Talk:Bizarro fiction

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bizarro poets?

What about listing bizarro poets, also? The Dream People, for ex., publishes such poetry. Should the article name be changed to just 'bizarro' or 'bizarro fiction and poetry' or 'bizarro poetry and prose'? Or maybe given its own article/stub? The poetry is notable, too. Kevin Doran 19:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about fiction. If you feel there is a form of poetry that could be classified as Bizarro you would have to start a seperate article and back it up with evidence. --Killah666 (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite

I rewrote this article and hope to expand on it within the next few weeks. Avantpunkarmy 21:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I suggest that the newly-created List of bizarro authors article be merged into the current article. There is simply not enough content to justify a separate article listing authors in this genre. Given that the majority of authors on that list do not have articles of their own, a question of notability could easily be raised---especially strange, I think, given the fact that Avantpunkarmy keeps deleting Jeff T. Kane from the list, even though he does have an article. Simply put, one list, located in this article, of authors with articles would suffice. Other than content issues, the List of bizarro authors has been incorrectly named, given that the title implies that the authors themselves are "bizarro." It should have been titled List of authors of bizarro fiction. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am creating this separate list to appease Jeff T. Kane. I am the head of the Avant Punk Army, the Bizarro street team leader who modifies this wiki on behalf of the bizarro fiction community. There are too many bizarro authors out there to list them all on this page. There are hundreds of bizarro authors out there. These authors should be listed on the new "list of bizarro authors" article. I plan to expand on the "list of bizarro authors" and add many authors who previously were not notable enough to be listed on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avantpunkarmy (talk • contribs) 19:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also plan to create wikipedia pages for the authors listed as "notable" who do not yet have articles. All of these authors have book deals with one of the three publishers who founded the bizarro genre. They are also listed (or will be listed) at the official bizarro website, bizarrocentral.com. Also, I'd like to mention that I am trying to get in touch with Jeff T. Kane to resolve this matter so that we don't make a mess of this wiki. Jeff, please contact me. My email is celsiarazorwire@yahoo.com Avantpunkarmy (talk —Preceding comment was added at 19:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor who moved the page - apologies for incorrectly assigning the title. Whilst a merge discussion is in progress, I am wary of moving it again, but let me know if and when you want it done (on my talk page) and I will resolve the double redirects that it will cause. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not merge the two articles. The reason RepublicanJacobite requested the merge is because he believes there is "not enough content to justify a separate article." However, I am in the process of expanding the "List of bizarro authors" article. The list will probably get into the hundreds over time. This page should be reserved for the authors who are most active in the bizarro movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avantpunkarmy (talk • contribs) 21:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you have no place editing these articles if your motives are to push an egenda or appease somebody. I advise you very strongly to read Wikipedia's conflicts of interest policy and reflect on whether what you are doing is in the best interests of the encyclopedia.

That said, I think the list at present has enough authors on it to justify a seperate article, and that we should assume good faith when you say you intend on expanding it. We should avoid listy content in regular articles where possible. If it were just 4 or 5 authors, they could have a section of prose in this article, but in its current state the list would not be an improvement to the article. However, the list is totally unreferenced, and is very likely to be deleted unless references are provided which support the identification of these individuals as authors of bizarro fiction. I also think the list should be moved to List of authors of bizarro fiction, per RepublicanJacobite. скоморохъ 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have checked out the policy (and related policies). I believe much of what I'm doing reflects the best interests of the encyclopedia (because all I want is to make information available to those interested this subject), but perhaps not 100%. I'll be more careful and more neutral in the future. I think List of authors of bizarro fiction would be fine. My only concern about your post is the references. I didn't think lists required references. Related lists such as List of horror fiction writers and List of fantasy authors are also not referenced. I'm not sure if it would be necessary to have references for every name on a list, but I know I could get the references if required.Avantpunkarmy (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about the two list articles you mention, as they are both unreferenced. However, they should be---for a better example, look at List of dystopian literature, which is not thoroughly researched, but is part of the way there. All articles require references, even lists, and they require references from notable, third-party sources. I am going to remove the merge proposal templates, but I am going to be keeping an eye on both these articles to watch their progress. If I can be of assistance, please ask. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

