The Uncanny by Royle, Nicholas published by Manchester University Press

by Nicholas Royle

This is the first book-length study of the uncanny, an important topic for contemporary thinking on literature, film, philosophy, psychoanalysis, feminism and queer history. Much of this importance can be traced back to Freud's extraordinary essay of 1919, 'The Uncanny' (Das Unheimliche). As a ghostly feeling and concept, however, the uncanny has a complex history going back to at least the Enlightenment. Royle offers a detailed account of the emergence of the uncanny, together with a series of close readings of different aspects of the topic. Following a major introductory historical and critical overview, there are chapters on literature, teaching, psychoanalysis, deconstruction, film, the death drive, deja vu, silence, solitude and darkness, the fear of being buried alive, the double, ghosts, cannibalism, telepathy, madness and religion.

Genres: Nonfiction, Psychology, Gothic, Theory, Literary Criticism, Psychoanalysis, Literature

Paperback

First published February 22, 2003

Reviews

[Liam Guilar · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book starts out as discussion of Freud's essay of the same name and then spins out into separate chapters on a range of "uncanny" subjects. At times this makes the book feel like a random assortment of essays in search of thematic coherence. Having said that some of the chapters are very good: the one on teaching as an uncanny activity is almost worth the price of admission.

However, the book is written under the sign of Derrida, who seems to be so indispensable to the argument that hardy a chapter seems to pass without him taking centre stage or at least muttering in the wings. The reverence for Derrida may be understandable, but Royle's attempts at Derridean syntax grates after a while.

I feel like saying: I paid money for your book: give me something other than your exercise in vocabulary. But this is trendy new criticism; the critic no longer explains, analyses or defines, nor does he seem to have any kind of obligation to the reader, he doesn't even seem to hold an opinion on the subject which he wants to expound to the reader. No, the critic performs his subject. One writes uncannily to explore the uncanny, so some of the chapters are fiction, and not very good fiction, dressed up as something between a story and an essay and a something else.

And while blurring the boundaries between literature and philosophy and criticism may well be theoretically fashionable, the results are a horrible neither/nor. At times the book wanders off into no man's land.

Perhaps its an academic trend, but it would be nice once in a blue moon to read a critic who had something to say and was interested in conveying it. The idea that theory somehow supersedes literature, or that reading Derrida is like reading poetry only better, is simply not true: a truth this book performs.

A fair question might be: Will you have a better understanding of either Freud's essay or "The Uncanny".
And the answer is probably yes.
Then again....maybe not.

[Lucy Basile · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this for my thesis so it probably shouldn't count but I'm desperately trying to reach my end of year goal.

Ok, for a piece of literary theory this has some absolutely incredible prose. I'm unfortunately not too familiar with Derrida so quite a bit was lost on me, but there was a lot of legitimately interesting formatting and discussion that makes Freud's absolute monster of an essay even more fascinating than it already is.

[Jakub Adamčík · Rating 3 out of 5]

a book that is trying to illustrate and explain notoriously ambiguous and hard to read Freudian text by employing Derridian critical point of perspective.
I don't know man, there are bits that are useful, some segments of the book i found really laborious to plough through and sometimes straight up irrelevant.
On the upside, the author and the text are often self-conscious and at times light-hearted and the book raised my smile few times.

Definitely not for someone (like me ) who is just starting with Freud and/or Derrida, it's not the easiest read, but as I said, there are interesting and useful parts of the book

[Jay Rothermel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whew! The last few chapters, after The Double, were a long confusing creative writing exercise in stream of consciousness. The publisher's sadistic font and margins are grounds for public stoning.

Otherwise, an excellent and scholarly book written with wit and care, as readers of Royle have come to appreciate.

[Roger Whitson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book starts off well enough. I just can't take all the "performatives." Maybe I'm getting crotchety in my old age. I just want people to write a book that's USEFUL! BAH!!

[Graham · Rating 3 out of 5]

As thorough an exploration of Freud's famous essay as you could wish for. The early chapters in particular are extremely useful for the focused way in which they go through different aspects of the 1919 essay, from its focus on etymology to an exploration of Hoffmann's THE SANDMAN. The later chapters are trickier in that they become more experimental: works of creative writing rather than blocks of academic text and debate. Derrida's shadow hangs heavy over the proceedings, making this one for the advanced readers among us.

[Harper Beard · Rating 3 out of 5]

I mean… could’ve been a lot clearer, the uncanny is confusing but it doesn’t have to be repeatedly explained in an uncanny way.. felt obtusely cyclical, like he just wrote about uncanniness in an uncanny to prove he’s artsy and can do it. But still had a lot of really interesting points concerning all sorts of theory and how uncanniness can apply.

[Tobias Rasmussen · Rating 3 out of 5]

First big chunk of the book is very informative, but the last few chapters are pretty much just experimental essays that try to capture the essence of whatever the chapter's title says.

[Annamaria Ristori]

...meh

[Lilly · Rating 5 out of 5]

The graph/theory evolving from this essay changed my life 5 years 6 years ago - now I know why I can't see ads for the new cut of the exorcist or the part of roger rabbit when christopher lloyd is squished and walking around without having minor heart palpitations. After babbling incoherently about this theory and it's lovely graph for years, the internet has provided me with proof.

Check out the graph:
http://www.cnet.com.au/i/r/2006/Games...

wikipedia has a pretty good entry too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_...


Anne- it's so appropriate that you were the one to bring up this essay after so many years.

[Yael · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Uncanny is a psychoanalytical term that has long become an interdisciplinary concept. Royle discuss this captivating concept/idea/term/effect in his book through different disciplines, uses and examples. After reading this book and dealing with the uncanny for a few years I believe one can say that uncanny shadow accompanies any writing on the uncanny. I find this book fascinating.

[Carmen Tudor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting but it seems as though the contents would feel less disjointed if delivered individually rather than as a whole (the preface indicates many sections were originally presented at university conferences). Not a bad read, but by no means my favourite book on the uncanny.

[Anne · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love this book so desperately and I can't find it anywhere! If you see a copy, buy it for me and I'll pay you back. Please please please!

[Emma Sea · Rating 3 out of 5]

What Liam Guilar said.

[Yousra Bushehri · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoy reading all things weird about the human and our experiences. And so, I really loved this! Definitely one I'll be rereading more closely without the dread of a deadline following me.

[eleanor · Rating 3 out of 5]

the first study on the uncanny so absolutely crucial for the diss- not one i’d ever read for fun, but was useful in creating my own meanings

[Michael Gossett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oh baby!