Copyright 2020 by Gary L. Pullman
Note:
This discussion is based on Tzvetan Todorov's analysis of the
fantastic, which is detailed in “The
Tzvetan Todorov Plot.”
In
solving crimes, Sherlock Holmes, Father Brown, and other consulting
or amateur detectives often look for singularities—things that were
out of place, things that didn't “belong,” things that stood out.
Why
do things stand out from
everything else? Why, in a myriad of other objects, does this one
physical entity catch the eye
(or the ear or the nose or the tongue or the finger)? What makes it
different and, therefore, visible?
A bell rope attached to nothing: how singular!
Abnormal
things stand out. According to Oxford Dictionaries, “abnormal”
means “deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way
that is undesirable or worrying.” Something abnormal deviates, or
departs from, the normal or the usual. A beautiful woman, in this
sense, is “abnormal,” but she is neither “undesirable” nor
“worrying,” so she doesn't fill the bill.
What
about a nude? Even if she (or he) were unusually attractive and
naked, it's likely that a nude's presence, among clothed people,
would be regarded as at least “undesirable” by some—perhaps
many. Such a person's presence might also be seen as “worrying.”
However, in a nudist camp, a clothed person would stand out, perhaps
as “undesirable” or even “worrying,” even if he or she were
attractive. In either case, the person, nude or clothed, has violated
the norms, or “rules,” of the greater group. Abnormality, like
beauty, is, it appears, in the eyes of the beholder, at least to some
extent.
Fortunately,
we do not need to be philosophers to recognize things that many, if
not all, people regard as abnormal. We can start with a good image
browser (I prefer Bing; you may favor Google.) All we need to do is
to select our filters and type in our search term: “abnormal.”
The server will return lots of images that have been labeled
“abnormal.” We can then select those that we also view as
abnormal and ask ourselves why these
particular images seem abnormal to us.
Something uncanny!
Here
is an image in which placement and shape conspire to create an
abnormal effect. A glass of wine is positioned directly in front of a
woman in a simple white dress. At the level of her crotch, the glass
of wine, at first glance, appears to be her pubic hair. However, the
woman is fully dressed, the dark triangular shape cannot be her pubic
hair—unless, perhaps, her dress is cut out to reveal this feature.
We look again, more closely. No. The dress does not have a cutout,
and the dark triangle is not hair, but wine in a glass. A sight which
had seemed to be fantastic turns out to be uncanny. At first, the
sight appeared to
deviate from the norms or propriety in a manner which some would find
“undesirable or worrying.” Closer inspection shows that such is
not the case.
Something marvelous!
This
image shows a spoon
lying on a white surface. It casts a shadow, part of which is visible
below the bowl of the spoon. The spoon itself looks quite normal.
There is nothing in the least unusual about the utensil itself.
However, the image is slightly “worrying” because the spoon casts
the shadow of a different implement altogether—that of a fork. The
shapes of the fork's tines, rather than the rounded edge of the
spoon's bowl, contradict our interpretation of the object as a spoon.
The shadow under the spoon defies our experience, wherein a fork, not
a spoon, would cast such a shadow. All we know about spoons and
forks, about shadows, and about the science of optic is contravened.
The
first image, although seemingly abnormal, can be explained as normal.
What we see is an illusion caused by placement and shape. The effect
is uncanny, but not fantastic. However, neither science nor reason
can account for the shadow of the fork cast by the spoon. This image,
therefore, is marvelous, and the marvelous is, or can be, the source
of the horrific. In this image, we are confronted by a refutation of
reason, a denial of the validity of empiricism, a denunciation of
science itself. This image suggests that we neither know anything for
certain nor are able to know anything with certainty.
Something fantastic!
A
third possibility exists: the fantastic consists of things that could be either marvelous (for
example, supernatural) or uncanny (extremely unusual but explainable
through science or reason) and for which the jury remains undecided.
Such a thing might be the cyclops of ancient Greek mythology. Some
scientists suggest that the apparently fantastic creature is
explained by ancient people's mistaking the skull of Deinotherium
giganteum for that of
a gigantic, one-eyed human:
The
large hole in the center of the skull of Deinotherium
giganteum,
representing the animal's extremely large nasal opening, could well
be the foundation for their tales of the fearsome one-eyed Cyclops.
The
fantastic and the uncanny are variation on Holmes's singularity.
Holmes's singularity is strange; it is displaced; it does not
“belong” in its present environment; therefore, for the
detective, it is a possible clue regarding the mystery he seeks to
solve. However, that it is solvable is never in doubt, either to
Holmes himself or to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's legion of readers.
Likewise, the fantastic is potentially solvable, while the uncanny is
completely solvable.
Holmes'
singularity is at first fantastic, but it is always, in the end,
found to be uncanny. The marvelous is inexplicable; that is precisely
why it is and remains marvelous. As such, it has no place in the
detective story as it is practiced by Holmes.