ISSN 1751-8229

IJS Volume Four, Number Four

The Horror of the Real: ieks Moder !othi"
Benjamin Noys, University of Chichester, United in!dom
"#$he kernel of reality is horror, horror of the Real, and what constitutes reality is the
minimum of idealization the subject needs in order to be able to sustain the Real.
S%avoj &i'e( )1997* 22+
#$$roa"hi% the Real
#he o,enin! of -. /. 0ovecraft1s short story 2#he Ca%% of Cth3%h31 )1928+ offers a concise statement
of his ,hi%oso,hy of cosmic horror*
#he most mercif3% thin! in the 4or%d, I thin(, is the ina5i%ity of the h3man mind to
corre%ate a%% its contents. 6e %ive on a ,%acid is%and of i!norance in the midst of 5%ac(
seas of infinity, and it 4as not meant that 4e sho3%d voya!e far. #he sciences, each
strainin! in its o4n direction, have hitherto harmed 3s %itt%e7 53t some day the ,iecin!
to!ether of dissociated (no4%ed!e 4i%% o,en 3, s3ch terrifyin! vistas of rea%ity, and of
o3r fri!htf3% ,osition therein, that 4e sha%% either !o mad from the reve%ation or f%ee
from the dead%y %i!ht into the ,eace and safety of a ne4 dar( a!e. )1999* 189+
#his modern 9othic vision of science o,enin! 3, 2terrifyin! vistas of rea%ity1 that defy o3r everyday
commonsense vie4 of e:istence is 3ncanni%y consonant 4ith the 4or( of S%avoj &i'e(. ;or &i'e( is
it is the science of ,sychoana%ysis that ,ieces to!ether o3r 2dissociated (no4%ed!e1 into the tr3th
that threatens 3s 4ith madness* the (erne% of rea%ity is the horror of the rea%. 6e f%ee from this
insi!ht into the 2dar( a!e1 of the 2minim3m of dea%i<ation1 that a%%o4s 3s to 5ear this horror.
If, as Sarah ay ar!3es, a%% of &i'e(1s theoretica% ,rod3ction can 5e considered as 2thin(in!,
4ritin! and readin! a5o3t the =ea%1 )2>>8* 1+ then his 4or( is im,%icit%y 9othic thro3!h and thro3!h.
&i'e( !%osses the 0acanian conce,t of the =ea% as 2the irred3ci5%e (erne% of jouissance that resists
a%% sym5o%i<ation1 )1999* 1?+ @ an e:,erience of shatterin! enjoyment that %ies o3tside the fie%d of
re,resentation.
1
6hereas 0acan noted that the conce,t of the 2=ea%1 initia%%y ,resented itse%f to
,sychoana%ysis 2in the form of tra3ma1 )1979* 55+, &i'e( fi!3res this tra3ma as a moment of horror.
A%tho3!h the 2=ea%1 is ,ositioned 5y &i'e( as 3nre,resenta5%e he constant%y tries to a,,roach it 5y
a%%3sion to contem,orary horror 9othic te:ts, from =id%ey Scott1s Alien )1979+ to the 4or(s of
/atricia -i!hsmith and Ste,hen in!. #hese te:ts ,rovide the fi!3ration of the 5rea(do4n of
re,resentation in the reve%ation of the a,,earance of the =ea% as a horrifyin! 2#hin!1. I 4ant to !o
f3rther, ho4ever, and ar!3e that &i'e( not on%y ,ro,s his readin! of the =ea% on these te:ts 53t
a%so de,%oys 9othic conventions 4ithin his o4n 4ritin!. In ,artic3%ar he 3ses that convention,
identified 5y Bve osofs(y Sed!4ic(, in 4hich the 9othic te:t traces the effects of an
23ns,ea(a5%e1 horror thro3!h the fra!mentation and disr3,tion of its o4n narrative devices
)Sed!4ic( 198>* 15+. #he re,etitiveness of &i'e(1s te:ts, their %ea,s of s35ject and their
fra!mentary nat3re mimic, in narrative form, 4hat Sed!4ic( descri5es as the 9othic1s 2des,air
a5o3t any direct 3se of %an!3a!e1 )198>* 15+7 hence, his 3se of 9othic te:ts as a mode of indirect
a%%3sion, as a (ind of sto,-!a, meas3re, in the e:em,%ification the 23ns,ea(a5%e1 =ea%.
#herfore, I ,ro,ose readin! &i'e(1s 4or( as a form of modern 9othic, ta(in! as a ,recedent
Ste,hen Carc3s1s 4e%%-(no4n ana%ysis of ;re3d1s case-st3dy of Dora as a roman--clef )Carc3s
1985+. &i'e(, 4e co3%d say, is a 2master of horror1, a%on!side 4riters s3ch as 0overcraft and 0i!otti,
or fi%mma(ers %i(e Eohn Car,enter or Ea3me Ba%a!3erF. #his is not to red3ce the theoretica% im,ort
of his te:ts to the stat3s of fiction, e:act%y the (ind of 2soft1 ,ostmodernism that is anathema to
&i'e(. =ather it is to ta(e serio3s%y the 0acanian ,oint that tr3th ta(es the str3ct3re of fiction, and
the -e!e%ian ,oint that tr3th resides in the 2st3,idity1 of a,,earances. In this sense I 4ant to trace
the theoretica% shifts in &i'e(1s a,,roaches to the =ea% thro3!h a %iterary readin! attentive to the
,artic3%ar 9othic forms his te:t inha5it and o,erate 4ith. As &i'e( himse%f has noted the innovation
of the ;re3dian a,,roach to the dream 2te:t1 is not to 5e fo3nd in the recovery of a re,ressed %atent
meanin! hidden 5eneath the manifest content. Instead, it is a G3estion of the 3nconscio3s desire
that is not hidden 53t 2more 2on the s3rface11 and to 5e fo3nd 2in the form of the dream1 )&i'e( 1989*
18, ita%ics in ori!ina%+. /sychoana%ysis, for &i'e(, is not a hermene3tics 53t a ne4 (ind of 2forma%1
ana%ysis that 2read1 the distortive effects of the =ea%. In the case of &i'e(1s o4n te:ts this 2forma%1
ana%ysis revea%s ho4 his shiftin! modes of 4ritin! the =ea% re%ies and ,3ts ,ress3re on 4hat
Sed!4ic( ca%%s the coherence of 9othic conventions, and at the same time sta!es an increasin!%y
so,histicated en!a!ement 4ith the 2=ea%1 as this moment of distortion. 6e mi!ht say, to 3se
&i'e(1s o4n termino%o!y, that 4e can read theory as fiction and fiction as theory 5y ho%din! them
to!ether thro3!h a 2,ara%%a: vie41 )&i'e( 2>>H+ 4hose vanishin! ,oint is the moment of the 2=ea%1.