The "Conflict of Interest" tag is pertaining to myself, I'm sure. While reading the policies for what constitutes a conflict of interest, I somewhat fall under the category of "close relation" because I am the leader of the bizarro fiction fan club. I also believe that my statement in the above paragraph, where I mentioned that I am the person who "modifies this wiki on behalf of the bizarro fiction community," probably raised a bunch of red flags. I'd like to state that I made this statement in haste, because I was attempting to establish my authority on this subject to prevent the merge proposal from going through (which I originally thought was an attempt by Jeff T. Kane, who has been vandalizing this article, to keep himself listed as a major bizarro author...my apologies to [User:RepublicanJacobite|RepublicanJacobite], who was only trying to improve the article by suggesting the merge). I just want to mention that I am not working officially or unofficially for the bizarros, and am definitely not trying to turn this article into anything promotional. I just want to help make information concerning this subject available to those who need it. I feel that I am a good third party, but perhaps I am too close to the bizarro authors and publishers to write about it. If any of you suggest that I withdraw from editing this article I will do so.Avantpunkarmy (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that I believe this article is important and should not be deleted. News about Bizarro fiction, as a new genre, has been spreading through reader circles around the world, but a lot of people are confused about what it is exactly all about because it is still so new. I believe wikipedia is a good place for people to turn to in order to learn more about bizarro. I believe it will often be viewed. However, I agree that it could be improved, especially with more information from third party resources.Avantpunkarmy (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party References

If I am to withdraw from editing this article, I would like to point out some good third-party references that could be used by those of you interested in editing this or even revamping it.

Oregonian Newspaper issue: Tuesday September 25th 2007. This article was also published online at: Oregon Live. This is an article about bizarro fiction in Portland, which is kind of a mecca for bzarro. It interviews Eraserhead Press owner, Rose O'Keefe, and authors Carlton Mellick III, Jeremy Robert Johnson, and Mykle Hansen. This might also be a good resource for the wikipedia articles on these authors.
The Boys of Bizarro The Oregonian also ran a video interview with Mellick, Hansen, and Johnson that was posted on OregonLive.com. It can be viewed on you tube. I'm not sure if video is an acceptable reference.
Dazed and Confused Magazine Vol. 2, Issue 53...This UK magazine wrote an article on bizarro fiction. It focused mostly on D. Harlan Wilson, but also featured small bios by Steve Aylett, Carlton Mellick III, and John Edward Lawson. The article can be found as a .pdf by clicking: here.
Bizarro Central while this might not be considered a third-party resource, I believe www.bizarrocentral.com is the best place to get information on bizarro fiction because it was designed to be the internet's authority on bizarro fiction. It features profiles on the different bizarro authors, as well as articles written by bizarro authors on bizarro. Perhaps this is not considered a great reference because it is online.

