The Paranormal
I’ve had an interest in the paranormal since I was a child. My mother always got books out of the library about ghosts and UFO phenomenon, so in some respects I was influenced by her reading habits. As a child such tales were by default interesting and any potentially scary element naturally made them more enjoyable. However, my father being an academic had taught me to question everything, so I felt fairly evenly equipped when exploring these subjects. Further to this point, over the years I have learned that humans have a very unique perspective on the world. We are hard wired to see patterns, regardless of whether they’re there or not. Our senses can also be fooled and often are. Perhaps the most important aspect of our nature that impacts upon any analysis we make into the paranormal is our penchant for creating stories. Hence unusual experiences can be subconsciously misremembered and “retconned” to form more precise narratives.
I’ve had an interest in the paranormal since I was a child. My mother always got books out of the library about ghosts and UFO phenomenon, so in some respects I was influenced by her reading habits. As a child such tales were by default interesting and any potentially scary element naturally made them more enjoyable. However, my father being an academic had taught me to question everything, so I felt fairly evenly equipped when exploring these subjects. Further to this point, over the years I have learned that humans have a very unique perspective on the world. We are hard wired to see patterns, regardless of whether they’re there or not. Our senses can also be fooled and often are. Perhaps the most important aspect of our nature that impacts upon any analysis we make into the paranormal is our penchant for creating stories. Hence unusual experiences can be subconsciously misremembered and “retconned” to form more precise narratives.
My interest in the paranormal is mainly to do with people who have such experiences, rather than the specifics of the experience themselves, which are frequently generic. A lot of people who experience events that they cannot explain are sceptical of such things to begin with and profoundly affected by them afterwards. Humans like the illusion of certainty and can be severely traumatised when something shakes their existing world view. Hence, when listening to tales of the paranormal, I do not immediately distrust what I am told, in so far that I believe that the subjects of such things genuinely feel their experiences are real. More often than not, admitting publicly that you’ve had a paranormal experience is positively detrimental to your life, so fabricating a story is a potential risk. Yes there are individuals who will lie for profit or some other underlying psychological need but I do not assume this to be the case in all instances.
Ghost Hunters US TV Show
However, the field of paranormal study is fraught with problems. Much of the discourse surrounding the subject is hyperbolic and intentionally designed to be sensational. Books, TV shows and online discourse about the supernatural is intended to grab your attention and first and foremost, driven by the need for ratings and clicks. The paranormal also intersects regularly with religion which is contentious and highly subjective. Sadly at the fringes of the paranormal there are conspiracy theories, “woo” science and those with mental health issues which muddies the waters. The field also attracts a lot of charlatans. Furthermore, the paranormal has had such an influence upon the zeitgeist, that often the existing pop culture tropes born of film, TV and literature impact upon our understanding of the subject and prejudice our opinions. Which is why there was a marked increase in reported UFO siting after the release of Close Encounters of the Third Kind in 1978.
Now that I’ve stated my interest in the paranormal, I guess the most obvious question to ask is do I believe in ghosts. However, before we can even discuss a subject such as “ghosts”, we require a commonly agreed and recognised definition. Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be one and so any in-depth discussion can potentially fall at the first hurdle. Which leads me to my wider thoughts on the paranormal. Although I find it a fascinating subject, I feel that it is not really being researched in an appropriate manner. Possibly because research funding is mainly allocated to things that have a commercial application. Hence, those who are active in the field of research are not necessarily the best fit, academically or ethically. Consider Harry Price, Uri Geller and Derek Acorah. Let us also reflect upon the plethora of questionable supernatural TV shows with boisterous Americans incorrectly using scientific equipment and bellowing at alleged ghosts.
Alleged Spiritual Medium Derek Acorah
I was asked once, because I lean towards scepticism why do I find the paranormal so compelling. To which I replied “because of the human element”. I also went on to add, that it is possible that what is broadly labelled as the paranormal is actually something else that has been incorrectly observed and documented. It is not unreasonable to consider that as human knowledge advances, we may eventually be able to validate these things but within a scientific framework, establishing them as part of the universe. What I don’t care for is the deliberate setting of alleged paranormal activity into some separate and distinct category. It smacks of trying to appropriate something, take ownership of it and keep it free of any scrutiny. Something that exists but only on the terms that you dictate. That is a little too similar to the culture of conspiracy theories for my liking.
As you can see, I don’t see the paranormal is simple terms. I think there is a lot to unpack and it is a subject that has numerous layers to it. These can be scientific, spiritual, psychological, sociological and cultural. Due to the sprawling nature and complexity of many of these elements it makes it exceedingly hard to determine the facts of a case and process them. Which is why I often choose not to. I am a fan of the Uncanny podcast with Danny Robins and am going to see the live version of the show at the Churchill Theatre in March. For me the biggest appeal of Uncanny are the stories and the people telling them. I don’t expect a definitive answer to be given at the end of each episode and often all I can do in response to such stories is recognise that I cannot explain them. Once again, I would like to see a third option added to standard binary stance on the paranormal. I think that “there is insufficient data to draw any definitive conclusion” is a perfectly valid position and should be encouraged more.
The Idiot Box
Thoughts on TV shows and my current viewing habits.
