Library
Writing the Uncanny · 22 of 23
Writing the Uncanny
literature HIGH

Rules of Thumb: Writing the Uncanny

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

Key Principle

Heuristics drawn from across the book, organised by craft stage. These are diagnostic and generative tools, not a checklist to apply mechanically. Applying them mechanically is the one failure mode every contributor warns against.

Setup and Source

  • Start with what you genuinely find disturbing, not what the genre conventionally supplies. Authentic uncertainty is not reproducible by formula. "You have to write it like you mean it." (Section 16: Beach Reading — Nicholas Royle)
  • Your own culture's specific supernatural beliefs, embodied fears, and daily cosmology are richer source material than borrowed Western Gothic conventions. Intimate knowledge produces authentic ambiguity; borrowed conventions produce visible technique. (Sections 18–19: Potluck — Chịkọdịlị Emelụmadụ)
  • Identify what is already strange in the ordinary material. The uncanny is not the unknown but the repressed — it is already in the familiar, waiting for adequate attention. Wyrd-thinking: treat every detail as potentially charged with meaning. (Chapter: Half-Concealed Places — Gary Budden)
  • Biographical displacement, not representation: the personal wound becomes the formal logic of the space or plot, not the content of the narration. The mechanism, not the event. (Chapter: Spotlight on Shirley Jackson — Alison Moore)
  • Ask whether your source material is already too familiar to readers. Folk-horror tropes, once widely enough known, cease to function as uncanny because the familiar cannot unsettle. This is an ongoing structural risk, not a historical caution. (Chapter: Half-Concealed Places — Gary Budden)
  • Read the tradition you are working in — fairy tale grammar, the ghost story canon, your culture's supernatural cosmology — until the grammar becomes internalised. The goal is fluency, not knowledge of specific texts. (Section 20: In the Forest, Stories Grow — Claire Dean)

Opening and Atmosphere

  • Begin inside the ordinary, not the Gothic. A false-normalcy opening catches the reader within the familiar before withdrawing it. Opening in the expected register puts the reader's defences up immediately. (Section 22: Seeing by the Moonlight — Jeremy Dyson)
  • Name the place specifically. Not "a village" or "a one-way system" but "the Tottenham Hale one-way system." Specificity activates the reader's sense of proximate possibility and prevents the protective literary distance that generality creates. (Chapter: Half-Concealed Places — Gary Budden)
  • Establish the world that the horror will violate before violating it. M.R. James's precept: "clear-cut and matter-of-fact detail" before the climax. The reader must be invested in normality for the normality's removal to cost something. (Section 26: Haunting the Text — Catriona Ward)
  • Aim for Tier 3 spaces: purely functional environments (retail car parks, tunnel entrance arches, traffic intersection forecourts) that resist narrative and carry the evidence of human design without human meaning. Their blankness is the mystery. (Chapter: Half-Concealed Places — Gary Budden, drawing on M. John Harrison)
  • The tonal register must be maintained with discipline. Once the cool, steady register breaks into overt horror, the existential disorientation collapses into conventional fright. (Section 22: Seeing by the Moonlight — Jeremy Dyson)

Accumulation and Withholding

  • The primary craft principle for uncanny writing: "Neither show nor tell: hint, suggest, allude, imply." Productive opacity rather than clarity. The reader's imagination, activated by gaps, is more powerful than anything specified. (Section 7: Negative Spaces and Ambiguity — Lucie McKnight Hardy)
  • Accumulate deniably odd details before the rationalisation-breaker. Each detail must be precise enough to register but explainable on its own. Do not rush this phase — the reader's investment in the protagonist's normalcy expectations is what the pivot destroys. (Section 22: Seeing by the Moonlight — Jeremy Dyson)
  • The rationalisation-breaker must be categorically inexplicable, not merely strange. It cannot be dismissed the way earlier details could. It should be "quietly thrown away" rather than announced — underreaction implicates the reader in the same normalisation. (Section 22: Seeing by the Moonlight — Jeremy Dyson)
  • Conceal the machinery at the climax. Visible mechanism converts supernatural dread into a puzzle with a solution. The moment the mechanism is explained, the reader exits fear and enters analysis. (M.R. James, "Some Remarks on Ghost Stories," The Bookman, December 1929; discussed in Section 26: Haunting the Text)
  • Every strange detail should be recoverable as meaningful on reflection. Dream-logic, not arbitrary absurdism: "The images are there for a reason, though at first glance you cannot see why." (Section 22: Seeing by the Moonlight — Jeremy Dyson)
  • Repeat a key word or phrase deliberately. Let it escalate in frequency, then replace it with something worse. This is not stylistic weakness — it is the ghost at the prose level. (Section 26: Haunting the Text — Catriona Ward)

