Library
Writing the Uncanny · 4 of 23
Writing the Uncanny
literature

cultural specificity

Writing the Uncanny Dan Coxon and Richard V. Hirst (eds.)

Key Principle

The uncanny is not located in any single tradition. It is activated by the writer's intimate relationship to their material — specifically, embodied knowledge of a culture's supernatural cosmology, social fears, and the precise places where rationalism and lived belief collide. Non-Western supernatural systems are fully developed uncanny frameworks in their own right. The dominant Western/European horror tradition is one instance of a globally distributed capacity, not its natural home. A writer who borrows that tradition without intimate knowledge of it produces technique without authenticity; a writer who draws on their own tradition produces the genuine ambiguity — supernatural, psychological, or fated? — that uncanny tension requires.

Why This Matters

Uncanny tension depends on the reader's uncertainty about whether events have a rational explanation. That uncertainty is most powerful when the writer themselves occupies the ambiguous space — when they know the tradition from inside, know the social weight of the beliefs, and cannot fully dismiss them even in the act of deploying them as fiction. Chinua Achebe's Julius proclaims "Nonsense!" and still falls prostrate. This is not superstition; it is the primitive brain — the part responsible for instinct and survival — that modernity has never fully overwritten. Uncanny fiction works by activating it. The writer who knows their own tradition can produce this activation with precision; the writer importing another tradition's conventions can only produce its surface.

Claire Dean's parallel principle — rooting a fairy tale in a specific real place eliminates the "protective literary distance" that prevents conventional fairy tales from producing uncanny effects — applies equally to cultural tradition. Distance (geographic, cultural, temporal) is what insulates readers from dread. Specificity is what removes the insulation.

Good Examples

Chinua Achebe, "The Sacrificial Egg" (cited in Sections 18–19, The Atlantic, April 1959): Julius has dismissed indigenous supernatural belief as superstition. He then encounters the thing he dismissed. "Julius, despite his earlier proclamations of 'Nonsense!' still falls prostrate in fear and reverence before the thing that goes bump in the night, logic be damned." The story's further mechanism: it never resolves whether events are supernatural, psychological, or the working-out of inevitable fate. This triple ambiguity — not a simple binary — is more disturbing than either rational or supernatural explanation alone.

Charlaine Harris, the Sookie Stackhouse series (cited in Sections 18–19): Vampires who openly live among humans are more frightening than hidden ones. Familiarity removes the protective distance. "You can dress a lion up in finery and feed it the finest cuts of meat, but one day it will pounce and rip off your face." Making the extraordinary ordinary is a form of power inversion — the reader's assumed map of what is dangerous and what is safe is the thing that breaks.

O.J. Cade, "The Mussel Eater" (cited in Section 20): A retelling of the Maori legend of Pania of the Reef. The original creates expectation of a known resolution; Cade's ending is "more sinister" and achieves its force partly because readers anticipate a different one. The cultural specificity of the source — an actual tradition, not a generic "folklore" — gives the deviation its weight.

Counterpoints

Defaulting to Western European horror conventions without intimate knowledge: Writers working with borrowed material produce technique without authenticity. The ambiguity — is this supernatural? is this psychological? is this inevitable? — cannot feel genuine when the writer does not themselves occupy the uncertain space between rationalism and embodied belief. The uncanny effect depends on the writer's own unresolved relationship to the material.

The rational character who rationalises too successfully: If Julius had merely dismissed the supernatural event and the narrative confirmed his dismissal, the uncanny would collapse into satire of superstition. The character's proclaimed rationalism must fail in the body even as it succeeds intellectually. A character who fully rationalises is not an uncanny sceptic-witness; they are a reassuring narrator who discharges the reader's tension rather than accumulating it.

Power inversion used decoratively: The technique of flipping who holds power is most potent when it attacks the reader's deepest social familiarity — their assumed map of who can do what to whom. Used as plot convenience rather than as systematic destabilisation of the reader's social orientation, it produces surprise without the lasting epistemological unease that constitutes the genuine uncanny.

Key Quotes

"There is no one place in which the Uncanny resides particularly." — Chịkọdịlị Emelụmadụ, Sections 18–19, "Potluck: Making the Most of Your Little Horrors"

"Julius, despite his earlier proclamations of 'Nonsense!' still falls prostrate in fear and reverence before the thing that goes bump in the night, logic be damned." — Chịkọdịlị Emelụmadụ, Sections 18–19, "Potluck: Making the Most of Your Little Horrors" (on Achebe's "The Sacrificial Egg")

"You can dress a lion up in finery and feed it the finest cuts of meat, but one day it will pounce and rip off your face." — Chịkọdịlị Emelụmadụ, Sections 18–19, "Potluck: Making the Most of Your Little Horrors"

"Rooting the fairy tale in a Chorley living room where the transformed baby couldn't get out of the window suddenly made it feel much more disturbing." — Claire Dean, Section 20, "In the Forest, Stories Grow"

Rules of Thumb

  • Write what you know from inside: deploy your own culture's specific supernatural beliefs, social fears, and daily cosmology as primary framework, not as exotic decoration. Embodied knowledge produces the ambiguity; borrowed knowledge produces the appearance of it.
  • The rational character is most useful when their rationalism fails in the body — when proclaimed dismissal cannot prevent prostration. The failure of modernity is the uncanny event, not merely the supernatural encounter.
  • Flip power structures in both directions: powerless to powerful (the targeted woman who becomes predator) and powerful to helpless (the ordinary rule of law suddenly suspended). Both directions attack the reader's social orientation; the second is often more disturbing because it makes the reader's own position precarious.
  • Use myth, folklore, and ballad as structural scaffolding, not decorative source material. The original creates expectation; the adaptation deflects it. The reader senses both simultaneously — uncanny doubling at the level of the text itself.
  • Eliminate protective distance: geographic rootlessness, cultural vagueness, and temporal remoteness all insulate readers from uncanny effect. Specificity of place, name, and cultural detail removes the insulation.
  • Triple ambiguity (supernatural? psychological? fated?) is more disturbing than a binary. Avoid resolving which interpretation is correct.

Related References