The Weird and the Eerie

As a long-time reader of science fiction, fantasy, and horror, I found Fisher's ideas and examples very, very interesting. Some of the other reviews here cover the book as a whole, and I won't try to comment or add to them. What I'd like to suggest is specific.Numerous times as I read, I remembered Brian Aldiss's novel "Frankenstein Unbound" as an example of various parts of Fisher's thesis. Aldiss's book involves time travel, but more importantly the blurring of levels of "reality" -- the time-traveling protagonist encounters not only Mary Shelley and her circle of acquaintance, but also Victor Frankenstein and his Creature, all coexisting in the same shifting spaces and times. The "time-shifts" that enable all this, it's hinted, originate in the traveler's present (the year 2020, which was Aldiss's future as the book was published in 1973), but near the end of the book, having followed the Creature into the far North (as Victor Frankenstein did in Shelley's novel), he encounters a setting that seems to negate a difference between past and future and that suggests the questions of "agency" and emptiness/presence that Fisher sees as intrinsic to "the eerie."Perhaps Fisher wasn't familiar with Aldiss's book, or for some reason didn't wish to refer to it in "The Weird and the Eerie," but I can't help thinking that readers who find that book and its subjects interesting might also be interested in reading "Frankenstein Unbound."

It's unfortunate that Mark Fisher's gone. Still, he's left us some of his interesting writings. His prose is straight forward but waxed a bit poetic when he needs to be in making a point. In this case, his final book, The Weird and the Eerie, discusses at length what is weird and eerie, this philosophy of aesthetics. Fisher pulled out references to film, music, stories, and novels, with writers like H.P. Lovecraft, Philip K. Dick, and films like World On Wire, Solaris, Stalker, Under The Skin, and underground music one has never heard of. This is well written, and it's so good you'd want to reread it again for a refresher.

Why do we feel a sense of unease around certain works of art, music, cinema, and literature? Mark Fisher sets out to answer this question, and, to a large degree, he succeeds. The critical modes Fisher deploys, the weird and eerie, really do help clarify the works under discussion. These are defined concisely and accessibly. Examples are tastefully selected. Theoretical jargon is present but helpful and expressive. It's not difficult to see, reading this book, why Fisher's reputation as a critic continues to grow after his untimely death.

Admittedly, there was much I brushed over, being unfamiliar with some sources. When I knew the source, Fisher proved to be insightful and exciting, capable of bridging highbrow theory with popular culture in an utterly accessible manner.

Very engaging & well constructed literature from Mr. Fisher. May he rest in peace. Highly recommended for those of us that enjoy the process of weaving & intertwining the research done by an author that guides us toward the greater good and sets our imaginations free...

Just started reading this and so far have found it to be very insightful. Fisher uses a large and verbose vocabulary and it challenges me as a reader.

Mark Fisher's last work. Sad to have to say that. RIP, Mark Fisher. You're voice will be missed...

Mark Fisher was one of the most interesting contemporary British writers on broader cultural issues, and it's a tragedy that his early death (by suicide) means that this slim volume is going to be his last. I'd like to be as enthusiastic about it as I was about his other work, but, to be honest, although it's never less than interesting, gracefully written and full of ideas, it reads more like a collection of linked essays than a finished product. One of those rare books, in fact, which would be greatly improved by being twice as long, and having the space to develop its ideas more. Ah well, that's all we're ever going to get, I fear.

Mark Fisher examines two distinct sub-genres that are usually lumped in with Horror. Both are characterised by a preoccupation with the strange, but not the horrific. They are both “to do with a fascination for the outside, for that which lies beyond standard perception, cognition and experience. This...usually involves a certain apprehension, perhaps even dread.”The weird encompasses writers like HP Lovecraft and HG Wells, director David Lynch, and post-punk UK rock group The Fall. Fisher defines “weird” as involving “a sensation of wrongness: a weird entity or object so strange that it makes us feel that it should not exist, or at least it should not exist here. Yet if the entity or object is here, then the categories which we have up until now used to make sense of the world cannot be valid. The weird thing is not wrong, after all: it is our conceptions that must be inadequate.”The eerie includes writers MR James and Margaret Atwood, director Stanley Kubrick, and musician Brian Eno. According to Fisher, the eerie is “a failure of absence (e.g. the cry of a bird that invites speculation—is it really a bird? Is it possessed?) or by a failure of presence (e.g. ruins or abandoned structures, again inviting speculation—Who built them? What happened to them?). Both cases are an issue of agency: is there an agency, or what is its nature?I’ve long thought that Lovecraft, for one, doesn’t fit into the “classic horror” category that the BISAC and Amazon categories place him in, and Fisher provides a convincing argument for the weird and the eerie to gain the recognition they deserve. I’ve dropped one star as, in places, the arguments become a little abstruse for me. However, it is a much more accessible book than some others in the field, and I highly recommend it.

Fisher doing what he did best - Applying critical theory to books. films, & music in an approachable & enjoyable manner. His gift shines through in the way he can make even the poorest works sound interesting. He almost makes me want to watch Under the Skin again, even though it's probably the worst film I've seen in a decade. Almost, but not quite.Where this book falls down is in a lack of depth (it is little more than an extended essay) - I came away with a good grasp of how to distinguish the weird & the eerie, but little understanding of why I should bother. Okay, it's nice to be able to pigeonhole genres, or whatever, but surely there must be more to it than that? It feels like there is a lot more he could have said. This is particularly noticeable as some of his other writings have a lot more critical traction.

Extraordinary collection of haunted writings by the late Fisher. For those who love Nigel Kneale, M.R. James and Lovecraft.

Pity this will be the last we hear from the late author.