Frankenstein & The Uncanny: Just how "realistic" is Shelley's fictional reality?

Freud says that a writer “can select his world of representation so that it either coincides with the realties we are familiar with or departs from them what particulars he pleases” (839). The extent to which a fictional world “coincides with the realities we are familiar with or departs from them” (839) determines whether or not the events in that world can generate feelings of the uncanny. Freud points out three types of “realities” that the author can create, only one of which can lead to feelings of the uncanny:

1. In the world of fairy tales, “wish-fulfilments, secret powers, omnipotence of thoughts, animation of inanimate objects” (839) are par for the course. As such, things that would normally generate uncanny feelings fail to do so.

2 Freud describes a middle-ground, where “the creative writer can also choose a setting which though less imaginary than the world of fairy tales, does yet differ from the real world by admitting superior spiritual beings such as daemonic spirits or ghost of the dead” (839). As such, “in this case too we avoid all trace of the uncanny” (841).

3 When “the writer pretends to move in the world of common reality … everything that would have an uncanny effect in reality has it in his story” (840).

I pose the question: which of these three types of stories is Frankenstein? References to Darwin in the introduction, and other references to the “modern” science of the time would naturally lead us to conclude that, for the 19th century reader, Frankenstein is a story that “pretends to move in the world of common reality” (840). A reader in 1818 might very well believe that the events of the novel are possible in reality, and feelings of the uncanny would undoubtedly result.

But what about for the modern, 21^st century reader? Given our current knowledge of science, Victor’s discovery of “the spark of life” and his method of creating a person is more like fantasy, and would perhaps place the novel in the second of the abovementioned categories.

If the modern, 21^st century reader experiences feelings of the uncanny when reading Frankenstein, I’m not sure they have anything to do with the question of whether or not the monster is human. I think, in order for that to be the case, the story would have to be rewritten, containing a science that is more like our own. Or, put differently, if we do experience feelings of the uncanny when considering the (in)humanity of the creature, it is because we perceive the science of the present day as an extension of Victor’s science.

I would say that a weakness of Freud is his tendency towards making universal claims. He says, “I cannot think of any genuine fairy story which has anything uncanny about it” (837). I point to the story of Hanzel & Gretel. Even though this story takes place in a world where the impossible is actual, I always found myself deeply unsettled by it. Perhaps because it stirs up some “primal emotion” (I’m sure a hardcore Freudian could find some interpretation having to do with the Oedipus complex, though I care not to determine one myself). Or perhaps because it’s a story that, though fantastical in nature, could happen in a way. The tale calls to mind the seductive pedophile and/or cannibalistic serial killer – both of which are horrific character-types in actual reality. Perhaps Freud’s statement that the problem of the uncanny “is eliminated from the outset by the postulates of the world of fairy tales” (839) requires modification.

That's all for now. Doing my best to prepare for cofacilitation on Wednesday - as psychoanalysis is often a divisive topic, I think discussion should be fun!

Dan