sistermagpie's review against another edition
3.0
Even though it's not really about the book, I can't talk about Art of Darkness without mentioning the odd condition mine was in. I had an electronic text from the library and it was hilariously badly done, full of typos and strange line breaks. It was like a machine transcribed it. The letter "w" for instance was more often than not written as \v.
The book itself was certainly more interesting, though. It talks about Gothic in terms of the male and the female styles, and makes a case for Freud being one of the most famous Gothic writers of all. In other words, while Freudian interpretations of Gothic texts were common this author feels that it's more Freud that should be interpreted as a Gothic novel. I particularly liked the little essay at the end after the epilogue that gave the Alien trilogy a Gothic interpretation.
The book itself was certainly more interesting, though. It talks about Gothic in terms of the male and the female styles, and makes a case for Freud being one of the most famous Gothic writers of all. In other words, while Freudian interpretations of Gothic texts were common this author feels that it's more Freud that should be interpreted as a Gothic novel. I particularly liked the little essay at the end after the epilogue that gave the Alien trilogy a Gothic interpretation.
assimbya's review
2.0
Williams' interpretation of the division between male and female gothic is way too reductive (and psychoanalytic) for my tastes and doesn't account for subversion and play with the form (like, The Monk is not that straightforward! Neither is Dracula!); I prefer Kate Ellis' male/female gothic division.
More...