THEWEIRDANDTHEEERIE

MARKFISHER

TheWeirdAndTheEerie

ToZöe,myconstantsourceofsupport,andthereasonthereissomethinghereratherthannothing.

Contents

INTRODUCTIONTheWeirdandtheEerie(BeyondtheUnheimlich)

THEWEIRDTheOutofPlaceandtheOutofTime:LovecraftandtheWeirdTheWeirdAgainsttheWorldly:H.G.Wells“Bodyatentaclemess”:TheGrotesqueandTheWeird:TheFallCaughtintheCoilsofOuroboros:TimPowersSimulationsandUnworlding:RainerWernerFassbinderandPhilipK.DickCurtainsandHoles:DavidLynch

THEEERIEApproachingtheEerieSomethingWhereThereShouldBeNothing:NothingWhereThereShouldBeSomething:DaphneduMaurierandChristopherPriestOnVanishingLand:M.R.JamesandEnoEerieThanatos:NigelKnealeandAlanGarnerInsideOut:OutsideIn:MargaretAtwoodandJonathanGlazerAlienTraces:StanleyKubrick,AndreiTarkovsky,ChristopherNolan“…TheEerinessRemains”:JoanLindsay

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION

TheWeirdandtheEerie(BeyondtheUnheimlich)

It is odd that it has takenme so long to really reckonwith theweird and the eerie. For although theimmediateoriginsofthisbooklayinfairlyrecentevents,IhavebeenfascinatedandhauntedbyexamplesoftheweirdandtheeerieforaslongasIcanremember.YetIhadnotreallyidentifiedthetwomodes,stilllessspecifiedtheirdefiningfeatures.Nodoubtthisispartlybecausethemajorculturalexamplesoftheweirdandtheeeriearetobefoundattheedgesofgenressuchashorrorandsciencefiction,andthesegenreassociationshaveobscuredwhatisspecifictotheweirdandtheeerie.Theweirdcameintofocusformearoundadecadeago,astheresultoftwosymposiaontheworkof

H.P. Lovecraft at Goldsmiths, University of London; while the eerie became themajor subject ofOnVanishingLand,the2013audio-essayIproducedincollaborationwithJustinBarton.Appropriately,theeeriecreptuponJustinandme;ithadnotbeenouroriginalfocus,butbytheendoftheprojectwefoundthatmuchofthemusic,filmandfictionthathadalwayshaunteduspossessedthequalityoftheeerie.Whattheweirdandtheeeriehaveincommonisapreoccupationwiththestrange.Thestrange—not

thehorrific.Theallure that theweirdand theeeriepossess isnotcapturedby the idea thatwe“enjoywhatscaresus”.Ithas,rather,todowithafascinationfortheoutside,forthatwhichliesbeyondstandardperception,cognitionandexperience.Thisfascinationusuallyinvolvesacertainapprehension,perhapsevendread—butitwouldbewrongtosaythattheweirdandtheeeriearenecessarilyterrifying.Iamnothereclaimingthattheoutsideisalwaysbeneficent.Therearemorethanenoughterrorstobefoundthere;butsuchterrorsarenotallthereistotheoutside.PerhapsmydelayincomingroundtotheweirdandtheeeriehadtodowiththespellcastbyFreud’s

concept of the unheimlich. As is well known, the unheimlich has been inadequately translated intoEnglishastheuncanny;thewordwhichbettercapturesFreud’ssenseofthetermisthe“unhomely”.Theunheimlich is often equated with the weird and the eerie — Freud’s own essay treats the terms asinterchangeable.ButtheinfluenceofFreud’sgreatessayhasmeantthattheunheimlichhascrowdedouttheothertwomodes.Theessayontheunheimlichhasbeenhighlyinfluentialonthestudyofhorrorandsciencefiction—

perhaps, in the end,more because of Freud’s hesitations, conjectures and rejected theses than for theactual definition he provides. The examples of the unheimlich which Freud furnishes — doubles,mechanical entities that appear human, prostheses— call up a certain kind of disquiet. But Freud’sultimatesettlingoftheenigmaoftheunheimlich—hisclaimthatitcanbereducedtocastrationanxiety— is as disappointing as anymediocre genre detective’s rote solution to amystery.What enduringlyfascinates is the cluster of concepts that circulate in Freud’s essay, and the way in which they oftenrecursivelyinstantiatetheveryprocessestowhichtheyrefer.Repetitionanddoubling—themselvesanuncanny pair which double and repeat each other — seem to be at the heart of every "uncanny"phenomenawhichFreudidentifies.Thereiscertainlysomethingthattheweird,theeerieandtheunheimlichshare.Theyareallaffects,but

they are alsomodes:modes of film and fiction,modes of perception, ultimately, youmight even say,modesofbeing.Evenso,theyarenotquitegenres.Perhapsthemostimportantdifferencebetweentheunheimlichontheonehandandtheweirdandthe

eerie on the other is their treatment of the strange. Freud’sunheimlich is about the strangewithin thefamiliar,thestrangelyfamiliar,thefamiliarasstrange—aboutthewayinwhichthedomesticworlddoes

notcoincidewithitself.AlloftheambivalencesofFreud’spsychoanalysisarecaughtupinthisconcept.Isitaboutmakingthefamiliar—andthefamilial—strange?Orisitaboutreturningthestrangetothefamiliar,thefamilial?HerewecanappreciatethedoublemoveinherenttoFreudianpsychoanalysis:firstofall,thereisestrangementofmanyofthecommonnotionsaboutthefamily;butthisisaccompaniedbyacompensatory move, whereby the outside becomes legible in terms of a modernist family drama.Psychoanalysisitselfisanunheimlichgenre;itishauntedbyanoutsidewhichitcirclesaroundbutcanneverfullyacknowledgeoraffirm.Manycommentatorshaverecognisedthattheessayontheunheimlichitselfresemblesatale,withFreudintheroleoftheJamesianunreliablenarrator.IfFreudisanunreliablenarrator,why shouldweaccept thathisown tale shouldbeclassified in termsof thecategory thathisessayproposes?Whatif,instead,thewholedramaoftheessayconsistedinFreud’sattemptscontinuallytocontainthephenomenaheexploreswithintheremitoftheunheimlich?Thefoldingoftheweirdandtheeerieintotheunheimlichissymptomaticofasecularretreatfromthe

outside.Thewiderpredilectionfortheunheimlichiscommensuratewithacompulsiontowardsacertainkindofcritique,whichoperatesbyalwaysprocessingtheoutsidethroughthegapsandimpassesof theinside. The weird and the eerie make the opposite move: they allow us to see the inside from theperspectiveoftheoutside.Asweshallsee,theweirdisthatwhichdoesnotbelong.Theweirdbringstothefamiliarsomethingwhichordinarilyliesbeyondit,andwhichcannotbereconciledwiththe“homely”(even as its negation). The form that is perhaps most appropriate to the weird is montage — theconjoiningoftwoormorethingswhichdonotbelongtogether.Hencethepredilectionwithinsurrealismfor the weird, which understood the unconscious as a montage-machine, a generator of weirdjuxtapositions.HencealsothereasonthatJacquesLacan—risingtothechallengeposedbysurrealismandtherestofaestheticmodernism—couldmovetowardsaweirdpsychoanalysis, inwhichthedeathdrive,dreamsandtheunconsciousbecomeuntetheredfromanynaturalisationorsenseofhomeliness.At first glance, the eeriemight seem to be closer to theunheimlich than to theweird.Yet, like the

weird,theeerieisalsofundamentallytodowiththeoutside,andherewecanunderstandtheoutsideinastraightforwardlyempiricalaswellasamoreabstracttranscendentalsense.Asenseoftheeerieseldomclingstoenclosedandinhabiteddomesticspaces;wefindtheeeriemorereadilyinlandscapespartiallyemptiedofthehuman.Whathappenedtoproducetheseruins,thisdisappearance?Whatkindofentitywasinvolved?Whatkindofthingwasitthatemittedsuchaneeriecry?Aswecanseefromtheseexamples,theeerieisfundamentallytiedupwithquestionsofagency.Whatkindofagentisactinghere?Isthereanagentatall?Thesequestionscanbeposedinapsychoanalyticregister—ifwearenotwhowethinkweare,whatarewe?—but theyalsoapply to the forcesgoverningcapitalist society.Capital isateverylevelaneerieentity:conjuredoutofnothing,capitalneverthelessexertsmoreinfluencethananyallegedlysubstantialentity.Themetaphysicalscandalofcapitalbringsustothebroaderquestionoftheagencyoftheimmaterial

andtheinanimate:theagencyofmineralsandlandscapeforauthorslikeNigelKnealeandAlanGarner,andthewaythat“we”“ourselves”arecaughtupintherhythms,pulsionsandpatterningsofnon-humanforces.Thereisnoinsideexceptasafoldingoftheoutside;themirrorcracks,Iamanother,andIalwayswas.Theshudderhereistheshudderoftheeerie,notoftheunheimlich.OneextraordinaryexampleofthedisplacementoftheunheimlichbytheeerieisD.M.Thomas’novel

TheWhiteHotel.ThenovelfirstofallseemstobeaboutasimulatedcasestudyofafictionalpatientofFreud’s,“AnnaG”.ThepoembyAnnaGwhichbeginsthenovelseemsatfirstsighttobesaturatedwitherotic hysteria, as Thomas’ Freud proposes in the Case History which he writes. Freud’s readingthreatens to dissipate the oneiric atmosphere of Anna G’s poem, and also establish to a direction ofexplanation:fromthepresenttothepast,fromtheoutsidetotheinside.Yetitturnsoutthattheseemingeroticismisitselfanobfuscationandadeflectionfromthepoem’smostintensereferent,whichistobefound not in AnnaG’s past, but in her future— her death at themassacre at Babi Yar in 1941. The

problemsof foresightandfateherebringus to theeerie inadisturbingform.Yet fatemightbesaid tobelongtotheweirdaswellastheeerie.ThesoothsayingwitchesinMacbeth,afterall,areknownastheWeirdSisters,andoneofthearchaicmeaningsof“weird”is“fate”.Theconceptoffateisweirdinthatitimpliestwistedformsoftimeandcausalitythatarealientoordinaryperception,butitisalsoeerieinthatitraisesquestionsaboutagency:whoorwhatistheentitythathaswovenfate?Theeerieconcernsthemostfundamentalmetaphysicalquestionsonecouldpose,questionstodowith

existenceandnon-existence:Whyistheresomethingherewhenthereshouldbenothing?Whyistherenothingherewhenthereshouldbesomething?Theunseeingeyesofthedead;thebewilderedeyesofanamnesiac—theseprovokeasenseoftheeerie,justassurelyasanabandonedvillageorastonecircledo.Sofar,wearestillleftwiththeimpressionthattheweirdandtheeeriehaveprimarilytodowithwhat

isdistressingorterrifying.Soletusendthesepreliminaryremarksbypointingtoexamplesoftheweirdandtheeeriethatproduceadifferentsetofaffects.Modernistandexperimentalworkoftenstrikesusasweirdwhenwefirstencounter it.Thesenseofwrongnessassociatedwith theweird—theconvictionthatthisdoesnotbelong—isoftenasignthatweareinthepresenceofthenew.Theweirdhereisasignal that the concepts and frameworkswhichwehavepreviously employedarenowobsolete. If theencounterwiththestrangehereisnotstraightforwardlypleasurable(thepleasurablewouldalwaysrefertopreviousformsofsatisfaction), it isnotsimplyunpleasanteither: thereisanenjoymentinseeingthefamiliarandtheconventionalbecomingoutmoded—anenjoymentwhich,initsmixtureofpleasureandpain,hassomethingincommonwithwhatLacancalledjouissance.The eerie also entails a disengagement from our current attachments. But, with the eerie, this

disengagement does not usually have the quality of shock that is typically a feature of theweird. Theserenity that is often associated with the eerie— think of the phrase eerie calm — has to do withdetachment from the urgencies of the everyday.The perspective of the eerie can give us access to theforceswhichgovernmundanerealitybutwhichareordinarilyobscured,justasitcangiveusaccesstospaces beyond mundane reality altogether. It is this release from the mundane, this escape from theconfinesofwhatisordinarilytakenforreality,whichgoessomewaytoaccountforthepeculiarappealthattheeeriepossesses.

THEWEIRD

TheOutofPlaceandtheOutofTime:LovecraftandtheWeird

Whatistheweird?Whenwesaysomethingisweird,whatkindoffeelingarewepointingto?Iwanttoargue that theweird isaparticularkindofperturbation. It involvesasensationofwrongness:aweirdentityorobjectissostrangethatitmakesusfeelthatitshouldnotexist,oratleastitshouldnotexisthere.Yetiftheentityorobjectishere,thenthecategorieswhichwehaveupuntilnowusedtomakesenseoftheworld cannot be valid. Theweird thing is notwrong, after all: it is our conceptions thatmust beinadequate.Dictionarydefinitionsarenotalwaysmuchhelpindefiningtheweird.Somereferimmediatelytothe

supernatural,butitisbynomeansclearthatsupernaturalentitiesmustbeweird.Inmanyways,anaturalphenomenonsuchasablackholeismoreweirdthanavampire.Certainly,whenitcomestofiction,thevery generic recognisability of creatures such as vampires and werewolves disqualifies them fromprovokinganysensationofweirdness.Thereisapre-existinglore,asetofprotocolsforinterpretingandplacing the vampire and thewerewolf. In any case, these creatures aremerely empiricallymonstrous;theirappearancerecombineselements fromthenaturalworldaswealreadyunderstand it.At thesametime, the very fact that they are supernatural entities means that any strangeness they possess is nowattributed to a realmbeyondnature.Compare this to a blackhole: thebizarreways inwhich it bendsspace and time are completely outside our common experience, and yet a black hole belongs to thenatural-materialcosmos—acosmoswhichmustthereforebemuchstrangerthanourordinaryexperiencecancomprehend.ItwasthiskindofintuitionwhichinspiredtheweirdfictionofH.P.Lovecraft.“Nowallmytalesare

basedonthefundamentalpremisethatcommonhumanlawsandinterestsandemotionshavenovalidityorsignificanceinthevastcosmosat-large,”LovecraftwrotetothepublisherofthemagazineWeirdTalesin1927.“Toachievetheessenceofrealexternality,whetheroftimeorspaceordimension,onemustforgetthatsuchthingsasorganiclife,goodandevil,loveandhate,andallsuchlocalattributesofanegligibleandtemporaryracecalledmankind,haveanyexistenceatall.”Itisthisqualityof“realexternality”thatiscrucialtotheweird.Any discussion of weird fiction must begin with Lovecraft. In stories that were published in pulp

magazines, Lovecraft practically invented the weird tale, developing a formula which can bedifferentiated from both fantasy and horror fiction. Lovecraft’s stories are obsessively fixated on thequestionoftheoutside:anoutsidethatbreaksthroughinencounterswithanomalousentitiesfromthedeeppast,inalteredstatesofconsciousness,inbizarretwistsinthestructureoftime.Theencounterwiththeoutside often ends in breakdown and psychosis. Lovecraft’s stories frequently involve a catastrophicintegration of the outside into an interior that is retrospectively revealed to be a delusive envelope, asham.Take“TheShadowover Innsmouth”, inwhich it isultimately revealed that the leadcharacter ishimselfaDeepOne,anaquaticalienentity.IamIt—orbetter,IamThey.Although he is often classified as a writer of horror, Lovecraft’s work seldom evokes a feeling of

horror. When Lovecraft sets out his motives for writing in his short essay “Notes onWritingWeirdFiction”, he does not immediately mention horror. He writes instead of “vague, elusive, fragmentaryimpressionsofwonder,beauty,andadventurousexpectancy.”Theemphasisonhorror,Lovecraftgoesontosay,isaconsequenceofthestories’encounterwiththeunknown.Accordingly, it is not horror but fascination — albeit a fascination usually mixed with a certain

trepidation—thatisintegraltoLovecraft’srenditionoftheweird.ButIwouldsaythisisalsointegralto

theconceptoftheweirditself—theweirdcannotonlyrepel,itmustalsocompelourattention.Soiftheelementoffascinationwereentirelyabsentfromastory,andifthestoryweremerelyhorrible,itwouldno longerbeweird.Fascination is theaffect sharedbyLovecraft’scharactersandhis readers.Fearorterrorarenotsharedinthesameway;Lovecraft’scharactersareoftenterrified,buthisreadersseldomare.FascinationinLovecraftisaformofLacanianjouissance:anenjoymentthatentailstheinextricability

ofpleasureandpain.Lovecraft’stextsfairlyfrothwithjouissance."Frothing","foaming"and"teeming"arewordswhichLovecraftfrequentlyuses,but theycouldapplyequallywell to the“obscenejelly”ofjouissance.This isnot tomaketheabsurdclaimthat thereisnonegativityinLovecraft—theloathingandabominationarehardlyconcealed—onlythatnegativitydoesnothavethelastword.Anexcessivepreoccupationwithobjects thatare“officially”negativealways indicates theworkof jouissance—amodeofenjoymentwhichdoesnot inanysense“redeem”negativity: it sublimates it.That is tosay, ittransformsanordinaryobjectcausingdispleasureintoaThingwhichisbothterribleandalluring,whichcannolongerbelibidinallyclassifiedaseitherpositiveornegative.TheThingoverwhelms,itcannotbecontained,butitfascinates.It is fascination, above all else, that is the engine of fatality inLovecraft’s fictions, fascination that

drawshisbookishcharacterstowardsthedissolution,disintegrationordegenerationthatwe,thereaders,always foresee.Once the reader has read one or twoofLovecraft’s stories, theyknowperfectlywellwhattoexpectintheothers.Infact,itishardtobelievethatevenwhenareaderencountersaLovecraftstoryforthefirsttimethattheywillbeverysurprisedbyhowthetaleturnsout.Thereforeitfollowsthatsuspense—asmuchashorror—isnotadefiningfeatureofLovecraft’sfiction.ThismeansthatLovecraft’sworkdoesnotfitthestructuralistdefinitionoffantasyofferedbyTzvetan

Todorov.According to thatdefinition, the fantastic is constitutedbya suspensionbetween theuncanny(stories which ultimately resolve in a naturalistic way) and the marvellous (stories which resolvesupernaturalistically).AlthoughLovecraft’s stories involvewhathecharacterised in“NotesonWritingWeirdFiction”as“theillusionofsomestrangesuspensionorviolationofthegallinglimitationsoftime,space, and natural lawwhich forever imprison us and frustrate our curiosity about the infinite cosmicspacesbeyondtheradiusofoursightandanalysis”,thereisneveranysuggestionoftheinvolvementofsupernatural beings. Human attempts to transform the alien entities into gods are clearly regarded byLovecraft as vain acts of anthropomorphism, perhaps noble but ultimately absurd efforts to imposemeaningandsenseon to the“realexternality”ofacosmos inwhichhumanconcerns,perspectivesandconceptshaveonlyalocalreference.In his book Lovecraft: A Study in the Fantastic, Maurice Lévy fitted Lovecraft into a “Fantastic

tradition”whichincludestheGothicnovels,Poe,HawthorneandBierce.ButLovecraft’semphasisonthematerialityoftheanomalousentitiesinhisstoriesmeansthatheisverydifferentfromtheGothicnovelistsand Poe. Even though what we might call ordinary naturalism — the standard, empirical world ofcommonsenseandEuclideangeometries—willbeshreddedbytheendofeachtale,itisreplacedbyahypernaturalism—anexpandedsenseofwhatthematerialcosmoscontains.Lovecraft’smaterialismisonereasonthatI thinkweshoulddistinguishhisfiction—andindeedthe

weird in general— from fantasy and the fantastic. (It should be noted that Lovecraft himself happilyequates the weird and the fantastic in “Notes on Writing Weird Fiction”.) The fantastic is a rathercapacious category, which can include much of science fiction and horror. It is not that this isinappropriate for Lovecraft’s work, but it does not point to what is unique in his method. Fantasy,however,denotesamorespecificsetofgenericproperties.LordDunsany,Lovecraft’searlyinspiration,and Tolkien, are exemplary fantasy writers, and the contrast with them will allow us to grasp thedifference from theweird. Fantasy is set inworlds that are entirely different from ours—Dunsany’sPegāna,orTolkien’sMiddleEarth;orrather, theseworldsarelocationallyandtemporallydistantfrom

ours(toomanyfantasyworldsturnout tobeall toosimilar,ontologicallyandpolitically, toours).Theweird,bycontrast,isnotableforthewayinwhichitopensupanegressbetweenthisworldandothers.There are of course stories and series — such as C.S. Lewis’ Narnia books, Baum’s Oz, StephenDonaldson’sThomasCovenanttrilogy—inwhichthereisanegressbetweenthisworldandanother,yetthere isnodiscerniblechargeof theweird.That isbecause the“thisworld” sectionsof these fictionsserve,moreorless,asprologuesandepiloguestostandardfantasytales.Charactersfromthisworldgointoanotherworld,butthatotherworldhasnoimpactuponthisone,beyondtheeffectithasonthemindsofthereturningcharacters.WithLovecraft,thereisaninterplay,anexchange,aconfrontationandindeedaconflictbetweenthisworldandothers.ThisaccountsforthesupremesignificanceofLovecraftsettingsomanyofhisstoriesinNewEngland.

Lovecraft’sNewEngland,MauriceLévywrites, isaworldwhose“reality—physical, topographical,historical — should be emphasised. It is well known that the truly fantastic exists only where theimpossiblecanmakean irruption, through timeand space, intoanobjectively familiar locale.”What Ipropose, then, is that in his break from the tendency to inventworlds asDunsanyhaddone,Lovecraftceasedtobeafantasywriterandbecameawriteroftheweird.Afirstcharacteristicoftheweird,atleastinLovecraft’sversionofit,wouldbe—toadaptLévy’sphrase—afictioninwhich,nottheimpossiblebut the outside “can make an irruption, through time and space, into an objectively familiar locale”.Worldsmaybeentirelyforeigntoours,bothintermsoflocationandevenintermsofthephysicallawswhich govern them,without beingweird. It is the irruption into thisworld of something from outsidewhichisthemarkeroftheweird.Herewecanseewhytheweirdentailsacertainrelationshiptorealism.Lovecrafthimselfoftenwrote

disdainfullyofrealism.ButifLovecrafthadentirelyrejectedrealism,hewouldneverhaveemergedfromthe fantasy realms of Dunsany and de laMare. It would be closer to the mark to say that Lovecraftcontainedorlocalisedrealism.Inthe1927lettertotheeditorofWeirdTales,hemakesthisexplicit:

Onlythehumanscenesandcharactersmusthavehumanqualities.Thesemustbehandledwithunsparingrealism,(notcatch-pennyromanticism)butwhenwecrossthelinetotheboundlessandhideousunknown—theshadow-hauntedOutside—wemustremembertoleaveourhumanityandterrestrialismatthethreshold.

Lovecraft’s tales depend for their power on the difference between the terrestrial-empirical and theoutside. That is one reasonwhy they are so oftenwritten in the first person: if the outside graduallyencroachesuponahuman subject, its aliencontours canbeappreciated;whereas to attempt to capture“theboundlessandhideousunknown”withoutanyreferencetothehumanworldatallistoriskbanality.Lovecraftneedsthehumanworld,formuchthesamereasonthatapainterofavastedificemightinsertastandardhumanfigurestandingbeforeit:toprovideasenseofscale.Aprovisionaldefinitionoftheweirdmightthereforetakeitscuefromtheslightlyoddandambiguous

phrase“outof”thatLovecraftusesinthetitlesoftwoofhisstories,“TheColourOutofSpace”and“TheShadowOutofTime”.Onthesimplestlevel,“outof”evidentlymeans“from”.Yetitisnotpossible—especiallyinthecaseof“TheShadowOutofTime”—toavoidthesecondmeaning,thesuggestionofsomethingremoved,cutout.Theshadowissomethingcutoutoftime.Thisnotionofthings“cutout”oftheirproperplaceisonewayinwhichLovecrafthasanaffinitywithmodernisttechniquesofcollage.Yetthereisalsoathirdmeaningof“outof”:thebeyond.Theshadowoutoftimeis,inpart,ashadowofthatwhichisbeyondtimeasweordinarilyunderstandandexperienceit.Topossessa flavourof thebeyond, to invoke theoutside,Lovecraft’sworkcannot relyonalready-

existingfiguresorlore.Itdependscruciallyontheproductionofthenew.AsChinaMiévilleputitinhisintroductiontoAttheMountainsofMadness:“Lovecraftresidesradicallyoutsideanyfolktradition:thisis not the modernising of the familiar vampire or werewolf (or garuda or rusalka or any other suchtraditional bugbear). Lovecraft’s pantheon and bestiary are absolutely sui generis.” There is another,

important,dimensionofthenewnessofLovecraft’screationshowever:itisdisclaimedanddisguisedbytheauthor.AsMiévillecontinues:“Thereis[…]aparadoxtobefoundinLovecraft’snarrative.Thoughhisconceptofthemonstrousandhisapproachtothefantasticareutterlynew,hepretendsthatitisnot.”Whentheyconfronttheweirdentities,Lovecraft’scharactersfindparallelsinmythologiesandlorewhichhehadhimselfinvented.Lovecraft’sretrospectiveprojectionofanewlymintedmythosintothedeeppastgaverisetowhatJasonColavitocallsthe“cultofaliengods”inwriterssuchasErichvonDänikenandGrahamHancock.Lovecraft’s“retro-interring”ofthenewisalsowhatplaceshisweirdfictions“outof”time—muchasinthestory“TheShadowOutofTime”,inwhichthemaincharacterPeasleeencounterstextswritteninhisownhandamongstarchitecturalrelics.ChinaMiéville argues that itwas the impactof theFirstWorldWarwhichgave rise toLovecraft’s

new:thetraumaticbreakfromthepastallowedthenewtoemerge.ButitisperhapsalsousefultothinkofLovecraft’s work as being about trauma, in the sense that it concerns ruptures in the very fabric ofexperienceitself.RemarksthatFreudmakesin“BeyondthePleasurePrinciple”(“asaresultofcertainpsychoanalyticdiscoveries,wearetodayinapositiontoembarkonadiscussionoftheKantiantheoremthat time and space are ‘necessary forms of thought’”) indicated that he believed that the unconsciousoperated beyond what Kant called the “transcendental” structures of time, space and causality whichgovern theperceptual-conscious system.Onewayofgrasping the functionsof theunconscious, and itsbreak from thedominantmodelsof time, spaceandcausality,was throughstudying themental livesofthosesuffering fromtrauma.Traumacan thereforebe thoughtofasakindof transcendental shock—asuggestive phrase in relation to Lovecraft’s work. The outside is not “empirically” exterior; it istranscendentallyexterior, i.e. it isnot justamatterofsomethingbeingdistant inspaceand time,butofsomethingwhichisbeyondourordinaryexperienceandconceptionofspaceandtimeitself.Throughouthis work, Freud repeatedly stressed that the unconscious knows neither negation nor time. Hence theEscheresqueimageinCivilisationanditsDiscontentsoftheunconsciousasaRome“inwhichnothingthat has once come into existence will have passed away and all the earlier phases of developmentcontinuetoexistalongsidethelatestones”.Freud’sweirdgeometrieshaveclearparallelsinLovecraft’sfictions, with their repeated invocations of non-Euclidean spaces. Witness the description of “thegeometryofthedream-place”in“CallofCthulhu”:“abnormal,non-Euclidean,andloathsomelyredolentofspheresanddimensionsapartfromours”.ItisimportantnottosurrenderLovecrafttooquicklytoanotionoftheunrepresentable.Lovecraftistoo

often taken at his word when he calls his own entities “unnameable” or “indescribable”. As ChinaMiéville points out, typically Lovecraft no sooner calls an entity “indescribable” than he begins todescribe it, in very precise technical detail. (Nor, despite his predilection for using the term“unnameable”—mockedbutalsodefendedbyLovecrafthimselfinhisownstory“TheUnnameable”—is Lovecraft shy of giving names to Things.) But this sequence has a third moment. After (1) thedeclarationofindescribability,and(2)thedescription,comes(3)theunvisualisable.Foralltheirdetail,orperhapsbecauseof it,Lovecraft’sdescriptionsdonot allow the reader to synthesise the logorrheicschizophonyofadjectivesintoamentalimage,promptingGrahamHarmantocomparetheeffectofsuchpassages with Cubism, a parallel reinforced by the invocation of “clusters of cubes and planes” in“DreamsintheWitchHouse”.CubistandfuturisttechniquesandmotifsfeatureinanumberofLovecraft’sstories,usuallyas(ostensible)objectsofloathing.Evenifhewashostiletoit,Lovecraftrecognisedthatmodernistvisualartcouldberepurposedasaresourceforinvokingtheoutside.Sofar,mydiscussionofLovecrafthasconcentratedonwhathappenswithinthestoriesthemselves,but

one of the most important weird effects Lovecraft produces happens between his texts. Thesystematisation of Lovecraft’s texts into a “mythos”might have been thework of his followerAugustDerleth,but the inter-relationshipof the stories, theway inwhich theygenerate a consistent reality, iscrucial to understanding what is singular about Lovecraft’s work. It might appear that the way that

LovecraftproducessuchconsistencyisnotverydifferenttothewayinwhichTolkienachievedasimilareffect, but, once again, the relationship to thisworld is crucial.By settinghis stories inNewEnglandrather than insome inviolate, far-distant realm,Lovecraft isable to tangle thehierarchical relationshipbetweenfictionandreality.The interpolation into the stories of simulated scholarship alongside authentic history produces

ontologicalanomaliessimilartothosecreatedinthe“postmodernist”fictionsofRobbe-Grillet,PynchonandBorges.Bytreatingreallyexistingphenomenonasiftheyhadthesameontologicalstatusashisowninventions,Lovecraftde-realisesthefactualandreal-isesthefictional.GrahamHarmanlooksforwardtoadaywhenLovecraftwillhavedisplacedHolderlinfromhisthroneasphilosophers’mostexaltedobjectofliterarystudy.PerhapswecanalsoanticipateatimewhenthepulpmodernistLovecraftdisplacesthepostmodernistBorgesasthepre-eminentfictionalexplorerofontologicalconundra.LovecraftinstantiateswhatBorgesonly“fabulates”;noonewouldeverbelievethatPierreMenard’sversionofDonQuixoteexistsoutsideBorges’story,whereasmorethanafewreadershavecontactedtheBritishLibraryaskingfor a copy of theNecronomicon, the book of ancient lore which is frequently referred to inmany ofLovecraft’sstories.Lovecraftgeneratesa“reality-effect”byonlyevershowingustinyfragmentsoftheNecronomicon.Itistheveryfragmentaryqualityofhisreferencestotheabominabletextthatinducethebeliefinreadersthatitmustbearealobject.ImagineifLovecrafthadactuallyproducedafulltextoftheNecronomicon; the bookwould seem far less real than it doeswhenwe only see citations. Lovecraftseemedtohaveunderstoodthepowerofthecitation,thewayinwhichatextseemsmorerealifitiscitedthanifitisencounteredintheraw.OneeffectofsuchontologicaldisplacementsisthatLovecraftceasestohaveultimateauthorityoverhis

owntexts.Ifthetextshaveachievedacertainautonomyfromtheirauthor,thenLovecraft’sroleastheirostensible creator becomes incidental. He becomes instead the inventor of entities, characters andformulae.Whatmattersistheconsistencyofhisfictionalsystem—aconsistencywhichinvitescollectiveparticipationbybothreadersandotherauthorsalike.Asiswellknown,notonlyDerlethbutalsoClarkAshtonSmith,RobertE.Howard,BrianLumley,RamseyCampbellandmanyothershavewrittentalesoftheCthulhumythos.Bywebbinghistalestogether,Lovecraftlosescontrolofhiscreationstotheemergingsystem,whichhasitsownrulesthatacolytescandeterminejustaseasilyashecan.

