#gothic essay

[spn2006]

the fact that eric kripke isn't even christian really adds something to the way christianity is depicted on supernatural. because its really not about being christian at all, but about living in america, a country dominated by christianity, and having to decide for yourself how to handle that. faith is huge in supernatural, and the mythology of the show is very bible-centric, but notably, christ is never there. even sam, who starts out revering the angels, who once said he prays every night, doesn't actually call himself a christian or imply that he believes in jesus--the show is steeped in christianity and biblical lore and yet neither sam nor dean are christians. in fact, over and over again the church itself is depicted as a haunted house that sam and dean will only ever enter as strangers, as outsiders. priests, preachers, faith healers, chapels, crypts, etc. are all just iconography that create an intense sense of unease that sam and dean respond to instantly. as a jew, its very relatable. an essential part of living in america when you're not christian is that exact sense of unease, of knowing that the culture of your country has ensured that you'll get knocked over by christianity no matter where you go, that you'll see hundreds of people truly believing they're good people while doing awful things in the name of their god, and you have no choice but to confront that. kripke gets it

[no-where-new-hero]

I am actually going to talk about what I call images, or symbols. It seems to me that in our present great drive—fiction-wise—toward the spare, clean, direct kind of story, we are somehow leaving behind the most useful tools of the writer, the small devices that separate fiction from reporting, the work of the imagination from the everyday account. Of these the far most important, and the most neglected, is the use of symbols; I am using the word loosely, because it has altogether different meanings elsewhere, and yet I hardly know what other word to use ... There must be at least one basic image, or set of images, for each character in a story, a fundamental symbol the writer keeps always in mind; as these images grow the character grows, and the accumulation of material and information about the image slowly makes up the character in the story. Various things belong to a character—a manner of speaking, a manner of moving, a particular emphasis, a group of small physical things—and each of these must take on, like a perfume, the essence of the character they belong to. Just as a tune or a scent can evoke for most of us an entire scene, so the basic image of the character must evoke that entire character and his place in the story. As a result of this, of course, the characters themselves grow apart in the writer’s mind, become entirely separate people, and by the end of a book or a story the writer can no more mistake one for another than he can mistake a can of beans for a pearl necklace.

--Shirley Jackson, "Garlic in Fiction"

[asphalt-eater]

i like to think goth is a gender in of itself

[anglerflsh]

architecture

[cannibalbite]

"My Words to Victor Frankenstein above the Village of Chamounix: Performing Transgender Rage" by Susan Stryker.

[sirghostheart]

Thinking about the post that says "Congratulations! You've fallen for that character's facade" but it's about how Ginger Fitzgerald and Jennifer Check's relationship to monsterhood is misinterpreted as a #FemaleRage and #GoodForHer girlboss power fantasy instead of tragedies about about kids way over their heads surviving a traumatic assault that robbed them of their humanity and now lash out in a desperately grip for some resemblence of power.

[soaring-trash]

Im I the only one who wonder's if Pate was an actual child

Like he would be so adorable, i bet his Puppy eyes could kill

[academic-vampire]

(Here is an essay I wrote about Edgar Allan Poe’s short story, “The Black Cat.” The essay delves into the seeming “mask of self delusion” that the narrator wears as he writes to exonerate himself of his crimes. To make it more interesting, I argue that the reader is obsolete to the story itself. The essay is really long, but I thought it was fun to write. Please let me know what you think of the topic—I am curious to hear others’ thoughts!)

The Mask of Self-Delusion

(Jack C. June, 2024)

Edgar Allan Poe’s narrator in his short story, “The Black Cat,” is delusional. No reader would bat an eye at this claim, as that is very plainly the case upon even an elementary reading of the work. And yet, the reader is not a crucial part of the reading process itself. On the contrary, Poe’s narrator does not require a reader at all. Instead, the narrator is writing solely for himself. The unreliable narrator in Poe’s short story attempts to exonerate himself—to exculpate himself—in a confessional manner. From the very first lines, the reader becomes aware that they are not expected to believe the narrator, and because of this, the reader is not necessary in the first place. Instead, it is the narrator writing his story for himself in an attempt to justify and rationalize his vile actions—trying to clear away his wicked sins by claiming possession and demonic intervention. The themes of acting on evil human impulse and attempting to vindicate oneself through delusion are highlighted in Poe’s short story—allowing the reader to see that the devil is not necessary to perform vicious deeds—humans alone are just as capable.