In ,artic3%ar 4e can trace the ,ara%%e%s in &i'e(1s 4or( 5et4een his de,%oyment of the
9othic and his 3nderstandin! of the =ea%, and the forma% shifts in these ,ara%%e%s. &i'e( himse%f has
indicated a definite 25rea(1 in his 4or(, as he re,resents it, 5et4een the conce,t of the =ea% as 2a
tra3matic (erne% 4hich forever e%3des o3r !ras,1 to the fact that 2the ,ro5%em 4ith the =ea% is that it
ha,,ens and thats the tra3ma1 )&i'e( and Da%y 2>>?* H9-7>+. #he first conce,t of the =ea% seems
most direct%y 9othic* maintainin! it as the 23ns,ea(a5%e1 and horrifyin! disr3,tion of o3r sense of
rea%ity. #he second ste,, to4ards a more direct renderin! of the rea%, invo%ves &i'e( in a ,rocess
4here5y he increasin!%y restricts the ro%e of the 9othic as the ,rivi%e!ed e:am,%e of the =ea%.
-o4ever, this disavo4a% of the 9othic is not a5so%3te and it contin3es, a,,ro,riate%y, to ha3nt his
o4n te:ts. At the same time his o4n forma%i<ation of the =ea% deve%o,s ne4 ,ossi5i%ities for
!ras,in! this dis,%aced ,%ace of the 9othic, as a series of 2%imit-te:ts1.
The Hard &erel of the Real
&i'e(1s first 9othic mode is to re!ard the =ea% as the 2hard (erne%1 of enjoyment o3tside of
re,resentation. #his mode% derives from 0acan1s Seminar 7 he !thics of "sychoanalysis #$%&%-
$%'(), 4hich moves, accordin! to &i'e(, 2from the dia%ectics of desire to the inertia of enjoyment
)jouissance+1 )&i'e( 1999* 18+. 0acan1s o4n %an!3a!e and str3ct3re in this seminar 5ears its o4n
traces of the 9othic. ;or e:am,%e 0acan descri5es the conce,t of the 2#hin!1 )*as *in++ @ the
for5idden materna% o5ject of enjoyment @ as 2a%ien1 )0acan 1992* 52+,
2
and it is a sma%% ste, from
here to &i'e(1s readin! of =id%ey Scott1s Alien in his first major 4or( in Bn!%ish, he Sublime ,bject
of -deolo+y )1989+ )&i'e( 1989* 78-9+. In that 4or( &i'e( ana%ysed ideo%o!y as an o5jectified
fantasy-str3ct3re ,ermeated 4ith jouissance and jouissance, corre%ated 4ith the =ea%, tended to
occ3,y the stat3s of the 3nre,resenta5%e in the fi!3re of the s35%ime .ua horror. ;o%%o4in! 0acan1s
ar!3ment that 4e can on%y to3ch on the =ea% 4ith the s3,,ort of fantasy, 2"t$he rea% s3,,orts the
,hantasy, the ,hantasy ,rotects the rea%1 )0acan 1979* ?1+, &i'e( traced o3r ideo%o!ica% sym,toms
)sinthomes+ as coded forms of enjoyment )jouissance+. A sym,tom is not sim,%y an error in
meanin!, 53t is act3ated 5y enjoyment and this is 4hat 5inds 3s to it. As &i'e( ,3ts it* 2the
sinthome is a certain si!nifier 4hich is not enchained in a net4or( 53t immediate%y fi%%ed,
,enetrated 4ith enjoyment1 and it a,,ears as 2a terrifyin! 5odi%y mar( 4hich is mere%y a m3te
attestation 5earin! 4itness to a dis!3stin! enjoyment, 4itho3t re,resentin! anythin! or anyone1
)&i'e( 1989* 7H+.
A%ready, in this reference to 2terrifyin!1 5odi%y mar(s and 2dis!3stin! enjoyment1 4e can see
the adjectiva% mar(s of the 9othic cree,in! in to &i'e(1s 4ritin!. It 4i%%, as I1ve mentioned, 5e =id%ey
Scott1s Alien )1979+ that ,%ays a (ey ro%e in e:em,%ifyin! the 2ideo%o!ica% sinthome1 )&i'e( 1991*
125+ Accordin! to &i'e( the emer!ence of the A%ien from Eohn -3rt1s stomach is the emer!ence of
the ,arasite that materia%i<es enjoyment @ in the form of an e:cessive and ,ainf3% jouissance. It is
the A%ien s,aceshi,, in 4hich the A%ien 2e!!s1 are fo3nd, that desi!nates 4hat &i'e( ca%%s 2the ,re-
sym5o%ic #hin!1 @ the materna% inter-3terine s,ace. In his disc3ssion he refers to it inacc3rate%y as
2"t$he cave on the desert ,%anet1 )&i'e( 1989* 78+, and &i'e( has 5ecome notorio3s for s3ch 2s%i,s.1
8
In this case it serves to ma(e his ,resentation of the fi%m more traditiona%%y 29othic1, e%iminatin! the
science-fiction e%ement of the s,aceshi,. #his s,ace, 4hich is characteri<ed as materna% in a 4ay
that &i'e( descri5es as 2a%most too intr3sive,1 is trans!ressed 5y the h3man cre4. #he A%ien then
forms the %eft-over remainder of incest3o3s enjoyment from 4hich 4e are 5arred7 it ,%ays the ro%e
of 5oth !atherin! the !ro3, to!ether in the str3!!%e a!ainst it and a%so disso%vin! the sense of
rea%ity as 4e%%. #he transformative ,o4er of the a%ien, movin! from tiny creat3re to the to4erin!
monster s3!!ests its f3nction as a sem5%ance o3tside of the order of the Sym5o%ic. In &i'e(1s
ana%ysis the fi%m demonstrates the horror of to3chin! on the ,re-sym5o%ic =ea% and the e%3sive
effects of this =ea% that 5oth cements and disso%ves the Sym5o%ic order.