TheWeirdAgainsttheWorldly:H.G.Wells

Iwantnowtoapproachtheweirdfromadifferentangle,viaareadingofH.G.Wells’shortstory“TheDoorintheWall”.Ibelievethisstorypossessesastrongweirdcharge,eventhoughitisverydifferentfromLovecraft’swork.ThenarratorisRedmond,andthestoryconcernshisfriend,thepoliticianLionelWallace.Wallacetells

Redmondofhis childhoodmemoryof seeingagreendoor in awall somewhere in the streetsofWestKensington in London. For some reason, he was attracted to opening the door. Initially, he wasapprehensive, feeling it is “unwise or wrong” to go through the door, but “in a gust of emotion”, heovercomestheseanxietiesandrunsthroughtheDoorintheWall.ThegardenbeyondtheDoorintheWallhassomethingofthefeelofasurrealistpaintingbyDelvauxorErnst—thereisanatmosphereoflanguidjoy,whileadiffusesenseofkindnessseemstoemanatefromallofthepeoplehemeetsthere.Thereareanomalousthingsthere—heseesapairofpanthers,andsomekindofbookinwhichtheimages“werenotpicturesbutrealities”.Whetherthisbookisamagicalobject,anexampleofadvancedtechnology,ortheproductofsomekindofintoxicantisnotclear.Afterawhile,though,whenheislookingthroughthisbook, he suddenly finds himself seeing “a long grey street inWest Kensington, on that chill hour ofafternoonbeforethelampsarelit,andIwasthere,awretchedlittlefigure,weepingaloud”.However,forreasonsthatarenotfullyclear—whydoeshenotimmediatelygothroughtheDoorintheWallagain?—hecannotreturnstraightaway.Onceagainconsignedtothemundaneworld,heisovercomebyasenseof“ungovernablegrief”.WallaceonlyseestheDoorintheWallafewyearslater,initiallybyaccident.He“gotentangledamong

someratherlow-classstreetsontheothersideofCampdenHill”,untilheseesthelongwhitewallandthedoorthatleadsintothegarden.However,thistimehedoesnotgothrough.Hefeelshewillbelateforschool, so hewill return later, when he hasmore time.Hemakes themistake of telling some schoolfriendsaboutthedoorandthegarden.TheyforceWallacetotakethemthere,buthecannotfindit.Hesees thedooragainacoupleof times inhisyouth—oncewhenhe ison theway tocollecthis

scholarshipforOxford—but,againconsumedby theurgenciesofeveryday life,hepassesbywithoutgoing through thedoor. In recentyears, ashe entersmiddle age,Wallace isonce againhauntedby thedoor,andfearsthathemayneverseeitagain:

Yearsofhardworkafterthatandneverasightofthedoor.It’sonlyrecentlyithascomebacktome.Withittherehascomeasenseasthoughsomethintarnishhadspreaditselfovermyworld.IbegantothinkofitasasorrowfulandbitterthingthatIshouldneverseethatdooragain.PerhapsIwassufferingalittlefromoverwork—perhapsitwaswhatI’veheardspokenofasthefeelingofforty.Idon’tknow.Butcertainlythekeenbrightnessthatmakesefforteasyhasgoneoutofthingsrecently…

Yethedoesseethedooragain—threetimes.Buteachtimehepassesitby—becauseheisembroiledinimportantpoliticalbusiness;becauseheisenroutetohisfather’sdeathbed;becauseheisengagedinaconversationabouthisposition.WhenWallacerecountsthistoRedmond,heisrackedwithanguishabouthis failure to go through the door. It doesn’t surprise us to learn that the next thingRedmond hears ofWallaceisthatheisdead.Hisbodyisdiscovered“inadeepexcavationnearEastKensingtonStation”.Whyshould“TheDoorintheWall”beclassifiedasaweirdtale?Theproblemofworlds—ofcontact

betweenincommensurableworlds—isclearlysomethingthat thestoryshareswithLovecraft,andthisbringsusonceagaintotheheartoftheweird.Aswebegantoexploreinthelastchapter,weirdfictionalwayspresentsuswithathresholdbetweenworlds.“TheDoorintheWall”,evidently,centresonjustsucha threshold.Muchof itspowerderives from theoppositionbetween themundanityof theLondon

setting,withitsquotidiandetails—“herecallsanumberofmean,dirtyshops,andparticularlythatofaplumberanddecorator,withadustydisorderofearthenwarepipes,sheetleadballtaps,patternbooksofwallpaper,andtinsofenamel”—andtheworldbeyondthedoor.Lovecraft’sstoriesarefullofthresholdsbetweenworlds:oftentheegresswillbeabook(thedreaded

Necronomicon),sometimes,as in thecaseof theRandolphCarter“SilverKey”stories, it is literallyaportal.Gatewaysandportals routinelyfeature in thedeeplyLovecraftianstoriesof theMarvelComicscharacter Doctor Strange. David Lynch’s film and television work is similarly fixated on doorways,curtainsandgateways:asweshallseelater,InlandEmpireappearstobea“holeyspace”constructedoutofthresholdsbetweenworlds,anontologicalrabbitwarren.Sometimesthethresholdintoanotherworldmayonlybeamatterofre-scaling:RichardMatheson’sTheIncredibleShrinkingMandemonstratesthatyourownliving-roomcanbeaspaceofweirdwonderanddreadifyoubecomesufficientlysmall.Thecentralityofdoors, thresholdsandportalsmeans that thenotionof thebetween iscrucial to the

weird.It isclear that ifWells’storyhadtakenplaceonlyin thegardenbehindthewall, thennoweirdchargewouldhavebeenproduced.(ThisiswhyafeelingoftheweirdattachestothelamppostattheedgeofNarniainC.S.Lewis’stories,butnottoNarniaproper.)Ifthestoryweresetentirelybeyondthedoor,wewouldbe in the realmof the fantasygenre.Thismodeof fantasynaturalisesotherworlds.But theweirdde-naturalisesallworlds,byexposingtheirinstability,theiropennesstotheoutside.Oneobviouspointofdeparture from the formulaof theLovecraftian tale is the lackofany inhuman

entitiesin“TheDoorintheWall”.WhenWallacepassesthroughthedoor,heencountersstrangebeings,buttheyappeartobehuman.Thefeelingoftheweirdthatthestorygivesrisetoisnotprimarilyproducedbytheselanguid,beneficentbeings;andtheweirddoesnotrequireanyofthe“abominablemonstrosities”whicharesocentraltoLovecraft’stales.AseconddifferencebetweenLovecraftand“TheDoorintheWall”concernsthequestionofsuspense.

Aswehaveseen,Lovecraft’sstoriesare rarelycharacterisedbya feelingofsuspense:wearenot leftwonderingiftheoutsideisrealornot.Attheendof“TheDoorintheWall”,bycontrast,Redmondfindshis mind “darkened with questions and riddles”. He cannot dismiss the possibility thatWallace wassufferingfroman“unprecedentedtypeofhallucination”.Wallacewaseitheramadmanora“dreamer,aman of vision and the imagination”. “We see our world fair and common,” Redmond concludes,inconclusively, “the hoarding and the pit. By our daylight standard he walked out of security intodarkness,dangeranddeath.Butdidheseelikethat?”This brings us to a third difference between Lovecraft and this story: the question of insanity. In

Lovecraft’stales,anyinsanitythecharactersexperienceisaconsequenceofthetranscendentalshockthatthe encounter with the outside produces; there is no question of the insanity causing characters toperceivetheentities(whosestatuswouldthen,evidently,bedegraded;theywouldmerelybeproductsofa delirium). “The Door in theWall” leaves open the question of psychosis: it is possible— thoughRedmond doubts it, it is not his “profoundest belief”— that Wallace is mad, or is deluded, or hasconfabulated thewholeexperience fromgarbledchildhoodmemories (which, touseadistinction fromFreud’s essay on “Screen Memory” would then be memories of childhood, not memories fromchildhood).Wallacehimselfsuspectsthathemayhaveaugmentedachildhoodmemory—re-dreamedit—tothepointofcompletelydistortingit.Butperhapsthemostdecisivedifferencebetween“TheDoorintheWall”andLovecraftconsistsinthe

qualityof longing that iscentral toWells’story. InLovecraft, thepositive lureof theoutsidehas toberepressedandinverted,transformedintoloathinganddread.Buttheappealoftheworldbeyondthedoorshinesthrough“TheDoorintheWall”.Thekeyoppositionstructuringthestoryisnotnaturalismversusthe supernatural— there is little to suggest that theworldbehind thewall is supernatural, though it iscertainly “enchanted” — it is the opposition between the quotidian and the numinous. Wallace’sdescription of an “indescribable quality of translucent unreality, [different] from the common things of

experiencethathungaboutitall”recallsRudolfOtto’scharacterisationofthenuminousinTheIdeaoftheHoly. Yet, for bothWallace andOtto, an “indescribable quality of translucent unreality” accompaniesencounterswiththatwhichismorerealthan“thecommonthingsofexperience”.TheRealdoesnotfeelreal;itinvolvesaheighteningofsensation,exceedstheparametersofordinaryexperience,buttoWallace“atleasttheDoorintheWallwasarealdoorleadingthrougharealwalltoimmortalrealities.”MichelHouellebecqentitledhisbookonLovecraftAgainsttheWorld,AgainstLife,butitmightbethat

Lovecraft’s real antipathy was to the worldly, to the mean confines of the mundane, which his talesendlesslyexplode.Theattackonthedeficienciesoftheworldlyissurelyoneofthedrivingimperativesof “TheDoor in theWall”. “Oh! thewretchedness of that return!”Wallace complains, when he findshimselfbackin“thisgreyworldagain”.Wallacefeelsthatheisdepressedbecausehehasyieldedtothetemptationsoftheworldly.WhenWallacedescribeshisgrief,heseemstobeaplaythingofthepsychoanalyticdeathdrive.“The

factis—itisn’tacaseofghostsorapparitions—but—it’sanoddthingtotellof,—Iamhaunted.Iamhauntedbysomething—thatrathertakesthelightoutofthings,thatfillsmewithlongings…”ReflectingonWallace’s first encounterwith the door,Redmondpictures “the figure of that little boy,drawn andrepelled” (emphasisadded).Freuddescribes thedeathdrive in termsof just thisambivalentattractiontowardswhatisunpleasurable.ItisLacanandhisfollowerswhohavedrawnoutthestrangegeometriesof the death drive, theway inwhich desire perpetuates itself by alwaysmissing its official object ofsatisfaction—justasWallacerepeatedlyfailstogothroughthedoor,eventhoughthisisapparentlyhisdeepestdesire.Thepullexertedbythedoorandthegardendeprivesallofhisworldlysatisfactionsandachievementsoftheirflavour:

NowthatIhavethecluetoit,thethingseemswrittenvisiblyinhisface.Ihaveaphotographinwhichthatlookofdetachmenthasbeencaughtandintensified.Itremindsmeofwhatawomanoncesaidofhim—awomanwhohadlovedhimgreatly.‘Suddenly,’shesaid,‘theinterestgoesoutofhim.Heforgetsyou.Hedoesn’tcarearapforyou—underhisverynose…’

Thedoorwasalwaysathresholdleadingbeyondthepleasureprinciple,andintotheweird.

“Bodyatentaclemess”:TheGrotesqueandTheWeird:TheFall

ThewordgrotesquederivesfromatypeofRomanornamentaldesignfirstdiscoveredinthefifteenthcentury,duringtheexcavationofTitus’sbaths.Namedafterthe‘grottoes’inwhichtheywerefound,thenewformsconsistedofhumanandanimalshapesintermingledwithfoliage,flowers,andfruitsinfantasticdesignswhichborenorelationshiptothelogicalcategoriesofclassicalart.ForacontemporaryaccountoftheseformswecanturntotheLatinwriterVitruvius.VitruviuswasanofficialchargedwiththerebuildingofRomeunderAugustus,towhomhistreatiseOnArchitectureisaddressed.Notsurprisingly,itbearsdownhardonthe“impropertaste”forthegrotesque:“Suchthingsneitherare,norcanbe,norhavebeen,”saystheauthorinhisdescriptionofthemixedhuman,animal,andvegetableforms:“Forhowcanareedactuallysustainaroof,oracandelabrumtheornamentofagable?Orasoftandslenderstalk,aseatedstatue?Orhowcanflowersandhalf-statuesrisealternatelyfromrootsandstalks?Yetwhenpeopleviewthesefalsehoods,theyapproveratherthancondemn,failingtoconsiderwhetheranyofthemcanreallyoccurornot.”

—PATRICKPARRINDER,JamesJoyce

IfWells’story isanexampleofamelancholicweird, thenwecanappreciateanotherdimensionof theweird by thinking about the relationship between the weird and the grotesque. Like the weird, thegrotesqueevokessomethingwhichisoutofplace.Theresponsetotheapparitionofagrotesqueobjectwillinvolvelaughterasmuchasrevulsion,and,inhisstudyofthegrotesque,PhilipThomsonarguedthatthe grotesque was often characterised by the co-presence of the laughable and that which is notcompatiblewiththelaughable.Thiscapacitytoexcitelaughtermeansthatthegrotesqueisperhapsbestunderstoodasaparticularformoftheweird.Itisdifficulttoconceiveofagrotesqueobjectthatcannotalso be apprehended as weird, but there are weird phenomena which do not induce laughter —Lovecraft’sstories,forexample,theonlyhumourinwhichisaccidental.Theconfluenceof theweirdand thegrotesque isnobetterexemplified than in theworkof thepost-

punkgroupTheFall.TheFall’swork—particularlyintheirperiodbetween1980-82—issteepedinreferencestothegrotesqueandtheweird.Thegroup’smethodologyatthistimeisvividlycapturedinthecoverimageforthe1980single,“CityHobgoblins”,inwhichweseeanurbansceneinvadedby“emigresfromoldgreenglades”;aleering,malevolentcoboldloomsoveradilapidatedtenement.Butratherthanbeingsmoothly integrated into thephotographedscene, thecrudelyrenderedhobgoblinhasbeenetchedonto the background. This is a war of worlds, an ontological struggle, a struggle over the means ofrepresentation.Fromthepointofviewof theofficialbourgeoiscultureand itscategories,agroup likeTheFall—workingclassandexperimental,popularandmodernist—couldnotandshouldnotexist,andThe Fall are remarkable for theway inwhich they draw out a cultural politics of theweird and thegrotesque.TheFallproducedwhatcouldbecalledapopularmodernistweird,whereintheweirdshapestheformaswellasthecontentofthework.Theweirdtaleentersintobecomingwiththeweirdnessofmodernism—itsunfamiliarity, itscombinationofelementspreviouslyheld tobe incommensurable, itscompression, its challenges to standard models of legibility — and with all the difficulties andcompulsionsofpost-punksound.Much of this comes together, albeit in an oblique and enigmatic way, on The Fall’s 1980 album

Grotesque(AftertheGramme).Otherwiseincomprehensiblereferencesto“huckleberrymasks”,“amanwithbutterfliesonhisface”,“ostrichheaddress”and“lightblueplant-heads”begintomakesensewhenyourecognisethat,inParrinder’sdescriptionquotedabove,thegrotesqueoriginallyreferredto“humanand animal shapes intermingled with foliage, flowers, and fruits in fantastic designs which bore norelationshiptothelogicalcategoriesofclassicalart”.ThesongsonGrotesquearetales,buttaleshalf-told.Thewordsarefragmentary,asiftheyhavecome

to us via an unreliable transmission that keeps cutting out. Viewpoints are garbled; ontological

distinctionsbetweenauthor,textandcharacterareconfusedandfractured.Itisimpossibletodefinitivelysort out the narrator’s words from direct speech. The tracks are palimpsests, badly recorded in adeliberate refusal of the “coffee table” aesthetic that the group’s leaderMarkE. Smith derides on thecrypticsleevenotes.Theprocessof recording isnotairbrushedoutbut foregrounded,surfacehissandillegiblecassettenoisebrandishedlikeimprovisedstitchingonsomeHammerFrankensteinmonster.Thetrack“ImpressionofJTemperance”wastypical,astoryintheLovecraftstyleinwhichadogbreeder’s“hideous replica”, (“brownsockets...purpleeyes…fedwith rubbish fromdisposalbarges…”) stalksManchester.Thisisaweirdtale,butonesubjectedtomodernisttechniquesofcompressionandcollage.Theresultissoellipticalthatitisasifthetext—part-obliteratedbysilt,mildewandalgae—hasbeenfishedoutoftheManchestershipcanalwhichSteveHanley’sbasssoundslikeitisdredging.There is certainly laughter here, a renegade formof parody andmockery that one hesitates to label

satire,especiallygiventhepallidandtoothlessformthatsatirehasassumedinBritishcultureinrecenttimes.With The Fall, however, it is as if satire is returned to its origins in the grotesque. The Fall’slaughterdoesnotissuefromthecommonsensicalmainstreambutfromapsychoticoutside.Thisissatirein the oneiric mode of Gillray, in which invective and lampoonery becomes delirial, a(psycho)tropologicalspewingofassociationsandanimosities,thetrueobjectofwhichisnotanyfailingofprobitybut thedelusion thathumandignity ispossible. It is not surprising to findSmith alluding toJarry’sUbuRoi inabarelyaudible line in“CityHobgoblins”:“UbuleRoi isahomehobgoblin.”ForJarry,asforSmith,theincoherenceandincompletenessoftheobsceneandtheabsurdweretobeopposedtothefalsesymmetriesofgoodsense.Wecouldgosofarastosaythatit is thehumanconditiontobegrotesque,sincethehumananimalistheonethatdoesnotfitin,thefreakofnaturewhohasnoplaceinthenaturalorderandiscapableofre-combiningnature’sproductsintohideousnewforms.ThesoundonGrotesqueisaseeminglyimpossiblecombinationoftheshambolicandthedisciplined,

thecerebral-literaryandtheidiotic-physical.Thealbumisstructuredaroundtheoppositionbetweenthequotidianandtheweird-grotesque.Itseemsasifthewholerecordhasbeenconstructedasaresponsetoahypothetical conjecture.What if rock and roll had emerged from the industrial heartlands of EnglandratherthantheMississippiDelta?Therockabillyon“ContainerDrivers”or“FieryJack”isslowedbymeatpiesandgravy,itsdreamsofescapefatallypoisonedbypintsofbitterandcupsofgreasy-spoontea.It is rock and roll as working men’s club cabaret, performed by a failed Gene Vincent imitator inPrestwich.Thewhatif?speculationsfail.Rockandrollneededtheendlessopenhighways;itcouldneverhavebegun inEngland’ssnarled-upringroadsandclaustrophobicconurbations. It ison the track“TheN.W.R.A.” (“TheNorthWill RiseAgain”) that the conflict between the claustrophobicmundaneness ofEnglandandthegrotesque-weirdismostexplicitlyplayedout.Allofthealbum’sthemescoalesceinthistrack, a tale of cultural political intrigue that plays like some improbable mulching of T.S. Eliot,WyndhamLewis,H.G.Wells,PhilipK.Dick,LovecraftandleCarré.ItisthestoryofRomanTotale,apsychic and former cabaret performerwhose body is covered in tentacles. It is often said thatRomanTotaleisoneofSmith’s“alter-egos”;infact,SmithisinthesamerelationshiptoTotaleasLovecraftwastosomeonelikeRandolphCarter.Totaleisacharacterrather thanapersona.Needlesstosay,heinnoway resembles a “well-rounded” character so much as a carrier of mythos, an inter-textual linkagebetweenPulpfragments:

SoR.Totaledwellsunderground/Awayfromsicklygrind/Withostrichhead-dress/Faceamess,coveredinfeathers/Orange-redwithblue-blacklines/Thatdrapeddowntohischest/Bodyatentaclemess/Andlightblueplant-heads.

Theformof“TheN.W.R.A.”isasalientoorganicwholenessasisTotale’sabominabletentacularbody.Itisagrotesqueconcoction,acollageofpiecesthatdonotbelongtogether.Themodelisthenovellaratherthanthetaleandthestoryistoldepisodically,frommultiplepointsofview,usingaheteroglossicriotofstyles and tones: comic, journalistic, satirical, novelistic, it is like Lovecraft’s “Call of Cthulhu” re-

writtenbytheJoyceofUlyssesandcompressedintotenminutes.Fromwhatwecanglean,Totaleisatthecentreofaplot—infiltratedandbetrayedfromthestart—whichaimsatrestoringtheNorthtoglory,perhapstoitsVictorianmomentofeconomicandindustrialsupremacy;perhapstosomemoreancientpre-eminence,perhapstoagreatnessthatwilleclipseanythingthathascomebefore.Morethanamatterofregionalrailingagainstthecapital,inSmith’svisiontheNorthcomestostandforeverythingsuppressedbyurbanegood taste: theesoteric, theanomalous, thevulgar sublime, that is to say, theweirdand thegrotesque itself. Totale, festooned in the incongruous Grotesque costume of “ostrich head-dress”,“feathers/orange-redwithblue-blacklines”and“lightblueplant-heads”,isthewould-beFaeryKingofthisweirdrevoltwhoendsupitsmaimedFisherKing,abandonedlikeapulpmodernistMissHavishamamongst the relics of a carnival that will never happen, a drooling totem of a defeated tilt at socialrealism,thevisionaryleaderreduced,asthepsychotropicsfadeandthefervourcools,tobeingawashed-upcabaretartisteonceagain.Smithreturns to theweird taleformonTheFall’s1982albumHexEnductionHour,another record

which is saturatedwith references to theweird. In the track “Jawbone and theAir Rifle”, a poacheraccidentallycausesdamagetoatomb,unearthingajawbonewhich“carriesthegermofacurse/OftheBrokenBrothersPentacleChurch”.ThesongisatissueofallusionstotextssuchasM.R.James’tales“AWarningtotheCurious”and“Oh,Whistle,andI’llCometoYou,MyLad”,toLovecraft’s“TheShadowoverInnsmouth”,toHammerHorror,andtoTheWickerMan—culminatinginapsychedelic/psychoticbreakdown,completewithatorch-wieldingmobofvillagers:

Heseesjawbonesonthestreet/advertisementsbecomecarnivores/androadworkersturnintojawbones/andhehasvisionsofislands,heavilycoveredinslime./Thevillagersdanceroundpre-fabs/andlaughthroughtwistedmouths.

“Jawbone and theAirRifle” resembles nothing somuch as a routine by theBritish comedygroup theLeague of Gentlemen. The League of Gentlemen’s febrile carnival— with its multiple references toweirdtales,anditsfrequentconjunctionsofthelaughablewiththatwhichisnotlaughable—isamuchmoreworthysuccessortoTheFall thanmostof themusicalgroupswhohaveattemptedtoreckonwiththeirinfluence.Thetrack“Iceland”,meanwhile,recordedinalava-linedstudioinReykjavik,isanencounterwiththe

fading myths of North European culture in the frozen territory from which they originated. Here, thegrotesquelaughterisgone.Thesong,hypnoticandundulating,meditativeandmournful,recallsthebone-white steppes ofNico’sTheMarble Index in its arctic atmospherics. A keening wind (on a cassetterecordingmadebySmith)whipsthroughthetrackasSmithinvitesusto“casttherunesagainstyourownsoul”,anotherM.R.Jamesreference,thistimetohisstory,“CastingtheRunes”.“Iceland”isaTwilightoftheIdols for theretreatinghobgoblins,coboldsandtrollsofEurope’srecedingweirdculture,a lamentforthemonstrositiesandmythswhosedyingbreathsitcapturesontape:

WitnessthelastofthegodmenAMemorexfortheKrakens

CaughtintheCoilsofOuroboros:TimPowers

Templetonsitsimmobileinhisatticroom,immersedinthedeceptivelyerratictickingofhisoldnauticalclock,lostinmeditationuponJCChapman’shermeticengraving.Itnowseemsthatthiscompleximage,longacceptedasaportraitofKant,constitutesadisturbingmonogramofhisownchronologicalpredicament.Asifinmockeryofstableframing,thepictureissurroundedbystrange-loopcoilingsofOuroboros,thecosmicsnake,whotracesafigureofeight—andofmoebianeternity—byendlesslyswallowingitself.

