Suchergebnisse

Margrit Shildrick has argued that the monster's ability to disturb and unsettle arises from its position as simultaneously same and different, both self and other at the same time. Through an analysis of Algernon Blackwood's novella The Willows, this article discusses the challenge posed by the nonhuman Absolute other, the nebulous creatures whose whose difference is total, as they appear in weird fiction. Drawing on posthuman theory, it explores the ethical implications of imagining the crumbling horizons of human subjectivity in the meeting with the absolute and unknowable other. This article argues that by bringing concepts such as the horror of scale, ecophobia, the transformative power of awe, and the strangeness of matter into the monstrous figure, the weird undermines the structures that constructs human, culture, and mind as separate and different from the non-human, nature, and matter. By making us imagine a perspective from which humans are not just insignificant, but irrelevant, weird fiction not only challenges the anthropocentric worldview, but also makes us aware of the limitations and situatedness of human experience.

Fan studies is a multifaceted discipline that developed from widely different fields of research, resulting in a great variety of methodological approaches. A recurring issue in discussions on methodology in fan studies is the tension between the researchers' attachment to the phenomenon they are studying and the more detached, critical role of a researcher. The double position as both a participant in and observer of the communities that they are researching has led to valuable discussions about reflexivity and positionality in fan studies methodologies. Indeed, the double position of fan and researcher can inform and enrich research by bringing fannish practices and sensibilities to research projects. This tension between attachment to and detachment from the field influences the research process, leading to ethical challenges that acafans must face as a result of their dual positionality. Drawing on affect theory, and reflecting on our own research experiences from an autoethnographic perspective, we show how fannish attachment to the subject-object of study can be a driving force—a resource rather than an impediment to good research. An affective turn in methodology could improve knowledge not only within the field of fan studies but in the social sciences in general.