Question for all the skeptics

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

How do you deal with movies, books, TV shows, art, etc. with paranormal themes?

How do you read a Paulo Coelho book? See an Ingmar Bergman film? Deal with religious art work?

I can usually indulge my desire for the supernatural to be real and totally go with it but sometimes it's just impossible.

About two years ago, I saw Fanny and Alexander once by myself and the second time with my woo woo friends and while my woo woo pals very absolutely blown away by it, what I kept thinking, as lovely the movie is, was "Does Ingmar Bergman actually believe this ***** ?! Actually, literally believe this checklist of woo woo?"

Roger Ebert wrote in his review of the film "Rarely have I felt so strongly during a movie that my mind had been shifted into a different kind of reality...At the end, I was subdued and yet exhilarated; something had happened to me that was outside language, that was spiritual, that incorporated Bergman's mysticism; one of his characters suggests that our lives flow into each other's, that even a pebble is an idea of God, that there is a level just out of view where everything really happens."

With all respect, I really didn't feel it.

[Beleth]

How do you deal with movies, books, TV shows, art, etc. with paranormal themes?
I enjoy them for the works of fiction they are.

Just because a story is made up doesn't mean it can't move you. Heck, I still cry at the end of Charlotte's Web, and it's about talking animals! Yes, I get all misty-eyed, but that doesn't mean for a minute that I think spiders actually talk or spin porcine superlatives into their webs.

Although if Roger Ebert got that moved about a movie, it's worth putting on my Netflix list for sure.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I enjoy Sci-fi movies and religious artwork. The only thing that bothers me would be Sci-Fi movies that claim to be based on "true stories" or "factual events". Movies or T.V. shows including Deadzone or 4400 I enjoy watching, however T.V. shows such as "Medium" or "Ghost whisperer" which are based on the escapades of frauds and tricksters really tick me off and I simply don't watch them. Moreover, the acting and production of those kinds of T.V. shows really suck as well.

[Big Les]

We had a thread on this subject a few months back, and I think the consensus was that if it's obviously fiction, it's fine. If it purports to be true, or based on "true events", then it's probably woo-in-disguise but if you can individually stomach it, fair play to you (it's still fiction after all). "White Noise" for example, or "Most Haunted". The Da Vinci Code is the most egregious example of woo getting in under the radar in order to lower societies' collective IQ, by pretending to be fiction.

[Miss Anthrope]

As noted by other posters, I just enjoy it as fiction. That's where stuff like this belongs, in the realm of fantasy. I even write about supernatural things. Fiction is a wonderful escape from reality, as it should be. The problem is some people are prone to believing it exists outside the realm of a little distraction, entertainment or art.

[cafink]

It's never been a problem for me. When it comes to fiction, I don't have to agree with the author on any particular subject to enjoy his work, even if that work is an integral part of the story. At the end of the day, it's still just fiction.

As a matter of fact, one of my favorite authors, Madeleine L'Engle, is a very devout Christian and includes many Christian elements in her work. Like every other element of the story, I take those themes to be a part of the fictional world she creates, no more or less significant than any other element. That she happens to believe in Christianity even outside of the story has no bearing on the story itself.

[Gregory]

I like a lot of scifi/fantasy/paranormal stuff. I could do without the anti-skeptic undercurrents you sometimes see, though; not only is the token skeptic wrong, but s/he's stubborn and stupid for not immediately embracing the paranormal explanation.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't mind movies where the paranormal is real or the supernatural is real. What I really don't like is when those movies try to instill a message to the audience that it's real. The Exorcist was a decent movie, the claim that it really happened makes me want to boot someone in the head.

[strimmer]

I will have to agree with all of the above posts. I enjoy fictional stories, but if i have the slightest feeling that there trying to convince me that it's true, then it become unwatchable.

[ChristineR]

I like many works where the paranormal just happens to work. What I don't like are the works that imply that the paranormal works in this world and that only idiots and government shills deny it.

In other words, Muldar is fine, but Skully is a complete idiot. If there were one-millionth the evidence for the paranormal that Skully ran into scientists would be all over it.