#his ana%ysis, and &i'e(1s other 4or( from this ,eriod, ,resents a seemin!%y c%ear-c3t
o,,osition 5et4een the =ea%, as 3nre,resenta5%e im,ossi5%e 2#hin!1, and the Sym5o%ic order, as
the order of %an!3a!e and %a4. 6hat forms momentary, 53t 3nsta5%e, 5rid!es are the f3nction of
the sinthome and the f3nction of fantasy. #hese are e%ements that tem,orari%y connect 3s to
enjoyment, 4hi%e at the same time (ee,in! the 5arrier 3, as 4e%%. #o 5rea(thro3!h this order, to
traverse the fantasy, invo%ves 2e:tractin! the (erne% of enjoyment1 )&i'e( 1989* 125+ thro3!h the
trans!ressive act @ facin! the horror. In terms of the 9othic, on the one hand 4e have the =ea% as
the monstro3s o3tside, the 2#hin!1, 4hich 4e cannot ever tr3%y a,,roach 53t can on%y ever ,rotect
o3rse%ves a!ainst thro3!h the formations of fantasy. In the other hand, the inj3nction of &i'e(1s
9othic is to reco!ni<e the monster as the ,rojection of o3r o4n e:cesses, as o3r o4n ref3sa% to
admit the ne!ativity at the heart of o3r e:istence. 6e re%ocate the horror from the o3tside 5ac( to
the inside. #his can on%y ever 5e a tem,orary trans!ressive manoe3vre as the =ea% a%4ays
remains f3ndamenta%%y 3nto3cha5%e* o3tside the %a4 and %an!3a!e.
&i'e(1s 9othic mode is str3ct3red %i(e those 9othic te:ts in 4hich a%tho3!h the horror mi!ht
5e tem,orari%y vanG3ished, and the socia% order s3s,ended or a%tered thro3!h the emer!ence of
the monstro3s, there is a%4ays a %eft-over that sets the 4ho%e ,rocess in motion a!ain. Consider
0arry Cohen1s fi%m / he 0in+ed Ser1ent )1982+, 4hich concerns the ret3rn of the A<tec 9od
J3et<a%coat% to Ne4 Kor( and the rei!n of terror that ens3es. #he fi%m ,resents a comic vision of
the vena%ity of Ne4 Kor(ers, 5oth the ,o%ice and other sym5o%s of a3thority, as 4e%% as the citi<ens
of the city. In this sense the creat3re J e:,oses the idiocy of everyday ideo%o!ica% enjoyment, at
one ,oint s4oo,in! do4n to carry off an 3nfort3nate roofto, s3n5ather. Bvent3a%%y the monster is
cornered and destroyed in its s(yscra,er nest 5y the re,resentatives of order, ho4ever, 3n(no4n
to the ,o%ice, the creat3re had another nest in 4hich a ne4 creat3re is 5ein! 5orn @ the cyc%e of
horror 5e!ins a!ain. In the same 4ay a%tho3!h &i'e(1s 9othic mode mi!ht 5e ,remised on offerin!
radica% chan!e it seems that 4e are doomed to forever circ%e aro3nd the im,ossi5%e #hin!, even if
it sho3%d ta(e ne4 forms. #he horror emer!es thro3!h the trans!ressive !est3re 53t remains,
f3ndamenta%%y, 3nto3cha5%e and e:terior.
As &i'e( remar(s this seems to im,%y a contin3a% story of 2ho4 4e a%4ays fai% the =ea%1
)&i'e( and Da%y 2>>?* 7>+. 6e can fai% it in a 25ad1 4ay, f%eein! into a ne4 2dar( a!e1 4hen faced 5y
the =ea%, or, more radica%%y, tryin! to e:terminate the =ea%, treatin! is as dis,osa5%e e:crement.
#his second choice is made 5y the 2c%ean-3,1 sG3ads at the end of 9eor!e =omero1s 2i+ht of the
3i4in+ *ead )19H8+, 4ho are so cava%ier in their e:termination of <om5ies they 2ha,,en1 to (i%% the
fi%m1s sti%%-h3man )and African-American+ hero. B%se 4e can fai% the =ea% in a 2!ood1 4ay, 5y
a%%o4in! o3r a,,roach to the =ea% to force 3s to confront o3r o4n ,rojections and to reco!ni<e the
ne!ativity at the heart of o3r socia% order. #his can 5e seen in =omero1s second <om5ie fi%m *awn
of the *ead )1978+, in 4hich it is not the <om5ies 1er se 4hich are the threat 53t the stasis of the
5o3r!eois order itse%f, recreated 5y the s3rvivors in the sho,,in! ma%%. A!ain tho3!h, 5y trans%atin!
this horror into the =ea% it a,,ears to 5ecome transformed into an eterna% ,sycho%o!ica% str3ct3re
that is immova5%e, 4hereas =omero1s fi%m co3%d 5e ana%y<ed as a4a(enin! 3s to the inertia of the
,ractico-inert of ca,ita%istL5o3r!eois socia% re%ations. 6hat remains is the G3estion of ho4 to truly
confront the =ea%7 53t does this, as in 0ovecraft1s statement, on%y %ead 3s to the im,asse in 4hich
4e 2either !o mad from the reve%ation or f%ee from the dead%y %i!ht into the ,eace and safety of a
ne4 dar( a!e1M
The &ot of the Real
It is to avoid, or force a ,ass thro3!h, this im,asse that &i'e( deve%o,s a more com,%e:
3nderstandin! of the =ea%, and one that is more faithf3% to the deve%o,ment of 0acan1s te:t. In
Seminar 5- 0acan ar!3ed that 2"n$o ,ra:is is more orientated to4ards that 4hich, at the heart of
e:,erience, is the (erne% of the rea% than ,sycho-ana%ysis1 )0acan 1979* 58+. #his s3!!ests that
a%tho3!h the =ea% cannot 5e sim,%y assimi%ated to the Sym5o%ic the ,ra:is of ,sychoana%ysis re%ies
on a transformative re%ation to the =ea%. /sychoana%ysis, as the 2ta%(in! c3re1, on%y 4or(s thro3!h
the Sym5o%ic and in doin! so it a%%o4s 3s 2to treat the rea% 5y the sym5o%ic1 )0acan 1979* H+. 6hat
mi!ht this re%ation, this treatment, 5eM As 0acan ,3ts it* 2an act, a tr3e act, a%4ays has an e%ement
of str3ct3re, 5y the fact of concernin! a rea% that is not se%f-evident%y ca3!ht 3, in it1 )0acan 1979*
5>+. #he e:ce,tion of the =ea%, as 4hat cannot 5e inte!rated into str3ct3re, ,rovides the act that
to3ches on it 4ith a str3ct3re.
?