Character and Witness

  • Give the viewpoint character explicit scepticism before the first uncanny event. This is a structural necessity, not a cliché: without the journey from disbelief to dreadful belief, there is no uncanny architecture. "There must be an inherent mistrust and scepticism of the phenomenon in the beholder." (Section 26: Haunting the Text — Catriona Ward)
  • The most productive uncanny tension comes from the gap between stated rationalism and embodied terror — the character who says "nonsense" and then falls prostrate. The failure of modernity in a single body. (Sections 18–19: Potluck — Chịkọdịlị Emelụmadụ, drawing on Chinua Achebe, "The Sacrificial Egg")
  • When a character fails to perceive a threat the reader recognises, the reader absorbs the character's share of dread. This is more disturbing than hysterical reaction because it is eerily quiet. (Section 16: Beach Reading — Nicholas Royle)
  • Erase at least one key identity marker per act of the story: unnamed, unrecognised, untethered from history. Each erasure compounds the next. The threat is not death but non-existence. (Chapter: Spotlight on Shirley Jackson — Alison Moore)
  • For ghost POV: list the ghost's specific capacities and limitations before writing. Teach the reader these rules through the action of the story, not through exposition. (Sections 24–25: Seeing Things and Saying Things — Jenn Ashworth)
  • For the ghost-who-doesn't-know-it's-dead: the metaphorical revelation (what the character was "dead to" in life) should outweigh the literal one. The literal is the delivery mechanism; the metaphorical is the cargo. (Sections 24–25: Seeing Things and Saying Things — Jenn Ashworth)

Setting and Place

  • The home is simultaneously the most familiar place and the most dangerous — the primary battleground of the uncanny. Exploit the heimlich/unheimlich duality: the space that promises softness and delivers its opposite. (Introduction; Chapter: Spotlight on Shirley Jackson — Alison Moore)
  • Liminal spaces (beaches, edgelands, thresholds, underpasses) perform uncanny structural work before any plot event occurs. Setting a story in such a space outsources structural weight to the landscape. (Section 16: Beach Reading — Nicholas Royle)
  • Edgelands — transitional zones between city and country — are in multiple states of transformation at once and cannot be resolved into a single category. Their irresolvability is the uncanny property. (Chapter: Half-Concealed Places — Gary Budden)
  • When a character's interior state peaks, find its physical equivalent in the setting. The house responds; the furniture resists; the quality of light changes. Psychological fiction and uncanny fiction merge when the world responds to the self. (Chapter: Spotlight on Shirley Jackson — Alison Moore)
  • Architectural elements (thresholds, frames, windows, enclosed rooms) are structural arguments about captivity, not decoration. They should argue the same thing the narrative argues: that containment is total and escape is formally impossible. (Section 26: Haunting the Text — Catriona Ward)
  • Research the folklore already layered into a real place before setting a fairy tale or ghost story there. "Traditions and local legends accrete in place to form crusts of story." (Section 20: In the Forest, Stories Grow — Claire Dean)

Ending and Resolution

  • Refuse the expected ending. The ghost story's job is not to close but to loop. The circular/bookending structure enacts the ghost's stasis at the structural level. (Section 26: Haunting the Text — Catriona Ward)
  • An ambiguous ending only works if sufficient structure precedes it: the ending must be withheld, not absent. Ambiguity imposed on a poorly constructed story is merely unsatisfying. (Section 20: In the Forest, Stories Grow — Claire Dean)
  • The ending should not offer relief from the opening's conditions. A circular structure does not require a settled reading — it requires that nothing has been resolved. (Section 26: Haunting the Text — Catriona Ward)
  • Let the story trail into the reader's week. The unresolved ending activates the reader, making the story continue into daily reality "where it can be all the more unnerving." (Section 20: In the Forest, Stories Grow — Claire Dean, drawing on E.T.A. Hoffmann)
  • Ghost stories that explain their ghosts — giving them resolvable causes — neutralise the horror by implying change is still possible. The genre's power depends on irresolvability. (Section 26: Haunting the Text — Catriona Ward)

Revision Audit

  • Does the opening establish the ordinary world with enough specificity that its removal will cost something? If not, the rationalisation-breaker has nothing to pull away from.
  • Is there a character who actively disbelieves before the first uncanny event? If not, there is no journey — only events.
  • Are the strange details deniable individually but cumulative collectively? If each detail announces itself as strange, the accumulation phase is not working.
  • Is the rationalisation-breaker categorically inexplicable, or merely strange? If it can still be explained away, it has not done its job.
  • Does the ending loop, or does it resolve? If it resolves, what work can be done to withhold the catharsis without removing the structure?
  • Are identity markers stable throughout? If so, where can one be systematically blurred or withheld to begin the dissolution process?
  • Can every strange detail be recovered as meaningful on reflection? If not, it is arbitrary, not uncanny — remove or motivate it.
  • Is the prose register consistent? Any passage where the tone shifts into overt horror (announced fear, explained dread) should be returned to cool, steady delivery.

Related References