[thaiboxerken]

It really does bother me when "the skeptic" or "the scientist" is painted to be a cynical idiot or blithering moron in those shows. The movie where Halle Berry is possessed by a ghost and kills the bad guy at the end really ruined the entire movie for me "logic is over-rated." No, Halle, it's not.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Guys, you missed my point. I know fiction is fiction, I meant works of art that depend on a belief in the supernatural. That serve to reinforce and validate belief in it. That depend on the audience sharing a belief in it, like Romantic literature and medieval and Renaissance artwork.

How can you be moved by a testament to the glory of God if you don't believe in God and, in fact, hate religion? Do you temporarily suspend your disbelief? Or appreciate it as mythology?

What about the poetry of Goethe and Mickiewicz, who both believed in the supernatural and sought to validate the belief in it? What does a skeptic make of a poem who's entire message is the triumph of emotion over reason?

Fanny and Alexander, for example, ultimately left me almost stone cold with the way Ingmar Bergman seems to actually believe in voodoo, black magic and ghosts.

[thaiboxerken]

If a work of fiction is a glorification to some religion, I really can't enjoy it.

[noblecaboose]

I think it's perfectly okay to suspend your disbelief for the duration of a movie, book, television show or whatever form of entertainment you enjoy. I mean, you wouldn't throw out Shakespeare because he writes about fairies (Midsummer Night's Dream), spirits (The Tempest), or criticize him for getting his facts wrong (ALL of the Histories). Works of art or entertainment are transportative, exciting and can teach us things about ourselves.
I agree with other posters that the worst are the things that claim to be true. I remember reading books of "True" ghost stories when I was a kid (they had the "true" in quotes, too) and being annoyed that they so one sided. I can no longer watch any show on The History Channel or other channels that deal with religious, supernatural or paranormal phenomenon without shouting and throwing sofa cushions at the screen.

[noblecaboose]

Oh yeah, and I forgot to add: The tacked on endings where the skeptic is "converted" really bug me now. Especially M. Night Shmalyalaanyaaanyan (however you spell it). Or The Exorcism of Emily Rose (I think that's an example). Things like that REALLY bug me.

[JoeTheJuggler]

How can you be moved by a testament to the glory of God if you don't believe in God and, in fact, hate religion? Do you temporarily suspend your disbelief? Or appreciate it as mythology?

Can a Christian appreciate "pagan" literature (the Iliad and Odyssey, for examples)?

Can an American Muslim appreciate "It's a Wonderful Life"?

Does a non-believer in any particular supernatural backing to a work of fiction lack the aesthetic sensibility to be moved?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Well, it occured to me that a non-believer might be neutral to The Iliad and The Odyssey and all ancient Greek and Roman art cause no one today believes in the Greek gods but have an entirely different reaction to tributes to religions that still exist that you hate.

While you don't hate dead religions cause they were dead a millenia before you were alive.

[Kopji]

I've read Paulo Coelho's 'The Alchemist' a couple times now in helping the kids with homework as reading assignments.

To me, being skeptical means taking something and examining it from many aspects before choosing or deciding. Are some aspects of whatever we are trying to understand easier or better to grasp from a religious viewpoint? I would tentatively say 'no', but it's a difficult question. Saying 'no' does not mean a religious viewpoint or idea could not inform our lives in a positive way. (I just think there are better ways.)

I like the word "inform" because it allows elements of falseness and error as well as truth. We are much more complex than being made up of only collections of correct or truthful ideas.

To use 'The Alchemist' as an example I think there are ideas within it that can inform, but it would make a grave mistake to teach that its ideas were the only ones, or even the best ones. Coelho tells the story in a compelling way that he knows, and makes no assertion that it is the only way to understand; so his storytelling does not bother me.

The question about art is an idea I think about. The question it asks goes something like 'Would I need to be a believer to better understand or create certain art?' Answering 'yes' to that would mean 'belief & unbelief' are limiting or constraining, so I find it to be an important question to consider.

