* Monday, Poe, "William Wilson"
* Wednesday, Freud, from "The Uncanny" (handout in my box, if you missed class)
* Friday, Poe, "Murders in the Rue Morgue" (I deleted "The Fall of the House of Usher" which we were planning to read this day)
Answer ONE of the following for Friday's class...
1. In "The Uncanny," Freud introduces the phrase, "the omnipotence of thoughts," which he explains as the ancient, primal ceremonies and ideas of mankind which filter down through the ages despite the civilizing factors of society, literature, and religion. He writes, "the animistic phase...did not pass without leaving behind in us residual traces that can still make themselves felt, and that everything we now find 'uncanny' meets the criterion that is linked with these remants of animistic mental activity and prompts them to express themselves" (147). Where in Poe's stories for this week do we see the "omnipotence of thoughts" at work, and how might it offer a theory for reading or interpreting the work?
2. While "William Wilson" intends to make an incredible series of coincidences seem quite real, "Murders in the Rue Morgue" takes an uncanny murder and shows it to be quite mundane (or at the very least, explainable). Which story do you feel embodies the true 'perspective' of Poe--the skeptic detective or the uncanny believer? Would he have us see the 'truth' behind the supernatural or debunk it entirely? It is important to note that both stories have some autobiographical references, "William Wilson" perhaps most of all.
3. How might the character of Monseiur C. Auguste Dupin be a 'theoretical' lens himself for reading fiction? Why might his way of reading the murders committed in the Rue Morgue be similar to Culler's ideas about reading theory and literature in Chapters 1 and 2? Try to use specific ideas from either the story or Culler's text.
4. Based on your reading of "The Uncanny," do you feel Poe would agree with Freud's ideas--particularly in regard to the intereptation of his work? Though Poe does seem to anticipate many of these ideas in his stories, is it anacrhonistic to say that they share the same basic theory? Does Poe actually develop his ideas of 'the uncanny' in different ways--and to different ends? Use examples from either text to support your answer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete4. Based on your reading of "The Uncanny," do you feel Poe would agree with Freud's ideas--particularly in regard to the intereptation of his work? Though Poe does seem to anticipate many of these ideas in his stories, is it anacrhonistic to say that they share the same basic theory? Does Poe actually develop his ideas of 'the uncanny' in different ways--and to different ends? Use examples from either text to support your answer.
ReplyDeleteEdgar Allen Poe's short story “William Wilson” tells the story about a narrator who calls himself “William Wilson” (he won't reveal his true name) who's in competition with someone who has a strong resemblance to himself who's name is also William Wilson. This other Wilson, who we later learn is an alternate persona of the narrator, apes the behavior of the “original” Wilson infuriating the original. Throughout the story there are hints (improbable events) that this other Wilson may be in fact some kind of psychological facet of the “main” Wilson―one of the chief pieces of evidence being the fact that the other Wilson can only speak in a whisper―what could be termed a doppelgänger (German word for “double doer” a ghostlike apparition that appears identical to a living person) or a double. The concept of a doppelgänger is considered in “The Uncanny” an essay written by Sigmund Freud.
“William Wilson” was written many years before Sigmund Freud's writings yet we can see some Freudian concepts at work in this piece of fiction elements of which Freud might term as uncanny. Freud maintains that within every individual there are actually two selves. These two selves, like opposite sides of the same coin, are both necessary components of that individual. These sides are at war with one another constantly and neither side can claim victory for any great length of time. Freud discovered that everyone, through the mechanism of repressed feelings, thoughts, and memories, has to constantly deal with inner turmoil. When this turmoil becomes unhealthy neurosis and/or narcissism may result.
I'm reminded of an episode called “The Enemy Within” in the original Star Trek series where two Captain Kirks are inadvertently created in a transporter mishap: one Kirk is the “good” version of himself and the other is the “evil” Kirk. Later in the program it's revealed that this separation has created two Kirks who are unable to survive on their own―they both need one another; the good Kirk is weak, impotent, and unable to carry out his duties whereas the evil Kirk, who despises the good Kirk, is finally forced to admit that he too is incomplete because he lacks the necessary positive traits of the good Kirk. At the end of the program Scotty uses the transporter to integrate the two Kirks into one individual such that the end result is the Kirk who everyone is accustomed to. In “William Wilson”, however, original Wilson who might be best described as the “dark side” of himself to use Star Wars parlance, runs his double through with his sword resulting in not only the destruction of his double, a psychological echo of his mind, but also himself.