Contra &i'e(1s initia% form3%ation, it a,,ears that the rea% is no %on!er
sim,%y o,,osed to the Sym5o%ic, as the 2o3tside1 of the ineradica5%e monstro3s 2#hin!1, instead it
a,,ears that the =ea% ,rovides an e%ement of str3ct3re to the act, to the ,ra:is of confrontin! the
=ea%.
6e can ar!3e that &i'e( ,ara%%e%s 0acan1s o4n shift from conce,t3a%isin! the =ea% as
2#hin!1 in Seminar 7 to his c%arification and re-form3%ation of the =ea% in Seminar 5-, !iven in 19H?.
In this %ater seminar 0acan sti%% has reco3rse to 9othic artic3%ations of the =ea%, most famo3s%y in
his e:am,%e of the emer!ence of the =ea%, 2in its ,3%sati%e, da<<%in! and s,read o3t f3nction1 )0acan
1979* 89+, as the anamor,hotic s(3%% in -o%5ein1s ,aintin! he Ambassadors )1588+. -e a%so notes
that his readin! of the ;re3dian 3nconscio3s as the 2,re-onto%o!ica% !a,1 co3%d 5e fi!3red as an
2inferna% o,enin!1 )0acan 1979* 8>+. 0acan, ho4ever, 4o3%d reject or do4n,%ay these remains of
the 9othic and instead chose increasin!%y to forma%i<e his 3nderstandin! of ,sychoana%ysis, and
the =ea%, thro3!h mathematics. #his invo%ved not on%y the famo3s 0acanian form3%as 53t a%so the
e:tensive 3se of fi!3res from mathematica% to,o%o!y. In the ear%y 197>s 0acan t3rned to the
Borromean (not to re,resent the 2trinity1 of =ea%, Sym5o%ic, and Ima!inary. 6ith this (not if any of
the three rin!s, or %in(s, are c3t then the other rin!s fa%% a4ay. In this 4ay each of the rin!s 2%eans1
on the other, re,resentin! the im5rications of the three orders of the =ea%, Sym5o%ic, and Ima!inary
in their m3t3a% de,endence.
&i'e( re-ca,it3%ates 0acan1s t3rn a4ay from the 9othic and to4ards mathematica%
forma%i<ation. In ,n 6elief )2>>1+ he deve%o,s the conseG3ences of the Borromean (not for a
thin(in! of the =ea%. #he =ea% can no %on!er 5e considered so%e%y in its detachment as 2,re-
sym5o%ic #hin!1, 53t no4 ,resents itse%f in three different moda%ities*
"6$e have the 2rea% =ea%1 )the horrifyin! #hin!, the ,rimordia% o5ject, %i(e Irma1s throat+,
the 2sym5o%ic =ea%1 )the si!nifier red3ced to a sense%ess form3%a, %i(e the G3ant3m
,hysics form3%ae 4hich can no %on!er 5e trans%ated 5ac( into @ or re%ated to @ the
everyday e:,erience of o3r %ife-4or%d+, AND the 2ima!inary =ea%1 )the mysterio3s je ne
sais .uoi, the 3nfathoma5%e 2somethin!1 that introd3ces a se%f-division into an ordinary
o5ject, so that the s35%ime dimension shines thro3!h it+. )&i'e( 2>>1a* 82+
As the ca,ita%isation of 2AND1 s3!!ests &i'e( ,%aces a ne4 em,hasis on the conce,t of the
2ima!inary =ea%1 as (ey @ 2the =ea% in the i%%3sion itse%f1 as an 2e%3sive feat3re 4hich is tota%%y non-
s35stantia%1 )&i'e( and Da%y 2>>?* H8-9+. Concomitant%y it s3!!ests a deva%3in! of the overt%y
9othic 2rea% =ea%1, the =ea% as s35stantia%, to, in &i'e(1s 4ords, "avoid any reification of the =ea%1
)&i'e( and Da%y 2>>?* 78+.
In his ;or4ard to the 2
nd
edition of 7or hey 8now 2ot 0hat hey *o )2>>2+ &i'e( ar!3es
that this ne4 readin! offers a corrective se%f-criticism of his o4n ear%ier tendency to create 2a G3asi-
transcendenta% readin! of 0acan, foc3sed on the notion of the =ea% as the im,ossi5%e #hin!-in-
itse%f1 )&i'e( 2>>2a* :ii+. #he res3%t is a ne4 ,%3ra%ity of 9othic modes, a%tho3!h oriented aro3nd the
,rimacy, no4, of the =ea% as ins35stantia% Ima!inary fiction. In terms of 4ritin! the 9othic this
s3!!ests sensitivity to the 9othic of am5i!3ity rather than 9othic horror or!anised aro3nd the
monstro3s 2#hin!1. S3ch a 9othic mode can 5e fo3nd in Shir%ey Eac(son1s he 9auntin+ of 9ill
9ouse )1959+. It ,%ays 4ith the am5i!3ity of the ho3se itse%f as dist3r5in! 2#hin!1, as 2not sane1
)Eac(son 198?* 8+, and the ,sycho%o!ica% state of the character of B%eanor. #he horror is conveyed
thro3!h the fract3red dist3r5ance of the !ro3,, fi!3red in the !eometry of the ho3se itse%f* the
3ndetecta5%e 23nha,,y coincidence of %ine and ,%ace 4hich s3!!ests evi% in the face of a ho3se1
)Eac(son 198?* 8?+. It is the anta!onistic socia% re%ations 5et4een the !ro3, mem5ers, es,ecia%%y
the 2dan!ero3s1 G3asi-se:3a% desire of B%eanor for #heodora, 4hich are ref%ected, or refracted, 5y
the 3ncanny a,,earance of the ho3se )and for 0acan the 3ncanny is a cate!ory 5e%on!in! to the
Ima!inary, to the domain of ima!es+. In &i'e(1s o4n 4or( this is ref%ected 5y a ne4 attention to the
s,ectra% a,,earance of the =ea%, im,%icit in his ear%ier descri,tions of the 2=ea%1 as anamor,hotic
stain or 25%ot1 )&i'e( 1991* 88-1>H+.
5
6hat remains ,ro5%ematic is the third moda%ity of the 2rea% =ea%1. Is this sti%% mediated 5y the
other rin!s or sti%% an 3nmediated =ea%M It is ,3<<%in! that &i'e( a,,ears to have !iven 3s 5ac(
4hat he had ,revio3s%y dec%ared to 5e an error @ 2the =ea% as the im,ossi5%e #hin!-in-itse%f1 @ and
a!ain thro3!h a reference to the contem,orary 9othic. No4 it a,,ears that he is ,ositionin! the
9othic as naNve%y re%yin! on the monstro3s 4hereas ,sychoana%ytic disco3rse (no4s 5etter, so
confinin! the 2rea% =ea%1 to a 9othic mis3nderstandin!. #he diffic3%ty is that it sti%% remains as a
cr3cia% cate!ory and so 4e have not %eft 5ehind the ear%ier G3asi-transcendenta% readin! of 0acan.