My tentative answer to the question is that religion itself is an artistic expression, arising from a deeper quality that transcends belief or unbelief. 'Religious art' is therefore something like islands that poke above unseen connections, and it is these deeper things that we can find a commonality. There is a connection between Mapplethorpe and Vermeer but it is possible for our unbelief OR belief to create limits in our minds; if so they are barriers of our own creation and prevent us from understanding a larger perspective.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I've read The Alchemist myself and one, I'm not sure it's a great work of literature. I'd agree with Paulo Coelho's detractors who accuse his books of being too much like self-help books. Two, the woo woo in it goes too far. Overwhelms the fable.

Again, another book that left me unmoved.

[TheGline]

How do you deal with movies, books, TV shows, art, etc. with paranormal themes?

How do you read a Paulo Coelho book? See an Ingmar Bergman film? Deal with religious art work?

I can usually indulge my desire for the supernatural to be real and totally go with it but sometimes it's just impossible.

About two years ago, I saw Fanny and Alexander once by myself and the second time with my woo woo friends and while my woo woo pals very absolutely blown away by it, what I kept thinking, as lovely the movie is, was "Does Ingmar Bergman actually believe this ***** ?! Actually, literally believe this checklist of woo woo?"

Roger Ebert wrote in his review of the film "Rarely have I felt so strongly during a movie that my mind had been shifted into a different kind of reality...At the end, I was subdued and yet exhilarated; something had happened to me that was outside language, that was spiritual, that incorporated Bergman's mysticism; one of his characters suggests that our lives flow into each other's, that even a pebble is an idea of God, that there is a level just out of view where everything really happens."

With all respect, I really didn't feel it.


Disclaimer: Fanny and Alexander is one of my favorite movies of all time.

It is in my purview perfectly okay to be moved by a work of art without it having anything to do with how it connects to material reality. Sometimes that's pretty much the point.

My standards of evidence for the existence of anything we'd call "paranormal" are not changed by a work of fiction. I still find fantasy wonderfully enthralling -- in fact, I'm putting the finishing touches on a fantasy novel which I hope to find a publisher for. But I know better than to assume that one can be confounded with the other, that's all.

Most of what I got out of Fanny and Alexander had nothing to do with whether I should believe in it or not. It was about a state of mind, about the world from the point of view of those two children, and it delineated that beautifully. I felt no more compelled to change my conceits about the nature of reality than I had when I saw The Matrix.

A lot of times it comes down to something like this: If something doesn't have an impact on my objective worldview, does that mean it has no subjective impact? I'd dispute that with a free hand. The Ring was illogical and improbable in many respects, but it worked so well (for me) on connecting with the irrational side of my mind and stimulating it that I didn't mind. I also knew better than to take any of it seriously when it was over -- but while I was watching it, none of that made any difference. (Children of Men, which I saw recently too, had something of the same effect: when it was over I realized it wasn't very good as drama, but it was an incredible piece of cinema. Two entirely different criteria.)

The irrational and the mystical can be great sources of inspiration for art. We just need to remember that there's a big difference between drawing inspiration from something and conflating it with something else.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, it occured to me that a non-believer might be neutral to The Iliad and The Odyssey and all ancient Greek and Roman art cause no one today believes in the Greek gods but have an entirely different reaction to tributes to religions that still exist that you hate.

While you don't hate dead religions cause they were dead a millenia before you were alive.
Ah--so you're talking about the subset of skeptics that also hate (contemporary) religions. I didn't realize that.

I don't hate religion myself, though I'm an atheist and strong advocate of separation of church and state and so on. In fact, I understand religion to be part of our Western culture and history. I think you can't read Shakespeare, for example, without being pretty familiar with the Bible (the classics too, for that matter, Greek and Roman mythology and all that).

[PrincessIneffabelle]

I will echo several other posters here by saying that I really enjoy a good book or movie about the "paranormal", but I can't stomach it when it's being presented as a true story or evidence.

[Michael C]

I'm an atheist. I'm also a professional musician. I usually work in opera, where we all know that it's fiction, and often very silly fiction, too: somehow the music makes it believable. But I can play the harpsichord in Bach's "Matthew Passion" or listen to Mozart's "Requiem" and be profoundly moved, without feeling the need to become converted.

