---

This paper examines two modes of fantastic genre, i.e uncanny and marvelous, with regard to the stories of Tanookhi's the Relief after the Grief. We will start by a discussion of Todorov's work on the 'fantastic'. In doing so, the etymology of the keywords and the review of literature are also given. Then, it is referred to Todorovian structural approach to 'the fantastic'. Due to this approach, it is told that in the fantastic stories of the book (sometimes titled as "keraamaat" genre), the reader has to experience the world described as a possible or impossible world full of fear and strange: depending on the readers to explain the occurrence of strange events naturally or supernaturally, the stories may undergo the category of uncanny or marvelous, respectfully. Finally, as conclusion and new results, it is said that in the Relief after the Grief: 1) the focus is on one central character as the center for all events 2) events of the stories are seen through the focal point of this character as the main narrator- focalizer and 3) The reader’s point of view should be that of the central character and the events should be focalized through his eyes.

---

This paper examines the tradition of writing ‘adjā’ibnāmeh as the fantastic writing. The question is how we can/not regard ‘adjā’ib (marvels) as fantastic. First, we refer to the literature of both ‘adjā’ib and the fantastic. Then, the etymology as well as the religious and socio-historical origins of both words is examined. It is concluded that the fantastic has a root in fancy and mental hallucination while ‘adjā’ib has its roots in reality, originating from observer’s exact observation. Then, Todorovian structural approach to ‘adjā’ib is counterbalanced, showing that some tales of ‘Adjā’ib-e hend conform with the five kinds of the marvelous fantastic in Todorov's diagram. In sum, it can be claimed that ‘adjā’ib conforms only to certain aspects of fantastic writing.

---

The concept of anxiety occupies a crucial position in early Heidegger’s writings. Most prominently, it appears in Being and Time (1927) and “What is Metaphysics?” (1929) as a structurally central concept. After 1920s, Heidegger began to use the term much less frequently, leading some scholars to suggest a change in Heidegger’s view of the significance of the concept of anxiety. In this essay, we argue that central to the understanding of the role of anxiety in Heidegger’s thought is the fundamental difference between Heideggerian and psychological anxiety. This distinction is crucial as it is directly connected to the idea of the ontological difference, i.e., the difference between the ontical and the ontological, between beings and the Being of beings. Psychological descriptions of anxiety remain at the level of the ontical and, therefore, fall short of comprehending the ontological meaning of Heideggerian anxiety, which is one of Dasein’s basic possibilities of Being. Equipped with such an ontological understanding, we argue that the concept of anxiety remained central to Heidegger’s thought, early and late alike. We also suggest that Heidegger’s less frequent use of the term anxiety after “What Is Metaphysics?” could possibly be associated with his recognition that its terminological similarity with psychological anxiety may become a source of misunderstandings. Moreover, in the last section of the essay which functions as an addendum, we engage with Freud’s analysis of the uncanny and examine its relation to Heidegger’s Being-not-at-home. We argue that although Freud’s analysis of the uncanny does, in a sense, open up horizons beyond the reach of empirical psychology, his quasi-scientific quest for causal explanation ultimately remains within the framework of an ontical analysis.    

---

This article is an attempt to study subject formation in relation to gender in Margaret Atwood's (1939-    ) Surfacing (1979) and Bodily Harm (1983) within the frame of the uncanny. The issue of gender has been discussed in Atwood's novels from different perspectives but this article claims that what have been rarely discussed in Atwood's novels are the unrepresentable realities in relation to gender which can be foregrounded by dislodging the uncanny. The uncanny which was once a rather  minor issue in Freudian oeuvre has been reconsidered in the contemporary era by prominent thinkers, such as Jean-François Lyotard and Julia Kristeva whose ideas are used in elaborating the unrepresentability of gender in this article. The idea of the female sublime is the most significant issue in the context of the uncanny in this article which challenges any representational system of gender formation and problematizes our preconceived hence familiar perceptions of gender formation and reevaluates them in an unfamiliar, dynamic and unrepresentable space.