, to name just a few?