What is the Difference Between the Gothic & the Uncanny?

[Mez]

Can someone help me with this?
:) would appreciate it.

[Al B]

I presume you mean in literary terms?

Uncanny is supposed to be something which has a supernatural aspect to it, whereas gothic is more of a stylistic approach than something specifically supernatural, although the gothic novel in its original form was often a mask for other ideas. A good example of this would be Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus (to give it its full original title).

Technically, Frankenstein is a scientific horror novel, since the basis for the creature Victor Frankenstein creates is purely scientific in origin, rather than supernatural. However, the distinction becomes blurred by the origins of the tale. Mary Shelley, and her opium-smoking poet buddies Byron and Shelley, originally had a competition to see whom could write the scariest story, and the result of Shelley's efforts was the Frankenstein novel.

Predictably, her dope-obsessed friends never managed to complete anything beyond a few pages in their own attempts to write a spook-fest, which as far as they went were based on the Dracula legends. This is why Frankenstein is often mistakenly given pretensions to being an uncanny or supernatural tale, which it is not, since the horror aspects focus on Victor Frankenstein's remorse at the trail of bodies left by his monster, and his regret at what he has done, with no supernatural element to it at all in the strictest sense. Unlike most of the appalling movie versions of Frankenstein, in the book, the monster is not some moaning half-wit, but can actually hold a conversation.

In cliche terms, gothic writing would generally include melodramatic aspects such as castles, heroines in distress and all the trappings of a typical Hammer horror film (to relate it to movies if you like). But there is an important sub text to gothic writing, in that it came at a time when ideas about religion and such were being challenged by the afforementioned dope-taking poets such as Shelley and Byron. Mary Shelley claimed that she got the idea for Frankenstein from a dream, but it's more likely that it was the result of a dream after a few tokes on an opium pipe if you ask me!

Such experimetal drug taking leading to the birth of new ideas, might be equated to the Beatles and other 60's artists experimenting with hallucinogenic drugs and moving beyond the accepted format of the three-minute pop song, into more experimental stuff with a political bent, as it was a similar challenge to the established regimes that the gothic novel presented. Back with gothic novels, needless to say, challenging religion was a risky thing to do in Victorian England, when much of the subversive and seedy stuff which went on was hidden under a veil of respectability and maintaining the status quo. So the gothic novel was an outlet which offered a suitable mask under which one could present challenging ideas - such as the origins of mankind and life itself. In the case of Frankenstein, it is a book in which scientific knowledge enables the creation of life, an idea which would have outraged people in Victorian times if they thought you were proposing it as a genuine possibility. Writing a novel about it, rather than stating that it might be genuinely possible, would certainly attract less flak than Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species did, which again, challenged creationist beliefs.

So, in short, a gothic novel is a stylistic spooky fact-based text, and an uncanny one is something with supernatural elements. But of course gothic is also an architectural style, in addition to being a look and musical preference for 'goths' in the sense of being a cultural youth group, who generally dress in black, listen to Siouxsie and the Banshees records and completely miss the point of what a gothic novel is really about, prefering the vampirish type of stuff which is often peddled under the gothic banner.

Al

[Mez]

Thank you very much for that Al! Yes, I meant in literary terms.
Lol, :D I liked what you typed, it was very interesting! :)
The Gothic, then, would include the notion of the femme fatale? So, in a way, the Gothic genre is similar to allegory in the time when it first started?

Yes, indeed, Goths now do miss the point of what a Gothic novel is all about.
I 'm currently studying the Romantic period, and we touched upon Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein'. I've also become quite interested in the gothic novel, and want to read ' Wuthering Heights' again. I like the work by the Bronte's, I really enjoyed reading Jane Eyre – I felt I could relate to her in so many ways emotionally.

Can you recommend me some good novels to read in the summer? - any genre will do, but if possible, any gothic novels, and if they can be found online.

Thank you very much Al! I appreciate your extensive reply!
:)

[Maeve]

The novel credited with starting the gothic novel craze in the 19th century is The Monk by M. G. Lewis. It's available on line:

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/601

Jane Austen spoofed the gothic novel in Northanger Abbey. It's probably available on line.

[DanielScocco]

I will cover the 2 words on the "Word of the Day" series also. Not the literary term though.

[Al B]

I just googled 'the top ten gothic novels' and found this, which might offer a shopping list for you:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/top10s/top10/0,,1280778,00.html

Can't say I know all of the books listed, and some of them would technically be supernatural tales, rather than gothic in purely literary terms, but it does illustrate that the gothic description has expanded to suit what's available.

