That which is unheimlich would, it seems, not simply be that which does not belong in a setting. More precisely, it could be said to include that which we are unsure of, that which may or may not be at odds with the grand scheme... The tension of confusion added to the tension of the unknown.
Even Freud's comments about castration and eye-loss (which I find only somewhat convincing) seem like they could have some use to us as writers. That which is uncanny is born precisely out of the kind of web of implications we are learning to create. If in fact the two situations are comparable, then it seems likely that the tense association is possible precisely because of how similar (in an abstract way) the two losses are.
As for what specifically could be done to assist our work, it could be useful to realize and act on the tensions of the uncertain in what we create. An intentional lack of resolution can itself mean many things, such that the clever artist might make it the case that both the artwork itself, and any attempt to discern authorial intent, can evoke the uncanny. Perhaps a truly great use of this would be to generate a sense of the grotesque (which, as Freud noted, overlaps heavily) from elements that seem decidedly unlikely to do so. A critique of Freud himself might be that he insists on particular implications in the work, precisely because they are formulaically plausible, and not necessarily because they are any more explicitly valid. He may be a scientist after all, but he is certainly one who insists on his theory, along with his cigars.
No comments:
Post a Comment