In fact 4e a,,ear to have on%y come f3%% circ%e @ ,erha,s 3ns3r,risin!%y 4hen one of 0acan1s
definitions of the =ea% 2is that 4hich is a%4ays in the same ,%ace1 )0acan 1992* 7>+.
The Real 'ffe"t
#he 2de-reification of the =ea%1 reG3ires f3rther 4or(, and in he "u11et and the *warf )2>>8+ &i'e(
,rovides a more ,recise and, 4e co3%d even say, more 0acanian readin! of the =ea%. A!ainst 4hat
no4 a,,ear as his o4n ear%ier conf3sions, he ar!3es that 2"t$he 0acanian =ea% @ the 2#hin!1 @ is not
so m3ch the inert ,resence that 2c3rves1 the sym5o%ic s,ace )introd3cin! !a,s and inconsistencies
in it+, 53t, rather, the effect of those !a,s and inconsistencies1 )&i'e( 2>>8* H7+. So, it is not so
m3ch a matter of the =ea% as an 3nder%yin! s35stance or 2hard (erne%1, 53t of the =ea% as the
2c3rvat3re1 of s,ace )-time+ itse%f. #his then invo%ves a radica% insistence of the re%ation of the =ea%
to the Sym5o%ic, as 2the =ea% is not e:terna% to the Sym5o%ic* the =ea% is the Sym5o%ic itse%f in the
moda%ity of non-A%%, %ac(in! an e:terna% %imitLB:ce,tion1 )&i'e( 2>>8* H9+. #here is no4here o3tside
to !o to find the =ea%, instead it is cotermino3s 4ith the Sym5o%ic in its inconsistency. &i'e( ret3rns
3s to 0acan1s insistence that 2there is no Ither of the Ither1 )0acan 2>>?* 298+, 5eca3se there is
no 2Ither1 4ho !3arantees the consistency of the Sym5o%ic order )the 2Ither1+, not even, or
es,ecia%%y, the =ea%. In this 4ay the 2threat1 of the =ea% is no %on!er e:terna% @ the 2hard (erne%1 of
rea%ity @ nor is it sim,%y interna% @ the 2hard (erne%1 of the s35ject @ instead it ,ermeates and 2ho%es1
the Sym5o%ic. #he Sym5o%ic, as the domain of %an!3a!e and %a4, is not se%f-contained in o,,osition
to the =ea% as 3nre,resenta5%e disr3,tive force.
6e can see here the ,assa!e from the 2Ima!inary =ea%1, 4hich stresses the =ea% as non-
s35stantia% mar(, to4ards the =ea% as ,3re 2effect1. It a,,ears 4e have %eft the 9othic 5ehind, or
have moved to4ards the mode of contem,orary 9othic 4hich dist3r5s the 3s3a% conventions of the
9othic. #his mode invo%ves the coincidence of 9othic horror 4ith the horror of socia% rea%ity itse%f. In
the 4or(s of the A3strian 4riter #homas Bernhard 4e find the 3se of 9othic tro,es, s3ch as the
iso%ated ho3se or cast%e, incest, madness, and death. -is second nove% :ar+oyles );erst<run++
)19H7+ invo%ves a !a%%ery of r3ra% A3strian !rotesG3es and %eads to the cast%e of a ,rince 4ho is
2forever com,e%%ed to ma(e a st3,id society rea%i<e it 4as st3,id1 )Bernhard 197>* 15H+. #his
modernist 9othic ref3ses any s3,ernat3ra% e%ements7 the horror here is socia% horror, es,ecia%%y of
the fai%3re of contem,orary A3stria to come to terms 4ith its 4artime ,ast. #his is reinforced 5y the
fact that the iso%ated ho3ses in 4hich severa% of his characters and narrators %ive are not 2evi%1 so
m3ch as se%f-im,osed ,risons, or even, as in =orrection )8orrektur+ )1975+ se%f-constr3cted. #hese
nove%s ,resent the =ea% as the inconsistency of the Sym5o%ic, an inconsistency 4hich is ,o%itica%%y
overdetermined 5y the 2fa%se1 contin3ity of ,ost4ar A3strian %ife after Na<ism.
It is this mode or form of 9othic, 9othic at the %imits or disso%3tion of 9othic, that is fo%%o4ed
5y &i'e(, and 4hich conforms to the increasin!%y strident ,o%itica% c%aims to revo%3tionary Car:ism
in his 4or( @ es,ecia%%y the %e!acy of 0enin )&i'e( 2>>15+ and the Caoist C3%t3ra% =evo%3tion
)&i'e( 2>>?* 188-218+. #he =ea% is no %on!er the eterna% circ3%atin! form of ,o%itica% fai%3re, 53t
rather the ,oint of intervention to vio%ent%y and radica%%y a%ter the coordinates of the e:istin!
ca,ita%ist order. #his is evident in his ret3rn to the ana%ysis of Alien in he "aralla> ;iew )2>>H+,
and &i'e( has said, in ans4erin! the char!e of re,etition, 2it is, rather, that I have to c%arify, I have
to ma(e the ,oint 4hich I missed the first time1 )&i'e( and Da%y 2>>?? ??+. #he c%arification here
t3rns on the ,o%itica% and on the =ea%, and is an im,%icit se%f-correction*
fascination 4ith the monstro3s a%ien sho3%d not, ho4ever, 5e a%%o4ed to o5f3scate the
antica,ita%ist ed!e of the Alien series* 4hat 3%timate%y endan!ers the %one !ro3, on a
s,aceshi, are not the a%iens as s3ch 53t the 4ay the !ro3, is 3sed 5y the anonymo3s
earth%y Cor,oration 4ho 4ants to e:,%oit the a%ien form of %ife. )&i'e( 2>>H* 118+
#his is not, accordin! to &i'e(, a matter of ar!3in! that the a%iens 2rea%%y mean1 Ca,ita% 53t a
demonstration of ho4 Ca,ita% ,arasiti<es itse%f on 2,3re %ife1. #he horror is not the 2#hin!1, or even
the am5i!3ity of its emer!ence, 53t of Ca,ita% as ,arasite.