I even sing Christmas carols with my Christian friends, just because I enjoy the music. It doesn't seem to bother them (not does it bother me) they they are singing the carols and believing every word they sing, whereas I am just revelling in the music while considering the text to be pure fiction.

Finally, for me it boils down to this: if, according to my judgement, the book/film/oratorio or whatever is a fine work of art, I'll accept it as such even if it is blatantly opposed to my own beliefs.

[Aurelian]

Sometimes it just boils down to "what's the message", meaning that when I was in elementary school, fiction was presented in many categories: fables, myth, and there were plenty of stories-with-messages. Later there was discussions of themes, like man vs. nature, man vs. man, and the like. Just because art pulls in cultural references, such as religious figures, Biblical stories, or whatever, it doesn't push me away. There isn't a lot of difference between man vs. big, bad government, or man vs. large organized religion, or Hercules vs. the hydra. I can connect better with cultural references that I understand or have been exposed to. Lately I've read U.S. Civil War and Asian-Indian fiction, and it takes me a little more time, and sometimes research, to connect with what the author is trying to convey.

Clear as mud?

A

[hgc]

I enjoy quite a lot of religious and woo themed art. It just depends on the quality of the work. Take for instance a Douglas Sirk melodrama like "All that Heaven Allows." It's mannered, dripping religious sentimentality and also quite good and entertaining. But then on the flip-side there's Coelho's The Alchemist, the worst book I've ever read. The quality of art is not determined for me by the nature of the content.

[MG1962]

I can't speak for others. Skeptic or not. A ghost, vampire or sundry ghoul jumping out and scaring me is all part of the spice of life lol

[Sandy M]

I enjoy Sci-fi movies and religious artwork. The only thing that bothers me would be Sci-Fi movies that claim to be based on "true stories" or "factual events". Movies or T.V. shows including Deadzone or 4400 I enjoy watching, however T.V. shows such as "Medium" or "Ghost whisperer" which are based on the escapades of frauds and tricksters really tick me off and I simply don't watch them. Moreover, the acting and production of those kinds of T.V. shows really suck as well.

I won't watch those either, and every time I see a commercial, I get angry again.

I'm willing to suspend belief for out-right fiction and admire works of art even with religious themes, but I agree, it's the woo-woo stuff "based on true stories," that really gets me seriously.....irked, disgusted, whatever.

[T'ai Chi]

I find it amusing when skeptic clubs get up in arms about works of fiction. It is frankly one of the most hilarious things to see a "debunking" of, and I literally laugh out loud when I read such things.

All I know is that I haven't took a survey of all space and time (yet! muhahaha!!), so I don't know what exists out there or what can exist out there. It doesn't mean I believe everything, but neither does it mean I lash out at it like an insecure brat.

[Mercutio]

I find it amusing when skeptic clubs get up in arms about works of fiction. It is frankly one of the most hilarious things to see a "debunking" of, and I literally laugh out loud when I read such things.
I imagine that would be hilarious--could you perhaps link to such a case? I have never seen it, myself, and frankly could use a laugh. (I was speaking with a student just today, who railed against various interpretations of literature--whether Freud's interpretation of Hamlet, or [fictitious "skeptic club"'s] interpretation of Phenomenon, we agreed that a good story is a good story; too much analysis kills anything.)

All I know is that I haven't took a survey of all space and time (yet! muhahaha!!), so I don't know what exists out there or what can exist out there. It doesn't mean I believe everything, but neither does it mean I lash out at it like an insecure brat.Whatever. If you don't want to commit to a belief, that is your business.

Re the OP: Good stories are good stories, and bad stories are bad stories. A Midsummer Night's Dream is no worse for the faeries, and The Bible is no better for the gods. I do not dismiss a story, book, poem, movie, or play because of a particular theistic stance. I can't imagine dismissing all of Dr. Seuss because "Cats can't talk!"; the same rule applies to any story.

It is easy enough to discriminate between "stuff with evidence" and "stuff without". That is a completely separate dimension from "stuff I enjoy" and "stuff I don't".