—CCRU,“TheTempletonEpisode”

Oneis[…]temptedtoseeinthe‘timeparadox’ofscience-fictionnovelsakindof‘apparitionintheReal’oftheelementarystructureofthesymbolicprocess,theso-calledinternal,internallyinvertedeight:acircularmovement,akindofsnarewherewecanprogressonlyinsuchamannerthatwe‘overtake’ourselvesinthetransference,tofindourselveslateratapointwhichwehavealreadybeen.Theparadoxconsistsinthefactthatthissuperfluousdetour,thissupplementarysnareofunderstandingourselves(‘voyageintothefuture’)andthenreversingthetimedirection(‘voyageintothepast’)isnotjustasubjectiveillusion/perceptionofanobjectiveprocesstakingplaceinso-calledrealityindependentoftheseillusions.Thesupplementarysnareis,rather,aninternalcondition,aninternalconstituentoftheso-called‘objective’processitself:onlythroughthisadditionaldetourdoesthepastitself,the‘objective’stateofthings,becomeretroactivelywhatitalwayswas.—SLAVOJŽIŽEK,TheSublimeObjectofIdeology

Istherenotanintrinsicallyweirddimensiontothetimetravelstory?Byitsverynature,thetimetravelstory, after all, combines entities and objects that do not belong together. Here the threshold betweenworlds is the apparatus that allows travel between different time periods — which may be a timemachine,orwhichcouldactuallybeakindoftime-crossingdoororgate—andtheweirdeffecttypicallymanifests as a sense of anachronism. But anotherweird effect is triggeredwhen the time travel storyinvolvestimeparadox(es).ThetimetravelparadoxplungesusintothestructuresthatDouglasHofstadtercalls“strangeloops”or“tangledhierarchies”,inwhichtheorderlydistinctionbetweencauseandeffectisfatallydisrupted.TheAnubisGatesbyTimPowersisafabulouslyinventivetakeonthetimetravelparadoxstory,onthe

modelofRobertHeinlein’s“AllYouZombies”and“ByHisBootstraps”.ButperhapsthepredecessortowhichTheAnubisGatesisclosestisMichaelMoorcock’s1969novellaBeholdtheMan,inwhichKarlGlogauertime-travelsbacktwothousandyearsfromthe1960sandendsupre-creating—orlivingforthefirsttime—thelifeofChrist,includinghiscrucifixion.TheAnubisGatesisineffectanextendedweirdtale.Althoughitisstuffedfullofreferencestosorcery,

bodilytransformationandanomalousentities,themainsourceofthenovel’sweirdchargeisthetwistingoftimeintoaninfernalloop.InTheAnubisGates,theacademicBrendanDoyleisluredintoatime-travelexperiment by the eccentric plutocrat Clarence Darrow. Darrow is dying, and, whilst undertaking theprodigious and apparently deranged researchhehas pursued in a desperate bid to prolonghis life, hecomesuponthestoryof“Dog-FaceJoe”amongst thefolkloreofearly-nineteenth-centuryLondon.Byaprocess of diligent scholarship and daring supposition, Darrow determines that Joe was a magiciancapableoftransferringhisconsciousnessfrombodytobody,butwhosebody-stealinghadanunfortunateside-effect:almost immediatelyasJoeenters it, thepurloinedbodygrowsprofuse,simian-likehair,sothatitsnewownerisforcedtodiscarditverysoonafterswitchingintoit.Forobviousreasons,Darrowwantstoacquirethesecretofthisprofanetransmigration,andheseemstohavethemeanstomakecontactwith the body-switchingmagician since his research has uncovered “gaps” in the river of time, gatesthroughwhichitispossibletopassintothepast.Doyle’sroleistoactasakindofliterarytourguidefortheultra-wealthytimetravellersDarrowhasassembled,attractedbythepossibilityofseeingalecturebyColeridge,andwhosemilliondollarfeewillfinancethetrip.Verysoonafterarrivinginthenineteenthcentury,Doyleisabductedintoarhizomicunder-Londonthat

is partOliver Twist, part Burroughs’TheWestern Lands (if youwill permit the anachronism—TheWesternLandswasactuallypublishedafterTheAnubisGates).Powers’phantasmagoricLondon—theapocalypticvividnessofwhoserenderingledJohnClutetodescribeTheAnubisGatesas“Babylon-on-Thamespunk”—is thesiteofawarbetween the forcesofEgyptianpolytheistic sorceryand thegreypositivismofBritishempiricism,involvingromanys,magicalduplicates,poets,beggars,costermongers,maleimpersonators...Afterawhile,Doylecomes,reluctantly,toaccepthisFate—whichinliterary-generictermsistobe

propelled,bymeansofSF,intothenineteenth-centurypicaresque—andmoreorlessgivesupanyhopeofreturninghome.Heresignshimselftomakethebestofhisnineteenth-centurylifeanddecidesthathismostrealistichopeofanescapefrombeggaryistomakecontactwithWilliamAshbless,theminorpoetinwhoseworkshehasspecialistknowledge.DoylegoestotheJamaicaCoffeeHouseonthemorninginwhich,accordingtoAshbless’biographer,

the American poet will write his epic poem, “The Twelve Hours of the Night”. The appointed timearrives,but there isnosignofAshbless.Whilehewaits,at firstagitatedandthendeflated,Doyle idlytranscribes“TheTwelveHoursoftheNight”frommemory.Heissooncaughtupinmoreintrigueand,forawhile,forgetsaboutAshbless.Inamomentthatismore

eeriethanweird,Doylehears,orfancieshehears,someonewhistlingTheBeatles’“Yesterday”.Itisonlyafterhecatchestherefrainbeingwhistledagainadayorsolaterthatheisabletoconfirmthatthereareindeedagroupoftwentieth-centurytemporalemigreslivinginthisnineteenth-centuryLondon.TheyturnouttobeDarrow’speople,giventhetaskofhelpinginthesearchforDog-FaceJoe.Doylemeetswithoneof them,his formerstudent,Benner,whobynowisaparanoidandgrizzledwreck,convinced thatDarrowisouttokillhim.HeandDoyleagreetomeetagainafewdayslater,butwhentheydo,Doylefindshisformerfriend’sbehaviourisevenodderthanbefore.Doylediscoversthereasonforthistoolate.Benner’s body has been acquired byDog-Face Joe. This becomes clear toDoyle onlywhen he findshimselfinBenner’sbody,afterithasbeendiscardedbyJoe.EverythingisnowinplacefortherevelationthatshocksDoylebutwhichis,bynow,nosurpriseatall

forthereader:DoyleisAshbless.Orrather:thereisnoAshbless(exceptforDoyle).Doyleonlybeginsto process the full implications of this when he contemplates the peculiar (a)temporal status of the“TwelveHoursoftheNight”manuscript:

Ithadn’t[…]cometotoomuchofasurprisetohimwhenhe’drealised,afterwritingdownthefirstfewlinesof‘TheTwelveHoursoftheNight’,thatwhilehiscasualscrawlhadremainedrecognisablyhisown,hisnewleft-handednessmadehisformalhandwritingdifferent—thoughbynomeansunfamiliar:foritwasidenticaltoWilliamAshbless’.Andnowthathe’dwrittenthepoemoutcompletelyhewascertainthatifaphotographicslideofthecopythatin1983wouldresideintheBritishMuseum,theywouldlineupperfectly,witheverycommaandi-dotofhisversionperfectlycoveringthoseoftheoriginalmanuscript.Originalmanuscript?Hethoughtwithamixtureofaweandunease.Thisstackofpapershereistheoriginalmanuscript…it’sjustnewer

nowthanitwaswhenIsawitin1976.Hah!Iwouldn’thavebeensoimpressedtoseeitthenifI’dknownIhadmadeorwouldmakethosepenscratches.Iwonderwhen,whereandhowit’llpickupthegreasemarksIrememberseeingontheearlypages.Suddenlyathoughtstruckhim.MyGod,hethought,thenifIstayandliveoutmylifeasAshbless—whichtheuniverseprettyclearly

meansmetodo—thennobodywroteAshbless’poems.I’llcopyouthispoemsfrommemory,havingreadtheminthe1932CollectedPoems,andmycopieswillbesetintypeforthemagazines,andthey’llusetearsheetsfromthemagazinestocreatetheCollectedPoems!They’reaclosedloop,uncreated!…I’mjustthe…Messengerandcaretaker.

Like his unhappier time-displaced fellow, Jack Torrance inThe Shining, Doyle has always been thecaretaker.Themise-enabyme here produces a charge of theweird, both because of the scandal of anuncreatedthing,andbecauseofthetwistedcausalitythathasallowedsuchathingtoexist.(Perhapsallparadoxeshaveatouchoftheweirdaboutthem?)TheAshbless Enigma thatDoyle encounters is comically deflated once he realises that— at some

level—thesolutionisonlyhim.“Iwouldn’thavebeensoimpressedtosee it thenifI’dknownIhadmadeorwouldmakethosepenscratches.”Butthedeflationisimmediatelyfollowedbyaprofounddread

andawe(thepoemsareuncreated!)thatfarexceedshisoriginalfascinationwiththepoet.OnceDoyle realises thathe isdestined tobeAshbless,which is tosay, thathealways-alreadywas

Ashbless,heisfacedwithadilemma:doesheactinaccordancewithwhathecharacterisesasthewilloftheuniverse(itisthe“universe”that“wants”himtoliveinAshbless’shoes),ornot?TheproblemthatDoylefacesisthatthedeterminismismuchmoreinvariantthanawill,evenawillthatbelongsto“theuniverse”. It is impossible for him to process that everything he will do as Ashbless has alreadyhappened. The barrier that means that this cannot be faced is transcendental: subjectivity as suchpresupposestheillusionthatthingscouldbedifferent.Tobeasubjectistobeunabletothinkofoneselfasanythingbut free—even ifyouknow thatyouarenot.What sustainsDoyle’spresupposition is theapparently spontaneously emerging hypothesis of an “alternative past”: in order to hold open thepossibility that things might go against the already-recorded Ashbless biography, Doyle is forced toconsider the possibility that he has somehow crossed into a “different past” to the one he has seendocumented. But the full paradox is that it is onlyDoyle’s positing of such an “alternative past” thatensuresthatheactsinaccordancewithwhathasalreadyhappened.Ashblessbecomestheherohealreadywas, the restorer of an order thatwas never threatened. Everything is at it alwayswas; only now, asDoyleandthereaderknow,somethingweirdhashappened.

SimulationsandUnworlding:RainerWernerFassbinderandPhilipK.Dick

Thereisanothertypeofweirdeffectthatisgeneratedbystrangeloops.Thestrangeloopshereinvolvenot just tangles incauseandeffectof the typewediscussed in the lastchapter in reference to the timeloopstory,butconfusionsofontologicallevel.BrianMcHaledevotesmuchofhisPostmodernistFictiontoanalyzingtheseconfusions.Whatshouldbeatanontologically“inferior”levelsuddenlyappearsonelevelup(charactersfromasimulatedworldsuddenlyappearintheworldgeneratingthesimulation);orwhatshouldbeatanontologically“superior”levelappearsoneleveldown(authorsinteractwiththeircharacters).Escher’s imagesexemplify theparadoxical spacesof this strange loop.There isadefiniteweirdnessinthisEscher-effect,which,afterall,isfundamentallyaboutasenseofwrongness:levelsaretangled,thingsarenotwheretheyaresupposedtobe.AlthoughMcHaledoes refer toDick, towhomwe shall turn in amoment,manyof the texts that he

discussesrenderthisconfusionofworldsinaliterary-metafictionalregister.Iwanttodiscussnowtwotexts which — on the edge of the science fiction genre — deal with the question of simulated orembeddedworldsinawaythatemphasisesweirdness.Let’sturnfirsttoWeltamDraht(WorldonaWire),atwo-partproductionmadefortheWestdeutscher

Rundfunkpublicservicetelevisionchannelin1973.ItwasanadaptationofDanielF.Galouye’ssciencefictionnovelSimulacron-3bynoneotherthanRainerWernerFassbinder.Oneoftheopeningscenescentresonamirror:asmallhand-mirrorthattheobviouslydisturbedheadof

theSimulacronproject,ProfessorVollmer,franticallywavesinthefaceofhiscolleagues,saying,“Youare only the image that others have of you.” The project has created a computer-generated world,populatedby“identityunits”whobelievethemselvestoberealpeople.Vollmerdies,andisreplacedbytheprogrammerStiller,whosoonbecomesobsessedwiththeenigmathatdroveVollmerintomadness—thattheir“realworld”isalsoasimulation,engineeredbya“realer”worldabove.The ambient social scene in the film seems to confirm Vollmer’s idea that we are what we are

perceivedtobe.Thereisbarelyascenethatdoesn’tfeatureareflectivesurface,andsomeof themostmemorableshotsshowreflectionsofreflections,infiniteregressesofsimulacra.Thebackgroundfiguresin crowd scenes have a curiously agog immobility, as if they are spectators at a stageplay.One earlysceneislikeanextrapolationfromaBryanFerryalbumsleeveoftheearly1970s:inanatmosphereoflouchedecadence, thebusinessandculturalelitelingerlikemodelsorgawplikevoyeursastheystandaroundaswimmingpool,itsreflectedlightplayingonthethen-futuristicinteriors.Much like Tarkovsky’s take on SF in Solaris and Stalker (which we shall discuss later), it is

Fassbinder’sdeviationfromcertainsciencefictionalconventions thatgivesWorldonaWire a specialcharge—especiallyinthewakeofStarWarsandTheMatrix.Whileboththosefilmsweredefinedbytheir specialeffects, therearenovisualeffects tospeakof inWorldonaWire.Themost conspicuous“effect”isthestartlingRadiophonicWorkshop-likesquigglesandspurtsofelectronicmusic,whichbreakintoFassbinder’sstylisednaturalismlikeacrackinrealityitself.InWorldonaWire,thestrangeloopiscreatedby“Einstein”,theidentityunitinSimulacronthatthose

in The Institute forCybernetics and Future Science use to communicate directlywith in the simulatedworld.Inordertoperformthisliaisingfunction,Einsteinnaturallyhastobeawarethatheisasimulation.But this knowledge inevitably produces the desire to climb up to the “real” world— a desire, it isimplied,thatcanneverbesatisfied.

TheontologicalterroronwhichWorldonaWireturns—isourownworldasimulation?—isnowveryfamiliar,viathemanyPhilipK.Dickadaptationsandtheirimitators.But,despitenotactuallybeinganadaptationofDick’sfiction,WorldonaWirehasmoreincommonwiththewrymordancyofDick’swork thanmany official Dick adaptations, not least in the way that it shows each of its three nestedworlds as being equally drab.We actually see very little of theworld “below” (theworld inside theSimulacron)andalmostnothingoftheworld“above”(theworldonelevelupfromwhatwefirsttooktobe reality). The world below we see only in snatched glimpses of hotel lobbies and inside a lorry-driver’scab.Butitistherevelation—ornon-revelation—oftheworldaboveattheclimaxofthefilmthat ismost startling. Instead of someGnostic transfiguration,we find ourselves inwhat looks like ameeting room in some ultra-banal office block. At first, the electronic blinds are down, momentarilyholdingopenthepossibilitythattherewillbesomemarvellous—oratleaststrange—worldtobeseenoncetheyareup.Butwhentheydoeventuallyrise,weseeonlythesamegreyskiesandcityscape.Stiller—whosenamenowassumesaspecialsignificance—hasattainedhisofficialgoal(climbinguptothe“worldabove”),buthehasnot“moved”.TheZenonianconditionremainsintheformofanontologicalanxietythatinapre-echoofthetormentthatdestroysMalinInceptionfollowstheweirdtopologiesofdrive:onceStiller’sfaithinhisinitiallifeworldisshattered,thereisnopossibilityoffullybelievinginanyreality.The differences between the threeworlds is not accessible at the level of experience (of either the

charactersortheaudience),anditasifFassbinderproducesinWorldonaWiresomethingthatperfectlyfitsDarkoSuvin’s famousdefinitionof science fiction as the art of “cognitive estrangement”.Stiller’smountingawarenessofthesimulatednatureoftheworldthateveryonearoundhimtakesforrealityforcesacognitiveestrangementsointensethatitconstitutesapsychoticbreak.Thecontentofhisexperienceisthe same in every respect; but, because it is now classified as a simulation, it is psychoticallytransformed.But,asissoofteninthefictionofDick,thepositionofthepsychoticisalsothepositionoftruth.“Cognitiveestrangement”heretakestheformofanunworlding,anabyssalfallingawayofanysense

thatthereisany“fundamental”levelwhichcouldoperateasafoundationoratouchstone,securingandauthenticatingwhatisultimatelyreal.Thefilmgenerateswhatyoumightcallacognitiveweird,inthattheweirdhereisnotdirectlyseenorexperienced;itisacognitiveeffect,producedbydeprivingthefilm’sformalrealismofanyfeelingofreality.

PhilipK.Dick’sTimeOutofJoint,published in1959,performsa similarestrangementof realism,aswellaspresentinganotherversionofunworlding.Thenovel is remarkable, in fact, for thepainstakingwayinwhichDickconstructsa“realistic”smalltownAmerica.TwoyearsafterthefirstDisneylandparkopened—DickwouldbecomeafrequentvisitortotheparkinLA—thenoveltreatsliteraryrealismasakind of Disneyfication. In a classic moment of Dick ontological vertigo, the novel’s painstakinglydescribedsmalltownisrevealed,intheend,tobeanintricatesystemofpasteboardfrontages,hypnoticsuggestionsandnegativehallucinations(weshallreturntothequestionofnegativehallucinationslater).Thepay-offcanjustaseasilybereadintermsofcriticalmetafictionassciencefiction,forwhatisanysettinginrealist fiction ifnot thesamekindofsystem?Howisany“realityeffect”achievedexceptbyauthorsusingtheliteraryequivalentofthesesimulatorytechniques?InTimeOutofJoint,themachineryofrealismbecomes,then,re-describedasasetofspecialeffects.Inthenovel,thefeelingoftheweirdisnotgeneratedbyacollisionofworlds,butbythepassageoutof

a“realistic”worldintoan“unworld”.Afteritisdowngradedtoasimulation,therealisticworldisnotsomuch invaded as erased. In the novel, the whole small town scenario is constructed as a ruse, acomfortablesettinginwhichtheprotagonistcanundertakehighpressuremilitaryworkforthegovernmentwhile thinking that he is doing a trivial newspaper contest. Yet it is clear that the science fictional

elementswere forDick the pretext that allowed him towrite successfully in a naturalisticway aboutFifties America. They were the enframing devices that enabled Time Out of Joint to succeed whereDick’spurelyrealistfictionfailed.InPostmodernism,ortheCulturalLogicofLateCapitalism,Jamesoncaptures thepeculiaracheof

nostalgia that Time Out of Joint engenders, a nostalgia for the present, which Dick achieves byconstellatingstereotypicalimagesofthedecadehewaswritingattheendof:

PresidentEisenhower’sstroke;MainStreet,U.S.A.;MarilynMonroe;aworldofneighboursandPTAs;smallretailstores(theproducetruckedinfromoutside);favouritetelevisionprogrammes;mildflirtationswiththehousewifenextdoor;gameshowsandcontests;sputniksdirectlyrevolvingover-head,mereblinkinglightsinthefirmament,hardtodistinguishfromairlinersorflyingsaucers.

(Monroeactuallyfeaturesasoneoftheanomaliesthatleadstotheunravelingofthesimulatedsmalltown,forshehasnotbeenincorporatedintothereconstructed1950sworld,andappearstothemaincharacteronlywhenhediscoverssomerottingmagazines,relicsofourFifties,inawasteground“outsidethecitylimits”.)What is remarkable is the way in which Dick was capable, in 1959, of already identifying those

stereotypicalfeaturesoftheAmericanFiftieswhichwouldcometodefinethedecadeinretrospect.ItisnotDick’sskillinprojectingintothefuturethatistobeadmired—thenovel’s1997isconfectedoutofgenericSFtropes,farlessconvincingthantheostensiblyfakeFiftiesworlditembeds—butratherhiscapacity to imagine how the future would see the Fifties. It is the Fifties already envisaged as athemepark: an anticipated reconstruction. Dick’s simulated small town is not en-kitsched as Disney’smemoriesofhisearlytwentiethcenturywere,butpreciselygivenwhatJamesoncallsthe“cabbagestink”ofnaturalism:

Themiseryofhappiness,[…]ofMarcuse’sfalsehappiness,thegratificationsofthenewcar,theTVdinnerandyourfavouriteprogrammeonthesofa—whicharenowthemselvessecretlyamisery,anunhappinessthatdoesn’tknowitsname,thathasnowayoftellingitselfapartfromgenuinesatisfactionandfulfilmentsinceithaspresumablyneverencounteredthislast.

In this lukewarm world, ambient discontent hides in plain view, a hazy malaise given off by therefrigerators, television sets and other consumer durables. The vividness and plausibility of thismiserableworld—withmiseryitselfcontributingtotheworld’splausibility—somehowbecomesallthe more intense when its status is downgraded to that of a constructed simulation. The world is asimulationbutitstillfeelsreal.Some of the most powerful passages in Dick’s work are those in which there is an ontological

interregnum: a traumatic unworlding is not yet given a narrativemotivation; an unresolved space thatawaitsreincorporationintoanothersymbolicregime.InTimeOutofJoint,theinterregnumtakestheformofanextraordinarysceneinwhichtheseeminglydullobjectsofquotidiannaturalism—thegasstationand themotel—act almost like a negative version of the lamppost at the edge of theNarnian forest.UnlikeLewis’lamppost,theseobjectsdonotmarkthethresholdofanewworld;theyconstituteinsteadstagingpostson theway towardsadesertof theReal,avoidbeyondanyconstitutedworld.When theedge-oftowngasstationscomeintofocus,thebackgroundfurnitureofliteraryrealismsuddenlyloomsintothe foreground, and there is a moment of object-epiphany, in which peripheral vision-familiaritytransformsintosomethingalien:

Thehousesbecamefewer.Thetruckpassedgasstations,tawdrycafes,icecreamstandsandmotels.Thedrearyparadeofmotels...asif,Raglethought,wehadalreadygoneathousandmilesandwerejustnowenteringastrangetown.Nothingissoalien,sobleakandunfriendly,asthestripofgasstations—cut-rategasstations—andmotelsattheedgeofyourowncity.Youfailtorecogniseit.And,atthesametime,youhavetograspittoyourbosom.Notjustforonenight,butforaslongasyouintendtolivewhereyoulive.Butwedon’tintendtolivehereanymore.We’releaving.Forgood.

It’sasceneinwhichEdwardHopperseemstodevolveintoBeckett,asthenatural(ist)landscapegivesway to an emptied-out monotony, a minimal, quasi-abstract space that is de-peopled but still

industrialised and commercialised: “A last intersection, aminor road serving industries that had beenzonedoutofthecityproper.Therailroadtracks...henoticedaninfinitelylongfreighttrainatrest.Thesuspended drums of chemicals on towers over factories.” It is as ifDick is slowly clearing away thefixtures and fittings of literary realism in order to prepare the way for the unworlding which he haddescribedafewpagesearlier:

Hollowoutwardforminsteadofsubstance;thesunnotactuallyshining,thedaynotactuallywarmatallbutcold,greyandquietlyraining,raining,thegod-awfulashfilteringdownoneverything.Nograssexceptcharredstumps,brokenoff.Poolsofcontaminatedwater...Theskeletonoflife,whitebrittlescarecrowsupportintheshapeofacross.Grinning.Spaceinsteadofeyes.Thewholeworld[…]canbeseenthrough.Iamontheinsidelookingout.Peekingthroughacrackandseeing—emptiness.Lookingintoitseyes.

CurtainsandHoles:DavidLynch

David Lynch’s two latest films—MulhollandDrive and Inland Empire— present a kind of acute,compacted weirdness. While often perplexing, Lynch’s earlier work, including the film Blue Velvet(1986) and the television series Twin Peaks (1990-91, with a third series currently in production),presentedwhatatfirstglancecouldappeartobeasuperficialcoherence.BoththefilmandtheTVserieswere—atleastinitially—constructedaroundtheoppositionbetweenanidealised-stereotypicalsmall-townAmerica(notdissimilarfromtheonedepictedinDick’sTimeOutofJoint)andvariousother-orunder-worlds (criminal, occult). The division between worlds was often marked by one of Lynch’sfrequentlyrecurringvisualmotifs:curtains.Curtainsbothconcealandreveal(and,notaccidentally,oneofthethingsthattheyconcealandrevealisthecinemascreenitself).Theydonotonlymarkathreshold;theyconstituteone:anegresstotheoutside.InMulhollandDrive,releasedin2001,thestabilityoftheoppositionwhichhadstructuredBlueVelvet

andTwinPeaksbeginstocollapse.Nodoubtthisispartlybecauseoftheshiftawayfromthesmall-townsetting,andthenewfocusonLA.Lynch’scustomarypreoccupationwithdreamsandtheoneiricisnowrefractedandredoubledbythemediatedandmanufactureddreamsoftheDreamFactory,Hollywood.TheHollywoodsettingproliferatesembeddedworlds—filmswithin-films(andpossiblyfilms-within-films-within-films),screentests,performedroles,fantasies.Eachembeddingcontainsthepossibilityofadis-embedding,assomethingthatwasatasupposedlyinferiorontologicallevelthreatenstoclimbupoutofitssubordinatedpositionandclaimequalstatuswiththelevelabove:figmentsfromdreamscrossoverintowakinglife;screentestsappearatleastasconvincingastheexchangesinthesupposedlyreal-worldscenes that surround them. In Mulholland Drive, however — rendered in the onscreen title asMulhollandDr, with its suggestion ofMulhollandDream — the overwhelming tendency appears tomoveintheoppositedirection:itisnotsomuchthatdreamsbecometakenforreality,asthatanyapparentrealitysubsidesintoadream.Butwhosedreamisitanyway?The “standard” interpretation ofMulhollandDrive claims that its first half is the fantasy/dream of

failed two-bit actressDiane Selwyn (NaomiWatts),whose actual life is allegedly depicted, in all itsquotidian squalor, in the secondhalfof the film. In the firstpartof the film,Bettyassists anamnesiacbrunette (LauraHaring)— the victim of a failedmurder plot— to recover her identity. The brunetteassumes the name “Rita”, after Rita Hayworth, a name she sees on a film poster, and she and Bettybecomelovers.Inthesecondpartofthefilm,“Rita”isnowCamilla,asuccessfulactress,andtheobjectof bitter jealousy from the failed and jadedDiane,who lives in amiserable apartment inHollywood.Diane hires a hitman to killCamilla, before apparently committing suicide.According to the standardinterpretation,aspiringactressBetty—whoarrivesinHollywoodseeminglynotonlyfromasmalltownbut from the past (she has just won a jitterbugging competition!)— is Selwyn’s idealised image ofherself.Theoppositionbetweentheidealisedplaceandtheunderworld(s)thatstructuredBlueVelvetandTwinPeakshasnowbecomeanoppositionbetweentwopersonae:naïvesmall-townBettyversushard-bittenLA-residentDiane.Inanonlinereview,“DoubleDreamsinHollywood”,TimothyTakemotopointedoutthatoneproblem

withthestandardinterpretationisthatthesecondpartofthefilmis,initsownway,asdream-likeandassaturated in melodramatic tropes, as the first. “What is some woman in a run-down apartment inHollywooddoinghavinganaffairwithamoviestar, that isabout togetmarried toa famousdirector?Wheredoesshegetthemoneytopayforahitman?”Takemoto’sviewisthatboththefirstandsecondpart

ofthefilmaredreams.Dianeisnotthedreamer;the“realdreameriselsewhere”,andBetty/DianeandRita/Camillaareallfragmentsofthis(unseen)dreamer’sdisintegratedpsyche.Whetherornotthisviewiscorrect,IthinkthatTakemotoisrighttoarguethattherearetwoscenesin