One thing you might find annoying about some of those older books, is the descriptive passages, which is often a problem with books published a long time ago. They were usually written for people who had no knowledge of locations included in them, and so go into lengthy descriptions of things which just appear tedious to the modern reader.

If someone writes that a boat lands on the shore of a Caribbean island in a modern novel, most people can visualise what that looks like these days, but for a nineteenth century audience with no internet, or films to have shown them what the Caribbean looks like, a description is of course necessary. Interestingly, if you've ever read Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island, and read between the lines, you can see that Stevenson is 'blagging it a bit' on his description of the terrain, owing to his lack of first-hand experience with islands of that nature. Stevenson was widely travelled, and he did make it to exotic places which might be considered 'treasure island-type' locations, but that was after Treasure Island was published, and one can imagine him cringing a bit when he saw that the terrain he describes in Treasure Island is distinctly too European in feel. So you can have a bit of fun reading what might be regarded as tedious detail in classic old novels, and see if you can spot which authors were writing from real experience, and which were 'blagging it'.

That said, the great thing about older novels is that they are often out of copyright, which means you can pick up all the greats for very little money. For example, I bought Captain Maryatt's Mister Midshipman Easy (published 1836), and Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness (published 1902), for just a quid each a few years ago.

There are lots of 'top ten recommended books' lists kicking around of course, and really you should read what you like, rather than what people tell you to like. But I did come across an interesting list the other day, this one being aimed at writers and referred to as the 'ten books you should read if you are a writer' so I'll repeat it here (the comments in brackets are mine, and not from the original list):

Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austen (Most people regard it as perfectly structured in terms of the classic three acts and for its scene construction, and that's certainly true in that it is very much a pointer towards how to do it right.)

The DaVinci Code, by Dan Brown (Odd to find it in such a list, but whether you think this is any good or not, there's no denying it was a massive commercial success, and if you want to write something with similar aspirations, then it's worth looking at a book that has managed to do that. If nothing else, you can't deny that it it moves along at a cracking pace and taps into something everyone loves - a good conspiracy theory. Not one of my favourites I must admit, but there's a lesson in there somewhere if you hunger for commercial success.)

The Big Sleep, by Raymond Chandler (Chandler's books have of course also been filmed many times, and that's because they have brilliant dialogue and great moody scenes. No wonder Humphrey Bogart wanted to play the role in the film, everyone should read at least one book by Chandler.)

Catch 22, by Joseph Heller (Again made into a film, albeit in a bit of a hit and miss manner, but the book demonstrates how to write a descent into madness in a satirical fashion.)

High Fidelity, by Nick Hornby (Yet again made into a film, it demonstrates how to write what might be termed 'obsevational comedy' of the kind stand up comics rely on.)

The Stand, by Stephen King (King is of course another massively successful author; he's even written a book on the craft of writing - the imaginatively titled On Writing: Stephen King. Again a huge source for film-makers, his style harks back to what I mentioned earlier about long descriptive passages, which personally I don't like, but again, it seems that's what a lot of people do like. The Stand is a busy tale, with many sub stories, and it weaves a complex thread, so it's probably a good example of how to manage writing complicated stuff with multiple characters.)

An Instance of the Fingerpost, by Iain Pears (This is a good book to check out if you fancy writing an historic tale for yourself. It manages to be a modern book on an old subject, without going for the cliched 'upon thy soul good sir' type of hammy dialogue which often ruins historical books when not done well. I'd compare this with Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin historical novels if I were you (again a source for a film - Master and Commander). O'Brian's books almost read as though they were written at the time, which is a different approach to historical writing and would demonstrate that there's more than one way to skin a cat when put alongside the more modern approach which Pears takes.)

We need to talk about Kevin, by Lionel Shriver (Not read this one myself, but I do know of it. It apparently is constructed solely of letters written by a wife to her husband. This means that it can study two points of view, but still focus on one character as far as narrative goes, which is an interesting concept and might even be a new genre in some respects. I definitely intend to check it out at some point.)

The Secret History, by Donna Tartt (Don't know this one either, but apparently it is a good example of having many, rather than just one main character, which sounds like a good trick if you can manage it, so I think I'll probably give this one a look too.)

Julian, by Gore Vidal (This is kind of similar to the Lionel Shriver book in some respect I would think, as it is structured around letters written between two characters, one being the titular Julian, who was the last pagan emperor of Rome. It's worth a look because it encompasses historical characters and events into a fictional tale and also discusses religion in an interesting way. There have been accusations that Vidal forces his opinions too strongly into his writing, but the commercial success of his writing is in no doubt.)

So there you go, might be worth checking some of those out if you want to study different writing styles.