=ather than j3d!in! this ,artic3%ar readin! it is ,ossi5%e to see a 4ider ,ro5%em 4ith &i'e(1s
ne4 renderin! of the =ea%. 6hi%e insistin! that the =ea% is on%y to 5e fo3nd as an effect and that the
idea of 2the horri5%e #hin! 5ehind the vei%1 is an i%%3sion that 3%timate%y concea%s the =ea% )&i'e(
2>>H* H7+, &i'e( sti%% retains the idea of the =ea% as a 2terrifyin! ,rimordia% a5yss1) &i'e( 2>>H* HH+.
#his ,ossi5i%ity, this fiction of the =ea% 2in-itse%f1, the 2rea% =ea%1, is he%d at a distance 5y 5ein!
confined to %iterary, and 9othic, te:t as 24e%% (no4n in %iterat3re in its m3%ti,%e !3ises, from /oe1s
mae%strom and 3rt< OhorrorP at the end of Conrad1s 9eart of *arkness to /i, from Ce%vi%%e1s
@oby-*ick1 )&i'e( 2>>H* HH-7+. Certain%y, &i'e( 3neG3ivoca%%y ,ositions it as 2the 3%timate %3re1
)&i'e( 2>>H* H7+, 53t 4e mi!ht sti%% 4onder for 4homM &i'e( carries o3t a (ind of %e!erdemain 5y
4hich he ,asses off his o4n retention of the =ea% as 2,rimordia% a5yss1 on to %iterat3re, and,
,artic3%ar%y, on to the 9othic. #he ,rice of theoretica% advance is the do4n!radin! or dismissa% of
the %iterary, as the naNve other to ,sychoana%ysis. B3t, as &i'e(1s remar( a5o3t not concedin! to
the 2fascination1 of the a%ien s3!!ests, it a,,ears to 5e more his 2naNve1 fascination 4ith monstro3s
horror that is in G3estion.
The !othi" Su$$lemet
6e can ar!3e that the 9othic te:t ,%ays the f3nction of the s3,,%ement, in the Derridean sense, for
&i'e(1s theoretica% te:t. In his deconstr3ction of =o3ssea3 Derrida e:tracts from his 4ritin!s the
do35%e f3nction of the si!nifier su11lAment. As Derrida notes it em5odies t4o contradictory
meanin!s* on the one hand the s3,,%ement is the e:terior and inessentia% e%ement that is %ater
added 53t, on the other hand, the s3,,%ement is a%so the essentia% e%ement that ma(es 3, for a
deficiency )Derrida 197?* 1??-1?5+. #his 2str3ct3re1 remains, constit3tive%y 23ndecida5%e1 and
cannot 5e de%imited 5y =o3ssea31s te:t. In the case of &i'e( the 9othic is ,3shed f3rther a4ay, as
inessentia% to thin(in! the =ea%, or even as the fa%se %3re. B3t at the same time the 9othic ,ersists
as essentia% to thin(in! the =ea% as 2#hin!1 @ ,rovidin! its o4n distortive effect on the form of
&i'e(1s theoretica% te:t. As the =ea% is increasin!%y conce,t3a%ised in terms of 2fiction1 or 2effect1 then
this on%y e:acer5ates the ,ro5%ematic e:c%3sion of 9othic fiction. &i'e( discards his centra%
reso3rce for a%%3din! to the =ea% as naNve 53t this is at the cost of a naivety in his o4n
3nderstandin! of the form of the 9othic. Is the res3%t that &i'e(1s te:t condemned to recom,ose its
initia% a,oria, 5et4een the Sym5o%ic and the 3nre,resenta5%e =ea%, at another %eve%* 5et4een a
,sychoana%ytic conce,tion of the =ea% as 2not-a%%1 and this 29othic s3,,%ement1 that em5odies the
=ea% as the im,ossi5%e, and horrifyin!, 2#hin!1M Is the res3%t, la =o3ssea3, a fata% a,oria that
divides &i'e( and condemns him to an im,asseM
In his re,%y to a co%%ection of critica% essays &i'e( notes the tendency of his critics to acc3se
him of 2osci%%ation1 5et4een different theoretica% ,ositions )&i'e( 2>>5* 219+. -e o5jects to this
char!e for severa% reasons, the most interestin! of 4hich is, for him, the fact that this 2osci%%ation1
mi!ht act3a%%y 5e 2a feat3re of the descri5ed socio-sym5o%ic ,rocess1 )&i'e( 2>>5* 221+. Co3%d 4e
then s3!!est that there is somethin! of an 2osci%%ation1 53i%t-in to the conce,t3a%isation of the =ea%M
-o4, tho3!h, is this conce,t3a%isation to 5e !iven ,recision in terms of this seemin!%y str3ct3ra%
antinomyM &i'e(1s so%3tion, in the case of the =ea%, is to f3rther insist, 2the 0acanian =ea% has no
,ositive-s35stantia% consistency, it is j3st the !a, 5et4een the m3%tit3de of ,ers,ectives on it1
)&i'e( 2>>H* 7+. #his is 4hat he ca%%s the 2,ara%%a: vie41 of the =ea%. 6hereas 4e mi!ht condemn
&i'e( for theoretica% s%ei!ht of hand for him it is more a matter of 4atchin! 5oth hands at once*
2"t$he =ea% is th3s sim3%taneo3s%y the #hin! to 4hich direct access is not ,ossi5%e and the o5stac%e
that ,revents direct access7 the #hin! that e%3des o3r !ras, and the distortin! screen that ma(es
3s miss the #hin!1 )&i'e( 2>>8* 777 &i'e( 2>>H* 2H+. #he =ea% is act3a%%y the shift in ,ers,ective
from the first stand,oint to the second, and it is this shift in ,ers,ective that 4e have traced in
&i'e(1s o4n 4or(.
#his fina% de-reification of the =ea% reG3ires t4o ,artic3%ar readin! strate!ies* first, to read
the =ea% not as a hard (erne% 53t as some (ind of fiction7 second%y, to read the =ea% as 2a
to,o%o!ica% t4ist1 )&i'e( and Da%y 2>>?* 78+* the inherent c3rvat3re of s,ace. 6e can ta(e these
t4o strate!ies as the t4o sides of the 2,ara%%a: vie41 of the =ea%* the (erne% is a (ind of fiction and
o3r vie4 of 2it1 is act3a%%y the effect of the to,o%o!ica% t4ist. #his s3!!ests a ne4 mode of readin!
the 9othic a4ay from the fascination 4ith the monstro3s and trans!ressive 2#hin!1 and to4ards the
ana%ysis of this effect of chan!in! ,ers,ective. It a%so s3!!ests the im,ortance of ana%ysin! this
distortion in ,ers,ective as the res3%t of socia% anta!onism, as a res3%t of the inconsistency of the
Sym5o%ic. Certain%y this co3nters those re,resentations of 0acan that stress the conservatism of
the Sym5o%ic, as the fina% !3ardrai% of the socia% or!anised thro3!h the ,aterna% f3nction. It a%so
cha%%en!es trans!ressive readin!s of the 9othic, 4hich find in the 9othic te:t the 5rea(in! thro3!h
or o3t of the socia% 5ond thro3!h to the monstro3s. In &i'e(1s o4n te:t this ne4 mode is ref%ected in
a 4ritin! that is not so ,reocc3,ied 4ith the 2des,air a5o3t any direct 3se of %an!3a!e1 53t attem,ts
to !ive 3s the 2,ara%%a: vie41 on the 2#hin!1 as o3r o4n reification of socia% anta!onism.
