Wow, this is a little more intense than I anticipated. I never knew there were so many technicalities involved in this kind of thing. I think I could learn a lot. 🤔
I think this is really excellent, and your distinction between Gonzo and Weird Fiction is probably as accurate as any genre distinction could be.
I'm curious as to pop-culture references though, as I've seen those used to justify (or attempt a definition) of Gonzo over Weird Fiction. If I have a frog demon that looks like the Muppet's Kermit just because, that's Gonzo - but if the frog demon looks like Kermit because in every dimension there is ALWAYS a depiction of this demon, as a figure of imagination or not, that is Weird Fiction? Or am I mistaken?
That is a very interesting point of distinction, and I think you are right on the mark. It is also notable that the explanation grounds the Ker-monstrosity into something beyond an emotional rise.
The idea of an interdimensional memetic demon that takes the form of some children's creature already exists in the form of Pennywise, and I do not think anyone would call It gonzo.
Amusingly, we already have the Mythos equivalent of Kermit. A batrachian creature covered with fur and a mouth that moves nothing like a frog's... Tsathoggua!
In addition, there are plenty of properties in other genres that have pop-culture references galore and they do not trip into gonzo. Warcraft, Warhammer, even Glorantha.
Oh yeah, I hadn't even considered Pennywise or other properties, like Warhammer, that do the same thing too but don't get labelled gonzo! Good point! I'm going to go look into this Tsathoggua now...
Very interesting! I do love a bit of gonzo here, a bit of weird fiction there.
Wow, this is a little more intense than I anticipated. I never knew there were so many technicalities involved in this kind of thing. I think I could learn a lot. 🤔
I think this is really excellent, and your distinction between Gonzo and Weird Fiction is probably as accurate as any genre distinction could be.
I'm curious as to pop-culture references though, as I've seen those used to justify (or attempt a definition) of Gonzo over Weird Fiction. If I have a frog demon that looks like the Muppet's Kermit just because, that's Gonzo - but if the frog demon looks like Kermit because in every dimension there is ALWAYS a depiction of this demon, as a figure of imagination or not, that is Weird Fiction? Or am I mistaken?
Thanks for the comment!
That is a very interesting point of distinction, and I think you are right on the mark. It is also notable that the explanation grounds the Ker-monstrosity into something beyond an emotional rise.
The idea of an interdimensional memetic demon that takes the form of some children's creature already exists in the form of Pennywise, and I do not think anyone would call It gonzo.
Amusingly, we already have the Mythos equivalent of Kermit. A batrachian creature covered with fur and a mouth that moves nothing like a frog's... Tsathoggua!
In addition, there are plenty of properties in other genres that have pop-culture references galore and they do not trip into gonzo. Warcraft, Warhammer, even Glorantha.
Oh yeah, I hadn't even considered Pennywise or other properties, like Warhammer, that do the same thing too but don't get labelled gonzo! Good point! I'm going to go look into this Tsathoggua now...