Home For Fiction – Blog

Quite often in this blog, I refer to ambiguity as a fundamental aspect of Gothic literature. Another thing I must’ve mentioned is that defining the Gothic is no easy task, and each scholar seems to have a unique idea on how to approach the matter.

Personally, I like to focus on the aspect of ambiguity and in-betweenness. In this, I draw from Tzvetan Todorov’s definition of the fantastic, as I will explain below.

Examining the differences between the ways Todorov and J.R.R. Tolkien define the fantastic is a fruitful task, as it allows us to pinpoint the ontology of the various expressions of the fantastic. Furthermore, it provides a great theoretical framework for researching more general aspects of otherness.

Defining the Gothic: a Discourse of Doubt

Note: the following text on Todorov vs Tolkien in terms of defining the Gothic is a modified excerpt (pp. 43-46) from my doctoral dissertation, “Time is Everything with Him”: The Concept of the Eternal Now in Nineteenth-Century Gothic. You can download the dissertation (for free) from the repository of the Tampere University Press. The main Home For Fiction website contains a list of my other academic publications on the Gothic.

In a discourse related to the Gothic, as well as its placement between reality and fantasy, it is useful to consider Tzvetan Todorov’s definition of the fantastic, as it possesses important realizations for the Gothic as an “in-between” mode.

In a world which is indeed our world, the one we know, a world without devils, sylphides, or vampires, there occurs an event which cannot be explained by the laws of the same familiar world. The person who experiences the event must opt for one of two possible solutions: either he is the victim of an illusion of the senses, of a product of the imagination – and laws of the world then remain what they are; or else the event has indeed taken place, it is an integral part of reality – but then this reality is controlled by laws unknown to us …

The fantastic occupies the duration of this uncertainty. Once we choose one answer or the other, we leave the fantastic for a neighboring genre, the uncanny or the marvelous. (1973, 25)

Todorov, Tzvetan. The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre. Translated by Richard Howard. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1973.

Defining the Gothic as “Supernatural” and “Explained”

Tellingly, there has been a tradition of dividing the Gothic into “explained” and “supernatural”. Todorov himself refers to the “two tendencies” within the Gothic, “that of the supernatural explained (the ‘uncanny’) … and that of the supernatural accepted (the ‘marvelous’)” (Todorov 1973, 41–42).

However, despite the presence of a number of texts that can be read as “explained” or “supernatural”, there is an equally significant number of narratives that evade epistemological categorization, perhaps deliberately. Consequently, this separation can be considered problematic, if not outright lacking.

The Gothic Paradox of Definition

The reason can be found within Todorov’s argument, which produces a paradox of sorts. For Todorov, the Gothic/fantastic exists only for the duration of the uncertainty, and once it collapses (rather inevitably, Todorov implies) onto either of the two separate branches, that is, explained Gothic or supernatural Gothic, it should no longer be considered as Gothic.

In other words, to divide the Gothic into the explained and the supernatural produces the paradoxical outcome of neither branch being Gothic, at least within the Todorovian frameworkIt must be added that Todorov acknowledges the issue, as well as the presence of narratives that even refuse such a branching altogether (Todorov 1973, 42–43)..

Mendlesohn, using The Mysteries of Udolpho as a typical example, refers to the explained Gothic as “the common ancestor between the crime novel and the intrusion fantasy … a forebear of Scooby Doo and The X-Files” (2013, 127).

At the same time, David Sandner notes that “[l]abelling the fantastic, or rather for Todorov the moment after the fantastic as ‘marvelous’ or ‘uncanny’ still leaves a second question – what is it? – crucially unresolved” (2013, 19; emphasis in the original).

From Todorov to Tolkien

Todorov’s rather problematic approach can be contrasted to Tolkien’s somewhat more direct acknowledgment of the inability to define the fantastic:

The definition of a fairy-story – what it is, or what it should be – does not, then, depend on any definition or historical account of elf or fairy but upon the nature of Faërie: The Perilous Realm itself, and the air that blows in that country.

I will not attempt to define that, nor to describe it directly. It cannot be done. Faërie cannot be caught in a net of words; for it is one of its qualities to be indescribable, though not imperceptible. It has many ingredients, but analysis will not necessarily discover the secret of the whole. (1983, 114)

Tolkien, J.R.R. “On Fairy-Stories”. The Monsters and the Critics: and Other Essays. Edited by Christopher Tolkien. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1983.

Not only does Tolkien freely admit the impossibility of understanding the fantastic, but he goes a step further and underlines that the inability to understand does not mean that it cannot be experienced.

This, quite clearly, assigns a certain sublime quality to the fantastic. In other words, Tolkien emphasizes the epistemologically inaccessible nature of the fantastic and refers to Faërie as “most nearly translated by Magic … [but] at the furthest pole from the vulgar devices of the laborious, scientific, magician”, adding that it must be taken seriously, without any attempt to ridicule or rationalize it (1983, 114).

Defining the Gothic: Focusing on Ambiguity

For Tolkien, it is ambiguity that is to be swept under the proverbial rug: unicorns exist and the reader must simply accept it and move on. This approach, however, does not seem to adequately explain what the Gothic is about. I argue that the way out of this quandary is to focus precisely on ambiguity which, following Todorov’s definition, is the purest form of the Gothic mode.

As, therefore, an important part of the affective power of the Gothic lies in the inability to describe, situate, or define, reading the Gothic as a mode that relies on ambiguity can be a fruitful approach. This becomes particularly evident in certain subcategories such as the Southern Gothic.

In addition, it is also important to take into consideration the functions served by this uncertainty. As Todorov underlines, “the fantastic permits us to cross certain frontiers that are inaccessible so long as we have no recourse to it” (1973, 158).

Works Cited

Mendlesohn, Farah. Rhetorics of Fantasy. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 2013.
Sandner, David. Critical Discourses of the Fantastic, 1712–1831. Farnham: Ashgate, 2013.
Todorov, Tzvetan. The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre. Translated by Richard Howard. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1973.
Tolkien, J.R.R. “On Fairy-Stories”. The Monsters and the Critics: and Other Essays. Edited by Christopher Tolkien. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1983.

Read more: Angelis, Christos. “Time is Everything with Him”: The Concept of the Eternal Now in Nineteenth-Century Gothic. Doctoral Dissertation. Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press, 2017. Available from the repository of the Tampere University Press.