MulhollandDrivewhichmeritparticularattention:thesceneaboutdreamsinthediner,andthesceneinClubSilencio(perhapsthemostpowerfulsequenceintheentirefilm).Inthedinerscene,amancalledDanistalkingtosomeonewhoappearstobeapsychiatristaboutadreamhehashadtwice.Thedreamissetintheverydinerinwhichtheyarecurrentlysitting(Winkie’s,onSunsetBoulevard).Inthedream,Danisterrifiedbyafigurewithablackened,scarredface,wholurksinahinterlandspacebehindthediner.Inabidtodefeatthepowerofthedream,thetwomenwalkouttothebackofthediner—wherethescarredfigureiswaiting,andDancollapses,perhapsinafaint,perhapsdead.TheparadoxicallyentrancingClubSilenciosceneactsasagatewaybetween the twosectionsof the

film.Withitsredcurtains,ClubSilencioisevidentlyathresholdspace.BettyandRitaentertheclub,butthey do not properly emerge from it; they are afterwards replaced/displaced byDiane andCamilla. Idescribed the scene as paradoxically entrancing because it is ostensibly demystifying. Like somecinematicequivalentofMagritte’sThisIsNotaPipe, theClubSilencioperformancetellsus thatwhatwearewitnessingisanillusion,whilstatthesametimeshowingthatwewillbeunabletotreatitassuch.ThehostofClubSilencio,akindofmagician-comperefigure,repeatedlytellstheaudience(thoseinClubSilencio,aswellasthosewatchingMulhollandDrive),“Thereisnoband.Itisallrecorded.Itisallatape.Itisanillusion.”Amanemergesfrombehindtheredcurtains,appearingtoplayamutedtrumpet;hetakes the trumpet away from his mouth, but the music continues. When the singer Rebekah Del Rioappears to deliver an emotionally wracked version of Roy Orbison’s version of “Crying”, we areseducedbythepowerofherperformance.SowhenDelRiocollapsesbutthemusicplayson,wecannothelpbutbeshocked.Somethinginuscompelsustotreattheperformanceasifitweregenuine.Thereisofcoursenothinglessmendacious,lessdissimulatory,incinema’shistoryofillusionthanthe

sceneinClubSilencio.Whatweareseeingandhearing—thefilmitself—isindeedarecordingandnothingbut.Onthemostbanallevel,thisisthematerialinfrastructurewhichthe“magicofcinema”mustconceal. Yet the scene haunts for reasons other than this. It points to the automatisms at work in oursubjectivity:insofaraswecannothelpbutbedrawnintoSilencio’sillusions(whicharealsotheillusionsofcinema),weareliketheveryrecordingsbywhichweareseduced.Yettheseillusionsaresomethingmorethanmeredeceptions.LikethescenewithDaninthediner,theClubSilenciosceneremindsusthatdreamsand“illusions”areconduitstoaRealthatcannotordinarilybeconfronted.Dreamsarenotonlyspacesofsolipsisticinteriority:theyarealsoaterraininwhichthe“redcurtains”totheoutsidecanopenup.Ultimately,MulhollandDriveisperhapsbestreadassomethingwhichcannotbemadetoaddup.That

isnottosaythatthefilmshouldjustbeconsideredfairgameforanypossibleinterpretation.Rather,itisto say that any attempt finally to tie up the film’s convolutions and impasses will only dissipate itsstrangeness,itsformalweirdness.Theweirdnesshereisgeneratedinpartbythewaythatthefilmfeelslikea“wrong”versionofarecognisableHollywoodfilm-type.RogerEbertremarkedthat“there isnosolution.Theremaynotevenbeamystery.”ItcouldbethatMulhollandDriveistheillusionofamystery:wearecompelledtotreatitasasolvableenigma,tooverlookits“wrongness”,itsintractability, inthesamewaythat,inClubSilencio,wearecompelledtooverlooktheillusorynatureoftheperformances.InLynch’s2006film,InlandEmpire,itisasifthekindofslippages,incoherenciesandconundrumswe

sawinMulhollandDrivearepushedmuchfurther,tothepointwherethereisnolongereventheprospectof tractability. For all its many film references, Inland Empire does not even seem to resemble anyHollywood template. If theweird is fundamentally about thresholds, then InlandEmpire is a film thatseemstobeprimarilycomposedofgateways.ThebestreadingsofInlandEmpirehaverightlystressedthe film’s labyrinthine, rabbit-warren anarchitecture.Yet the space involved is ontological, rather than

merelyphysical.Eachcorridorinthefilm—andtherearemanyofLynch’ssignaturecorridorsinInlandEmpire— is potentially the threshold to anotherworld.Yetno character— theword seemsabsurdlyinappropriatewhenappliedtoInlandEmpire’sfleetingfigures,figmentsandfragments—cancrossintotheseotherworldswithoutthemselveschangingtheirnature.InInlandEmpire,youarewhateverworldyoufindyourselfin.Thedominantmotifinthefilmisanotherkindofthreshold:thehole.Aholecigarette-burnedintosilk;a

holeinthevaginawallleadingtotheintestine;aholepuncturedintothestomachbyascrewdriver;rabbitholes;holesinmemory;holesinnarrative;holesaspositivenullity,gapsbutalsotunnels,theconnectorsin a hellish rhizome inwhich any part can potentially collapse into any other.The cigarette burn holecouldserveasametonymfor thefilm’sentirepsychoticgeography.Thehole insilk isanimageof thecameraanditsdoublethespectatingeye,whosegazeinInlandEmpireisalwaysvoyeuristicandpartial.With Inland Empire, world-haemorrhaging has become so acute that we can no longer talk about

tangledhierarchiesbutaterrainsubjecttochronicontologicalsubsidence.Thefilmappearsatfirsttobeaboutanactress,NikkiGrace(LauraDern)whoistoplayacharacter,Sue,inafilmcalledOnHighinBlueTomorrows.Butthereisnostabilitytothesepersonae,nortothehierarchywhichwouldtreatSueas“lessreal”thanNikki.Bytheend,SueappearstohavesubsumedNikki,andseemsnottobeinsideinanyfilm thatwouldbecalledOnHigh inBlueTomorrows. “Reflexivitywithout subjectivity”, that perfectdescriptionoftheunconscious,isaphrasethatisexceptionallyaptforInlandEmpire’sconvolutionsandinvolutions.NikkiGraceand thegaggleofotherpersonaewhichDernplays/Gracehosts (or fragmentsinto)arelikede-psychologisedavatars:holesthatwecannothelptreatingasmysteries,eventhoughitisclear(tous,ifnottothem)thatthereisnohopeofanysolution.“Somethinggotoutfrominsidethestory”,wearetoldofthePolishmoviewhichNikkiGrace’sfilm-

within-a-film is remaking. In Inland Empire— which often seems like a series of dream sequencesfloatingfreeofanygroundingreality,adreamingwithoutadreamer(asalldreamsreallyare,sincetheunconscious is not a subject)—no frame is secure, all attempts at embedding fail. The temptation toresolvethefilm’sconundrumspsychologically(i.e.toattributetheanomaliestophantasmsissuingfromthederangedmindofoneormoreofthecharacters)isnodoubtgreat,butshouldberesistedifwearetoremaintruetowhatissingularaboutthefilm.Insteadoflookinginside(thecharacters)forsomefinalkeyto the film,wemust attend to the strange folds, burrows and passageways of Inland Empire’s weirdarchitecture,inwhichnointeriorspaceiseversecureforlong,andgatewaystotheoutsidecanopenuppracticallyanywhere.

THEEERIE

ApproachingtheEerie

Whatistheeerie,exactly?Andwhyisitimportanttothinkaboutit?Aswiththeweird,theeerieisworthreckoningwithinitsownrightasaparticularkindofaestheticexperience.Althoughthisexperienceiscertainly triggeredbyparticularcultural forms, itdoesnotoriginate in them.Youcould say rather thatcertaintales,certainnovels,certainfilms,evokethefeelingoftheeerie,butthissensationisnotaliteraryorafilmicinvention.Aswiththeweird,wecanandoftendoencounterthesensationoftheeerie“intheraw”,without theneedforspecificformsofculturalmediation.For instance, there isnodoubt that thesensationoftheeerieclingstocertainkindsofphysicalspacesandlandscapes.The feeling of the eerie is very different from that of the weird. The simplest way to get to this

differenceisbythinkingaboutthe(highlymetaphysicallyfreighted)opposition—perhapsitisthemostfundamental opposition of all — between presence and absence. As we have seen, the weird isconstitutedby a presence— thepresenceof thatwhichdoesnot belong. In some cases of theweird(thosewithwhichLovecraftwas obsessed) theweird ismarked by an exorbitant presence, a teemingwhichexceedsourcapacitytorepresentit.Theeerie,bycontrast,isconstitutedbyafailureofabsenceor by a failure of presence. The sensation of the eerie occurs eitherwhen there is something presentwherethereshouldbenothing,oristhereisnothingpresentwhenthereshouldbesomething.Wecangrasp these twomodesquicklybymeansofexamples.Thenotionofan“eeriecry”—often

citedindictionarydefinitionsoftheeerie—isanexampleofthefirstmodeoftheeerie(thefailureofabsence).Abird’scryiseerieifthereisafeelingthatthereissomethingmorein(orbehind)thecrythanamereanimalreflexorbiologicalmechanism—thatthereissomekindofintentatwork,aformofintentthatwedonotusuallyassociatewithabird.Clearly,thereissomethingincommonbetweenthisandthefeeling of “something which does not belong” that we have said constitutes the weird. But the eerienecessarilyinvolvesformsofspeculationandsuspensethatarenotanessentialfeatureoftheweird.Istheresomethinganomalousabout thisbird’scry?Whatexactly isstrangeabout it?Is,perhaps, thebirdpossessed—andifitis,bywhatkindofentity?Suchspeculationsareintrinsictotheeerie,andoncethequestionsandenigmasareresolved, theeerie immediatelydissipates.Theeerieconcerns theunknown;whenknowledgeisachieved,theeeriedisappears.Itmustbestressedatthispointthatnotallmysteriesgeneratetheeerie.Theremustbealsobeasenseofalterity,afeelingthattheenigmamightinvolveformsofknowledge,subjectivityandsensationthatliebeyondcommonexperience.Anexampleof thesecondmodeof theeerie (the failureofpresence) is thefeelingof theeerie that

pertains to ruins or to other abandoned structures.Post-apocalyptic science fiction,whilst not in itselfnecessarily an eeriegenre, is nevertheless full of eerie scenes.Yet the senseof the eerie is limited inthese cases, because we are an offered an explanation of why these cities have been depopulated.ComparethiswiththecaseoftheabandonedshiptheMarieCeleste.Becausethemysteryoftheship—whathappenedtothecrew?Whatmadethemleave?Wheredidtheygo?—hasneverbeenresolved,noriseverlikelytobe,thecaseoftheMarieCelesteissaturatedinasenseoftheeerie.Theenigmahere,evidently,turnsontwoquestions—whathappenedandwhy?Butstructureswhosemeaningandpurposewecannotparseposeadifferentkindofenigma.FacedwiththestonecircleatStonehenge,orwiththestatuesonEasterIsland,weareconfrontedwithadifferentsetofquestions.Theproblemhereisnotwhythepeoplewhocreatedthesestructuresdisappeared—thereisnomysteryhere—butthenatureofwhatdisappeared.Whatkindsofbeingcreatedthesestructures?Howweretheysimilartous,andhowweretheydifferent?Whatkindofsymbolicorderdidthesebeingsbelongto,andwhatroledidthemonuments

theyconstructedplayinit?Forthesymbolicstructureswhichmadesenseofthemonumentshaverottedaway,andinasensewhatwewitnesshereistheunintelligibilityandtheinscrutabilityoftheRealitself.Confronted with Easter Island or Stonehenge, it is hard not to speculate about what the relics of ourculturewilllooklikewhenthesemioticsystemsinwhichtheyarecurrentlyembeddedhavefallenaway.Wearecompelledtoimagineourownworldasasetofeerietraces.Suchspeculationsnodoubtaccountfortheeerinessthatattachestothejustlyfamousfinalimageoftheoriginal1968versionofPlanetoftheApes:theremainsoftheStatueofLiberty,whichareasillegiblefromtheperspectiveofthefilm’spost-apocalypticand indeedpost-humanfar futureasStonehenge is tousnow.TheexamplesofStonehengeandEaster Islandmakeusrealise that there isan irreduciblyeeriedimension tocertainarchaeologicaland historical practices. Particularlywhen dealingwith the remote past, archaeologists and historiansformhypotheses, but the culture towhich they refer andwhichwould vindicate their speculations cannever(again)bepresent.Behindallofthemanifestationsoftheeerie,thecentralenigmaatitscoreistheproblemofagency.In

the case of the failure of absence, the question concerns the existence of agency as such. Is there adeliberativeagenthereatall?Arewebeingwatchedbyanentitythathasnotyetrevealeditself?Inthecaseofthefailureofpresence,thequestionconcernstheparticularnatureoftheagentatwork.WeknowthatStonehengehasbeenerected,sothequestionsofwhethertherewasanagentbehinditsconstructionornotdoesnotarise;whatwehavetoreckonwitharethetracesofadepartedagentwhosepurposesareunknown.Wearenowinapositiontoanswerthequestionofwhyitisimportanttothinkabouttheeerie.Since

the eerie turns crucially on the problemof agency, it is about the forces that govern our lives and theworld.Itshouldbeespeciallycleartothoseofusinagloballytele-connectedcapitalistworldthatthoseforces are not fully available to our sensory apprehension. A force like capital does not exist in anysubstantialsense,yetit iscapableofproducingpracticallyanykindofeffect.Atanotherlevel,hadnotFreudlongagoshownthattheforcesthatgovernourpsychecanbeconceivedofasfailuresofpresence—isnottheunconsciousitselfnotjustsuchafailureofpresence?—andfailuresofabsence(thevariousdrivesorcompulsionsthatintercedewhereourfreewillshouldbe)?

SomethingWhereThereShouldBeNothing:NothingWhereThereShouldBeSomething:DaphneduMaurierandChristopherPriest

Let’snowtestoutthesepreliminaryobservationsinrelationtotwowriterswhohaverightlybeencloselyassociated with the eerie: Daphne duMaurier and Christopher Priest. DuMaurier’s eerie tales oftenrevolve around the influence of entities or objects that should not possess reflective agency: animals,telepathicforces,fateitself.TheeerieeffectinsomeofPriest’snovels,meanwhile,dependsupongapsinmemory,gapsthatfatallyunderminethecharacters’senseoftheirownidentity.Du Maurier’s well-known tale “The Birds” (1952) is an almost generic case of the eerie. As I

mentionedabove,dictionariesfrequentlyciteananimal’s“eeriecry”whentheyaregivingexamplesoftheeerie.“TheBirds”buildsuponthefeelingthatistriggeredwhenwehearsuchcries—thesuspicionthatanentity towhichwedonotnormallyascribe itpossessesadeliberativeagency. InduMaurier’stale,thebirdsceasetobepartofthenaturalbackgroundandassertanagencyoftheirown,butthenatureof thisagencyremainsmysterious. Insteadofco-existingwithhumanbeings, thebirdscollaboratewithoneanothertolaunchamurderousattackonthehumanpopulation.Thiscollaborationamongstdifferentbird species is one of the first signs that something unprecedentedly strange is happening: “The birdswerecirclingstillabovethefields.Mostlyherringgull,buttheblack-backedgullamongstthem.Usuallytheykeptapart.Nowtheywereunited.Somebondhadbroughtthemtogether.”ForthosefamiliarwithHitchcock’sfilmadaptation,readingduMaurier’soriginalstorywillcomeas

somethingofa surprise. (DuMaurier reputedlyhatedHitchcock’s film.) Insteadofa sunlitCaliforniansetting, we find ourselves in a grey and tempestuous Cornwall, still in the grip of postwar austerity.Insteadofaflirtingcoupleintheearlydaysofromance,wefindafamily—theHockens—defendingtheirhomeagainstthebirds’attack.Insomeways,“TheBirds”,withitsfocusonaretreatintoaboarded-up house besieged by anomalous entities, reads like an anticipation ofGeorgeRomero’sNight of theLivingDead(1968).ThestoryseesthecharacterspitchedoutofapastoralcommunallifeintothekindofsurvivalistatomisationthatRomerowilldepict.Thestory’sunsettlingpowerdependsontwolevelsofthreat:thefirst,ofcourse,isthebrutephysical

terrorofthebirds’attack.Butitisthesecondlevelthattakesusintotheeerie.Asthestorydevelops,weseeresidualwartimecertaintiesandauthoritystructuresdisintegrate.Whatthebirdsthreatenistheverystructuresofexplanationthathadpreviouslymadesenseoftheworld.Initially,thepreferredaccountofthebirds’behaviouristheweather.Astheattacksintensify,othernarrativesemerge:thefarmerforwhomHockenworkssaysthattheideaiscirculatingintownthattheRussianspoisonedthebirds.(Thisturntothe readymade explanations ofColdWar paranoiamakes a certain sense,whenwe remember that thebirdshavesetasidetheirdifferencesinordertodevelopakindofspeciesconsciousness,analogoustoclassconsciousness.)BBCradiobroadcastsassumeacrucialroleinthestory.Initially,thebroadcastsarethe trusted voice of authority: when the BBC announces that the birds are amassing everywhere, theanomaloussituationachievesakindofofficialvalidation.Atthispoint, theBBC issynonymouswithanauthoritystructurethatitisassumedwill“dosomething”torepelthebirds’attack.But,asthebroadcastsbecomeincreasingly infrequent, itbecomesclear that there isnomoreastrategytodealwith thebirdsthanthereisanadequateexplanationoftheirbehaviour.Bytheend,theBBCisnolongerbroadcastingatall,anditssilencemeansthatwearedefinitivelyinthespaceoftheeerie.Therewillbenoexplanation,for thecharactersor for the readers.Norwill therebeany reprieve:at theendof thestory, thebirds’siegeshowsnosignsofconcluding.

InanotherofduMaurier’swell-knownshortstories,“Don’tLookNow”(1971),the“somethingwherethere should be nothing”, the forces that lie beyond ordinary modes of explanation, are extrasensoryperceptionandfate.Thestoryisaboutthewayinwhichthemisrecognitionanddisavowalofthepowerofforesightendsupcontributingtotheveryeventthatwasforeseenhappening.JohnandLauraareamarriedcouplevisitingVeniceaspartof theirgrievingprocessfortheiryoung

daughter,whohas recentlydiedof an illness.While sitting in a restaurant, theymeet a strangepairofsisters,who say that they can see the daughter sitting between the grieving couple, laughing. Laura isdelighted, andbecomes fixated on the sisters; John is skeptical andhostile, certain that the sisters areexploitinghiswife’sgrief.Soonafterwards,thecouplelearnthattheirsonatschoolinEnglandisill,anditisdecidedthatLaurawillreturnhometobewithhim.WhenJohniswalkingaroundthecity,hethinksheseesLaurawiththetwosistersonavaporetto.Inapanic,hegoestothepolice,surethatthesistershaveabductedLaura.YetJohnlearnsthatLaurareturnedasplanned;ahumiliatedJohnhastoexplaintothepolice thathewasmistaken,and toapologise to thesisters.Afterhehas taken thesistershome,heseeswhathethinksisayoungchildbeingpursuedbyaman.Veniceisbeingmenacedbyaserialkiller,and John fears that the childwill be its next victim. Butwhat he thoughtwas a child turns out to bemurderousdwarf—presumablytheserialkiller—whokillsJohn.Ashedies,JohnonlynowrealisesthathisseeingthesisterswithLaurawasacaseofforesight,aglimpseintothenearfuturewhenthethreewouldbetogetherathisownfuneral:

AndhesawthevaporettowithLauraandthetwosisterssteamingdowntheGrandCanal,nottoday,nottomorrow,butthedayafterthatandheknewwhytheyweretogetherandforwhatsadpurposetheyhadcome.Thecreaturewasgibberinginitscorner.Thehammeringandthevoicesandthebarkingdoggrewfainter,and‘OhGod,’hethought,‘Whatabloodysillywaytodie…’

Insomeways,thestructurethatemergeshereissimilartothetimeloopthatwediscussedearlier,butthe loop here is less tight, and the register is eerie rather thanweird, because the emphasis is on anobscuredagent:fateitself.Fatehereiscertainlyterrifying,but,asJohnrealisesinhisdyingmoments,thepatternsitweavesexhibitacertainartistrythatintheendisironic,andperhapsevenmacabrelycomic,aswellasharrowing.Oneironyisthat,preciselybecauseitisnotrecognisedassuch,John’sforesightdoesnotallow fate’spatterns tobe foreseen. Johnshares thedisavowalofhisownpowersofextrasensoryperceptionwithanothermalefatallydefinedbyself-blinding,TheShining’sJackTorrance,whoweshalldiscussinalaterchapter.AswithJackTorrance,extrasensoryperceptioncompromisesJohn’smasculinesenseofself-determination;likeJack,John’sunderestimatingoftheforcesthatthreatenthis—ultimatelyillusory — self-possession feed into the power of those very forces, which in the end leads to hisdestruction.NicRoeg’s filmadaptation (1973) (ofwhich, this time, duMaurier approved) is an exercise in the

poeticsoffate.Hereasinsomanyofhisfilms,Roegworkswithparallels,pre-figurationsandechoes,invitingus to see timeasa rhyming structure.The rednessof the stainona slide that John is studyingrhymeswiththerednessoftheraincoathisdaughteriswearingwhenshedies;buthisdaughter’sdeathisnot somucha completedcatastropheas theopeningmoment in agrimpoeticpattern thatwillonlybeclosed with John’s death, at the hands of the dwarf wearing a near-identical red raincoat. As Roegheightensoursensitivitytotheserhymes,hesuggeststheeeriecontoursoffatefulforcesthatwillneverfully come into view.Repetitions of colour are supplemented by sonic doublings. In keepingwith thestory,Roeg’s renderingofVenice is intensely eerie, andmuchof thishas todowith theuseof sound.Roeg took advantage of the way in which Venice acts as a sound maze, its architecture generating“schizophonic”effectsbyseparatingsoundsfromtheirsources,producingaduplicitoussonicspace.JohnandLauraoftenlosetheirway,returninginadvertentlytoplacestheyhadjustleft,retracingtheirstepsanddoublingback,wanderingaroundacitythatisadubiouslabyrinth,andthefragmentedimageofafatethatcanonlyberecognisedtoolate.

IfthesetwoworksbyduMaurierareaboutanagencythatshouldnotbethere—thecollectivecunningofbirds;thepoeticweavingoffate—thenChristopherPriest’snovelsTheAffirmation(1981)andTheGlamour(1984)areorganisedaroundabsences,gapswhereagencyshouldbe.Thetwoleadcharactersaredefinedbygapsinthestoriesthattheycantellaboutthemselves,andoneeffectofPriest’swork(likethatofAlanGarner,towhichweshallturnlater)istomakeusappreciatetheeeriepowerofstories.The Affirmation appears at first to be the story of a young man, Peter Sinclair, who has had a

breakdown after a relationship has collapsed and he has lost his job. A meeting with an olderacquaintance leads to Sinclair taking up an offer to live in the olderman’s second home, a rundowncottageinruralHerefordshire,inexchangefordecoratingandrenovatingtheproperty.Whileheisatthecottage,Sinclairstartswritingwhathecomestothinkofasanautobiographicalwork,apieceofwritingthatwillfinallyexplainhisownlifetohim.Wedonotatfirstseethistext—perhapsweneverseeit—onlySinclair’s alternately euphoric and tortured thoughts about it.Sinclair admits that hehasbegun toembellishandindeedwhollyalterelementsofthenarrative—changingrelativelytrivialdetailssuchasthe names of places and characters, but also personality traits and key events, rationalizing that theseamendmentsmeanthatthenovelwillhavefidelitytoa“highertruth”.Thisiswhatmanynovelistswouldclaim,andPriestisnodoubthavingaself-mockingjokeathisownexpensehere.Whenweeventuallyseeit,Sinclair’s“autobiographical”textappearstobenothingofthesort:itlooks

likeaworkofextravagantfantasy(indeeditappearstobelongalmosttothefantasygenre).Actually,weare never certain that what we are reading is Sinclair’s autobiographical manuscript; in at least oneversionofwhathappens,thetreasuredmanuscriptwhichSinclaircarriesaroundwithhimisnothingmorethanasheafofemptypapers.Butinthemanuscriptthatweread,Sinclairbecomesthewinnerofaspeciallottery,runonaplacecalledCollago,anislandthatispartofa“DreamArchipelago”—avastislandgroupthat,asitsnamesuggests,appearstobeatleastasmuchastateofmindasageographicallocation.Thelotteryallowswinnerstoundergoaprocesscalled“athanasia”,whichwillgivethemalimitedkindofimmortality—theirbodieswillbecleansedofanymorbiditiesandwillbeimmunefromcontractingany future illnesses, but they may still die as a result of accidents. However, the athanasia processinvolvesthemlosingtheirmemoryentirely.Theirpersonalitieswillberebuiltonthebasisofadetailedquestionnairewhich they complete before the athanasia operation.However, Sinclair insists that thoseconductinghisrehabilitationusehisownautobiographicaltextinstead(whichcannotnow,evidently,bequitethesametextastheonewearereading:itmustexistonelevel“down”fromthisnarrativeaboutthearchipelagoandthelottery).In the remainder ofThe Affirmation, the relationship between the narrative lines set in real world

locationsandthosewhichtakeplaceintheDreamArchipelagobecomesincreasinglytangled.ItappearsthatSinclair—orsomepartofSinclair—isproliferatingfracturednarrativesinordertodeflectfromthetraumaofhisroleinthesuicideofhislover,Gracia.AnepisodefromSinclair’schildhoodprovideswhatmightbethekeytothewholenovel.Herecallsan

incidentwhere,afteranaccident,heretrospectivelylostanymemoryofthepreviousthreedays:

Duringthesethreedays,Imusthavebeenalert,consciousandself-aware,feelingthecontinuityofmemory,sureofmyidentityandexistence.Aneventthatfollowedthem,though,eradicatedthem,justasonedaydeathwoulderaseallmemory.Itwasmyfirstexperienceofakindofdeathand,sincethen,althoughunconsciousnessitselfwasnottobefeared,Isawmemoryasthekeytosentience.IexistedaslongasIremembered.