It is evident from the first sentence that the narrator is not writing for an audience but for himself. The sentence reads, “For the most wild, yet homely narrative which I am about to pen, I neither expect nor solicit belief” (1). The reader is informed a moment later that the narrator is writing from a prison cell, and will die tomorrow, but first he wants to, “…unburthen [his] soul” (1). The narrator does not think anyone will believe him, but that does not matter to him. The narrator aims to assuage himself of the events that took place to convince himself that his actions were not entirely his own. This delusion becomes evident by the language used further in the first paragraph. For example, the narrator writes, “Yet, mad am I not…”, referring to the murders as a, “…series of mere household events”, and even going as far as to proclaim the events as, “…nothing more than an ordinary succession of very natural causes and effects” (1). The language is obviously filled with delusion, but the primary factor to take into account is the attempt at rationalizing his demonic behavior. The language may even remind readers of a defense attorney trying to subdue a tragedy at hand. The key word Poe uses to show the narrator’s attempted justification of his crimes is to describe them as “natural.”

As previously mentioned, this story does not require a reader. Whether or not anyone reads or believes the narrator is not the narrator’s main concern. Instead, the narrator only tries to convince himself of his innocence through delusion and self-manipulation. Scholars Vicki Hester and Emily Segir make an important point when they write, “The story cannot save him from the noose. He has no progeny and mentions no living relatives who might care about his guilt or innocence, so the story serves little purpose for the writer, leaving readers to wonder who might be the intended audience and what might be the story’s point” (176). The narrator is writing for himself—heightening his delusion in an effort to conceal himself from his wicked human nature. Therefore, it is vital that Poe chose to write his story in the first person and not the third. Had Poe written the story in the third person, readers would have been able to quickly identify that the narrator is unreliable. Similarly, the structure of the short story would lose its significance of being told as a confession had it been written in the third person. Poe cleverly chose to write “The Black Cat” in the first person to add to the obviousness of the narrator’s delusion, the vanquishing of pathos any reader may have for the narrator, and the glimpse into the psychologically disturbed that would have been lost otherwise.

This particular reading of the narrator attempting to vindicate himself is not a new interpretation. Scholar James Gorgano concurs with the specific reading of attempted self-exculpation, writing, “The narrator cannot understand that his assault upon another person derives from his own moral sickness and unbalance” (181). By accusing demonic entities and the supernatural, the narrator can step away from the blame he so clearly deserves. Gargano continues, writing, “Consequently, if his self-analysis is accepted, his responsibility for his evil life vanishes” (181). The narrator attempts to detach himself from his crimes by writing his story in his prison cell.

Further in the story, the narrator refers to being overcome by a demonic nature. Yet, he does little to consider that his “demonic nature” is actually innately human. One central theme for Poe is human nature being wicked at its core. Poe does not maintain the naïve belief of humans as innately good, but quite the opposite. Here, the narrator tries to trick himself into believing just that—that he is innocent and was influenced by outside powers. When the narrator kills his cat, he writes, “The fury of a demon instantly possessed me” (2). The narrator removes himself from the equation by casting blame on an evil force notorious for such a wicked crime. Further in the story, as the reader kills his wife, one sentence reads, “Goaded, by the interference, into a rage more than demonical, I withdrew my arm from her grasp and buried the axe in her brain” (6). The narrator has surpassed a demon's rage and arrived at the malicious doorstep of the devil’s capacity for wrath. The narrator cannot fathom that his human nature is not innately good and kind but devilish.