FWIW, I *loved* Bergman's The Magic Flute. It was magnificent. Of course it was not real--it was Opera, for Ed's sake!! And don't get me started on Shakespeare...

Hey, TC, are there "Shakespeare clubs" too? "Opera clubs"? It is obvious that you have a different definition than I do, so I am kinda wondering...

[T'ai Chi]

I imagine that would be hilarious--could you perhaps link to such a case?


I encourage you to search and find cases for yourself. It is much better for the student to learn in that manner than to be spoon-fed.


Hey, TC, are there "Shakespeare clubs" too? "Opera clubs"?


Why wouldn't there be?

[Wheezebucket]

T'ai Chi loves Medium! T'ai Chi loves Medium!

[Mercutio]

I encourage you to search and find cases for yourself. It is much better for the student to learn in that manner than to be spoon-fed.
This is not spoon-feeding. It is common practice for peers to provide examples of X, Y, or Z literature which an individual might explore. I have benefitted from this many times--each time, I thought I had explored all the relevant literature, and each time I was wrong. A colleague suggested a new area, and it meant several weeks of searching and reading for me. (note--there was no "I know of some studies that apply to your research, but I won't tell you about them because it is better for you to discover them for yourself." Once again, TC's view of science is different from...well, everyone's.)

Again, I ask if you have any particular references. I'd be happy to check them out.

Why wouldn't there be? Why *would* there be? Are there clubs for every area of interest? I know many people who are interested in Shakespeare, including many who are in a "Shakespeare Society". Would you call that a "Shakespeare club", even if they do not? Are there "stats is cool" clubs? "Left handed chess masters" clubs? "Colour-blind art afficianados" clubs? I really don't know. You, though, speak of clubs I have never heard of, so maybe you have knowledge of such things. I mean, it would be cool, to have clubs with secret handshakes and decoder rings and stuff...much cooler than just pretending such clubs exist. That would be rather pathetic, don't you think?

[TheGline]

I will echo several other posters here by saying that I really enjoy a good book or movie about the "paranormal", but I can't stomach it when it's being presented as a true story or evidence.

Very good point. The Exorcist, as fiction, did scare me. When they tried to claim it was based on some documented facts, I giggled behind my hands, especially after the whole thing had been pretty thoroughly shown to be wanting in the fact department.

...and don't even get me started on The Amityville Horror. I live just north of that town, and boy are they ever sick and tired of it.

[TheGline]

I encourage you to search and find cases for yourself. It is much better for the student to learn in that manner than to be spoon-fed.

Where I come from, we call this "hit and run arguing." You brought it up -- therefore, show us a specific example of what you mean or drop the issue.

[TheGline]

I've read The Alchemist myself and one, I'm not sure it's a great work of literature. I'd agree with Paulo Coelho's detractors who accuse his books of being too much like self-help books. Two, the woo woo in it goes too far. Overwhelms the fable.

Again, another book that left me unmoved.

I have Veronika Decides to Die on my shelf, and based on what I've heard of Coelho's other books I'm growing less inclined to read it with each passing day. I have the terrible feeling it's recycled R.D. Laing / Thomas Szasz anti-psychiatry drivel that was already getting old when One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest came out.

[thaiboxerken]

Again, I ask if you have any particular references. I'd be happy to check them out.

Be prepared to wait a few years. T'ai Chi never actually provides evidence to support his claims.

[hipparchia]

I read The Alchemist in a sad period of my life- my grandfather had died. I was in my teens, and the book seemed magical, logical, inspirational.

What I hate about Coelho books is that noone dares criticise their ideas.

Yet take this idea- from The Alchemist- that one needs to follow their Legend, regardless of the feelings of others. How true is this? How applicable? How dehumanizing- "She is a desert woman, she'll wait, that's what they are used to."

What I dislike most about those books is that Mr. Coelho seems to have the final, immutable answer. His characters don't really grow, they are forced into the mold of the idea. Be it omens or mystical kings, the characters don't really make choices, they are shoehorned into the pre-made choice of the author.

[Senex]

I enjoy a good ghost story or science fiction story. I admit that TV shows like Medium aggravate me because I believe they make more people gullible for cash stealing psychics to operate.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I have a really embarrassing story about The Alchemist.:o It was long ago so I guess there's no harm in telling it.