The irony is that the Sinclair of theDreamArchipelago undergoes the “death” of amnesia in order toachieveimmortality.AndifSinclairexists“as longasheremembers”, theproblemis that thedifferentversions of Sinclair do not remember: the “this-world” Sinclair because his consciousness hasfragmented under pressure from Gracia’s suicide; the Dream Archipelago Sinclair because he hassubmittedtotheathanasiaprocess.Whatiseeriehereistheagencyoftheunconsciousitself.TheAffirmationcanbereadasanextended

reflection on the conundrum of how it is possible to conceal something from ourselves, how a singleentitycanbesimultaneouslytheonewhoishidingsomethingandtheonefromwhomthethingishidden.Thiscanonlyhappenbecause theunityandtransparencywhichweordinarilyascribe toourmindsareillusory.Gapsandinconsistenciesareconstitutiveofwhatweare.Whatcoversover these lacunaearestories—whichthereforepossesstheirownagency.Memoryisalreadyastory,andwhentherearegapsinmemory,newstoriesmustbeconfabulatedtofillintheholes.Butwhoistheauthorofthesestories?Theansweristhatthereisnotsomuchanauthorasaconfabulatoryprocesswithoutany“one”behindit.This process isn’t a pathological deviation from the norm, but the way in which identity ordinarilyfunctions.However,thisfunctioningisusuallyobscured,andonlycomesintoviewwhensomethinggoeswrong — when the stories fail, and the question about the machinery that produces them becomesunavoidable.Priest’s novel TheGlamour returns to many of these preoccupations, particularly the problems of

amnesiaandconfabulation.RichardGreyisacameramanwhohaslosthismemoryasaresultofbeingcaughtinaterroristbombblast.HeisrecoveringinahospitalinDevon,whenheisvisitedbyawoman,Susan Kewley, who claims to have been his girlfriend. Like The Affirmation, the novel turns on therelationshipbetweengapsandstories,withmemoryunderstoodasaparticularkindofstory,susceptibletomanipulation and reconstruction. For instance, one of the doctors working on Grey’s rehabilitationreferstotheconditionof“hystericalparamnesia”,inwhichpatientsconfabulateawhole“remembered”worldonthebasisofafewfragments.Thenovel offers alternate versions of howRichard andSusanmet. In the first version, the one that

Richardinitiallybelieves,andwhichheseemstohaverecoveredviahypnosis,thecouplemetwhileonholiday in France. Their developing relationship was overshadowed by the presence of Susan’smanipulative lover,Niall,withwhomshewants tobreakoff,butwhohasasinisterholdoverher.YetSusanutterlyrejectsthisaccount,claimingthatshehasneverbeentoFrance,andthattheiraffair—againwithNiallalwaysinthebackground—actuallytookplaceinLondon.ThereissomethingintenselyeerieabouttheretrospectivedowngradingoftheepisodesinFrance.Tothereader—andpresumablytoGrey—theeventsinFrancehaveavividnesswhichmakesthem“feel”atleastasreal,ifnotmorereal,thanthe episodes in London narrated by Kewley. (This is something like a reverse of the effect of whathappens inTheAffirmation: theDreamArchipelagoscenesappearat first tobea fantasyora fiction-within-a-fiction,ontologicallyinferiortotheepisodeswhichhappeninthereal-worldlocations,buttheyattainavividnesswhichexceeds thatof themore“realistic”sectionsof thenovel.) If theFrenchstorywasnotreal,weareconfronted,asinTheAffirmation,withthequestionoftheagentthatproducedit.AttheclimaxofTheGlamour,weseemtoreceiveananswertothisquestion:inametafictionaltwist,Niallclaimstobethenarratorofthewholenovel,anditisNiallwhohas“fed”RichardhisfalsememoriesoftheFrance trip. If theoverwhelmingeffect of this revelation is to somewhatdissipate the senseof theeerie that the novel has built up—we now seem to know the precise nature of the agentwhich hasproducedall these stories—weare still leftwith theproblemof the scopeofNiall’s influence:howmuchofwhatwehavereadisNiall’scontrivance,howmuchbelongstowhatNiallstillcallsRichard’s“real life”, and towhat extent canNiall’s fictionsbe separated from this “real life”? IfRichardhas a“reallife”beyondNiall,thisimpliesthatNiallis“only”thenarrator,someonewhoistellingRichard’sstory,nothisauthor-creator—despiteNiall’sclaimthat“Ihavemadeyou,Grey.”The metafictional struggle between Niall and Richard can be read as part of the novel’s core

preoccupation with the question of invisibility. If Niall is the narrator, he is a “level up” from thecharacters he is narrating, and therefore not fully visible to them (they can interact with Niall thecharacter, but not with Niall the narrator). But the novel is about invisibility in a seemingly morestraightforwardway.Niall, Susan and to some extent Richard himself apparently have “the glamour”.Glamour,thenovelexplains,isanoldScottishword,and

[i]ntheoriginalsenseaglamourwasaspell,anenchantment.Ayoungmaninlovewouldapproachthewisestoldwomaninhisvillageandpayherforacharmofinvisibilitytobeplacedonhisbeloved,sothatshecouldnolongerbecovetedbytheotheryoungmen.Onceshehadbeenglammered,ormadeglamorous,shewasfreefrompryingeyes.

Thenovelisambivalentabouthowthisdisappearanceisproduced—isitaninducedfailuretosee?Dosomepeoplesimplyescapenotice,andforeverfall intothebackground?Oris itsomeformofsorcerywhichallowsNiallandtheothersnotbeseen(butwouldthisultimatelybeanydifferentfromaninducedfailuretoseeinanycase)?Disappearance,alongsideamnesia,isaclearcaseof“nothingwherethereshouldbesomething”.But

thetwocasesareverydifferent.Whereasamnesiageneratesagapthatisperceivedandfelt—agapthatdemands filling by a story; disappearance is a gapwhich conceals itself. It is an example of negativehallucination,aconceptwhichisintroducedintothenovelwhen,whileunderhypnoticsuggestion,Greyisinducednottoseeawomanwhoisinthesameroomashim.Negativehallucinationisaphenomenonthatisinmanywaysmoreinteresting—andmoreeerie—than“positive”hallucination.Notseeingwhatis there is both stranger and more commonplace than seeing what is not there. Failure to see, theinvoluntaryprocessofoverlookingmaterialwhichcontradicts—orsimplydoesnot fit inwith—thedominantstorieswhichwetellourselvesispartoftheongoing“editingprocess”throughwhichwhatweexperienceasidentityisproduced.Innegativehallucination,objectsandentitiesaretypicallyregisteredbutnotseen.If,say,someoneisinducedintonotseeingaboxlyingonthefloor,theywillneverthelessswervetoavoidtheboxwhentheywalkacrosstheroom,andwhatismoretheywillproducearationale,a little story, explainingwhy they have done so. ItwasFreudwho introduced the concept of negativehallucination, and, as with confabulation, the phenomenon illuminates the eerie qualities of theunconscious,itsnegativeproduction.Theunconscious,somethingwhichisitselfagap,aninvisibility,isalsotheproducerofgapswhicharenotseen.

OnVanishingLand:M.R.JamesandEno

AsImentioned in the introduction to thisbook,my thoughtson theeerieemergedfromacollaborativeprojectthatIworkedonwithJustinBarton,OnVanishingLand.Theeventualformthatprojecttookwasa forty-five-minute audio-essay, but its origins came in awalk thatwe took in Suffolk, in the east ofEngland, going from the coastal town of Felixstowe inland toWoodbridge.We were supposed to bescoutinglocationsforanotherproject,butthelandscapedemandedtobeengagedwithonitsownterms.ThesymbolicmarkersofthebeginningandendingofthejourneywereFelixstowecontainerport—an“unvisitedvastness”,asJustinputitinthescriptforOnVanishingLand—andSuttonHoo,theworld-famoussiteofanAnglo-Saxonshipburial.Theportandtheburialgroundoffertwodifferentversionsoftheeerie.Thecontainerportloomsover

thedecliningseasidetown,theport’scranestoweringabovetheVictorianresortlikeH.G.Wells’MartianTripods.Approachedfromthecountryside,fromTrimleymarshes,thecranespresideovertheruralscenelikegleamingcyberneticdinosaurseruptingoutofaConstable landscape.Viewed in thisway, theportappearsalmostasaweirdphenomenon,analienand incommensurableeruption in the“natural”scene.Ultimately,however,itisthefeelingoftheeeriethatisdominant.There’saneeriesenseofsilenceabouttheportthathasnothingtodowithactualnoiselevels.Theportisfulloftheinorganicclangsandclanksthatissuefromshipsastheyareloadedandunloaded;what’smissing,atleastforthespectatorwatchingtheportfromavantagepointoutside,areanytracesoflanguageandsociability.Watchingthecontainerlorriesandtheshipsdotheirwork,orsurveyingthecontainersthemselves,themetalboxesrackeduplikea materialised version of the bar charts in Gibson’s cyberspace, their names ringing with a certaintransnational,blank,Ballardianpoetry—MaerskSealand,Hanjin,K-line—oneseldomhasanysenseofhumanpresence.Thehumansremainoutofsight,incabs,incranes,inoffices.I’mremindedinsteadofthemute alien efficiencyof thepoddistribution site inPhilipKaufman’s 1978versionof Invasion of theBody Snatchers. The contrast between the container port, in which humans are invisible connectorsbetween automated systems, and the clamour of the old London docks, which the port of Felixstoweeffectivelyreplaced,tellsusagreatdealabouttheshiftsofcapitalandlabourinthelastfortyyears.Theportisasignofthetriumphoffinancecapital;itispartoftheheavymaterialinfrastructurethatfacilitatestheillusionofa“dematerialised”capitalism.Itistheeerieundersideofcontemporarycapital’smundanegloss.Sutton Hoo, meanwhile, is eerie in at least two different senses. Firstly, it constitutes a gap in

knowledge.ThebeliefsandritualsoftheAnglo-Saxonsocietythatconstructedtheartefactsandburiedtheshipareonlypartlyunderstood.(Theshipitselfandtheartefactsitcontains—includingsomeincrediblyintricate jewellery—was long agomoved to theBritishMuseum.Replicas now stand in theVisitorCentreatSuttonHoo.)Secondly,SuttonHoo—aburialmound,standingabovethetownofWoodbridge—isaneeriesiteinitsownright:desolate,atmospheric,solitary.Anotherwayofmarkingthebeginningandendingofourjourneyintotheeerieisbythinkingabouttwo

figures:M.R.JamesandBrianEno.Jamessetoneofhismostfamousghoststories,“Oh,Whistle,andI’llCometoYou,MyLad”(1904),inathinlyfictionalisedFelixstowe,whileEno’s1982album,Ambient4:OnLand,isinpartanengagementwithSuffolkcoastalterritory.JamesapproachedtheSuffolklandscapeasaholidayingantiquarian,visitingfromCambridge.Eno,meanwhile,cametotheterrainasareturningSuffolk-bornnative(hewasborninWoodbridge),reconstructinginsoundthe“places,times,climatesandmoods”oflandscapeshehadwalkedthroughasachild.

“Oh, Whistle, and I’ll Come to You, My Lad” concerns Parkins, a Cambridge scholar who hastravelleduptoEastAngliaforawalkingholiday.ItissetinBurnstow,atransparentcodeforFelixstowe.Parkins is a close double of James himself: Jameswas aCambridge antiquarianwhowas a frequentvisitor to Suffolk. The contrast between the urban world which Parkin has left behind and the emptyheathlandoverwhichhewandersisalsoacontrastbetweenenlightenmentknowledgeandancientlore,andParkins’estrangementconsistsinlargepartinhisfindingthemodesofscholarlyexplanationwhichworksowellinCambridgelibrariessuddenlyhavingnopurchaseonwhatheencountersintheSuffolklandscape.In “Oh, Whistle, and I’ll Come to You, My Lad” and “AWarning to the Curious” (1925), James

discovers a template that later writers such as H.P. Lovecraft, AlanGarner, Nigel Kneale andDavidRudkinwillworkfrom.Thetwostoriesturnontheunearthingofoldobjects—abronzewhistleandanancientcrown—whichcarryancientthreats.ButwhentheBBCadaptedthesestories,thefilmsbecameasmuchabouttheEastAnglianlandscape—“bleakandsolemn”,asJamesdescribeditin“AWarningtotheCurious”—astheydidaboutthedemoniccreaturescalledupbytheinorganicartefacts.JonathanMillerdidn’tuseFelixstoweasa location inhis1968adaptationof“Oh,Whistle,and I’ll

Come toYou,MyLad”,but the legendarySuffolk townofDunwichand the tinyvillageofWaxham inNorfolk.ThecrucialsceneinwhichParkin(slightlyrenamedintheadaptation)comesuponthewhistlewhilstwanderingamongthegravestonesonacrumblingcliff-sidewererecognisablyfilmedinDunwich—a place,which as James’ namesakeHenry notedwhile on awalking tour of Suffolk, consists nowalmostentirelyofabsence.Dunwich,onceathrivingseaport,wasnearlydestroyedatastrokebyastormin1328;mostofwhatremainedwasgraduallyclaimedbythesea,sothattodayonlyafewhousesandasinglechurcharestillstanding,themselvesthreatenedbytheslowlyvoraciousocean.Waxhamisalsoaplacegovernedbyabsence.Withitsfewcottagesanddilapidatedchurch,itfeelslike

theskeletonofavillage.ButMillerdidn’tuseanyofthevillage’sfewlandmarks,concentratinginsteadonthesemi-abstractterrainofthebeach.ThelargelyfeaturelessbeachatWaxhamisanexcellentversionofthelandscapeasdescribedbyJames:“alongstretchofshore-shingleedgedbysand,andintersectedatshortintervalswithblackgroynesrunningdowntothewater”,a“bleakstage”onwhich“noactorwasvisible”,anddefinedby“theabsenceofanylandmark”.InMiller’sversion,Parkin,playedbyasplendidMichaelHordern,isacrumblinglogicalpositivist,

hisminderodingassurelyasthethreatenedEastAngliancoastline,onlyfarmorequickly.Hordern,whowasneverbetter, conveysParkin’swithdrawal, hisgestures andexpressions suggestingconversationalgambitsandanecdotesthatworkfarbetterwhenrehearsedinthetheatreofhismindthantheyeverwouldinanyinter-personalcontext.Thisisamanmoreathomewithbooksthanpeople.InthemannerofA.J.Ayer,Hordern’sParkin iswont todismiss theconceptof lifeafterdeathasdevoidofmeaning.Yet thestridencyofhisphilosophicalpositionisbeliedbytheunsteadinessofhismumblingexposition.Atonelevel, theemptydunesandsolitaryheathlandbecomeanobjectivecorrelativeforParkin’s increasinglysolipsisticmental state. Yet the beach is also the zonewhere Parkin encounters the outside, the alienforcesthatfatallydisrupthisinteriority.ThereisastrongaffinitybetweenMiller’stelevisionadaptationof“Oh,Whistle,andI’llCometoYou,

MyLad” andEno’sOn Land: both in effect aremeditations on the eerie as itmanifested in the EastAnglian terrain.With its lingering concentration on the landscape, its brooding silences, and its longscenesdevoidofmuchaction,itwasasifMillerproducedsomethinglikethetelevisionequivalentoftheambientmusic thatEnowouldlater invent.WithOnLand,Enowrote inhissleevenotes for thealbum,“thelandscapehasceasedtobeabackdropforsomethingelsetohappeninfrontof;instead,everythingthathappens is apartof the landscape.There isno longera sharpdistinctionbetween foregroundandbackground.”TheeerinessofMiller’sfilmcomesfromthewayittreatsthelandscapeasanagentinitsown right. The film captures a seductive slowness proper to the nearly-deserted heaths and beaches,

sublimeintheirsombredesolation.Parkinunderestimatesthepowersofthisarchaicandarcaneterrainathisperil.ForJames,whowasbothahorrorwriterandaconservativeChristian,thefascinationfortheoutsideis

alwaysfateful,asthetitleof“AWarningtotheCurious”madeclear.ButOnLand ismoreopen to theidea of an outside that need not be threatening or destructive.With its gentle, eddyingmovements, itsbubblings and babblings, its susurrating suggestions of nonorganic sentience, On Land calls up adreaming landscape teeming with detail. Eno’s biographer David Sheppard wrote that, for all itsinvocationsofEno’schildhood, theatmosphereofOnLand “was lessoneof sentimentalyearningandmore one of introverted, sensual intoxication.” Certainly, On Land is sensually intoxicating, but“introverted”seemsanoddwordforarecordthatseemssolackinginpsychologicalinteriority.Thereisnodoubtasenseofsolitude,awithdrawalfromthehubbubofbanalsocialityinOnLandbutthisemergesas a precondition for openness to the outside, where the outside designates, at one level, a radicallydepastoralisednature,and,attheouterlimits,adifferent,heightenedencounterwiththeReal.EnorecountsinthosesamesleevenotesthatpartoftheinspirationforOnLandlayinhisambitionto

produce an “aural counterpart” to Fellini’sAmarcord (1973).The shift into sound opens up the eerie.There isan intrinsicallyeeriedimension toacousmaticsound—sound that isdetached fromavisiblesource— and one of the most unsettling tracks onOn Land is “Shadow”, which features a quietlydistressingwhimperthatcouldbeahumanvoice,ananimalsobbing,oranauralhallucinationproducedbythemovementofwind.Thissuggeststheworkofsomehostileagent,butpartofwhatmakesOnLandremarkableisthewaythatitisopentothepossibilityofaneeriethatisnotcontainablebythehorrororghoststorygenres:anoutsidethat—pulsingbeyondtheconfinesofthemundane—isachinglyalluringevenasitisdisconcertinglyalien.ForJames,theoutsideisalwayscodedashostileanddemonic.WhenhereadhisghoststoriestohisCambridgeaudienceatChristmas,theglimpsesofexterioritytheyofferednodoubt brought a thrill to his listeners, but they also camewith a firmwarning: venture outside thiscloisteredworldatyourperil.YettheworldthatJames—aVictorianfigureinthetwentiethcentury—soughttodefendhadinmanywaysalreadyvanished,orwasonthebrinkofvanishing.TheBathHotelinFelixstowe—whereJameshabituallystayed,themodelforthehotelin“Oh,Whistle,andI’llCometoYou, My Lad” — was burned down by suffragettes in 1914. Ultimately, I want to emphasise thedimensionsoftheeeriethatJamesforeclosed,butforthemoment,let’sconsidertwowriterswhofollowJamesintoexploringthemalignversionoftheeerie:NigelKnealeandAlanGarner.

EerieThanatos:NigelKnealeandAlanGarner

Pulp-horror,archaicsciencefictionandthedarkeraspectsoffolkloreshareapreoccupationwithexhumationoforconfrontationwithancientsuper-weaponscategorisedasInorganicDemonsorxenolithicartifacts.Theserelicsorartifactsaregenerallydepictedintheshapeofobjectsmadeofinorganicmaterials(stone,metal,bones,souls,ashes,etc.).Autonomous,sentientandindependentofhumanwill,theirexistenceischaracterisedbytheirforsakenstatus,theirimmemorialslumberandtheirprovocativelyexquisiteforms.[…]Inorganicdemonsareparasiticbynature,they[…]generatetheireffectsoutofthehumanhost,whetherasanindividual,anethnicity,asocietyoranentirecivilisation.

—REZANEGARESTANI,Cyclonopedia:ComplicitywithAnonymousMaterials

RezaNegarestanicouldbedescribingherethestructurethatJamesusesin“Oh,Whistle,andI’llCometoYou,MyLad”and“AWarningtotheCurious”:butthispatternisalsousedbytwoofJames’successors,Nigel Kneale and Alan Garner. In some of their most important works, Kneale and Garner showdisinterred“inorganicdemons”/artefactsoperatingas fatalisticengines,drawingcharacters intodeadlycompulsions.BothKnealeandGarnerexplorethecontoursofwhatyoumightcallaneerieThanatos—atranspersonal (and transtemporal)deathdrive, inwhich the “psychological” emerges as theproductofforcesfromtheoutside.

Quatermass’ThanatosThetelevisionseriesNigelKnealeismostfamousforwritingaretypicallydescribedasoperatingontheintersticesbetweengenres (especiallyhorrorandscience fiction).But Iwouldargue thatwhat ismostcharacteristicofKneale’sbestworkisitssenseoftheeerie.UnlikeM.R.James,Knealedoesnottakethesupernaturalonitsownterms.Infact,Kneale’sstandardmove—mademostobviouslyinQuatermassandthePit—istoofferascientificremotivationofwhathadpreviouslybeentakentobesupernatural.Whatinoneregistercanbeapprehendedasa“demon”appearsinanotherregisterasaparticularkindofmaterialagent. It’s true,Knealeagrees, that sciencesince theEnlightenmenthasmaintained there isnosupplementaryspiritualsubstance,butthematerialworldinwhichweliveismoreprofoundlyalienandstrange thanwehadpreviously imagined;andrather than insistingupon thepre-eminenceof thehumansubjectwhoisallegedtobetheprivilegedbearerofreason,Knealeshowsthatanenquiryintothenatureofwhattheworldislikeisalsoinevitablyanunravelingofwhathumanbeingshadtakenthemthemselvestobe.AttheheartofKneale’sworkisthequestionofagencyandintent.Accordingtosomephilosophers,it

is the capacity for intentionality which definitively separates human beings from the natural world.Intentionality includes intent aswe ordinarily understand it, but really refers to the capacity to feel acertainwayaboutthings.Riversmaypossessagency—theyaffectchanges—buttheydonotcareaboutwhattheydo;theydonothaveanysortofattitudetowardstheworld.Kneale’smostfamouscreation,thescientistBernardQuatermass,couldbesaidtobelongtoatrajectoryofRadicalEnlightenmentthinkingwhichistroubledbythisdistinction.RadicalEnlightenmentthinkerssuchasSpinoza,Darwin,andFreudcontinuallyposethequestion:towhatextentcantheconceptofintentionalitybeappliedtohumanbeings,nevermindtothenaturalworld?ThequestionisposedinpartbecauseofthethoroughgoingnaturalisationthatRadicalEnlightenmentthoughthasinsistedupon:ifhumanbeingsfullybelongtotheso-callednaturalworld, then on what grounds can a special case be made for them? The conclusions that RadicalEnlightenment thinkingdrawsare theexactoppositeof theclaimsforwhichso-callednewmaterialistssuchasJaneBennetthaveargued.NewmaterialistssuchasBennettaccept that thedistinctionbetweenhumanbeingsandthenaturalworldisnolongertenable,buttheyconstruethistomeanthatmanyofthe

features previously ascribed only to human beings are actually distributed throughout nature. RadicalEnlightenment goes in the opposite direction, by questioning whether there is any such thing asintentionalityatall;and if there is,couldhumanbeingsbesaid topossess it?Theanswer iscomplex:theremaybesomethinglikeintentionalityatworkinhumanbeings,butitdoesnotcorrespondwithwhathuman beings, in their casual phenomenal self-reflections, think of as their personality, consciousintentionsorfeelings.Here iswhereKnealecomes in.Quatermassdiscovers themechanical-automatic-alienbasisofwhat

hasbeentakentobehuman.WhatemergesastheeventualobjectofQuatermass’researchiswhatFreud,in“BeyondThePleasurePrinciple”(1920),callsThanatos.Bystrikingcontrastwiththenewmaterialistideaof“vibrantmatter”,whichsuggeststhatallmatteristosomeextentalive,theconjectureimpliedbyFreud’spositingofThanatosisthatnothingisalive:lifeisaregionofdeath.Freud’slaterinvocationofadualistic struggle betweenThanatos andEros can be read as a retreat from the forbiddingmonism of“BeyondThePleasurePrinciple”,whichargues that all life ismerelya route todeath.What is calledorganiclifeisactuallyakindoffoldingoftheinorganic.But the inorganic is not the passive, inert counterpart to an allegedly self-propelling life; on the

contrary,itpossessesitsownagency.Thereisadeathdrive,whichinitsmostradicalformulationisnotadrivetowardsdeath,butadriveofdeath.Theinorganicistheimpersonalpilotofeverything,includingthat which seems to be personal and organic. Seen from the perspective of Thanatos, we ourselvesbecome an exemplary case of the eerie: there is an agency at work in us (the unconscious, the deathdrive),butitisnotwhereorwhatweexpectedittobe.Butthisisnotthewholestory.Thepointhereisnotthatwearetheblindslavesofthedeathdrive,but,

if we are not, it is because of an equally impersonal process: science, which consists in part ofdiscovering and analysing the very processes that Freud calls Thanatos. The figure of the RadicalEnlightenmentscientist,then,issomeonewhounderstandstheThanatoidalnatureoftheirownimpulses,butwho—preciselybecausetheyunderstandthis—offerssomepossibilityofescapefromthem.IwillnowexplorethisbyconsideringtwoofKneale’scelebratedworks—QuatermassandthePit(195859)and The Stone Tape (1972), and one of his lesser regarded series — the final installment of theQuatermassseries,Quatermass,from1979.Quatermass and the Pit is about an excavation in the fictional London tube station ofHobbs End.

Workers uncoverwhat turns out to be aMartian spaceship filledwith the corpses of repulsive quasi-insectbeings.Aliens,we think.Yet thegeniusofKneale’sscript is that theMartians turnoutnot tobealiens—inthesenseofbeing“differentfromus”—atall.Fleeingthedestructionoftheirownplanet,the Martians had, five million years previously, interbred with proto-human hominids in order toperpetuatetheirspecies.So the distinction between alien and human is fatally unsettled. As the Quatermass sequence

progresses, the alien has become increasingly intimate: In the first installment, The QuatermassExperiment—thealiensareoutinspace;inthesecond,QuatermassII(akindofBritishequivalentofInvasionoftheBodySnatchers)—thealiensarealreadyamongstus;andinthethird,QuatermassandthePit—wearethealiens.When,attheendofthefilm,QuatermassmakesastandagainsttheMartiansandearnestlyhopesthat

Earthdoesnotbecome“theMartians’seconddeadplanet”,thiscouldlooklikearetreatfromthefilm’spitilessmessage— that we ourselves areMartian. Yet even if Kneale has already deconstructed theoppositionbetweenErosandThanatos,humanandMartian—unravelthehuman,andyoudiscoverthatitisonlyafoldwithinthebodyofanorganicThanatos—heisstillentitledtoplacehopeinthesciencethathasdiscoveredthis.AdarkerversionoftheoriginofhumanitystorytoldinKubrick’s2001:ASpaceOdyssey(towhichwe

will return in a later chapter), Quatermass and the Pit also shares much with J.G. Ballard’s The

Drowned World (1962): most importantly the theme of what Greil Marcus in Lipstick Traces calls“phylogenetic memory”. In Quatermass and the Pit, the memory is a “literal” memory, a deeplysubmergedbutstillaccessiblementaltrace(triggered,inthefilm,bytheunearthingofthespaceship);inThe Drowned World, the “memories” are encoded in the physical form of the human being itself,Ballard’s “spinal landscapes”. Quatermass and the Pit is archaeological; The Drowned World isgeological.Butinbothhumannervoussystemsandmemoryareconceivedofasinorganicrecordings—relicsoftraumaticeventsthathumansmusteitherdecodeorrepeat.Kneale foregrounded this themeof recording inTheStoneTape.Here, a groupof scientists take up

residenceinanewresearchfacility.Itquicklybecomesapparentthatthebuildingishaunted:oneoftheirnumber,a femalecomputerprogrammer, isparticularly“sensitive” to theghost (aservantgirl fromthenineteenthcenturywhodiedinamysteriousfall).Inevitably,thescientistsgofromscepticaldismissaltoamanicneedtoexplainandmapthephenomenonwithoutmuchofapauseforbreath.Kneale’s thesis is that hauntings and ghosts are particularly intense phenomena that are literally

recordedbymatter,bythestoneoftheroom.(Hencethe“stonetape”ofthetitle.)Whatthescientistshadbeenlookingfor,apparentlycoincidentally,wasanew,morecompactanddurablerecordingmedium.Butwhatthehauntingphenomenonoffersisthepossibilitynotonlyofanewrecordingmedium,butofanewplayer: the human nervous system itself. In theirmoment of exultant bliss (before the inevitably bleakdenouement),thescientistslaughandjokeabouttheprospectofatotallywirelesscommunicationsystem:transmissionsbeameddirectly intoyourhead (likeWilliamGibson’s cyberspace,butwithout even the‘trodes).Butthescientists’obsessiveactivityendsupwipingthetape—oratleastwipingawaythethinglast

recordedonto it.Somethingelse, somethingmoreancient, stirsbeneath, terrifying the femalecomputerprogrammerintoliterallyfallingintothefootstepsofthenineteenth-centurygirl,plungingtoherdeathinastateof total terror.SowhatKneale implies in theendis thebreakdownof thedistinctionbetweentheplayerandwhatisbeingplayed.Tobeginwith,itseemsthattheghostlyscreamsarepassiveandinert,asincapableofexertingagencyasthedryrotthatafflictsthehauntedroom;yetintheend,it isthehumanbeingswhoarerevealedtobecaughtinaterriblecompulsiontorepeat.Itisasiftheroom—thesite,itis eventually implied, of some unimaginably ancient place of sacrifice— solicits the scientists intoprecipitatingyetanotherdeath,intoplayingoutthesameoldsequenceonceagain.Thehumanplayersarethemselvespartofanaeons-oldpatternofsenselessrepetition.EerieThanatos,again…Thanatosloomslargeinthefinal,under-rated,Quatermassserial.Knealesawthisasarequiemforthe

Sixties:adarkparableaboutthethanatropicdriveswhichyouthmessianismcouldnurture.InplaceofthehippiedreamofarenewedEarth,histrance-intoxicatedpost-punkproto-crusties—thePlanetPeople—long for an escape into another world, another solar system.Quatermass’ landscape was projecteddirectlyoutoftheanxietiesofthe1970s: thechokingecosphere, thefuelshortages, thepower-cuts, thedisintegrationofthesocialcontractintoaHobbesianwarofall-against-all—itwasSixtiesutopianisminruins.Thosebarricadedstreets,therovingarmedstreetgangs(inspiredbyBaaderMeinhofandtheRedand

AngryBrigades)couldequallywellhavewalkedoffaKillingJokerecordcoverorfromaConservativeparty election broadcast. Such was the way in which imaginaries and impulses — reactionary,neoarchaic,revolutionary—becamecollapsedintooneanother(collapsedliketheabandonedvehiclesfromwhichthegeriatriccolonyintheserialconstructtheirboltholerhizome)in1979.Ifyouwanttothinkofanaloguesforthe1979Quatermass,looktosomeofthemajorpost-punkrecords

of that year— Tubeway Army’s Replicas, Joy Division’sUnknown Pleasures — rather than to thecinematicblockbusters(StarWarsandCloseEncountersoftheThirdKind(both1977))towhichitwasinevitably, and unfavourably, compared at the time. That said, the early, obsessive scenes of CloseEncountersoftheThirdKindcouldalmostbeKnealeian—butallofthatisdissipatedattheendbythe

Jarre-likelightshowandtheappearanceoftherathercutealiens.Whatdisappearsisnothinglessthantheeerie itself, as theearlyautomatismof themaincharacters, andmanyof thequestionsabout thealiens(indeed,thequestionofwhethertherearealiensatall)giveswaytowhathassincebecomestandardinblockbustersciencefiction:thecompulsoryspectacleofconspicuouslyexpensiveFX.WhatCloseEncounters of the ThirdKind has in commonwithQuatermass is its vision of human

populations entranced into unconscious complicity with the alien powers. But Quatermass isconsummately able to resist the temptation to which Spielberg must succumb — that ofanthropomorphizing thealiens.Thepurposesof thealiens inQuatermass remainunfathomablyopaque,liketheirphysicalforms.Anythingwe“learn”aboutthemisconjecture,inference,speculation.Theyare,ineverysense,lightyearsawayfromus.Kneale’sgreat themes—the intimacyof thealien; the lust forannihilation inorganicbeings—this

timeemergeinananalysisofyouthmillenarianism.Hisrenditionofyouthcultureis,predictably,moretodowithJeffNuttall’sBombCulture(1968)thanitisAge-of-Aquariusutopian.Theurgetoherdtogetherinto crowds is interpreted symptomatically as the following of a programme seeded deep into theunconsciousoftheyoung.Kneale’susualcybergothicmethodology—disinterring thepresent in therelicsof theDeepPast—

thistimefocusesonNeolithicstonecircles.Quatermasshypothesisesthatthemegalithicsitesaretraumarecords, the stones arranged as commemorations ofmass exterminations: the Earth’s scar tissue. (Theparallelbetweenastro-apocalypticeventsandstonecircleshadactuallybeenmadethreeyearsearlier,inITV’smemorablyeeriechildren’sprogrammefrom1976,ChildrenoftheStones.)ThestonecircleswerethesitesofwhatQuatermassominouslyreferstoasprevious“harvestings”of

thehumanrace.Whocansaywhatthespeciesreapinghumanityislikeandwhattheirmotivationsare?Alustforprotein?Energyvampirism?Quatermasscanonlyguess.Here,Knealedrawsupontheeerieaffectwhich stone circles typically produce. As I noted above, stone circles confront us with a symbolicstructure that has entirely rotted away, so that the deeppast of humanity is revealed to be in effect anillegiblealiencivilisation,itsritualsandmodesofsubjectivityunknowntous.Kneale was disappointed with the casting of JohnMills, which was forced on him by the Euston

productioncompanythatinsistedonabig-namestar;hepreferredAndréMorellandAndrewKeir(whohadplayed thescientist in, respectively, theTVand the filmversionsofQuatermassand thePit). HesupposedlyfoundMills insufficientlyheroic,scarcelyrecognisableas thesamefigureMorellandKeirhadportrayed.YetMills’quietanger,hiscompassionanddisgustforhumanity,hisslightedbutenduringdignity,make

himwhatcouldbethedefinitiveQuatermass.MillsbringsaterribleauthoritytothecosmicSpinozismoftheshow’sethicalpayoff.WhentheyoungastronomerJoeKapp—justthawingfromtheshockoflosinghis entire family— talks of “evil”, Quatermass corrects him: “Maybe evil is always someone else’sgood.Perhapsit’sacosmiclaw.”