--Scott
Love the Star Trek connection--always happy to see that! But it works; it's another example of a splintered self, which is generally how we see ourselves--as one ideal self, rather than a series of selves that changes depending on the situation, etc. A merely 'good' Kirk could not exist, nor a merely 'bad' one; we are a composite being of multiple selves, some of which we consciously suppress since it doesn't jive with our 'ideal' of ourselves. William Wilson is the same way, though ironically, he wants to be ruthless and sinful; his good half reminds him that such actions are wrong and questions whether or not he should do them. In the end of the story he kills his good half, suggesting that he has found the ultimate way to suppress his good instincts (by personifying them and murdering them). It's a story that fully explores the Uncanny and makes much more sense considered through this Freudian perspective.
Delete2. This may be an entirely cliché answer, but I really think that the true perspective of Poe lies in the uncanny believer. Mostly I think he must share the perspective of the believer because he writes sooo many stories about the uncanny. He writes about murders without cause and coincidence and all number of “un-homely” things. The story Murders in the Rue Morgue just sounds like satire to me. It doesn’t even read like your typical Poe story. I almost think this is in response to maybe a critic or some bore who believes that nothing supernatural has ever happened and that everything can be explained. It’s like angry singing. When you sing the words to a lovely song, but you have this ticked off expression on your face. That is what his tone sounds like to me in this story. The whole opening is nearly incomprehensible. It’s so difficult to ascertain what he is actually trying to say in that chess is merely complicated and comparing it to games that more ingenious, I suppose. I think the heart of his little beginning rant is when he mocks those that are attentive and play by the book at the bottom of page 93. He hits at it again at the end of the second paragraph on page 94 when he says that “It will be found, in fact, that the ingenious are always fanciful, and the truly imaginative never otherwise than analytic.” I think this whole story was written in response to some criticism of his writing. Maybe someone said it wasn’t analytic or some other insult insinuating that he could not write this kind of story. So he did it to prove them wrong. This story, like Poe says of chess, is merely complicated. It completely lacks his usual artistic flair and genius. I think it was written to prove a point and do it in a very dull manner. Personally, I think this is Poe’s mad writing. Not crazy or fanciful and filled with his typical glee in horrifying, but simply angry.
ReplyDeleteMacy
This is a very exciting post, since you are reading against the grain and suggesting that Poe is not entirely serious in this story--which, in some ways, I think is entirely correct. He is "duping" us in taking Dupin as the true, authorative narrator of the story, since he usurps the real one. And yet, he is not the narrator nor can we trust him in any case. His version of events is "true," but it doesn't explain away what happens nor make us any more comfortable with it--he merely offers us the satisfying pay off of making the uncanny mystery 'canny.' You're right to pick up on the incomprehensible opening and the strange narration in general; I think it's somewhat satiric, but also a way of making us question the story that's being told. It does seem to be a response to someone who criticized his other stories, yet Poe is actually telling the same uncanny story but through a different lens. I think we're fascinating by the 'uncanny' ability of Dupin to solve crimes that seem utterly mystifying...yet we're also shocked that he lets the sailor go scott free and seems satisfied merely to solve the problem. He emerges as quite a madman by the end, since he feels logic cancels out the crime. And yet, we have still made a captive Ourang-Outang a monster by teaching it our hideous human ways...but by all means, sell him to the next buyer!
DeleteWhile "William Wilson" intends to make an incredible series of coincidences seem quite real, "Murders in the Rue Morgue" takes an uncanny murder and shows it to be quite mundane (or at the very least, explainable). Which story do you feel embodies the true 'perspective' of Poe--the skeptic detective or the uncanny believer? Would he have us see the 'truth' behind the supernatural or debunk it entirely? It is important to note that both stories have some autobiographical references, "William Wilson" perhaps most of all.
