Brain Pain discussion

This discussion covers The Uncanny, p. 121 - 162

I don't want to completely cop out on this, and I'll probably do a reread of this essay when I can. But for the time being, my main thoughts on the essay are encapsulated in the review I wrote here: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

I thought the essay was the most fascinating in the collection, which is probably why the collection borrowed the title. I had some of the same reservations I've expressed in discussion of the other essays, but I enjoyed an attempt to analyze what it is that gives a certain image, thought, or sensation that "uncanny" feeling.

I'm afraid that my overall impression of Freud, based on the complete collection, is significantly marred. It's become impossible for me to escape the conclusion that Freud was more akin to a paranormal researcher or pseudo-scientist than a scientific analyst... even if he reached some compelling conclusions. Freud is such a mixed bag of ideas, concepts, and conceits! He's impressive and baffling, and he has quite possibly planted some very wrong thoughts in my head. Anyway, life is strange, and the human mind is perhaps its most peculiar phenomenon.

I don't, however, believe that the fear of losing one's eyes is insufficiently horrible in itself, such that it must be symbolic of castration. For all the allure of Freud's theories, he is never capable of fully persuading me.

Just so we're keeping track here:

* dreaming of flying is caused by fear of castration
* dreaming of being blinded is caused by fear of castration
* dreaming of an extra set of genitals is caused by fear of castration

What the hell does dreaming of castration represent? An urge to eat ice cream?

Hehe, you've got it. Speaking of which: How I Became a Nun. (But I didn't really like that book much.)

Curious little book. It's short enough that I may have to check it out for myself.

I have mixed feelings about Freud's Uncanny essay.

The notion that there is a qualitative difference between literary (or film) uncanny and "real-life" uncanny is a good one. Works of art control atmosphere to a degree that is just not possible in actuality, and this seems to heighten the sense of uncanniness. An obvious example from film would be a person walking alone through a dark doorway: shot in the correct lighting and accompanied by a suitable score, this can fill the viewer with trepidation, while a brightly-lit and music-free version would just protray somebody entering a closet. Freud of course did not have exposure to such effects, but he did recognize that it is the author's presentation of mundane things that makes them uncanny.

The actual mechanisms have been well-analyzed in regards to the gothic novel (Otranto, Udolpho, stuff like that), though that analysis would have occurred after Freud's time. I'm impressed that he thought to look into it, but he seems to be insufficiently familiar with the uncanny, and therefore does not have a good base from which to start his analysis.

This leads to one of the things I didn't like about the essay: Freud provides several useful definitions of the uncanny, then discards them in order to pursue the one that is most in line with his theory of psychoanalysis: that the uncanny represents something that should have remained hidden (repressed). This is a very specific sense of the uncanny, and not a very compelling one. He was much closer to the nature of the uncanny with his characterization of it being "animate things that weren't, or inanimate things that were": the sense that it is a surprised (or confused) expectation which produces the uncanny response.