Things have not returned to normal here in the UK. The first lockdown ended last July but restrictions remained in place. Then we had lockdown 2.0 in November and are currently enduring a third which started in December. Hence I have watched a great deal more TV than usual and not at the expense of any other leisure activity. Mrs P even went so far as to catch up with 11 seasons of NCIS: Los Angeles. A prodigious feat. As ever there is a great deal of quality TV available to choose from. Thankfully, I am now perfectly comfortable in abandoning any show that doesn't keep me engaged. Hence what I’ve listed are shows that I’ve enjoyed and found entertaining. Furthermore, the extra viewing time I’ve had available has also allowed me to give a few shows a second chance.
Thoughts on TV shows and my current viewing habits.
Things have not returned to normal here in the UK. The first lockdown ended last July but restrictions remained in place. Then we had lockdown 2.0 in November and are currently enduring a third which started in December. Hence I have watched a great deal more TV than usual and not at the expense of any other leisure activity. Mrs P even went so far as to catch up with 11 seasons of NCIS: Los Angeles. A prodigious feat. As ever there is a great deal of quality TV available to choose from. Thankfully, I am now perfectly comfortable in abandoning any show that doesn't keep me engaged. Hence what I’ve listed are shows that I’ve enjoyed and found entertaining. Furthermore, the extra viewing time I’ve had available has also allowed me to give a few shows a second chance.
Evil: I briefly touched on this show in September 2019. I watched the first episode which I found intriguing but then waited too long to continue and so it got kicked into the proverbial long grass. However, we resumed watching the show and found it to be quirky, different, genuinely unsettling and absorbing. It touches on many contemporary social concerns such as social media, “incels” and spree killings. All viewed through the prism of an investigative team that works for the Catholic Church. It’s also great to see Michael Emerson playing a bad guy once again.
Des: This drama about the UK serial killer Dennis Nilsen, based on Killing for Company by Brian Masters, eschews the graphic and the grisly, choosing to focus on character and dialogue. The lead performances by David Tennant as Dennis Nilsen, Daniel Mays as Detective Chief Inspector Peter Jay and Jason Watkins as biographer Brian Masters are exemplary. This is another TV show that highlights the administrative nature of old school detective work and the time involved in conducting interviews. There are some interesting facts regarding a political dimension that was brought to bear upon the case, when a foreign national was killed. Des is compelling viewing especially when Tennant quietly recounts his abhorrent crimes and motives.
The Haunting of Bly Manor: I think a lot of people were expecting a comparable experience to The Haunting of Hill House and were therefore somewhat nonplussed by the pace and scope of The Haunting of Bly Manor. Essentially a modern retelling of The Turn of the Screw by Henry James, this character driven drama focuses more upon the uncanny, rather than jumps cares. Set in England during the 1980s the story follows a young American governess who moves into a stately home to care for two orphaned children. The ensemble cast deliver a slow burn, dialogue driven drama which makes a few concessions to modern sensibilities and social politics. I enjoyed its leisurely pace and delighted in the characters but not everyone felt the same way.
Ghosts: I am not a major fan of sitcoms anymore as I believe they have had their heyday (which is a blog post in itself). However, I’ve made an exception with Ghosts as it manages to achieve many things. Not only is it gently funny, it is also genuinely touching at times and handles pathos with maturity. The story centres around a young couple, Alison and Mike Cooper, who inherit a dilapidated property from a distant relative. Alison soon discovers that only she can see the ghostly former residents and hence finds herself as a go-between. It is greater than the sum of its parts, which on paper seem very formulaic, and it’s all very British (in the nicest possible way). Simon Farnaby is especially good as deceased Conservative MP Julian Fawcett. Destined to forever walk the earth without trousers as he died during a sex scandal.
The Crown Season 4: The longer The Crown runs, the more it drops the pretense that it’s docudrama and in fact just a big budget soap opera. Season 4 was especially relevant to me and Mrs P as it covered a period of history that we lived through as adults and have vivid memories of. Covering the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 to the end of her Prime Ministership in 1990, The Crown focuses upon her relationship with the Queen and also revels in the tumultuous marriage between Prince Charles and Diana Spencer. It’s all very glossy, stylised and at times melodramatic. If you want historical authority and accuracy, look elsewhere. If your after entertainment and eighties nostalgia, then The Crown Season 4 has it in spades.
TV To Do List:
Star Trek: Discovery Season 3: Frankly, the departure of Captain Pike and Spock from this iteration of Star Trek, greatly diminished my interest in the show. There are some great characters that help sustain my interest, such as Saru and Georgiou, but frankly Michael Burnham is exceedingly wearing. There’s a fine line between passionate and self indulgent and sadly the Discovery’s First Officer is on the wrong side of it. I’ve always liked the strong sense of equality and the tackling of social issues that is inherent in the Trek franchise but it’s becoming so contrived in ST:D that it’s almost becoming a caricature of itself. Star Trek? More like Hug Trek. However, there are still some good ideas to keep me engaged with the remaining 8 episodes I need to watch, plus David Cronenberg turning up in a rare acting role was a welcome surprise.
The Prisoner: There is a growing consensus that this classic TV show from the sixties has become relevant again. Something about how both sides of the tedious but ongoing culture war are fostering a “group think” mentality at the expense of the individual. Irrespective of whether that is the case or not, this is still a great show that makes you think. McGoohan pounds tables and declares he’s a “free man” etc. Superb score as well. The newly remastered prints also look damn good.