ReplyDelete2. Even though Macy beat me to it, I too believe that Poe's true 'perspective' is seen more in "William Wilson" than it is with "Murder's in the Rue Morgue." Most of Poe's works have that extreme uncanniness, and Rue Morgue just doesn't seem to fit (which is why I agree with Macy's idea that maybe the critics were like "Same story Poe. Give us something different" and TADA! He produced The Murders in the Rue Morgue). Rue Morgue was difficult for me to read anyway, but it almost seemed like the story was completely satirical. He went against everything he has written about in his other stories by saying, "While the analyst is necessarily ingenious, the ingenious man is often remarkably incapable of analysis"(94). We find logic in all of Poe's 'ingenious' stories. He talks about men going mad over the power of objects (the eye, the heart, the cat, the doppelgänger), yet in this, he doesn't seem to have a fear of the "un-homely"(as the germans put it), but his character seems to have more of a nonchalant type attitude (very un-Poe like). It was like the character's response was "Oh. People were murdered? Eh, that happens."
Yes, like Macy, the tone (and narration) is everything: he is nonchalant and utterly uninterested in the people murdered...only the crime excites him. And yet, isn't this similar to our other narrators, who were also indifferent to the victims of their crimes--esp. in The Black Cat, whose narrator never says a word about his wife except that he brained her. Dupin is something of a confessional criminal, too, and certainly a monomaniac; he's merely 'good' because the narrator says he is, and he tries to uncover the true cause of the crime. But there's no interst in justice nor in freeing the poor animal corrupted by human behavior. And as always, it's the women who suffer...and I doubt they'll be the final victims in the Ourang-Outang's 'education.' For more on Dupin and murdered women, read "The Mystery of Marie Roget," also in our book.
Delete2) "Murders in the Rue Morgue" is quite different than any of the other stories written by Poe. Typically, the narrators' motives, actions, and thoughts, as well as the atrocities the narrators commit, can be explained in ways so as to make them seem less extreme and uncanny, and more believable and realistic. Madness is usually the ultimate answer explaining why a narrator did what they did. As such, it feels like a natural answer. With "Murders in the Rue Morgue", however, the answer to why the murders were committed was so extreme and fantastical that I couldn't help but laugh as the story reached its conclusion.
ReplyDeleteThe story is so untypical of Poe to write; the beginning is particularly indecipherable, and the whole story reads as a mockery or a comedy. Poe's style always incorporates elements of the uncanny, but "Murders in the Rue Morgue" is the exception to that rule in that it's not a traditional Poe story. The explanation that an ourang-outang could was behind the murders was too left-field for me, too silly, and too perfect in that the entire murder was explained and deduced.
Your responses are similar to those above, and you're right on the money. It's not atypical of Poe, but it does exploit his more satiric side (he wrote a lot of works, and not all of them are in his full-on Gothic mode). The story is a bit over-the-top, and I don't think we should read the Ourang-Outang too literally. I think it's a great metaphor for the 'animals' we think ourselves above and have suppressed in our pursuit of culture...but which readily come out in our dark desires and rages (as seen in all our other narrators' crimes). The ape is also a great connection to The Uncanny, since it represents those 'animistic' drives that we've sublimated but which are always with us, just as the ape reminds him that it IS human, in a sense, by trying to shave. I also wonder whether or not it also learned to kill by watching the man (if not his murders, then at least his violence and anger). Everything is neatly explained away by the end, and I think that's the point...does it really explain ANYTHING anyway? Does it explain away justice? Decency? The Uncanny? All these questions remain, even though Dupin has neatly washed his hands of it. Our narrator is satisfied, too...but as an unreliable narrator he doesn't get to offer us the final grain of truth!
Delete3. How might the character of Monseiur C. Auguste Dupin be a 'theoretical' lens himself for reading fiction? Why might his way of reading the murders committed in the Rue Morgue be similar to Culler's ideas about reading theory and literature in Chapters 1 and 2? Try to use specific ideas from either the story or Culler's text.
ReplyDeleteDupin is a theoretical lens simply because he uses theory to determine the story. He looks through the lens of empiricism in the scope of something seemingly uncanny. It seems like the story could be explained either way. The orangutan could have been conditioned to violent behavior by the sailor (Dupin’s view) or it could have learned the behavior through a supernatural means or being a super-intelligent Planet of the Apes proto-type (uncanny view). But both interpretations feature the same evidence. The lens looked through, though, produces an opposing view.