My wife also suggested The Cat in the Hat and the Observer's Book of Ponies should be on the list - as you can imagine, she wasn't taking things too seriously.

Al

[Rita Day]

Everyone should also read the short stories by RAYMOND CHANDLER.

[Mez]

Hello Al,

Thanks.
Yeah, of course I should read what I like and not what people tell me too, unless it's my teacher, but what I want, is to have a good grounding in the 'classics' and most popular books, because obviously they're classics and popular for a reason.
I've read Pride & Prejudice; and I like that.
I have the Da Vinci Code- but haven't read it yet, planning to read it in the summer after I've finished this term, but definitely would like to check out some of those titles you mentioned.
I appreciate your reply Al. I will be coming back to this thread in the future.
Lol, thank your wife for her suggestions. ;) I saw the film of 'The Cat in the Hat' – but didn't read the book.

[Mez]

Hello Rita,

Thanks, I might check him out if I get the chance, but why do you think everyone should read them though? what makes them good?

:)

[Al B]

To expand upon why reading Raymond Chandler's short (and long) stories is useful:

Lots of writers want to improve, and so they buy any number of 'how to write a novel' type books, which focus on this or that. But in practical terms it's quite a leap from reading about how important and useful it is to have sub texts and foreshadow things and all that kind of malarkey, to actually doing it yourself. So, a better way to get a handle on that sort of thing is to read some excellent examples of the technique, whilst concentrating on watching out for them so you understand how it is done. And that's something which is both brilliantly done in Chandler's books, but not in so obscure a fashion that you feel you need to have a Raymond Chandler course study notes textbook open as you read them.

By way of example:

Chandler's novels take place mostly in and around Los Angeles. You don't have to have been there to know what the place is like, it's in movies all the time, so you'll know that it has a dry hot climate, which sometimes leads to thunderstorms, and there are a number of somewhat disheveled suburbs surrounding the place.

Chandler uses these to reflect the moods of his scenes in interesting ways, for example, he will have mundane flatfoot type episodes in his stories take place in the sunlight, so that early in the investigation, all is sunlit and bright. But when he wants to convey the detective getting closer to some misdeed, he will often shift locations to shabbier parts of town, sometimes at night, and with the rain pouring down, all of which adds to the mood. On top of that, he might move the action to seedier and seedier locations as the story progresses, so that the decay of the buildings reflects the moral decay of his characters. Sounds simple, but when you read it, you can see how well he pulls it off. Occasionally he will do the opposite too, juxtaposing a grim situation with a pleasant environment, to highlight the differences.

It's fair to say that he was not exactly a pioneer of this, you can give Dashiell Hammett the credit for that. But Chandler refined the technique and added his own twist, which coined the adjective 'Chandleresque'. Typically, this would be using the setting techniques previously mentioned, and combining them with highly poetic similies, which often contained a sub text in addition to their descriptive nature. So he might write something like: 'The rain poured down on the sidewalk; it was like the tears of a town that had being crying so long, it had forgotten what was wrong.' I just made that one up by the way, but you can see the kind of thing he would do from my attempt.

That kind of thing practically defined detective fiction in the 1940s and 50s, but it didn't stop there. Chandler's main characters were generally more than mere cardboard cut-outs, and he was very much an originator of the anti-hero type. So his detective characters might be tough, and do the right thing, but they would have flaws and interesting nuances, which is something all TV detectives now have, be it a penchant for classic cars, a wierd dog, a drink problem, an obsessive-compulsive disorder, whatever. It was Chandler who prototyped these more interesting modern characters, characters who had depth and went beyond the cliches, and you sometimes get the impression that if the right offer came along, they might very well turn criminal, even though they are the good guys.

In short, reading Chandler is like a crash course on scene placement, metaphor, characterisation, plot, sub plot, sub text and pace. That's why you should read them.

Al

[Ali]

Just to add to all Al B's excellent advice on the Gothic...

On the subject of the Uncanny, I'd strongly recommend getting hold of a copy of Freud's essay "The Uncanny" -- you can find an online version here http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~amtower/uncanny.html but it's probably easier to read in a book (try your library.)

It was a topic that fascinated me at University, and Freud approaches it very much from a writing, as well as psychoanalytical, perspective. Before you read his essay, you might want to read Hoffman's "The Sandman", which Freud refers to extensively. (You can find it online here -- again, probably easier to read in a book: http://www.fln.vcu.edu/hoffmann/sand_e.html)

Ali

[Mez]

:D hehe, yes, excellent advice indeed! Thanks Al!

Thank you, I will definitely have a good read from those two links. I think Hoffman's 'The Sandman' is in our syllabus actually.

Mez