Finally, The narrator loses his grip on his sanity throughout the progression of the story. A few key indicators of the narrator becoming delusional have to do significantly with his language choice. Hester and Segir point out that, after the narrator kills his wife, “He now speaks of his wife as ‘it,’ ‘the body,’ ‘the corpse.’ He does not call his wife’s dead body an accident but refers to the death as, ‘the hideous murder accomplished’” (189). And again, there is a significant moment when the narrator casts his own blame onto otherworldly forces when discussing perverseness. These sentences read, “Yet I am not more sure that my soul lives, than I am that perverseness is one of the primitive impulses of the human heart—one of the indivisible primary faculties, or sentiments, which give direction to the character of Man” (2). The narrator craves to be absolved so intensely that he has no problem blaming his murders on human nature and demons—anyone but himself. Hester and Segir cleverly elaborate that, “He also suggests that we, readers, would all do the same, given the same circumstances” (179). A moment after the narrator blames perverseness, he writes, “Who has not, a hundred times, found himself committing a vile or a silly action, for no other reason than because he knows he should not?” (2). He carries on, speaking of his soul attempting to vex itself, committing, “…wrong for wrong’s sake only” (3). The narrator will do anything but look himself in the eye and confess that he, and he alone, is an evil man. The narrator would prefer to believe that all humans have a devil inside of them that may possess them at any moment and force them to commit heinous acts. It is easier to claim that, ‘the devil made me do it,’ than it is to look at one’s own blood-covered hands and have an epiphany of one’s Mephistophelian nature.

In the last paragraph, the narrator ceaselessly denies responsibility for his guilt. He writes, “Upon its head, with red extended mouth and solitary eye of fire, sat the hideous beast whose craft had seduced me into murder, and whose informing voice had consigned me to the hangman. I had walled the monster up within the tomb!” (8). He claims that Pluto had seduced him to kill instead of admitting that he did it of his own accord. What’s more, is that the narrator claims Pluto consigned him to the hangman—his impending death scheduled for the following day. The last line carries significant weight as the narrator directs—towards the cat—the word that should be used to describe himself—monster. On a deeper metaphorical level, this line can be read as the last act of attempted self-exculpation. With one last line, the narrator seals the guilt of his crimes within the wall. Maybe he was not referring to the cat as the monster, but the guilt of his crimes. The narrator of Edgar Allan Poe’s short story, “The Black Cat,” was never possessed by the devil, although he would prefer to think so. The narrator feels that if he can confess and convince himself of his innocence, he becomes blameless. Often, the devil is considered to be the root of all evil, but people forget that the first murder was a human killing a human—Cain killing Abel.

Works Cited

Gargano, James W. “The Question of Poe’s Narrators.” College English, vol. 25, no. 3, 1963, pp. 177–81. JSTOR.

Hester, Vicki, and Emily Segir. “Edgar Allan Poe: ‘The Black Cat,’ and Current Forensic Psychology.” The Edgar Allan Poe Review, vol. 15, no. 2, 2014, pp. 175–93. JSTOR.

Poe, Edgar Allan. “The Black Cat.” English ###: PDF File. The Black Cat.pdf, June, 2024.

[elektramouthed]

It is possible, on the one hand, to interpret this looping as stasis, which, as trauma studies indicate, reveals the subject’s inability to organize a narrative around her subjectivity. In other words, as a result of trauma, the subject is now locked in an originary moment she can neither relinquish nor remember, and is thereby doomed to keep repeating this moment. Until and unless she is unstuck, not only will her subjectivity remain undeveloped, but it will also be incoherent because the corresponding narrative that necessarily gives it definition has been jeopardized.

Andrew Hock Soon Ng, from Women and Domestic Space in Contemporary Gothic Narratives: The House as Subject

[twochildreninamoteldemo]

Supernatural (2005-2010) / “'A whole new level of freak:' Supernatural, Poe, and the legacy of the incestuous Gothic" by [redacted]

for @wincestwednesdays

[awaythe-clock]

The Green knight is like. Its about honour. Its about regret. Its about fear. Its about courage. Its about shame. Its about the cyclical nature of the world. Its about mirrors and parallels. Its about your mom and you. Its about death and decay. Its about choices. Its about magic. Its about trying to avoid the unavoidable. Its about aging. Its about changes you aren’t ready for but have to go through anyways. Its about chances you wanted but were too scared to take. Its about gently kissing and caressing dev patels face. Its about expectations. Its about disappointing people. Its about how you look back at all the things you couldve done differently and forward to the things that may come. Its about the unyielding but loving power of nature and life. Its about being a person.

