The Gothic and the Fantastic in the Age of Digital Reproduction

The Gothic and the Fantastic in the Age of Digital Reproduction Anne Q ucm a Acadia University W b c a n e i t h e r s h r u g o f f t h e d e s i r e to categorize artistic produc­ tions, or we may pause and reflect on the difficulty of defining genres such as the Gothic and the fantastic. An exam ination of the critical discourse on the fantastic elaborated by critics such as Todorov, Jackson, and M onleon indicates that the definitions of the fantastic and the G othic—however m asterful or tentative—overlap to a considerable degree. In the first sec­ tion of this article, I will analyze the sim ilarities betw een the two critical discourses w ith the view of proposing a m eans of distinguishing between the fantastic and the Gothic. W hile both genres interrogate epistem ologi­ cal and ontological norm s governing m im etic representation, the Gothic stands ou t by draw ing upon a rhetoric of the uncanny w hich perverts m im esis and creates terror and disorientation in the reader. This rhetoric of affect is w hat distinguishes the G othic from the fantastic. In the second section, applying this theoretical distinction to visual art, I will consider som e of H.R. Giger’s pictures w hich rest on a tension betw een the Gothic and the fantastic. I will dem onstrate that this generic hybridism constitutes the visual vocabulary of G iger’s critique of the discourse of sexuality and sexual reproduction in the 1960s and 1970s. I will conclude by examining E S C 30.4 (Decem ber 2004): 81-119 An n e Qu e m a teaches at A cadia University. A specialist in theory and tw entieth-century British literature, she has published The A g o n o f M o d e rn ism : W yn d h a m L e w is’ s A llegories, A esth etics, a n d P olitics (Bucknell University Press, 1999) as well as articles in T he C a n a d ia n M o d e rn ists M eet, S tu d ies in C a n a d ia n Literature, P h ilo so p h y a n d Literature, W est C o a st Line, and G o th ic Studies. The recipient of a s s h r c research grant, she is currently working on a project on contem porary G othic fiction and English family law. the extent and lim its of cultural subversion in G iger’s visual art and the G othic genre. The act of defining the Gothic seems to function like a critical irritant, and the attendant discursive discom fort may indicate that the very notion of genre belongs to an A ristotelian tradition that has been eroded by post­ structuralist tales of textual indeterm inacy. Although critics such as Avril H orner and Sue Zlosnik do take the G othic bull by the horns by claiming that “Gothic w riting always concerns itself with boundaries and their insta­ bilities” (243), others adopt an oxym oronic discourse th at supports the notion that the G othic is not a stable genre whose recurrent features can nevertheless be enum erated. Thus, Jerrold Hogle begins his introduction to The C a m b rid g e C o m p a n io n to th e G othic with the following defiant asser­ tion: “Gothic fiction is hardly ‘G othic’at all” (2002,1), but later proceeds to identify its “general param eters” (2). In his analysis of the Gothic, Botting singles out excess and transgression as recurrent features of a genre he is in other respects reluctant to define. Choosing a term that recurs in other critical analyses to designate the elusive genre of the G othic, he states: “changing features, em phases and m eanings disclose G othic w riting as a m o d e (my em phasis) that exceeds genre and categories, restricted neither to a literary school nor to a historical period...