I read it as a teenager and while I had some problems with it as a literary work, I was inspired and moved by the love story between Santiago and Fatima and the way she's content to wait for however long it takes for him to return. In fact, I was inspired by the love story in The Alchemist to seek out and pursue a crush of mine.:o

He was my mother's friend's son and we met when I was 17 and he was still 16, turning 17. His family and mine knew each other casually when my parents were guest workers in Sweden. His folks were also Polish emigres and they settled there while mine tried unsuccessfully to apply for the equivalent of a green card and then emigrated to NYC.

He was on vacation with his mother in NYC, visiting a mutual friend of my dad's and his and my mother and his mother totally hit it off. I hung out with him and very soon developed a crush on him and felt that he liked me a lot too but vacation ended before anything happened. Ala Holden Caulfield and Jane Gallagher.

Well, I just couldn't get over my crush on him and I kept up a semi-regular correspondence with him over the next few months.

I took a trip to Sweden the next summer to visit another friend, about 10 months later (I won't lie, I really went in the hopes of seeing him) and having read The Alchemist, decided to seek him out.

Guess what. He was entirely different from how I remembered him and it was really weird and awkward to see him again. We met once and that was it. He didn't even called to say goodbye when I flew back home.

However, I'm bitterly grateful to Paulo Coelho for freeing me from a nearly year long hopeless infatuation with a boy on the other side of the planet.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Yet take this idea- from The Alchemist- that one needs to follow their Legend, regardless of the feelings of others. How true is this? How applicable? How dehumanizing- "She is a desert woman, she'll wait, that's what they are used to."


Hehe, I don't think that's about following your dream at the expense of others, I think it's about the possibility of renewing a one time love cause true love can wait.

Unfortunatly, it once gave validation to my scheme to fly to Sweden to seek out a boy I had fallen in love with 10 months prior and couldn't get over.

Well, I got over him. Thank you, Paulo Coelho.

[Undesired Walrus]

Enjoying 2001 after becoming an athiest is a big big problem for me..

Anyone else know what I'm talking about?

[Wheezebucket]

Enjoying 2001 after developing eyes and ears was a problem for me. Talk about overrated!

[yrreg]

We had a thread on this subject a few months back, and I think the consensus was that if it's obviously fiction, it's fine. If it purports to be true, or based on "true events", then it's probably woo-in-disguise but if you can individually stomach it, fair play to you (it's still fiction after all). "White Noise" for example, or "Most Haunted". The Da Vinci Code is the most egregious example of woo getting in under the radar in order to lower societies' collective IQ, by pretending to be fiction.


The Da Vinci Code is the most egregious example of woo getting in under the radar in order to lower societies' collective IQ, by pretending to be fiction.

Woo is a part of fiction, but not all fiction is woo.

For example, Buddhism is woo, but it is also fiction, meaning as a system it is woo but there are fictional elements in the system, and there are factual elements in the system; nonetheless, essentially the whole system can qualify as woo.


Yrreg

[yrreg]

To be simplistic...

Woo belongs to the emotional in man, the emotional consists in feeling good or feeling bad.

Woo does not belong to the rational in man, the rational consists in establishing the facts on the basis of critical thinking and empirical evidence; the rational might make you feel good or feel bad, but it is essentially independent of the feelings of man.


Of course, both the rational and the emotional have man as its measure; nonetheless, if you would be rational you must know when you are being emotional and when rational; how? by doing critical thinking and searching for empirical evidence on any question where you have to locate the emotional and the rational in the question.


If you can keep alive and live well however you manage to do so, then you can indulge in the emotional even at the cost of downgrading in a particular situation the rational.


Yrreg

[Loss Leader]

Enjoying 2001 after developing eyes and ears was a problem for me. Talk about overrated!


That's not fair. There are definitely eight or nine good minutes of movie sprinkled somewhere in 2001. Killing Hal was cool. "Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer, do. I'm half crazy ..."

Oh, I'm sorry. It seems we're talking about Buddhism now.