In Seminar 5- 0acan ta(es iss3e 4ith 2the myth of the 9od is dead1 ar!3in! that 2,erha,s
this myth is sim,%y a she%ter a!ainst the threat of castration1 )0acan 1979* 27+. 6e can ar!3e that
&i'e( finds it diffic3%t to discard the 2myth of the =ea%1 as 4hat ,%3!s the !a, of castration. A%tho3!h
he ,ro!ressive%y divests himse%f of the 2myth of the =ea%1 as e:terior 2#hin!1 he then ,asses off this
myth onto the 9othic, 4hen, in a fina% irony, his o4n ,ers,ectiva% readin! of the =ea% can act3a%%y
a%ready 5e fo3nd in the 9othic. #o ta(e on%y the case of Shir%ey Eac(son1s he 9auntin+ of 9ill
9ouse, 4e can see ho4 the ho3se as 2#hin!1 is ,ara%%e%ed 5y the ho3se as screen for the
fra!mentation of the socia% 5ond. #he very distortions of the !eometry of the ho3se fi!3re the
distortions in ,ers,ective that are sta!ed in the com,%e: misa,,rehensions 5et4een the !ro3,
mem5ers hired to investi!ate the ha3ntin!. #his 9othic te:t ho%ds the 2,ara%%a: vie41 in an
3ndecida5%e fashion* 5et4een a 2rea%1 ha3ntin! and nat3ra%istic ,sycho%o!ica% disinte!ration. In
com,arison &i'e(1s 3nderstandin! can seem naNve, 4hen he confines the 9othic to a naNve 5e%ief
in the myth of the =ea%, 4hich it has act3a%%y discarded 5efore him.
6hat &i'e(1s modern 9othic demonstrates for 3s is this ,ossi5i%ity of readin! the 9othic
to4ards the de-reification of the =ea% and the re!isterin! of the distortin! effects of anta!onism.
#his ,rocess a%so invo%ves a readin! from the 9othic to ,sychoana%ysis, to ref3se &i'e(1s tendency
to e:,e% the 9othic from his te:t. =ather than formin! a vicio3s circ%e, in 4hich ,sychoana%ysis
finds its confirmation in the 9othic and the 9othic finds its tr3th in ,sychoana%ysis, 4e have the
,ossi5i%ity of a hermene3tic circ%e of dee,enin! 3nderstandin!. It is the 9othic te:t itse%f that offers
so,histicated reso3rces and narrative strate!ies for ho%din! to!ether the 2,ara%%a: vie41 of the =ea%
@ neither co%%a,sin! the =ea% into an immediate sym5o% of anta!onism nor reifyin! the =ea% as
monstro3s. #his, 4e co3%d say, is an instance of the ,ro5%ematic ro%e of narrative fiction or %iterat3re
in ,sychoana%ysis, 4hich a%% too often treats te:ts as mere e:em,%ars. In the case of &i'e( his %ove
affair 4ith the 9othic so3rs at ,recise%y the ,oint 4hen a ret3rn to the 9othic is most necessary,
dismissin! the 9othic as 5e%ievin! in the 2rea% =ea%1 %eads him to miss the 2!eometric1 9othic that
re!isters the dist3r5in! effect of the 2to,o%o!ica% t4ist1 in the ,ara%%a: vie4 5et4een the 9othic and
,sychoana%ysis. It is in this to,o%o!ica% t4ist that horror itse%f is rendered as the a,,earance of
socia% rea%ity, the 9othic distortions and c3rvat3res of ca,ita%ist s,ace, and here 4here
,sychoana%ysis can and sho3%d re-enco3nter the 9othic.
Notes
1
In 0acan1s definition of jouissance, from his 19HH %ect3re 2/sychoana%ysis and medicine1, he
ma(es c%ear the ,arado:ica% stat3s of jouissance as 2,%eas3re in ,ain1*
6hat I ca%% jouissance @ in the sense in 4hich the 5ody e:,eriences itse%f @ is a%4ays in the
nat3re of tension, in the nat3re of forcin!, of a s,endin!, even of an e:,%oit. UnG3estiona5%y,
there is jouissance at the %eve% at 4hich ,ain 5e!ins to a,,ear, and 4e (no4 that it is on%y at
this %eve% of ,ain that a 4ho%e dimension of the or!anism, 4hich 4o3%d other4ise remain
vei%ed, can 5e e:,erienced. )Gtd. in Bra3nstein 2>>8* 1>8+.
0oren<o Chiesa a%so offers an e:ce%%ent acco3nt of this e:,erience of jouissance as ,ain in re%ation
to the 4or( of Arta3d )Chiesa 2>>H* 851-8H>+.
2
In fact, 0acan ma(es a very 2&i'e(ian1 mane3ver in dra4in! on ,o,3%ar c3%t3re, and cinema, to
e:em,%ify the 2#hin!,1 citin! the sea-monster creat3re from ;e%%ini1s 3a *olce ;ita )19H>+ )0acan
1992* 258+. I o4e this reference to 0oren<o Chiesa.
8
In ,r+ans 0ithout 6odies )2>>?+ &i'e( chides 4riters on -itchcoc( for their 2e:traordinary
amo3nt of fact3a% mista(es1 )&i'e( 2>>?* 151+ and ar!3es that these 2ha%%3cinatory s3,,%ements or
distortions1 revea% %i5idina% investment )&i'e( 2>>?* 152+. If co3rse, as ay notes severa%
e:am,%es of &i'e(1s o4n inattention to detai% )ay 2>>8* n8 178+, rather than condemn &i'e( for
hy,ocrisy 4e co3%d deve%o, an ana%ysis of his s%i,s on simi%ar %ines. #his artic%e co3%d 5e treated as
a contri53tion to that endeavo3r 5y tracin! &i'e(1s disavo4ed %i5idina% investment in the 9othic.