TheMythicTimeofRedShiftIt issaidthatAlanGarner’sextraordinarynovelRedShift (1973)was triggeredby theauthorseeingapieceofgraffiti ata railwaystationwhich read“not reallynownotanymore”.There is somethingsoeerie,socryptic,sosuggestiveaboutthatphrase,especiallywhenwrittenasananonymousgraffito.Whatdidthenamelessauthorofthisvagabondpoetrymeanbyit,andwhatdiditmeantothem?Whatevent—wasitapersonalcrisis,aculturalevent,amysticalrevelationofsomekind?—promptedthemtowriteit?AnddidanyoneelsebutGarnereverwitnessthephrasegraffitiedontotherailwaystationwall?Orwas itonlyGarnerwhosaw it?Not that Iamsuggestinghe imagined it—but thephrasesoperfectlycapturesthetemporalvorticesinGarner’sworkthatitseemsasifitcouldhavebeenaspecialmessagemeantonlyforhim.Perhapsitwas,whateverthe“intentions”ofthegraffitiwriterhappenedtobe.

Ifthemostfamousanonymoussourceintheworldistobebelieved,thewords“notreallynownotanymore”werescrawledinlipstick,beneathtwolovers’namesthathadbeenchalkedontothewall.Inwhichcase,theexplanationforthephraseseems—onthefaceofit—tobesomewhatprosaic.Someone—oneofthetwolovers,oroneoftheirfriends,enemiesorrivals,orastranger—wasmakingacomment—sarcastic,melancholic,angry?—aboutthestatusofthelovers’relationship.Aphrasethatisnotquitebanal,butwhichiscertainlytransparent,conversational—“notreallynownotanymore”—acquiresapoeticopacitybyvirtueof theomissionofacomma.Yet,eventhatapparentlydeflationaryexplanationcannot conjure away the eeriness of the phrase: “not really now not any more”. To say there wassomethingfatedaboutGarner’sencounterwiththisgraffitiistoredoublethephrase’sintrinsic,indelibleeeriness.Forwhatdoesthephrasepointtoifnotafataltemporality?Nonow,notanymore,notreally.Doesthismeanthatthepresenthaseroded,disappeared—nonowanymore?Areweinthetimeofthealways-already,wherethefuturehasbeenwritten;inwhichcaseitisnotthefuture,notreally?Butwearegettingaheadofourselves.What,exactly,happens inRedShift?The“novel”—a label

which scarcely seems adequate for a text whose cryptic density makes it resemble a prose poem—juxtaposesthreetimeperiods:RomanBritain,theEnglishCivilWarandthethen-presentday.Thecontemporaryepisodecentresonthetormented,asphyxiatinglyintenserelationshipbetweenTom

andJan.Theirentanglementhasablocked,frustratedqualityseeminglyfromthestart.Externalobstacles—thehostilityofTom’sparentstotherelationship;thephysicaldistancebetweenthecouple,nowthatJanhasmovedtoLondon—aredoubledbyinternalobstacles,mostpowerfullyanddistressinglythosegeneratedbyTom’sobsessivejealousyandpossessiveness,whichbecomesmalevolent—evendeadly—afterhediscoversthatJanhadanaffairwithanolderman.ItisTom’sverydesiretopossessJan,toclaimownershipoverherverybeing,whichultimatelydrivesJanaway.Thisquicklybecomesmoreself-destructivetoTomthanit isdestructiveofJan,asJanincreasinglyassertsherautonomyandultimatelyendstherelationship.TheCivilWarepisodeinvolvesayoungepileptic,ThomasRowley,andhiswifeMargery,wholivein

theCheshire villageofBarthomley.He and theother villagers are barricadedup in the churchbehinddefencestheyhaveimprovisedtorepelRoyalisttroops,whenRowleyhasafitandaccidentallyfiresamusket,causingtheRoyalists tobrutallyattack.Thewomenareraped,andall themenbarRowleyarekilled.ButRowleyandhiswifearehelpedtosafetybyoneofthemostsavageoftheRoyalistsoldiers,ThomasVenables,whoisalsoMargery’sformerlover.The Roman occupation episode focuses on Macey, one of a number of Roman soldiers from the

destroyedNinthLegion.ThechildlikeMaceybefriendsaCelticpriestessthatthesoldiershaverapedandcaptured.Ultimately,thepriestesskillsthesoldiersbypoisoningtheirbread,andescapeswithMacey.The relationship amongst these periods is enigmatic, if not outright unintelligible. What all three

episodeshaveincommon—besidescertaindifferentlyrepeatingtraumaticelements—isaninorganicobject:aNeolithicvotiveaxe,whichassumessymbolicsignificanceforallthreeofthecouples.Thisaxeservesmany functions— it seems tomark, atoneand the same“time”, continuityand simultaneity, aswellasoperatingasakindoftrigger(causing,forinstance,RowleyandMaceytofit).What Red Shift discloses is not, evidently, a linear temporality, in which the different historical

episodessimplysucceedoneanother.Nordoesitpresenttheepisodesinarelationofsheerjuxtaposition—inwhichnocausalconnectionatallisassertedamongstthedifferentepisodes,andtheyareofferedtous asmerely sharing some similarities. Nor dowe have the idea— familiar from science fiction orfantasyconventions—ofacausalityoperating“backwards”and“forwards”throughtime,so thatpast,presentandfuturehaveinfluenceupononeanother.ThislatterpossibilityistheclosesttowhatRedShiftseemstobedoing,butthenovel’sscramblingoftimeissocompletethatwearenotleftwithanysecuresenseof“past”,“present”and“future”atall:notreallynowanymore.Isthere,then,nonowbecausethepasthasconsumedthepresent,reducedit toaseriesofcompulsiverepetitions,andwhatseemedtobe

new, what seemed to be now, is only the playing out of some out-of-time pattern? This formulation,perhaps, is closest to the cold fatality that seems to (un)ravel inRed Shift: Yet if different historicalmomentsareinsomesensesynchronous,wouldthisnotmean,notthattherewasnonow,butthatitisallnow?AwholeotherlevelofeerierepetitioncomesintofocuswhenweconsiderRedShiftinitsrelationship

bothtoGarner’sothernovelsandtotheworkofotherwriters.Thenovelisakindofrepetition-without-origin.ItcanbereadasanextensionandintensificationofthemodelestablishedbyGarner’sownearliernovels,Elidor(1965)andTheOwlService(1967).Inhis1975lecture“InnerTime”,Garnerexplainedthat his novels could all be seen as an “expression” of a particular myth, so that hisElidor was an“expression” of the ballad of “Childe Rowland and Burd Ellen”, while The Owl Service was an“expression”of themythofLleu,BlodeueddandGronw,fromtheWelshmyth-systemtheMabinogion.For Red Shift, the source material was the ballad of Tam Lin. With each successive novel, therelationshipbetweenGarner’sfictionandthemythwhichis“expressed”becomesmoreoblique, to thedegreethat,bythetimeofRedShift,asCharlesButlernotesinanimportantessayonthenovel,“AlanGarner’sRedShiftandtheShiftingBalladof‘TamLin’”,manywerewonttodismisstheconnectionwiththeTamLinmythasfancifulorstrained.ButlersummarisestheTamLinmyth—orperhapsitwouldbebetterreferredtoasaseriesorcomplexofmyths—asfollows:

Theballadof‘TamLin’existsinnumerousversions.TherearenineinChild’sEnglishandScottishPopularBalladsalone,andthatiscertainlynotanexhaustivecollection.Manyofthedifferencesbetweenversionsarequitesignificant,asweshallsee,butthenarrativecanbebroadlysummarisedthus:ayoungwomancalledJanet(insomeversionsMargaret)goestoCarterhaugh(orKertonha,Chaster’sWood,ChesterWood,etc.)againsttheinjunctionofherparents,whofearshewilllosehervirginitytoTamLin,afairyyouthwhohauntstheplace.TheresheplucksaflowerandthussummonsTamLinhimself.Hechallengesherpresence,butsherepliesdefiantlythatCarterhaughisherownpropertyandthatshehasasmuchrightashetobethere.Onherreturnhome,itbecomesapparentthatsheispregnant.Herfamily(variouslyhermother,sister,brother,orafamilyretainer)isshocked.SheassertsthatTamLinisthechild’sfatherandreturnstoCarterhaugh,eithertofindTamLinorelse(insomeversions)tofindaherbtocauseanabortion.TamLinappearsandexplainsthatheisnotafairyatallbutayoungmanofhumanbloodwhowasstolenawaybytheFairyQueenwhenhewasaboy.Althoughhislifewiththefairiesispleasant,everysevenyearsonHalloweenthefairiesmustpaya‘tithetohell’,andthisyearheislikelytobethevictim.IfJanetwishestosavehim(andthereforegiveherbabyafather),shemustexecuteacomplexprocedurethatinvolvespullingTamLinfromhishorseasheridespastwiththefairytroop,holdingfasttohimwhileheundergoesaseriesoffrighteningtransformations,andfinallycoveringhisnakedbodywithhergreenmantle.SheachievesallthisandthuswinsTamLinfromtheFairyQueen,whoisbitteratherloss.

Butlerconvincinglyarguesthat,despitethelackofmanyexplicitreferencestoTamLin,therearemanyintricateechoesofthemyth(s)inRedShift.Themostobvious—andmostsuperficial—mirroringisinthe names of some of the characters — Tom/Thomas and Jan/Margery as variations on Tam andJanet/Margaret—but thedeeper resonances are at the levelof themes: the ideaofpossession (whichinsteadoftakingasupernaturalformmanifestsitselfinepilepticseizures,traumaticvoidingsofpersonalidentitythatare—forthatveryreason—alsoecstasies);andthenotionof“holdingon”(Margeryandthepriestess savingThomas/Macey).Morebroadly,Tomand Jan are pitchedout of linear time into amythictime;or,rather,theillusionoflinearityisshatteredbytheeerierepetitionsandsimultaneitiesofamythic time.This is essentiallywhat happens to the three central characters inTheOwlService, whobecomeengagedinakindofdeadlyeroticstruggle,astheyassumetherolesofthemythicfiguresLleu,BlodeueddandGronw.Itisasifthecombinationofadolescenteroticenergywithaninorganicartefact(in this case a tea set decoratedwith an owlmotifs) produces a trigger for a repeating of the ancientlegend.Itisnotclearthat“repeating”istherightwordhere,though.Itmightbebettertosaythatthemythhasbeenre-instantiated,with themythbeingunderstoodasakindofstructure thatcanbe implementedwhenever theconditionsareright.But themythdoesn’t repeatsomuchas itabducts individualsoutoflineartimeandintoits“own”time,inwhicheachiterationofthemythisinsomesensealwaysthefirsttime.HerethemythwouldbesomethinglikethefatalcompulsivepatternintowhichthescientistsinTheStoneTapefall.

WithRedShift,Garner ineffect transformswhathehadnarrated inTheOwlService intosomethingthatisperformed.Thereaderisabductedintomythictime,asGarner’suseofcompressionandellipsisputslineartimeandnarrationundersomuchstressthattheyallbutdisappear.Theimpressionweformisthatitisnotthatlineartimeperceptionorexperiencehasbeencorruptedbytrauma;itisthattime“itself”hasbeentraumatised—sothatwecometocomprehend“history”notasarandomsequenceofevents,butas a series of traumatic clusters. This broken time, this sense of history as a malign repetition, is“experienced” by the threemajor male characters (Tom/Thomas/Macey) as seizure and breakdown; Ihave placed “experienced” in inverted commas here because the kind of voiding interruption ofsubjectivity that the three characters undergo seems to obliterate the very conditions that allowsexperiencetohappen.Forthisreason,IthinkButlermovestooquicklywhenhearguesthatthe“threemenbecome,ineffect,asinglesupra-historicalpersonality,allofwhoseexperiencesarecontemporaneous”.Youcouldequallywellargue thereverse—thatrather thanthe threemeninsomesensebecomingthe“same”individual,whattheyalllackisanycoherentorunitarysenseofselfhood.Equally,youcouldsaythatratherthansharingthe“same”moment,Macey,TomandThomassubsistinabrokentime—atimefromwhichsameness,unityandpresencehavebeensubtracted.LikeKneale, then,Garner’sworkendlesslyworriesawayat thequestionofagencyand intent.Free

will ismissing,oratleastradicallycompromised.Humanfreedomisverydifferentto“freewill”,andcanonlybe asserted if it reckonswith agencies thatbelongprimarily instead to (unconscious,mythic)structuresthatdrawpowerfromthepeoplethattheyabductintothemselves.Landscape—thelandscapesofCheshire inmany of his novels, includingRedShift, and the landscape of northWales inTheOwlService— are a crucial element of thesemythic structures. Repeatedly throughout his fiction,Garnerpoints to the eerie power of landscape, reminding us of theways inwhich physical spaces conditionperception,andofthewaysinwhichparticularterrainsarestainedbytraumaticevents.Themythic,asGarner understands it, is somethingmore than themerely fictional, just as it cannot be reduced to thefantasmatic. Rather, the mythic is part of the virtual infrastructure which makes human life as suchpossible.Itisnotthecasethatfirstofalltherearehumanbeings,andthemythicarrivesafterwards,asakindof cultural carapaceadded toabiological core.Humansare from the start—or frombefore thestart,beforethebirthoftheindividual—enmeshedinmythicstructures.Needlesstosay,thefamilyitselfisjustsuchamythicstructure.LouisAlthusser,emphasizingthewayinwhichthehumanbeingisnevermerelyabiologicalcreature,referstothevirtualculturalinfrastructureasideology,andarguesthatitisnotpossibletoliveoutsideit.WecouldjustaseasilyshifttotheregisterJustinBartonuses,however,andtalkofdreamingsandstories.Garner’sfictionsexceedthelimitationsofbothnaïverealismandfantasybyvirtueoftheircomplexreflectionsonthepower—theeeriepower—ofdreamingsandstories.

InsideOut:OutsideIn:MargaretAtwoodandJonathanGlazer

Womansawnapartinawoodencrate,wearingabathingsuit,smiling,atrickdonewithmirrors,Ireaditinacomicbook:onlywithmetherehadbeenanaccidentandIcameapart.Theotherhalf,theonelockedaway,wastheonlyonethatcouldlive;Iwasthewronghalf,detached,terminal.Iwasnothingbutahead,orno,somethingminorlikeathumb;numb.

Pleasureandpainaresidebysidetheysaidbutmostofthebrainisneutral:nerveless,likefat.Irehearsedemotions,namingthem:joy,peace,guilt,release,loveandhate,react,relate;whattofeelwaslikewhattowear,youwatchedtheothersandmemorisedit.ButtheonlythingtherewasthefearIwasn’talive:anegative,thedifferencebetweentheshadowofapinandwhatit’slikewhenyoustickitinyourarm,inschoolcagedinthedeskIusedtodothat,withpen-nibsandcompasspointstoo,instrumentsofknowledge,EnglishandGeometry;they’vediscoveredratspreferanysensationtonone.Theinsidesofmyarmswerestippledwithtinywounds,likeanaddict’s.TheyslippedtheneedleintothearmandIwasfallingdown,itwaslikesinkingfromonelevelofdarknesstoadeeper,deepest;whenIroseupthroughtheanesthetic,palegreenandthendaylight,Icouldremembernothing.

Ididn’tfeelawful;IrealisedIdidn’tfeelmuchofanything.Ihadn’tforalongtime.PerhapsI’dbeenlikethatallmylife,justassomebabiesareborndeaforwithoutasenseoftouch;butifthatwastrueIwouldn’thavenoticedtheabsence.Atsomepointmyneckmusthaveclosedover,pondfreezingorawound,shuttingmeintoahead...

—Surfacing,MargaretAtwood

Margaret Atwood’s 1972 novel Surfacing and Jonathan Glazer’s 2013 film Under the Skin offercomplementarycasesof theeerie. InSurfacing,wemovefromapositionambiguously“inside” tooneoutside;inUndertheSkintheinsideisapprehendedfromoutside.Thetwoleadcharacters’problematicrelationship towhat Lacan called the Symbolic order (the structure throughwhich culturalmeaning isassigned, andwhich,Lacan said, is secured by the name of the father) is underscored by the fact thatneitherisnamed.ThenarratorofSurfacingcomestofeelasifsheisanalienwhohasbeenplay-actingtheroleofawoman;theleadcharacterinUndertheSkinisanactualalien,whoseekstosimulatehumanbehaviour.Surfacingturnsontheenigmaofamissingfather.Thenarratorhasreturnedtoherchildhoodhomein

Quebec to look for her father, who has disappeared in the Canadian wilderness. The questionwhathappened?hangsoverthenovel,andtheultimatelackofresolutiontothemystery—notonlyisthefathernever found,but thenarratorherselfbecomes lost,unmoored,operatingwithoutco-ordinates—meansthat the eerie atmosphere is never dissipated. As with Garner, in Surfacing there is a tremendoussensitivity to the power of terrain— not now the British countryside, with its vastly overdeterminedhistory of civil war, atrocity and struggle, but the depopulated space of the Canadian bush, with itspromisesandthreats,itsopennessanditsterrifyingemptiness.ItisnotthespectresofhistorywhichhauntSurfacing,butthespacesoutsideorattheedgesofthehumanitself.Itseems,sofaraswecanmakeout,thatthefatherhasfallenpreytoafatalfascinationwiththewilderness,itsanimalsandassociatedlore.Whenthenarratorentershiscabin,shefindsthatherfatherhasfilledhispaperswithimagesofstrangehuman-animalcreatures:signsofmadness,orpreparationsforashamanicpassageoutofwhatpassesformodern civilisation?As the anti-psychiatric rhetoric of the timemight have had it, is there actually adifferencebetweenthesetwopossibilities?Doesnotanyrealrejectionofcivilisationnotentailamoveinto schizophrenia — a shift into an outside that cannot be commensurated with dominant forms ofsubjectivity,thinking,sensation?Insomerespects,Surfacingcouldbeseenasregisteringthebitterawakeningafterthemilitanteuphoria

oftheSixties;Atwood’sfamouslycoldprosefreezingovertheSixties’heatedloins,anddrawing,fromthesemi-desolationoftheCanadianbush,anewlandscapeasalluringandforbiddingasanyinliterature.A conservative reading suggests itself—what surfaces here, itmight seem, are the consequences that

Sixtiespermissivenessimaginedithaddispensedwith.Therepressed—whichinthissensewouldmeantheagenciesofrepressionthemselves—returnsinthespectralformoftheunnamednarrator’sabortedchild, encountered in a dark lake space where excrement and jellyfish-like foetal scrapings float, theabjectedandtheabortedcomminglinginaseweroftheSymbolic.Farfromenablingherto“regain”some“wholeness”, the reintegration of this lost object destroys the fragile collage of screenmemories andfantasies the narrator’s unconscious has artfully constructed, projecting her from the frozen poise ofdysphoriaintopsychosis—which,intheconservativereading,wouldconstituteaproperpunishmentforherlicentiousness.There’sagreatdealatstakeinresistingthisconservativereading,andtheconceptoftheeeriecanhelp

usinthistask.Atwood’snarratorincreasinglyfindsthatthereisnoplaceforher.Shelacksthecapacitytofeelthatissupposedlyconstitutiveof“ordinary”subjectivity.Sheisoutsideherself;amysterytoherself,akindof reflexivegap in thedominant structure: aneerieenigma.Thepoint isnot then to too-quicklyresolvethisenigma,buttokeepfaithwiththequestionsthatitposes.Thenarratorexperiencesthecountercultureaslittlemorethanasham,itslibertarianrhetoricnotonly

serving as a legitimation of familiar male privilege but offering new rationales for exploitation andsubjugation. By 1972, the counterculture’s dreams of overthrowing and replacing dominant structureshave devolved into a series of empty gestures, a congealed rhetoric. If Surfacing rejects the facilegestures of an exhausted counterculture, there is no question of its endorsing the (apparently) safe andsettled world which the counterculture repudiated. That world of supposedly organic solidity— herparents’world,where people have childrenwho grow like flowers in their back garden, the narratorimagines — is gone, Atwood’s narrator notes, with an edge of wistfulness that nevertheless stopssomewhatshortofnostalgic longing.Thequestion thatSurfacing poses, and leaveshanging, ishow tomobilise her discontent rather than treat it as a pathology that requires a cure— either by successfulreintegrationintotheSymbolic/civilisationorbysomepurifyingjourneyoutbeyondtheSymbolicintoapre-linguistic Nature. How, in other words, is it possible to keep faith with, rather than remedy, thenarrator’saffectivedyslexia?Insomerespects,SurfacingbelongstothesamemomentassuchtextsasLuceIrigaray’sSpeculum:Of

theOtherWoman,andGillesDeleuzeandFelixGuattari’sAnti-Oedipus.Theseworksattempttorisetothechallengeof treatingdiscontent, abjectionandpsychopathologyas tracesof anasyetunimaginableoutside rather than as symptoms ofmaladjustment. At hermoment of schizophrenic break-rapture, thenarrator’s vision resembles the “nonorganic life” and “becoming-animal” Deleuze and Guattari willdescribeinAThousandPlateaus:“theythinkIshouldbefilledwithdeath,Ishouldbeinmourning.Butnothinghasdied,everythingisalive,everythingiswaitingtobecomealive.”YetthisfebriledeliriumismoreintunewithwhatBenWoodardhastermed“darkvitalism”thanwithDeleuze,andwhatflowsandstalks in the body-without-organs zone of animal- and water-becomings is something likeWoodard’ssinister“creepof life”: “Ihearbreathing,withheld,observant,not in thehousebutall around it.”TheplacebeyondthemortificationsoftheSymbolicisnotonlythespaceofanobscene,non-linguistic“life”,butalsowhereeverythingdeadenedanddeadgoes,onceithasbeenexpelledfromcivilisation.“ThisiswhereIthrewthedeadthings...”BeyondthelivingdeathoftheSymbolicisthekingdomofthedead:“Itwasbelowme,driftingtowardsmefromthefurthestlevelwheretherewasnolife,adarkovaltrailinglimbs.Itwasblurredbutithadeyes,theywereopen,itwassomethingIknewabout,adeadthing,itwasdead.”Surfacing can be situated as part of another fin-de-Sixties/ early-Seventies moment: the post-

psychedelic oceanic. Atwood’s lake, viscous with blood and other bodily fluids, has something incommonwith the “bitches brew” thatMilesDavis plunges into in 1969, emerging, catatonic, only sixyearslater;itapproachesthedeepseaterrainsJohnMartynsoundsoutonSolidAirandOneWorld:

Palegreen,thendarkness,layerafterlayer,deeperthanbefore,seabottom:thewaterseemedtohavethickened,initpinpricklightsflickedanddarted,redandblue,yellowandwhite,andIsawthattheywerefish,thechasm-dwellers,finslinedwithphosphorescentsparks,teethneon.ItwaswonderfulthatIwasdownsofar...

Butthesespacesofdissolvedidentityarenotapproachedfromtheangleofanowtortured,nowlulledmale on a vacation from the Symbolic, but from the perspective of someone who was never fullyintegratedintotheSymbolicinthefirstplace.Surfacing,likeAtwood’slaterOryxandCrake,isakindofrewritingofFreud’sCivilisationandits

Discontents—thetextwithwhichallthatearlySeventiesradicaltheoryhadtowrestle,andreckon.Justasat theendofOryxandCrake,Surfacingconcludeswithamomentofsuspension,with thenarrator,likeOryx’sSnowman,poisedbetweentheschizophrenicspacebeyondtheSymbolicandsomereturntocivilisation. Perhapswhat ismost prescient aboutSurfacing is its acceptance that civilisation/the bigOther/languagecannot in theendbeovercomebymeansof libido,madnessormysticismalone—yet,despite all this,Surfacing does not recommend an acquiescence in the reality principle. “For us, it’snecessary,theintercessionofwords”,thenarratorconcedes—butwhoisthis“us”?Itseemsatfirsttoencompassonlythenarratorandtheloverwithwhichshemaybeabouttobereconciled.Thenwemightbe tempted to read the“us”ashumanity ingeneral,and thenovelwouldbeendingwitha fairlycheapreconciliation between civilisation and onewhowas discontentedwith it.Yet it’smore interesting tothinkofthe“us”asindicatingthose,likethenarrator,whodonotproperlybelongtohumanityatall—whatkindoflanguage,whatkindofcivilisation,wouldthesediscontentsmake?

