Week One: Theory and Balance

In consideration of the Jonathan Culler article, I’ve been thinking about the balance I will have to strike in gathering critical materials. I know that my thesis – as nascent as it is – revolves around the idea that we can read H.P. Lovecraft’s “weird” fiction as “queer” fiction. My anxiety-provoking question is this: exactly how much queer theory do I have digest before I can make a compelling argument?

My first, cursory searches for queer readings of “weird” fiction have yielded almost nothing – and, in a way, the absence of scholarship excites me. Do I get to be a pioneer? Could I win this miniature genre wider scholarly appreciation? On the other hand, I wonder if no queer criticism of “weird” fiction exists because the application of queer theory is artificial and forced.

If I can find no (or few) critical assessments of “weird” fiction, how far can I stretch queer theory in general, the works of Eve Sedgwick and Judith Butler, who never even issued a glance towards my textual area of interest? I worry about creating a Frankenstein’s monster of sorts. I’ve read criticism of late Victorian supernatural fiction, and I’m familiar with a smattering of queer theory, but how can I guarantee, in the absence of more direct criticism of my texts, an agreeable marriage? I know that the onus is largely on me, at least in the sense that I have to provide harmonious rhetoric. My main anxiety (un)rests in the discrete essences of queer theory and “weird” fiction. What if their profound incompatibility is obvious to everyone but me?

These are the things currently keeping me up at night.