?
#his is noticea5%y simi%ar to A%ain Badio31s contention that the event is the void that disr3,ts the
state of the sit3ation, its str3ct3re, 53t that a%so sets in ,%ace a ne4 2str3ct3re1 of tr3th e%a5orated
from the ,oint of this void )Badio3 2>>5+. In his recent 4or( &i'e( has e:tensive%y dra4n on, and
critici<ed, Badio3. Br3no Bostee%s has ,rovided an e:ce%%ent acco3nt of this re%ation, from a
,ers,ective sym,athetic to Badio3, in his artic%e 2Badio3 6itho3t &i'e(1 )Bostee%s 2>>5+.
5
#his can 5e seen ,artic3%ar%y in his essay on the attac(s of Se,tem5er 11 2>>1. In addressin! the
attac(s he stresses the Os,ectra%P and cinematic dimensions of the attac(s, 4here5y the er3,tion of
the =ea% is fi!3red as this effect of fiction rather than as the emer!ence of the tra3matic O#hin!P
)0elcome 11-82+.
Refere"es
Badio3, A. )2>>5+ 6ein+ and !4ent, trans. I%iver ;e%tham. 0ondon* Contin33m.
Bernhard, #. )197>+ :ar+oyles, trans. =ichard and C%ara 6inston, Chica!o and 0ondon* #he
University of Chica!o /ress.
Bernhard, #. )2>>8+ =orrection, trans. So,hie 6i%(ins, 0ondon* Qinta!e.
Bostee%s, B. )2>>5+ 2Badio3 6itho3t &i'e(1, in C. 6i%(ins )ed.+ he "hiloso1hy of Alain 6adiou,
S1ecial -ssue of "oly+ra1h? An -nternational Bournal of =ulture C "olitics 17 )2>>5+* 228-
2?H.
Bra3nstein, N. A. )2>>8+ 2Desire and jo3issance in the teachin!s of 0acan1, in E-C =a5atR )ed.+
he =ambrid+e =om1anion to 3acan, Cam5rid!e* Cam5rid!e University /ress.
Chiesa, 0. )2>>H+ 20acan 4ith Arta3d* jouDs-sens, jouis-sens, jouis-sans1, in S. &i'e( )ed.+ 3acan?
he Silent "artners, 0ondon and Ne4 Kor(* Qerso.
Cohen, 0., director )1982 L 2>>5+ / he 0in+ed Ser1ent, Anchor Bay -ome Bntertainment.
Derrida, E. )197?+ ,f :rammatolo+y, trans. 9. S,iva(, Ba%timore* Eohns -o,(ins University /ress.
Eac(son, S. )198?+ he 9auntin+ of 9ill 9ouse, Ne4 Kor(* /en!3in.
ay, S. )2>>8+ Sla4oj EiFek? A =ritical -ntroduction, Cam5rid!e* /o%ity.
0acan, E. )1979+ he 7our 7undamental =once1ts of "sycho-Analysis, trans. A. Sheridan,
-armonds4orth* /en!3in.
0acan, E. )1992+ he !thics of "sychoanalysis, $%&%-$%'(, trans. D. /otter, 0ondon and Ne4 Kor(*
=o3t%ed!e.
0acan, E. )2>>?+ Gcrits, trans. B. ;in(. Ne4 Kor( and 0ondon* 6. 6. Norton S Com,any.
0ovecraft, -. /. )1999+ he =all of =thulhu and ,ther 0eird Stories, S. #. Eoshi )ed. and intro.+
0ondon* /en!3in.
Carc3s, S. )1985+ 2;re3d and Dora* Story, -istory, Case -istory1, in C. Bernheimer and C. ahane
)eds.+ -n *oras =ase, 0ondon* Qira!o.
=omero, 9. =., director )19H8+ 2i+ht of the 3i4in+ *ead.
=omero, 9. =., director )1978+ *awn of the *ead.
Sed!4ic(, B. . )198>+ he =oherence of :othic =on4entions, Ne4 Kor(* Arno /ress.
&i'e(, S. )1989+ he Sublime ,bject of -deolo+y, 0ondon and Ne4 Kor(* Qerso.
&i'e(, S. )1991+ 3ookin+ Awry? An -ntroduction to Bac.ues 3acan throu+h "o1ular =ulture,
Cam5rid!e, Cass. and 0ondon* #he CI# /ress.
&i'e(, S. )1997+ he Abyss of 7reedom, in he Abyss of 7reedom H A+es of the 0orld, S. &i'e( L ;.
6. E. Qon Sche%%in!, Ann Ar5or* #he University of Cichi!an /ress.
&i'e(, S. )1999+ 2#he Under!ro4th of Bnjoyment* -o4 /o,3%ar C3%t3re can Serve as an
Introd3ction to 0acan1, in B. 6ri!ht and B. 6ri!ht )eds.+ he EiFek Reader, I:ford*
B%ac(4e%%.
&i'e(, S. )2>>1a+ ,n 6elief, 0ondon and Ne4 Kor(* =o3t%ed!e.
&i'e(, S. )2>>15+ 2=e,eatin! 0enin1, =onference on Iruth in the "ostmodern1, 3acan.com,
Avai%a5%e at* htt,*LL%acan.comLre,%enin.htm. Accessed A3!3st 11th 2>1>.
&i'e(, S. )2>>2a+ 7or hey 8now 2ot 0hat hey *o J
nd
!dition, 0ondon and Ne4 Kor(* Qerso.
&i'e(, S. )2>>25+ 0elcome to the *esert of the Real, 0ondon and Ne4 Kor(* Qerso.
&i'e(, S. )2>>8+ he "u11et and the *warf, Cam5rid!e, CA and 0ondon* #he CI# /ress.
&i'e(, S. )2>>?+ ,r+ans 0ithout 6odies? ,n *eleuze and =onse.uences, 0ondon and Ne4 Kor(*
=o3t%ed!e.
&i'e(, S. )2>>5+ 2=oncesso non dato1, in 9. Bo3cher, E. 9%ynos, and C. Shar,e )eds.+ ra4ersin+
the 7antasy? =ritical Res1onses to Sla4oj EiFek, A%dershot* Ash!ate, 2>>5.
&i'e(, S. )2>>H+ he "aralla> ;iew, Cam5rid!e, Cass. and 0ondon* #he CI# /ress.
&i'e(, S. and 9. Da%y )2>>?+ =on4ersations with EiFek, Cam5rid!e* /o%ity.