UndertheSkinprobessomeofthesameareas,butfromadifferentdirection.Thefilmcouldbeacasestudyinhowtoproducetheeerieoutofunpromisingresources.Itssourcematerial,thenovelbyMichaelFaber,iseffectiveenough,butitdoesn’tpossessmuchofaneeriecharge.Or,rather,thewaythenarrativedevelops progressively eliminates any trace of the eerie until it disappears entirely. The novel soonbecomesrecognisableasaliterary-sciencefictionalsatireonmeat-eatingandthemeatindustry,withtheinconsistencies inhumancarnivoreethicsexposedandmockedwhenhumanbeingsbecomethepreyofalien meat-traders. It is a fable complete with talking animals (although of course the point of thesatirical-fabularreversalisthat,fromthealienperspective,itisthehumanswhoare“talkinganimals”,whomusthavetheirtonguesremovedwhentheyareforcedintocaptivity).The film is a verydifferent beast.Effectively, it is extrapolated from the early part of thenovel—

alone ina car,drivingalong theA-roadsofScotland, ayoungwoman,orwhat appears tobeayoungwoman,stalksmen.Inthenovel,wesoonlearnthatthe“youngwoman”isIsserley,asurgically-alteredextraterrestrialintheemployofaninterplanetaryluxurymeatbusiness.Themensheluresintohercarandsedateshavebeentargetedbecausetheylooklikeprimecuts.Thefilmdeniesusanyofthisinformation(infact,it’sfarfromclearthatthefilmretainsanyofthese

narrativecommitments;weneverlearniftheleadcharacteriscalledIsserley,orifsheworksforameatcorporation).Crudely,wecouldsay that thequickestway toproduceasenseof theeerie is to restrictinformationinthisway.But,asIarguedabove,notanymysterywhatsoeverwillbeeerie;theremustbeasenseofalterity,andthissenseofalterityissomethingthatGlazeraddstoFaber’ssourcematerial.Thereis a curious quality to these additions, of course, becausewhat is added, effectively, are gaps in theviewer’sknowledge.ThetendencyinFaber’snovelistoeliminatethealiennessoftheextraterrestrials,tomakeanequivalencebetweenthemandus—undertheskin,wearethesame(somethingreinforcedbyFaber’s having the aliens calling themselves “humans”).By contrast, the film not only emphasises thedifferencesbetweenthealiensandhomosapiens,italsodenudeshumancultureofitscasualfamiliarity,showingthetaken-for-grantedfromanundeterminedyetexteriorperspective.Intermsofitsgenerationofasenseoftheeerie,thefilmisatanadvantageoverthenovelbecauseitis

notrequiredtogivetheleadcharacter(playedbyScarlettJohansson)anyinteriorlife.Thismeansthatit

is not only thenature of her interior life that is left open: so is the very question ofwhether she hasanything like “interior life” in any recognisable sense. The Johansson character is seen only from theoutside (just as, reciprocally, her illegible behaviour and motives, her lack of “ordinary” emotionalresponses,giveusanoutsiderperspectiveonthesocialworldthroughwhichshemovesasapredator).Herdialogueisbare,functional—perhapslimitedbyhercompetencewithlanguageandaccent(asthefilmbegins,wehear her learn to pronounce a series ofwords in anEnglish accent). In any case, shespeaks only enough to drawmen into her vehicle— and this, in a passingmordant commentary on acertainkindofmalesexuality,doesnotusuallyentailmuchtalking.Sheisneverrequiredtogiveanybutthemostminimalaccountofherself,andalmosteverythingshesaysisinanycaseadeception.Shenevergivesvoice toanyfeelings.Whenshe liaiseswithanotheralien, theydonotspeak.Do theyhave theirownlanguage—orislanguagesomethingthattheymerelyacquireinordertotrickhumans?Dotheyhavefeelings in the same sense thatwe thinkwedo?The film tells uspracticallynothing aboutwhat thesecreaturesare,orwhattheywant—orindeed,ifwhatdrivesthemcanbeconstruedas“desire”atall.PerhapsGlazer’smostsignificantadditionsarethescenesinwhichthehumanpreyiscaptured.Inthe

novel,thecaptureisasimplematterofthemenbeingdruggedintheirseats.Thecaptureinthefilmtakesplaceinsomeundeterminedinterzone,asemi-abstractspace,inwhichthemen,astheyapproachthehalf-clothedJohanssoncharacter,findthemselvesslowlysuckedintocloyingblackooze.Arethesescenes—glaciallyoneiric,darklypsychedelic—a representationof the intoxicatedmen’s stateofmindas theyslipintosomestateofhalf-death?Oristhisanactualinterspace,withtheblackoozeanexampleofalientechnology?Orcoulditbe,asonecommentatorhassuggested,thatthisiswhatsexfeelsliketothealien?Thefilmprovidesuswithnoanswers,andfurtherscenesonlyaddtothenightmareopacity.Weseesomeof the capturedmen, now entirely submerged in the ooze, barely conscious and bloated (perhaps in areferencetothefatteningofthehumanpreythathappensinthenovel).Astheypatheticallyreachoutforeachother,oneofthebodiesissubjectedtoahorriblesuckingandsluicingaction.Thereisacuttoanimageofwhatlookslikerushingblood,asifthebodyhasbeenliquidised.Itcouldbethatthisisasemi-abstract image of themeat processing described in the novel; or it could be suggestive of some other(barelyimaginable)modeofenergytransfer.These fragments—somany eerie ellipses—make the extraterrestrials, if that iswhat they are, as

alienasanythingwehaveseenincinema.ButthescenesoftheJohanssoncharacterinhervan,pickingupmen on lonely side-roads and in crowded clubs, or sizing up potential victims on crowded streets inGlasgow, generate something like a reverse eerie effect. Here, contemporary capitalist culture isestranged,seenthroughanoutsider’seye.TheJohanssoncharacter’stonalflatnessmakesherlookfromtheoutsideasthenarratorofSurfacingdescribesherowninnerstate—numb,detached.Yetthisseemingnumbnessmayofcoursebeawholedifferentaffectivecomportment;oritcouldsuggestatypeofbeingthathasnocapacityforwhatweunderstandasemotions.Itcouldbe,afterall,thatthesekindsofcreatureshavemoreincommonwithinsectsthanwithhumanbeings.ThereisakindofaffinitybetweenJohansson’sflatnessandthenaturalisticstyleinwhichmuchofthe

filmisshot.Sheisthefigurethroughwhomthefilmisfocalised—theaudience’spointofidentification—butsincethereispreciouslittlewithwhichwecanidentify,shefunctionsasakindofanalogueofthecamera itself. In the improvised sceneswith passersby and non-actors in particular,we are invited toexperiencehumanbehaviours,interactionsandculturewithouttheassociationsthatwehabituallybringtothem,andwithouttheformsofmediationsthatusuallyintercedeinmainstreamcinema.Sincethescenesarestrippedofmuchoftheirstandardgeneric,narrativeandemotionalfurniture,thenaturalismbecomesdenaturalizing,asthecameraeffectivelysimulatesthegazeofanalienanthropologist.Asthefilmgoeson,theJohanssoncharactershiftsfrombeingapredatorintobecominganincreasingly

vulnerablefigure.Notaccidentally,thiscoincideswithherbecomingmoreimmersedinhumanculture,asshe engages in what might be an attempt to understand human affection and relationships. There is a

disturbing sex scene, in which she passively and seemingly uncomprehendingly submits to her malepartner,andafterwardsexaminesherselfwithaflashlight,asifshehasbeenbadlywounded.Humansexbecomes estranged, the object of panicked alien attention. The unnerving qualities of this scene areretrospectivelyintensifiedwhen,inanothercontrastwiththenovel,welearnthatthealien’shumanbodyisakindofprosthesis.Wediscoverthisonlyinthedistressingclimacticscene,whenapasserbyattemptstorapeher.Asheattacksher,partoftheprostheticbodycomesaway,leavingagapingholeinherback,likearipinadress.Thealienthencastsasidethedestroyedhumanprosthesis,andanotherfigure—asmoothblackhumanoidform, lackingmanydefiningfeatures—emergesfrominside thewreckage.WeseetheexposedalienbodynowstudyingtheScarlettJohanssonfaceasifitisalatexmask—anechoofanearlierremarkablesceneinwhichJohanssonexaminesherownnakedbodyinamirrorinastrangelydispassionatebutappreciativeway.It isnowclear that themirrorsceneredoublesthe“ordinary”self-objectification that happenswhenwe look in themirror: the alien is not looking at herself, but at thehumanbodysheiswearing.Butthisdisjuncturebetweenaliensubjectandhumanbody-objectonlybringstotheforethefantasmatic

structures that underlie “ordinary” human subjectivity. The climactic image of this almost featurelessfigure throwing aside its human form corresponds to a certain persistent fantasy of the relationship ofsubject to body. This fantasy was codified by Descartes into the philosophical doctrine known assubstancedualism (thebelief thatmindandbodyare radicallydifferentkindsof things).According toLacan,however,Descartes’errorwasmorethanasimplephilosophicalmistake,sinceacertainkindofdualism isembedded in thestructureof language,particularly the languageof thesubject.The I whichspeaksandtheIwhichisspokenofarestructurallydifferent.TheIwhichspeakspossessesnopositivepredicates, it is something like the speaking position as such,while determinate features (height, age,weight,etc.)canonlybeattributedtotheIwhichisspokenof.ThefeaturelessfigureinthosefinalscenesofUnder the Skin, then, is something like a physicalisation of this soul-subject, this I which speaks:lacking in positive physical predicates, it dwells somehow “inside” the body, but it is ultimatelydetachable from this body-housing. The film’s final contribution, then, is to remind us of the sense ofeerinessintrinsictoourunstableaccountsofsubjectandobject,mindandbody.TheeerinessoftherelationshipbetweenbodyandmindwasthesubjectofAndydeEmmony’s2010

BBCadaptationofM.R.James’“Oh,Whistle,andI’llCometoYou,MyLad”,whichwasdiscussedinanearlierchapter.Inthisradicallyreworkedversionofthestory,Parkinistormentedbythedementiathathasreducedhiswifetoacatatonicshell:“abodythathasoutlastedtheexistenceofthepersonality:morehorrifying thanany spookorghoul”. “There isnothing insideus”, theParkin in thisversionmordantlydeclares. “There are no ghosts in these machines.Man is matter, and matter rots.” Yet Parkin’s ownstatementestablishesthatthereareghostsinthemachine,thatacertainkindofspectralityisintrinsictothespeakingsubject.Afterall,who is itwhocantalkofhavingnoinside,ofmanbeingrottingmatter?Notanysubstantialsubjectperhaps,butthesubjectwhospeaks,thesubject,thatistosay,composedoutof theundead, discorporate stuff of language. In thevery act of announcing its ownnullity, the subjectdoesnotsomuchengageinperformativecontradiction,butpointstoanineradicabledualismthatresultsfromsubjectivityitself.TheconditionofmaterialistssuchasParkin(ourconditioninotherwords)isofknowingthatallsubjectivityisreducibletomatter,thatnosubjectivitycansurvivethedeathofthebody,butofneverthelessbeingunabletoexperienceoneselfasmerematter.Oncethebodyisrecognisedasthesubstrate-preconditionofexperience,thenoneisimmediatelycompelledtoacceptthisphenomenologicaldualism,preciselybecauseexperienceanditssubstratecanbeseparated.Thereareghostsinthemachine,andwearethey,andtheyarewe.

AlienTraces:StanleyKubrick,AndreiTarkovsky,ChristopherNolan

Under theSkin presents uswithoneversionof an eerie encounterwith the alien: the alien-among-us.(NicRoeg’sTheManWhoFell toEarth (1976) is another take on this kindof encounter, andDavidBowie’sNewtonisacinematicancestorofsorts toJohansson’salien,even thoughNewton’shomesickexileexudesaromanticpathosthatisabsentfromUndertheSkin’smoreopaqueandunreadableextra-terrestrial.)Itoucheduponanotherversionofthealien-eeriewhenIdiscussedthefinalQuatermassserialearlier.Inthisversion,thealienisnotencountereddirectly;itsphysicalform,aswellasitsontologicalandmetaphysicalfeatures,isneverdisclosed,andthealienisperceptibleonlybyitseffects,itstraces.Wemustnowexaminethiskindofencounterwiththealieninitsownright.Aconsiderationofouterspacequicklyengendersasenseoftheeeriebecauseofthequestionsabout

agencythatcontemplatingitcannotbutpose.Isthereanythingoutthereatall—andifthereareagents,what is their nature? It is therefore surprising that the eerie is disappointingly absent from so muchsciencefiction.StanleyKubrick’s2001:ASpaceOdysseyisperhapsthemostfamousexampleofasciencefictionfilm

whichbucksthistrend,resistingthepositivisticpressuretobringthealiensoutintotheopen.Theenigmaofalienagencyisposedbythefilm’stotem,themonolith,whichissomethingliketheparadigmcaseofaneerieobject.(Throughoutthefilm,thefeelingoftheeerieisreinforcedbytheassociationofthemonolithwith Ligeti’s music, with its sense of awe and alterity.) The monolith’s “unnatural” qualities — itsrectilinearity, its flatness, itsopaquegloss—force the inference that itmusthavebeenproducedbyahigher intelligenceofsomekind.The logichere resemblesasecularversionof theso-calledargumentfromdesign,whichmaintainedthatthefunctionality,purposivenessandsystematicityofmanyaspectsofthenaturalworld compel us toposit a supernatural designer.There is little traceof the theological inKubrick’shandlingof these themes,andnoattempt topositivelycharacterisewhatkindofentitymighthaveproducedthemonolith.Thenatureoftheintelligencewhichhasintervenedinhumanhistory,andthepurposesofthisintervention,remainundisclosed.Thefilmleavesusonlysomequiteminimalresourcesonthebasisofwhichwemightspeculate.Inadditiontothemonolithsthemselves,thereisthesimulatedhotelroom—unnervinginitsverybanality—inwhich,attheendofthefilm,astronautDavidBowmanispreparedforhisambivalenttransformationintotheso-calledStarChild.Thehotelroommightsuggestthat theintelligencewantsBowmantofeelathome,thoughevenif this is thecase, itsultimatemotivesremain obscure: is it care for this human creature, so far from anything familiar, that motivates theconstructionofthisdwellingplace,orhavetheseinscrutableintelligencescalculatedthatthiswouldbeabetterspaceinwhichtoexperimentallyobservehim?(ThescenesinvolvingthesentientcomputerHAL,whichmaintains thesystemsontheDiscoveryOne

spacecraft,posequestionsaboutagencyonasmallerscale.HALdoesnothaveabody,evenifithasanorgan—aredlight-sensor—andavoicethatispreternaturallycalm.Itcertainlyhasagency,however,and the nature and scopeof that agency—what drivesHAL to rebel against theDiscovery’s crew—becomes the crucialmystery in this section of the film. In the sceneswherewe seeBowman slowly,remorselesslydismantleHAL,andwehearHALbegintoaudiblymentallydeteriorate,weareconfrontedwith the eerie disjunction between consciousness and thematerial hardware thatmakes consciousnesspossible.)

Kubrick’sothermajorcontributiontothecinemaoftheeerieisanother“meta-generic”intervention,The

Shining.Thegenrehereishorrorortheghoststory,soweunderstandthattheundisclosedbeingsherearespectres rather than aliens (although it is perfectly possible that they are in fact some kind of alienintelligence).Intheshiftfromsciencefictiontohorror,thereisalsoanimpliedshiftfromthesuggestionthattheeerieforcesatworkinthefilmarebenign,oratleastneutral—aswearelikelytoconcludewith2001—tothehypothesisthatthepresidingentitiesaremalign.Malignancyandbenignancyareofcourserelativetotheinterestsandperspectivesofparticularentities,asNietzsche’sparableoftheeaglesandthelambsremindsus.Forthelambs,Nietzschetellsus,theeaglesareevil;thelambsimaginethatthebirdsofpreyhate them. In fact, there isnoquestionof theeagleshating the lambs—actually, their attitudetowards the lambs iscloser toaffection,even love:afterall, the lambsarevery tasty.WhatNietzscherendersinacomicmode,TheShiningposesasaneerieenigma,whichremainsunresolved,inthefilm,justasitwasinthenovel.TheOverlookHotel inTheShining is amassiveversionof the room inTheStoneTape: a kind of

recordingsysteminwhichtheviolence,atrocityandmiserythathashappenedinthebuildingisstoredupandplayedbackbythesensitivepsychicapparatusesofthose—likeJackTorranceandhissonDanny—whohavetheabilitytotelepathically“shine”.Increasingly,Jackisdrawnoutofthepresent—whichheshareswithhiswifeWendyandwithDanny—intoanaeonictimeinwhichvarioushistoricmomentsareconflated and compressed. (This time of schizo-simultaneity is perhaps somewhat akin to the time inwhich Tom, in Garner’s Red Shift, finds himself.) But the suggestion is that the apparitions whichalternatelyseduceandmenaceJackarecreatureslikehimself,haplessindividualswhohavebeendrawninto theOverlook’s fatal influence.What remains undisclosed is the nature of the forces that actuallycontrolthehotel.Jackprobesthisinascenewiththespectralbarman,Lloyd:

Lloyd:Nochargetoyou,MrTorrance.Jack:Nocharge?Lloyd:Yourmoneyisnogoodhere.Ordersfromthehouse.Jack:Ordersfromthehouse?Lloyd:Drinkup,MrTorrance.Jack:I’mthekindofmanwholikestoknowwho’sbuyingtheirdrinks,Lloyd.Lloyd:It’snotamatterthatconcernsyou,MrTorrance.Atleastnotatthispoint.

Whoorwhatisthe“house”,andwhatdoesitwant?Jackasksnofurtherquestions,andthefilm—likethenovel—offersnodefinitiveanswers.WeneverseetheOverlook’srealmanagement.Inthenovel,theOverlook’s revelingentitieskeeprepeating the injunction“Unmask!”(a reference tooneof thenovel’smajor intertexts, Poe’s “Masque of the RedDeath”). But neither in the novel, nor in the film, do thecreaturesthathaveseizedholdofthehoteleverfullyrevealthemselves.Itisnotsomuchthattheydonotshowtheirfacesastheydonotseemtohavefacestoshow.Theimageinthenovelthatseemstocomeclosesttodefiningtheirmostfundamentalformistheswarming,teemingmultiplicityofawasps’nest.AsRogerLuckhurstsuggestedinhisrecentbookonTheShining,thewasps’nestimageismissingfromthefilm,butwasperhapstranslatedintosoundviatheinclusionofthemicropolyphonicbuzzingofLigeti’sLontano.Butwhatdothesecreatureswant?Wecanonlyconcludethattheyarebeingswhichmustfeedonhuman

misery.Thiswouldmakethemappear“evil”fromacertainpointofview—but this isessentially theperspectiveofNietzsche’s lambs.After all,most humanbeings arehardly in aposition to judgeotherentitiesonthebasisofwhattheyfeedon.AnothereeriedimensionofTheShiningisopenedupbythefatefulpowersoftheOverlookHotel.Jack

istoldthathe“hasalwaysbeenthecaretaker”ofthehotel.Inonesense,thispointstothe“aeonic”timeofthehotelitself,thetimebeyondlinearclock-timeintowhichJackincreasinglyfindshimselfdrawn.Butitcouldalsorefer to thechainsof influenceandcausationthat ledJackto takingonthepositionof thecaretakerattheOverlook:hisownabuseatthehandsofhisfather,hisfailureasawriter,hisalcoholism,

hisdrunkeninjuringofDanny…howfarbackdoesthehotel’sinfluencego?

AndreiTarkovsky’stwogreatfilmsfromthe1970s—Solaris(1972)andStalker(1979)—areextendedengagementswiththealien-eerie.Inbothcases,Tarkovsky’sversionswentagainstthegrainofthesourcematerial from which they were adapted: Stanislaw Lem’s Solaris (1961) and Boris and ArkadyStrugatsky’sRoadsidePicnic(1971).WhatTarkovskysubtractsfromthenovelsaretheirsatirical,ironicandabsurdistelements,infavourofhishabitualfocusonquestionsoffaithandredemption.Butheretainsthenovels’corepreoccupationsofencounterswiththeunknown.Solarisconcernsaso-calledsentientoceanplanet.Tarkovskydownplaysthescienceof“Solaristics”,

whichplays a largepart inLem’snovel: thevast rangeof speculations andhypotheses thathavebeenadvanced about the planet. Instead, he concentrates on the impact of the planet on psychologist KrisKelvin.WhenKelvinarrivesonthespacestationorbitingSolaris,hefindsthathisfriendDrGibarianisdead,andthetworemainingonboardscientistsarefurtive,spendingmostoftheirtimeskulkingintheirownquarters.Hequicklylearnsthereasonfortheirwithdrawal,whenasimulacrumofhislatewifeHari,who had committed suicide a few years previously, appears, in a state of great confusion, notrememberinganythingandnotknowingwheresheis.Thescientistshavecometocalltheseapparitions“visitors”, and each has his own to come to reckonwith—messages of a sort sent by Solaris, theirpurposeandintentionunknown.Inpanicanddisgust,Kelvinforces“Hari”intoaspacecapsule,whichhesendsoffintothecosmos.However,Hari—orratheranotherversionofHari—returns.Inoneofthemost unsettling scenes in the film,we see that “Hari” has no zip on her dress.Why not?Because theplanethasconstructed“Hari”onthebasisofKelvin’smemories,andthememoryofthatdress(hazyandincompleteinthewaythatmemoriesare)didnotincludeazip.What does Solaris want? Does it want anything, or are its communications better thought of as

automaticemissionsofsomekind?Whatisthepurposeofthevisitorsthatitsends?Youcouldalmostseethe planet as a combination of externalised unconscious and psychoanalyst, which keeps sending thescientistsundischargedtraumaticmaterialwithwhichtodeal.Oris theplanetgrantingwhat it“thinks”are thewishes of the humans, grotesquely “misunderstanding” the nature of grief, almost as if it is aninfantgiftedwithgreatpowers?Thefilmturnsontheeerieimpassethatariseswhenmismatchingmodesofintelligence,cognitionandcommunicationconfrontoneanother—or,itwouldbebettertosay,failtoconfront one another.The sublime alterity of theSolaris ocean is one of cinema’s great images of theunknown.InTarkovsky’sStalker,thealientraceistheZone,aspaceinwhichphysicallawsdonotseemtoapply

in the sameway as they do in the outsideworld. The fairy tale theme of grantingwishes, implicit inSolaris,becomesthemajorpreoccupationofStalker,whichcentreson the idea that there isa“Room”somewhereintheZonewhichcanmakethedeepestdesiresofthosewhoenteritcometrue.The“stalker”is akindof self-taughtexperton theZonewhoguides thosewhowant toexplore this treacherousandwondrousspace.IntheStrugatskys’originalnovel,thestalkerswerepartofacriminalnetworkdedicatedtoextractingartefactsfromtheZone.InTarkovsky’sfilm,thestalkerremainsarenegadefigure—someoftheearlyscenesshowhimleadinghischargespastfences,militarycheckpointsandgunemplacements—buthismotivesnowarespiritualratherthanmaterialistic.Thestalker,withhisrespectfortheZone’smystery,hissensitivitytoitsdangersanditsvolatility,wantsotherstobetransformedbycontactwithitsmarvels.However,thetwogenerically-titledfigureswhojoinhimonthistrip—“Writer”and“Scientist”— prove too cynical and untrusting to explore the Zone in that spirit, to the stalker’s bitterdisappointment. It isnotonlyreachingtheRoomthat isperilous—theRoomhas itsowndangers.Welearn that another stalker, Porcupine, had gone to theRoom after leading his brother to his death.Butinsteadofreturninghisbrothertohim,theRoomgavehimmoney.Inofferingtograntthemtheirdeepestwishes,theRoompresentsajudgementontheirbeing.

Stalkerisremarkableforthewayinwhichitconstructsaneeriespacewithouttheuseofanyspecialeffects.TarkovskyusedanextraordinarilyatmosphericlocationinEstonia:anovergrownspace,inwhichhumandetritus (abandoned factories, tank traps, pillboxes) is overcomeby resurgent foliage, inwhichsubterraneantunnelsandderelictwarehousesarerecruitedintoadreamgeography,ananomalousterrainfull of traps that appear to bemetaphysical and existentialmore than they are direct physical threats.Nothingisuniformhere:time,aswellasspace,cancurveandfoldinunpredictableways.Theaudiencecomestoappreciatethequalityofthisterrainnotsomuchthroughwhatitactuallysees,butfromwhatitintuits via the artistry of the stalker. Cautious, always alert to potential dangers, drawing on his pastknowledge but aware of theway inwhich theZone’smutability so often renders previous experienceobsolete,thestalkerinvokesaspacebristlingwithunseenmenaceandpromise.Humbleinthefaceoftheunknown,yetdedicatedtoexploringtheoutside,thestalkeroffersakindofethicsoftheeerie.ForTarkovsky,theZoneisapproachedlargelyasaspaceinwhichfaithistested.Heavoidstheidea,

mootedinthetitleoftheStrugatskys’novel,thattheZonecouldbenothingmorethananaccident.Insteadof being a miraculous sign of some kind of providence, the Strugatskys suggest, the Zone and all its“magical”properties,couldbenomorethanthetrashunintentionallyleftbehindafterthealienequivalentofaroadsidepicnic.Here,theeeriebecomesanabsurdistjoke.

The question of providence is central to ChristopherNolan’s Interstellar (2014), a film that offers awelcome return to some of the terrain staked out by Kubrick and Tarkovsky in a twenty-first centurycinema landscape thathasso farhad little space for theeerie.The filmdependsupon theprovidentialintervention of a group of seemingly beneficent beings— referred to as “They”—who appear to beaidinghumanity in its escape fromadyingplanet. Initially, “They”produceawormhole,whichmakestravel intoanothergalaxyfeasible.Bytheendof thefilm,we learn that“They”arenotaliensassuch;rather,theyarefuturehumanswhohaveevolvedtoaccessa“fifthdimension”whichallowsthemtostepoutside thefourthdimension, time.But thealterityof“They” isnotcompromisedby therevelation thattheyarefuturehumans,becausethenatureofthesehumansisnotdisclosed.Inevitably,theymustbevastlydifferentfromus—thefutureisanaliencountry.Weapprehendthisfuturespeciesonlybysomeofitstraces—theconstructionofthewormholeandofthemysteriousfive-dimensional“Tesseract”,inwhichtimeislaidoutasifitwerespace,andwhichCooperentersattheclimaxofthefilm.Theprovidentialinterventionisthusrevealedasatimeloop,inwhichfuturehumansactonthepastto

produce theconditionsfor theirownsurvival.Within this timeloop, thereareother timeanomalies—most notably, the anomaly in which Cooper, the astronaut who leads the ultimately successful spacemission, “haunts” his daughter,Murph. In the five-dimensional Tesseract, Cooper desperately contactsMurph,inanattempttogethispastselftostayathomeratherthanbeginningthemissionthatmeanshewillmissmostofhisdaughter’slife.There’ssomethingstrangelyfutileaboutthistimeanomaly.IfCooperwassuccessfulinpersuadinghispastselftostay,thenthemissionwouldnothavegotofftheground(oratleasthecouldnothaveledit);buttheveryfactthatheisintheTesseractandabletocommunicatewithMurphinthepast,meansthathemusthavefailed,inthathehasendedupleadingthemission.ThemissionthatCooperleadsisanattempttofleeanearththatisliterallyblighted—cropswillnot

grow,thepopulationisdecliningfast,itwillnotbeverylongbeforeearthisnolongerhabitableatallforhumanbeings.CooperisrecruitedtoworkforaNASAthathasnowbecomeanundercoverorganisation,operating in secrecy. NASA’s leader, John Brand, has apparently come up with two plans to save thehuman population: Plan A is to launch a centrifuge into space to form a space station; Plan B is topopulateoneofthreepotentiallyhabitableplanets,accessiblethroughthewormholenearSaturn.Thesethreeplanetswerediscoveredonamissionadecadeearlier.Actually, twelveshipsweresentout,butonlythethreepilotedbytheastronautsMiller,MannandEdmundssentbackasignalindicatingthattheyhadreachedaviableplanet.