[inkedwingss]

writing an article on the concept of gothic and the overlap with contemporary aesthetics such as dark academia etc, so listening to some nordic music seems appropriate

and that is why i have no friends bc this is what i do for fun on a saturday night xx

[djuvlipen]

If we put aside the racism, the book Hunchback of Notre Dame (by Hugo) is such a good account of how a teenage girl gets taken advantage of by different adult men who use their experience, their older age, their fame and their power, to use her for sex (Phoebus) or to prey on her and force her to sleep with them, only to kill her when she refuses (Frollo), how married men will see their wives as trophies and objects and will sleep with girls they don't care about (Phoebus again), how that teenage girl grows up in a society that grooms her to think older, powerful men are to be desired, and how Romani teenage girls are eroticized and seen as exotic (which... Hugo himself is guilty of that...).

Disney mostly corrected the racism that was in the book but they completely removed any criticism of heterosexual love that was in it. They could have taken it and gone further and made it feminist, but no, they completely removed it. Now, Esmeralda is an (adult? i sure hope she isn't supposed to be a teenager) hottie who is probably the most sexualized Disney character to have ever existed (like... she does a pole dance then flashes her genitals at Frollo's face) and her relationship with Phoebus is portrayed as pure and healthy (despite their unequal places in society). Hunchback of Notre Dame misses so many marks and could have been so much better than what we've got. I have no idea why Disney decided to adapt that story for their movies and I have no idea why they decided to turn it the way they did

[itsacruelsummerwithyou2]

college is fun because i just wrote half a final on nbc hannibal and a full paragraph was about how stabbing is romantic, actually

[magiefish]

Something I've kind of noticed about a lot of the academic scholarship I've read about Frankenstein / Dracula / Jekyll & Hyde is that everyone just seems to completely dismiss/ignore the characters as actual characters most of the time unless they're the Main Guys. Like, they'll go really in depth about Victor or the Creature's motivations and backstory and spend ages talking about Jekyll's relationship to Hyde and stuff, but the second it comes to characters like Enfield and Elizabeth or Lanyon and Clerval or frankly the Entire Rest of the Cast of Dracula, they just immediately seem uninterested. They'll just sort of vaguely gesture in their direction and go 'Oh yeah X and X thing happens to this character and here's a one sentence summary of their personality which doesn't really matter because this entire cast is interchangeable, anyway, onto the next theme' and half the time their One Sentence is just textually incorrect (looking at the New Woman/Traditional Woman descriptions of Lucy and Mina). And the reason I find this so baffling is because with other analysis I've read (e.g. Great Gatsby stuff) people seem to actually slow down and consider the characterisation and motivations of the cast as a whole with like. Nuance. Like they sit down and treat the characters as multifaceted and complex and having actual relationships with one another, and then you get to these books specifically and no one seems to care? Like they'll go really in depth with various interpretations and historical context for the Big Guys, and then never apply the same sort of examination to anyone else, and if they do, very rarely and probably only for one other character e.g. (Utterson or Mina).

If I had to posit an explanation, I would say its a combination of the archetypal nature of the title characters and the admittedly patchy writing of these books (which arguably lends to their archetypal status). I think academics kind of assume that the primary draw of these books are The Big Guys and the expansive themes and ideas they cover and that everyone else is just a pawn there to enable the narrative around the Big Guys, and the propensity for film adaptations to scrap or rewrite characters probably compounded this impression. And while I think this is at least partly true, the thing is, these characters were not always archetypal Big Guys. They originated in stories alongside *these* other characters *specifically* and it is worth asking what it is about the rest of the cast that makes the story interesting as well. Because, let's be real, if there was approximately no interest in the fucking *narrators* of Dracula, the best friends of Henry Jekyll, or the victims of the Creature, the original readers would have been completely bored out of their minds for most of these novels and public interest in them would not have been as great as it was. All of these novels were stories before they were myths, and academics should not be letting pop culture eclipse them unless they're specifically talking about the relationship between the two.

Overall, I just feel like academics are not only shooting themselves in the foot, but also doing a disservice to these stories by not bothering to investigate the other characters because frankly. It's lazy. It's lazy to dismiss an entire cast and basically skim read any sections involving them just because it's easy to focus on The One Guy. If you people really cared about themes, you'd understand that characters are inextricable from them. Like shit dude I see more care given to characters in essays about Greek tragedies, you guys are waaaay fucking behind

[raayllum]

thinking about TDP as a piece with gothic leanings. may return to this later