These are just a few that I was able to find right now. I know there are dozens of articles on bizarro fiction, online and off, but it will take some looking. I'll post more here if I find them, as long as this is acceptable wikipedia behavior. I'm not sure if they are good references, but online interviews with bizarro authors are abundant and easy to find. There is also a lot of biographical information published in the authors' books, especially The Bizarro Starter Kit series which features profiles on the authors and defines what bizarro fiction is all about. Again, I'm not sure if these are considered good references, but I normally would have assumed they are. Avantpunkarmy (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a quotation from a review of the Bizarro movement in the third-party 3:AM Magazine. I've also added notices of several literary competitions and citations of the Bizarro books and authors who have won them. I'm just pitching in on what promises to be an excellent Wikipedia article.Standardbitchew (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if entities like the World Fantasy Award, the Bram Stoker Award, the 3:AM Magazine Literary Awards, and the Philip K. Dick Award, which I have cited in the article, might count as third-party references. Standardbitchew (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the function of third-parties is to establish the notability of a subject, what could do that better than all these awards being won by the practitioners of Bizarro? Just a thought...Standardbitchew (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awards like those you have mentioned would certainly lend credibility and notability to a work and its author, but would not necessarily do so for a "movement" in literature. The question that must be asked, or one of the questions, I should say, is were said award-winning authors writing consciously as "bizarro" authors, and were they writing to advance such a movement? A parallel would be Bruce Sterling and William Gibson who, in the '80s and '90s, were consciously writing cyberpunk, and winning awards doing so, and were intentionally advancing the ideas of the movement (so to speak). Can the same be said for the authors discussed in this article? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These authors all have contributed consciously to the Bizarro movement: they all have books published by at least one of the canonical Bizarro presses. If, as you say, the awards lend credibility and notability to the authors, doesn't their choice to write books in the genre do the same for Bizarro? We have a satyr play by Euripides and some comedies by Shakespeare, yet we invoke their names in extolling the genre of tragedy.Standardbitchew (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the backs of the books by these authors, there are words that read "File Under Bizarro Fiction." They were definitely published to contribute to the bizarro genre, but we can only assume that they were also written for the bizarro genre.Avantpunkarmy (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshing out even further this article's array of third-party references, I have added notice and citation from the reliable third-party publication, Dazed and Confused, a major print magazine out of London, and also a substantial statement extolling Bizarro from the bestselling author-screenwriter John Skipp.--Standardbitchew (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing an excellent job. This article is really fleshing out nicely. Avantpunkarmy (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article still need a lot of work, not least in the area of references. Multiple references from each author to their entry in the Bizarro Central website is kind of absurd, for example; just link once to the author list. Sheer volume of references doesn't support the notability of the topic; quality is what is needed. It also needs to be pared down, in my opinion. Long quotes from reviews or the Bizarro Starter Kit are disproportionate and inappropriate. This would be a stronger article at half the length, with links to external sources for more detailed material. Only cite from reviews those specific phrases or passages that add to the information and the case that's being made. (I would make these changes, but I don't know the genre very well, and I don't want the authors of the article to scream vandalism.) Gabrielbodard (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel, I could not agree more. This article makes Wikipedia look like a site for literary self-promotion. I have been a little overwhelmed with how much work needs to be done here, but if you have a plan for making the changes you're talking about, I will definitely back you and assist you. They are more than necessary. Chromancer (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Major authors"

I deleted the hidden comment in the "major authors" section. Wikipedia has its own rules on inclusion of content in articles, and a hidden comment informing an editor that they may only add content specified by an external site simply will not fly. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I meant to take that out. Avantpunkarmy (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any bizzaro authors who are not "major authors"? I just had a deletion rvrted because the author has a citation saying he wrote one bizarro work. this doesn't make him "major" imo. they need seperate cites to be added to the current OR, POV list. (Rmving the hidden comment didn't help either).Yobmod (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also has references and OR research tags removed as, "they don't apply to lists". Clearly they do, as this list is OR. No reliable sources are cited calling these the Major authors in this genre. I've now added the more ugly and annoying "List membership disputed" tags, which i had hoped to avoid. But editors here are clearly guarding their own POV, presumable keeping their favourite authors (or themselves?) in this list.Yobmod (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a series of books, The Bizarro Starter Kits, which profiles the leading authors of the genre. All the publishers in the genre collaborated on the project. This resource should prove an author's credibility. According to the readers, publishers, and writers, this is the only real credible resource...aside from the Bizarro Central website. There are dozens of unaccomplished amateur bizarro authors who try to get their name listed under "major authors" here who just aren't and should be deleted. Perhaps the word "major authors" should be changed to "notable authors" or "contributing authors." There are actually dozens, maybe hundreds, of authors who write bizarro fiction. Only about 20 of them at most have accomplished themselves among the bizarro readers. Avantpunkarmy (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all you've said. People adding authors have to add the source that called them major or notable or whatever adjective we use. I don't understand why editors of this page are resitsing this policy mandated improvment of the page.Yobmod (talk) 09:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Removing "primary sources," "notabiltiy" and "conflict of interest" templates, for the following reasons:

The article now has ample third-party references demonstrating notability.
The editor with the ostensible conflict of interest gracefully bowed out some time ago, and the article has meanwhile thriven and grown under the expert and objective counsels of RepublicanJacobite.--Phaborinosarles (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I'm going to have to disagree with this editor and restore the templates for notability and primary sources. The article is almost entirely either unsourced or sourced to the "Bizarro Starter Kit," and the the third party sources used are either from extremely minor publications or are blog mentions. It's literally been years for much of this material to be sourced with little progress. I'm inclined to think this entire series of articles is lending undue weight to a 'movement' that doesn't really exist per se except as a zine's pipe dream. Chromancer (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Term Bizarro coined.

"The term was coined in 2005 by the independent publishing companies Eraserhead Press, Raw Dog Screaming Press, and Afterbirth Books in response to the rising demand for unique and outlandish fiction."

I dispute this. It may have been appropriated, but it was certainly not coined in 2005. It is exceptionally poor wording, and quite misleading, to say so.

This also links into the origins where it says "...but the name "Bizarro" is a more recent invention".

Take a look at the disambiguation for Bizarro here on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_(disambiguation) ) and you will see what I mean. The term appears to have come about because of the DC Comics character "Bizarro" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro) and the concepts expanded upon within the "Bizarro" universe. These concepts have entered and influenced popular culture in various ways, for example, the Seinfeld episode also mentioned on the disambiguation page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bizarro_Jerry).

That should be enough proof that the term was not coined, but rather appropriated from popular culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JiveKitty (talk • contribs) 03:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right, JiveKitty. I will fix this now, citing you.

Jivenalistic (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I dispute this. Bizarro Fiction was not appropriated from Bizarro Superman. Bizarro has been a common slang term for the word "bizarre" for decades, even before Bizarro Superman. I believe people used to think that it is the Spanish word for bizarre (though it is not). The bizarro authors did not invent the word, but they invented the label. There are no references in the bizarro superman wiki page to back up the statement that bizarro was named after it. "Coined" is poor wording, but "appropriating from pop culture" is completely false. There have been several articles/interviews that back this up. Avantpunkarmy (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it was superman or any other source that coined it, the term existed in popular culture (ir, it was used in Buffy too), and was apporpriated by this genre, no? Or they invented the same word by accident, like convergent evolution, maybe?Yobmod (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that where the word came from has no significance to this article. It's like if the wiki for the genre cyberpunk mentioned where the words cyber and punk came from. Punk was appropriated from pop culture as well, but it's not worth mentioning. Bizarro is a very common word. It is most commonly a slang term for bizarre, which is where the word came from for this genre. It is also the spanish word for gallant. I still think this should be changed. Avantpunkarmy (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think cyberpunk does reference the origin of the word, but here i really don't see that it matters if we say it was "adopted to describe..." or "appropriated from pop culture to decribe...". Feel free to change it.Yobmod (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, I think this works. Cyberpunk mentions where the term came from but it didn't reference the origins of the words cyber or punk. It is unnecessary. Avantpunkarmy (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likely copyvio

It looks to me like the entire "Response to the movement" section is a pasting of material which is presumably copyrighted. This use of long excerpts -- all of them, but the first one is worst -- to constitute the bulk of the body of the section goes well beyond the intention of fair use. I propose to delete it. Any objections?

(The following section, "Aesthetics" also looks as if it might be a copyvio reproduction of a list from The Bizarro Starter Kit. This is less certain and would have to be checked.) Herostratus (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminating sources and incorrect assertions

While it might be true that some of these well-known authors have praised the bizarro genre, these references certainly don't back them up. Most led to pages that mentioned nothing of the kind. As such, I have removed them, along with some unsourced material I considered extremely dubious: exhaustive searches led to no source for praise from several of the publications, for instance. What held up I have left. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 22:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bizarro fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bizarro fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bizarro fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]