Thefilmturnsonthecontrastbetweenavisionofanindifferentuniverseandoneshapedbyakindofmaterialprovidence(materialinthesensethatitinvolveshuman-technological,ratherthansupernatural,agency).Someofthemostpowerfulscenesinthefilm—thoseon“Miller’sPlanet”—showthesublimebleaknessofanindifferentnature.Thisoceanplanet,itssurfaceentirelycoveredbywater,issomethinglike the insensate twinofSolaris.WhileSolarispromptsunanswerable speculations—whatpurposesanddesiresdoestheplanetharbour?—Miller’sPlanetpresentsthemutedeterminismofaworlddevoidofintent.Thetsunamisandstillnessesoftheplanet’sendlessoceansaresomanyactionswithoutpurpose,theproductofcauseswithoutreasons.Theveryabsenceofapurposiveagentprovokesafeelingoftheeerie(howcantherebenothinghere?).Theterm“indifferent”isperhapsultimatelyinadequate,sinceitsuggestsanintentionalcapacitythatisnotbeingused.Mutenature,youcouldsay,isnotevenindifferent:it lacks even the capacity for indifference. Even so, it is something like the degree-zero of agency, ifagencyisdefinedsimplyasthecapacitytomakethingshappen.Miller’sPlanetisfullofcauseandeffect;whatitlacksisanydesigningorpurposiveintelligence.The desperate scenes on the planet— the crew’s realisation that the planet is a kind of ocean of

sterility, incapableofsupportinglife; theirmistakingofa tsunamiformountains; theirstruggletoavoidbeingcrushedunderthemonstrouswave—aregivenaddedforcebythefactthattheyareawarethat—becauseofthedistortingeffectsofanearbyblackhole—eachhourontheplanetisequivalenttosevenyearsofearthtime.WeknowthatthisisespeciallypainfulforCooperbecauseofhisdesiretoreturntohis children.When Cooper returns to the ship, he learns there has been a miscalculation— in fact,twenty-three earth years have passedwhile they have been onMiller’s Planet. In awrenching scene,Cooperwatcheshis children’s livespass intoadulthoodover thecourseof a fewshortminutes, ashewatchesthemessagestheyhavesenttotheshipoverthecourseoftwodecades.Love— particularly love between parents and children— is amajor theme of the film. The love

between Cooper and his daughter,Murph, is what ultimately allows Brand’s Plan A to work— thisconnectionbetweenthetwoofthemiswhatenablesCooper,whenheisintheTesseract,tosendMurphthedatasheneedstosolvetheequationonwhichtheplandepends.Althoughthelovebetweenthetwoisthecentralaffective threadin thefilm, it is tragically thwarted.Thetwoareonlyre-unitedonMurph’sdeathbed.Becauseoftheeffectsofrelativity,Cooperlooksmuchthesameashedidwhenheleftearth;Murphisbynowanelderlywoman,herlifeover,andCooperhasmissedmostofit.DuringasceneonboardEnduranceearlierinthefilm,AmeliaBrand(John’sdaughter)makesacase

forloveasaforcefroma“higherdimension”:

Cooper:You’reascientist,Brand.Brand:SolistentomewhenIsaythatloveisn’tsomethingthatweinvented.It’s...observable,powerful.Ithastomeansomething.Cooper:Lovehasmeaning,yes.Socialutility,socialbonding,childrearing...Brand:Welovepeoplewhohavedied.Where’sthesocialutilityinthat?Cooper:None.Brand:Maybeitmeanssomethingmore—somethingwecan’tyetunderstand.Maybeit’ssomeevidence,someartifactofahigherdimensionthatwecan’tconsciouslyperceive.I’mdrawnacrosstheuniversetosomeoneIhaven’tseeninadecade,whoIknowisprobablydead.Loveistheonethingwe’recapableofperceivingthattranscendsdimensionsoftimeandspace.

AmeliaBrand’sdeclarationaboutloveisfarfromdisinterested.ShemakesitwhenthecrewisabouttodecidewhethertotraveltoMann’splanetorEdmunds’planet.BrandwantstogotoEdmunds’planet,butherchoiceisdrivenbythefactthatEdmundswasherlover.Hencehermotiveforbelievingthatloveisamysterious force, with its own occult powers and capacities. Yet it turns out, in the end, that she iscorrect, at least about Edmunds’ planet. It is the only viable environment: as we have seen,Miller’splanetisadesolateocean,whileMann’sisanicywasteland.Theimmediatetemptationhereistodismissthisasnothingmorethankitschsentimentality.Partofthe

powerofInterstellar,however,comesfromitsreadinesstoriskappearingnaive,aswellasemotionallyandconceptually excessive.Andwhat the filmopensuphere is thepossibilityof aneerie love.Lovemoves frombeing on the side of the seemingly (over)familiar to the side of the unknown.OnBrand’saccount,loveisunknownbutsomethingthatcanbeinvestigatedandquantified:itbecomesaneerieagent.

“…TheEerinessRemains”:JoanLindsay

Theyseethewallsofthegymnasiumfadingintoanexquisitetransparency,theceilingopeninguplikeaflowerintothebrilliantskyaboveHangingRock.TheshadowoftheRockisflowing,luminousaswater,acrosstheshimmeringplainsandtheyareatthepicnic,sittingonthewarmdrygrassunderthegumtrees…

—JoanLindsay,PicnicatHangingRock

ThelastwordmustgotoJoanLindsay’s1967novel,PicnicatHangingRock.NotonlybecausePicnicatHanging Rock is practically a textbook example of an eerie novel— it includes disappearances,amnesia,ageologicalanomaly,anintenselyatmosphericterrain—butalsobecauseLindsay’srenditionof theeeriehasapositivity,a languorousanddeliriousallure, that isabsentorsuppressed insomanyothereerietexts.LindsayistheoppositecasetoM.R.James.WhereJames,aswesaw,alwayscodestheoutsideasdangerousanddeadly,PicnicatHangingRockinvokesanoutsidethatcertainlyinvokesaweandperil,butwhichalsoinvolvesapassagebeyondthepettyrepressionsandmeanconfinesofcommonexperienceintoaheightenedatmosphereofoneiriclucidity.Picnic at Hanging Rock shows that sometimes a disappearance can be more haunting than an

apparition.Youcouldsaythat,inPicnicatHangingRock,nothinghappens.Nothinghappens,notinthesensethattherearenoevents—althoughthenovelisaboutanunresolvedenigma.No:nothinghappens,inthesensethatanabsenceeruptsintoempiricalreality:thenovelisaboutthegapthatisopenedupandtheperturbationsitproduces.ThedisappearanceattheheartofthenovelhappensonaValentine’sDaypicnicatHangingRock,in

Victoria,Australia.HangingRockbroodsover thenovel likeoneofOscarDominguezorMaxErnst’sdecalcomaniaspinallandscapes;itisageologicalrelicfromdeeptime,atimethatprecededthearrivalofhumanbeingsbymanymillennia.Itcanonlybeseeninfragments,itslabyrinthinespacesasintensivelytreacherousasthoseofanotheralienpicnicsite,Tarkovsky’sZone.Bytheend,itseemsthatcertainoftheRock’sterrains—psychicasmuchasphysicalspaces—areonlynavigablebytheattainingofadeliriumstate.ThiscalmdeliriumisthedominantmoodinPeterWeir’sfaithful1975filmadaptation,wheretime(andnarrative)areheldinanachingsuspension,andadreamyfatalismdominates.Thepicnicisaday-triporganisedforthestudentsofApple-yardCollege,aprivateboardingschoolfor

girls.TheCollege,anattempttosimulateasmallpartofVictorianEnglandinconditionsthatcouldhardlybemoredifferentfromBritain,squatsinthesurroundinglandscapelikesomeMagrittenon-sequitur.InthecontrastbetweentheRockandtheelegantlystiflingabsurdityoftheCollege’sclothesandrituals,wearemadeawareoftheinherentsurrealismofthecolonialproject:

Insulatedfromnaturalcontactswithearth,airandsunlight,bycorsetspressingontheirsolarplexuses,byvoluminouspetticoats,cottonstockingsandkidboots,thedrowsywellfedgirlsloungingintheshadewerenomoreapartoftheirenvironmentthanfiguresinaphotographalbum,arbitrarilyposedagainstabackclothofcorkrocksandcardboardtrees.

During the course of the picnic, four of the students—Miranda, Edith,Marion and Irma— and theCollege’smathematicsteacher,GretaMcCraw,decidetoclimbtheRock.ThetripuptheRockseemsatfirsttobenothingoutoftheordinary—thereisidlechatter,gossip,somediscussionofthevastageoftheRock.Initially,onlyacuriousstatementbyMarionbreakswiththemood.“Whatevercanthosepeoplebedoingdown there like a lotof ants?A surprisingnumberofpeople arewithoutpurpose.Although it’sprobablethattheyareperformingsomenecessaryfunctionunknowntothemselves.”ItisasifMarionisalreadydetachedfromtheworldbelow,asifshehasalreadycrossedathreshold.Itisafterthefourseea

monolith—“a singleoutcropof pock-marked stone, something like amonstrous eggperched above aprecipitousdroptheplain”—thattheatmospheredecisivelyshifts.Allfourareimmediatelyovercomebylassitude,andfallintoadeepsleep.ThefocusnowmovestoEdith’spointofview.Sheawakesinapanic, demanding to return home.But the others seem now to all have passed over into some altered(trance)state:

‘Miranda,’Edithsaidagain.‘Ifeelperfectlyawful!Whenarewegoinghome?’Mirandawaslookingathersostrangely,almostasifshewasn’tseeingher.WhenEdithrepeatedthequestionmoreloudly,shesimplyturnedherbackandbeganwalkingawayuptherise,theothertwofollowingalittlewaybehind.Well,hardlywalking—slidingoverthestonesontheirbarefeetasiftheywerewalkingonadrawing-roomcarpet.

Miranda,MarionandIrmaslipaway,disappearingoutofsightbehindthemonolith.Edithfleesdowntherock,screaming.By the timeshe returns to thepicnic,“cryingand laughing,andwithherdress torn toribbons”,sheisunabletogiveanyindicationofwhereshepartedcompanyfromtheotherstudents.TheRock is searched, butneither the three studentsnorMissMcCraware found. (A fewdays later,Edithclaims to remember seeingMissMcCrawon the rock, inexplicably stripped down to her underwear.)Initial searches insubsequentdaysyieldnothing.However,a fewdays later, Irma isdiscoveredat theRock, her clothes torn and her corset missing. Suffering from amnesia, she is unable to offer anyexplanation ofwhat happened on the rock. In the rest of the novel,we learn nothingmore aboutwhathappened.At theend,with theCollegecollapsedbecauseof the scandal associatedwith theevents atHangingRock,thedisappearancesremainunexplained.Alongside—andI thinkcontributing to—thenovel’s feelingofeeriness is itscapacity togenerate

“reality-effects”. Although the novel was entirely fictionalised, it was widely, though mistakenly,believedtobebasedonatruestory.Lindsayinvitedthisreception:shewrotethenovelasifitwereafactualaccount,usingreallocations(includingHangingRockitself,anactualgeologicalformation).Thenovel’strickinvolvedre-tellingaclassicFaerystory—youngwomenabductedintoanotherworld—usingtheconventionsofrealism.Oneoftheseconventionswasgivingtheeventaprecisedate.Accordingtothenovel,thethreewomendisappearedonFebruary14th,1900.1900,significantly,istheyearwhichFreudwantedTheInterpretationofDreamsdated (thisdating is, famously, fictional:Freud’s textwasactuallypublishedin1899,buthewantedittobearamoreepochaldate).ButPicnicatHangingRockisnotsetinour1900,inwhichFebruary14thfellonaWednesday,notaSaturday.Aboveallelse,though,theillusionoffactualityisproducedbythelackofanysolutiontothemystery.

ThestoryaboutthepaintersZeuxisandParrhasios,referredtobyLacan,offersaparable.Zeuxiuspainteda bunch of grapes so convincing that birds attempted to eat them. Parrhasios, meanwhile, painted acurtain,whichZeuxiusaskedhim topull aside to revealwhathehadpainted.The lackof explanationmakesPicnic atHangingRock into an analogue of Parhassios’ painting. It became a veil, an enigmawhoseveryirresolutionproducedtheillusionthattheremustbesomethingbehindthecurtain.The novel seems to justify the idea that a sense of the eerie is created and sustained simply by

withholding information. In the case ofPicnic at Hanging Rock, this literally happened: the form inwhichthenovelwaspublishedwastheresultofanactofexcision.Inheroriginalmanuscript,Lindsayprovidedasolutionofsortstotheenigma,inaconcludingchapterthatherpublishersencouragedhertoremovefromthepublishedversionof thenovel.This“ChapterEighteen”waspublishedseparately,asTheSecretofHangingRock.There is no doubt that the original Chapter Eighteenwould have somewhat undermined the novel’s

“reality-effect”. The excised chapter ismarked by a clear change in tone. The suggestiveness that hascharacterisedtheearlierpartsofthenovel—thehintsofanoutside,ofsomethingbeyondtheordinaryworld—giveswaytowhatisbynowquiteclearlyanaccountofananomalousexperience.ThechapterbeginsatmoreorlessthepointthatEdithrunsaway.Miranda,MarionandIrmafeelthattheyarebeing“pulledfromtheinside”bythemonolith.Theyfallasleep,andwhentheyawakeitiswithaheightened,

hallucinogenicsensitivitytotheirsurroundings.Anolderwomanappears,inherunderclothes—itseemsto be GretaMcCraw, but she is not named as such in the novel, nor is she recognised by the othercharacters.When theolderwoman faints,Miranda loosenshercorset.ThispromptsMarion to suggestthat theyall“getoutof theseabsurdgarments”—sothethreestudentsremovetheircorsetsandthrowthemfromtheRock.InwhatisperhapsthemostarrestingimageinChapterEighteen,thecorsetsdonotimmediatelyfalltotheground,butfloatinmid-airatthesideoftheRock.Hastimestopped?Certainly,we are beyond clock-time now: perhaps in dream-time. (In her essay “A Commentary on ChapterEighteen” — included in The Secret of Hanging Rock — Yvonne Rousseau points to a pun — adreamwork-compression—involvedintheimageofthecorsetshangingintheair,arisingfromthefactthat thealternativenamefor“corset” is“stay’”)A“hole in space”appears:“About thesizeofa fullyroundedsummermoon,comingandgoing.Shesawitaspaintersandsculptorssawahole,asathinginitself,givingshapeandsignificance toothershapes.Asapresence,notanabsence…”After thisholefades,theyseeasnakecrawlintoasmallhole.Theolderwomansaysthatshewillfollowit;somehow,she transforms into a crab and passes into the tiny space.After a signal,Marion follows (there is nomentionofanyanimal-becominghere,noranyaccountofhowsheisabletofitherbodyintothehole).When it isMiranda’s turn to cross over, a frightened Irma begs her not to go, butMiranda does notunderstandher fear and reluctance, and she toopasses into thehole. Irma is left onher own,waiting.Afteranindeterminateperiodoftime,aboulderrollsoverthehole.ThefinalimageinthechapterisofIrma—presumablynowawarethatshewillnotbeabletomakethecrossing—desperatelytearingattheboulder.Thepublishedversionofthenovel—theonewithoutChapterEighteen—notonlyleavestheenigma

withoutsolution;italsoleavesopenthequestionofthenovel’sgenre(doesitbelongtoliteraryrealism?Tomurder-mystery?Tofantasy?Tosciencefiction?).TheinclusionofChapterEighteenwouldnothavesettled thequestionofgenre,but itwouldhaveeliminatedcertainpossibilities. Itwouldnotnowseempossibleto,say,readthenovelasamurder-mystery.ButChapterEighteenproducesasmanyenigmasasitsolves.WhatisthestatusoftheexperiencesontheRock?Aretheytobetakenliterally,suchthat,forexample,GretaMcCrawactuallyturnsintoacrab?Aretheytobeunderstoodasaconsequenceofsomestateofintoxication?(Ifthisisthecase,thentheeventscouldstillberecuperatedforarealistreadingofsorts.)The suggestion that thewomenhavepassed through a gateway to the outside invites us to readPicnicatHangingRockasaweirdtale,andtheinclusionofChapterEighteenpushesthenovelintosomespacebetweentheweirdandtheeerie.WhatiscertainisthatChapterEighteendoesnotofferanysimplekind of solution to the puzzles the novel poses. AsYvonne Rousseau put it, “Joan Lindsay’s originalintentionisfinallydisclosed—butherintentionwasnottodissolvethemystery.ThePicnicgeographyisclarified,buttheeerinessremains.”The eeriness is partly a question of the affective atmosphere that hangs over the experiences on the

Rock.JustinBartonhascalledthisatmosphere“solartrance”,anditismanifestedinakindofpositivefatalism. Initially, this fatalism registers as a seeming lack (there is nothing where there should besomething).AstheyfallunderthethralloftheRock,thecharactersseemtobedenudedoftheirpassions.Yetthesepassions,whichverymuchincludefear,areattachmentstotheeverydayworld.ItisIrma’sfear,herinabilitytoletgooftheseeverydayattachments(Lindsay’sfinaldescriptionofIrmareferstoherskillatembroidery),whichultimatelypreventsherfrommakingthecrossing.Sheisunabletoseethroughwhatwas promised in the act of the casting aside of the corsets.Marion andMiranda, however, are fullypreparedto takethestepintotheunknown.Theyarepossessedbytheeeriecalmthatsettleswheneverfamiliarpassionscanbeovercome.Theyhavedisappeared,andtheirdisappearanceswillleavehauntinggaps,eerieintimationsoftheoutside.

Bibliography

Books

Atwood,Margaret.(2013).OryxandCrake.London:Virago

—.(1997).Surfacing.London:Virago

Ballard,J.G.(2014).TheDrownedWorld.London:FourthEstate

Barton,Justin.(2015).HiddenValleys:HauntedbytheFuture.London:ZeroBooks

Borges,JorgeLuis.(2000).“PierreMenard,AuthoroftheQuixote”,inLabyrinths:SelectedStoriesandOtherWritings.London:Penguin

Burroughs,WilliamS.(2012).TheWesternLands.PenguinModernClassics

Butler,Charles.(2001)“AlanGarner’sRedShiftandtheShiftingBalladof‘TamLin’”inChildren’sLiteratureAssociationQuarterly,Summer2001

CCRU.“TheTempletonEpisode”(http://www.ccru.net/digithype/templeton.htm)

Deleuze,Gilles&Guattari.Felix.(2013).Anti-Oedipus,trans.RobertHurley,HelenR.Lane&MarkSeem.London:Bloomsbury

—.(2013).AThousandPlateaus,trans.BrianMassumi.London:Bloomsbury

Dick,PhilipK.(2003).TimeOutofJoint.NewYork:Gollancz

duMaurier,Daphne.(2006).“Don’tLookNow”,inDon’tLookNowandOtherStories.London:Penguin

—.(2004).“TheBirds”,inTheBirdsandOtherStories.London:Virago

Faber,Michael.(2014).UndertheSkin.London:CanongateBooks

Freud,Sigmund.(2011).BeyondthePleasurePrinciple,trans.JamesStrachey.NewYork:Createspace

—.(2010).CivilisationanditsDiscontents,trans.JamesStrachey.London:Penguin

—.(2010).TheInterpretationofDreamstrans.A.A.Brill.London:BasicBooks

—.(2003).TheUncanny,trans.DavidMcLintock.London:Penguin

Garner,Alan.(2014).Elidor.London:HarperCollins

—.(2014).RedShift.London:HarperCollins

—.(2014).TheOwlService.London:HarperCollins

Galouye,DanielF.(2011).Simulacron-3.NewYork:Gollancz

Harman,Graham.(2012).WeirdRealism:LovecraftandPhilosophy.London:ZeroBooks

Hofstadter,Douglas.(2008).IAmaStrangeLoop.NewYork:BasicBooks

Houellebecq,Michel.(2008).H.P.Lovecraft:AgainsttheWorld,AgainstLife.NewYork:Gollancz

Irigaray,Luce.(1985).Speculum:OftheOtherWoman,transGillianC.Gill.NewYork:CornellUniversityPress

James,M.R.(2007).“Oh,Whistle,andI’llCometoYou,MyLad”,inCollectedGhostStories.London:Wordsworth

—.(2013)“AWarningtotheCurious”,inCollectedGhostStories.Oxford:OUP

—.(2013)“CastingtheRunes”,inCollectedGhostStories.Oxford:OUP

Jameson,Frederic.(1992).Postmodernism,ortheCulturalLogicofLateCapitalism.London:Verso

Jarry,Alfred.(2003).UbuRoi.London:DoverEditions

King,Stephen.(2011).TheShining.London:Hodder

Lacan,Jacques(2004).TheFourFundamentalConceptsofPsycho-Analysis,ed.Jacques-AlainMiller,trans.AlanSheridan.London:KarnacBooks

Lem,Stanislaw.(2002).Solaris.London:Faber&Faber

Lévy,Maurice.(1988).Lovecraft:AStudyintheFantastic.Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress

Lindsay,Joan.(2013).PicnicatHangingRock .London:VintageClassics

—.(2013).TheSecretofHangingRock .London:VintageClassics

Lovecraft,H.P.(2005).AttheMountainsofMadness:TheDefinitiveEdition.PenguinRandomHouse:ModernLibrary

—.(2011).“CallofCthulhu”,inH.P.Lovecraft:TheCompleteFiction.NewYork:BarnesandNoble

—.(2011).“ColourOutofSpace”,H.P.Lovecraft:TheCompleteFiction.NewYork:BarnesandNoble

—.(2011).“DreamsintheWitchHouse”,H.P.Lovecraft:TheCompleteFiction.NewYork:BarnesandNoble

------.(2011).“NotesonWritingWeirdFiction”,SupernaturalHorrorinLiterature&OtherLiteraryEssays.Maryland:WildsidePress

—.(2011).“TheShadowOutofTime”,H.P.Lovecraft:TheCompleteFiction.NewYork:BarnesandNoble

Luckhurst,Roger.(2013).TheShining.London:BFI

Marcus,Greil.(2011).LipstickTraces:ASecretHistoryoftheTwentiethCentury.London:Faber&Faber

Matheson,Richard.(2008).TheIncredibleShrinkingMan.NewYork:TorBooks

McHale,Brian.(1987).PostmodernistFiction.London:Routledge

Moorcock,Michael.(1999).BeholdtheMan.NewYork:Gollancz

Negarestani,Reza.(2008).Cyclonopedia:ComplicitywithAnonymousMaterials.Melbourne:re.press

Nuttall,Jeff.(1968).BombCulture.London:HarperCollins

Otto,Rudolph.(1958).TheIdeaoftheHoly.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress

Parrinder,Patrick.(2008).JamesJoyce.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress

Poe,EdgarAllen.(2016)MasqueoftheRedDeath.NewYork:Createspace

Powers,Tim.(2005).TheAnubisGates.NewYork:Gollancz

Priest,Christopher.(2011).TheAffirmation.NewYork:Gollancz

—.(2005).TheGlamour.NewYork:Gollancz

Sheppard,David.(2015).OnSomeFarawayBeach:TheLifeandTimesofBrianEno.London:Orion

Strugatsky,Boris&Arkady.(2012)RoadsidePicnic.NewYork:Gollancz

Thomas,D.M.(2004).TheWhiteHotel.London:W&N

Thomson,Philip.(1972).TheGrotesque.London:Methuen

Wells,H.G.(2015).“TheDoorintheWall”,inTheDoorintheWallandOtherStories.NewYork:Createspace

Woodward,Ben.(2012)SlimeDynamics.London:ZeroBooks

Žižek,Slavoj.(2009).TheSublimeObjectofIdeology.London:Verso

Music

MilesDavis.(1970).BitchesBrew

BrianEno.(1982).Ambient4:OnLand

TheFall.(1980).Grotesque(AftertheGramme)

TheFall.(1982).HexEnductionHour

JoyDivision.(1979).UnknownPleasures

GyörgiLigeti.(1963).RequiemforSoprano,Mezzo-Soprano,2MixedChoirsandOrchestra

GyörgiLigeti.(1967)Lontano

JohnMartyn.(1973).SolidAir

JohnMartyn.(1977).OneWorld

Nico.(1968).TheMarbleIndex

TubewayArmy.(1979).Replicas

Films

2001:ASpaceOdyssey(1968),dir.StanleyKubrick

Amarcord(1973),dir.FedericoFellini

TheBirds(1963),dir.AlfredHitchcock

BlueVelvet(1986),dir.DavidLynch

CloseEncountersoftheThirdKind(1977),dir.StevenSpielberg

Don’tLookNow(1973),dir.NicolasRoeg

Inception(2010),dir.ChristopherNolan

InlandEmpire(2006),dir.DavidLynch

Interstellar(2014),dir.ChristopherNolan

InvasionoftheBodySnatchers(1978),dir.PhilipKaufman

TheManWhoFelltoEarth(1976),dir.NicolasRoeg

TheMatrix(1999),dir.TheWachowskiBrothers

MulhollandDrive(2001),dir.DavidLynch

NightoftheLivingDead(1968),dir.GeorgeRomero

PicnicatHangingRock (1975),dir.PeterWeir

PlanetoftheApes(1968),dir.FranklinJ.Schaffner

QuatermassandthePit(1967),dir.RoyWardBaker

TheQuatermassXperiment(1955),dir.ValGuest

TheShining(1980),dir.StanleyKubrick

Solaris(1972),dir.AndreiTarkovsky

Stalker(1978),dir.AndreiTarkovsky

StarWars(1977),dir.GeorgeLucas

UndertheSkin(2013),dir.JonathanGlazer

WeltamDraht(WorldonaWire)(1973),dir.RainerWernerFassbinder

TheWickerMan(1973),dir.RobinHardy

TelevisionProductions

ChildrenoftheStones(1976),ITVproduction,writtenbyJeremyBurhamandTrevorRay,dir.PeterGrahamScott

Quatermass(1979),EustonFilmsproductionforITV,writtenbyNigelKneale,prod.TrevorChilds

QuatermassII(1955),BBCproduction,createdbyNigelKneale

QuatermassandthePit(1958-1959),BBCproduction,createdbyNigelKneale

TheQuatermassExperiment(1953),BBCproduction,createdbyNigelKneale

TheStoneTape(1972),BBCproduction.writtenbyNigelKneale,dir.PeterSasdy

TwinPeaks(1990-1991),dir.DavidLynch

WhistleandI’llCometoYou(1968),BBCproduction,dir.JonathanMiller

WhistleandI’llCometoYou(2010),BBCproduction,dir.AndydeEmmony

RepeaterBooks

isdedicatedtothecreationofanewreality.Thelandscapeoftwenty-first-centuryartsandlettersisfadedandinert,rivenbyfashionablecynicism,egotisticalself-referenceandanostalgiafortherecentpast.Repeaterintendstoadditsvoicetothosemovementsthatwishtoenterhistoryandassertcontroloveritscurrents,gatheringtogetherscatteredandisolatedvoiceswiththosewhohavealreadycalledforanescapefromCapitalistRealism.Ourdesireistopublishineverysphereandgenre,combiningvigorousdissentandapragmaticwillingnesstosucceedwheremessianicabstractionandquiescentco-optionhavestalled:abstentionisnotanoption:wearealiveandwedon’tagree.

PublishedbyRepeaterBooksAnimprintofWatkinsMediaLtd

19-21CecilCourtLondonWC2N4EZUK

www.repeaterbooks.comARepeaterBookspaperbackoriginal20161

Copyright©MarkFisher2016

MarkFisherassertsthemoralrighttobeidentifiedastheauthorofthiswork.

Coverdesign:JohnnyBullTypographyandtypesetting:JanMiddendorpTypefaces:ChaparralProandAbsaraSans

ISBN:978-1-910924-38-9EbookISBN:978-1-910924-39-6

Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recordingorotherwise,withoutthepriorpermissionofthepublishers.

Thisbookissoldsubjecttotheconditionthatitshallnot,bywayoftradeorotherwise,belent,re-sold,hiredoutorotherwisecirculatedwithoutthepublisher’spriorconsentinanyformofbindingorcoverotherthanthatinwhichitispublishedandwithoutasimilarconditionincludingthisconditionbeingimposedonthesubsequentpurchaser.