[LostAngeles]

Enjoying 2001 after becoming an athiest is a big big problem for me..

Anyone else know what I'm talking about?

The Monolith?

I'm completely fine with the monolith. I have no problem with a work of fiction toying with variable ideas on the origin of intelligence. Part of my love for the game Xenogears' story is its twist on the creation myth.

I'm also pretty cool with the Starchild, and I can't imagine anything else that you might be referring to.

[athon]

I'll quote from my own web site, if I may:

Speculative fiction, such as fantasy and science fiction, allows us to dream of that which is possible, and consider what it would be like...if only...

Contrasting the possible against the probable is in human nature. We would not have the benefits of modern medicine, the luxuries of modern technology or the satisfication of understanding the marvels of the universe without being able to imagine it first. However, it is no easy task sifting the daydreams from that which is real, especially when we are enticed by the desire for beliefs which seem comforting, or when we are led on by intuition and socially accepted faiths over rationality.

Skepticism, for many, is a dirty word. It is synonymous with being cynical and close minded. I don't agree. Critical thinking, for me, allows the luxury of imagination with the temperance of knowing that reality doesn't subscribe to my wishes. That with or without me, it exists. Dream as I might, it's more comfortable knowing that through science and skepticism, I have some chance of knowing reality as it really is, and that it's often more amazing than anything I could possibly imagine myself.

That is, deprived the ability to dream and ponder the possibilities, we've denied ourselves whole worlds of beauty and wonder. Tempered with the ability to think critically, speculation is the most amazing gift we humans have.

Athon

[Miss Anthrope]

I enjoy all manner of fiction involving woo. The wonderful thing is, I just know it's creativity, imagination, and ENTERTAINMENT. That's it. I only have a problem when an obvious agenda is being pushed.

[Kahalachan]

Fiction is the perfect place for paranormal ideas.

It's kind of interesting the stereotypical nerd likes sci-fi and fantasy. It's almost as if they (maybe I should say we;) ) do not believe in the supernatural and this is our avenue for enjoying it.

Of course, I should digress before it seems like I'm supporting a stereotype.

But creativity is a wonderful facet of the human experience. I love religious, supernatural, science fiction, and fantasy stories or myths.

[Undesired Walrus]

The Monolith?

I'm completely fine with the monolith. I have no problem with a work of fiction toying with variable ideas on the origin of intelligence.

See, I always thought it was representing something 'bigger than us' in the sense of God or... just something bigger.:)

[Morrigan]

2001 is great.
It's fiction, people. So long as it doesn't try to have a "message" (which is one of the reasons Heroes is so pukeworthy, with the stupid woo nonsense the narrator keeps inserting), à la Shyamalan, that tries to give credibility to woo beliefs, or to pass itself as a true story, I don't care if it has ghosts, gods, aliens, psychics or greater-than-great metaphysical entities.

[Mephisto]

I don't mind movies where the paranormal is real or the supernatural is real. What I really don't like is when those movies try to instill a message to the audience that it's real. The Exorcist was a decent movie, the claim that it really happened makes me want to boot someone in the head.


. . . you mean "The Exorcist" wasn't real? :(

(edited to add) I guess I should apologize to Father McGilicutty for what I said to him. ;)

[Loss Leader]

2001 is great.
It's fiction, people. So long as it doesn't try to have a "message" (which is one of the reasons Heroes is so pukeworthy,



Heroes is real.

Save the cheerleader, save the world.

[TheGline]

It's like I said before -- if it's fiction, we're not obliged to put factual credence in it. We can savor it without having to do that. Was Alien any less scary because the monster was totally fictitious?

And yes, The Exorcist was VERY REAL! It was "BASED ON TRUE EVENTS", just like the disclaimer says. Sheesh!

[knot]

How do you deal with movies, books, TV shows, art, etc. with paranormal themes?


I think I would rather be based in reality rather than being "blown away" believing some fantasy. I would think most people can separate fact from fiction and enjoy both.

I wonder if a woo-fer defaults to belief and needs to be told if a movie/show is fictitious

[LostAngeles]

See, I always thought it was representing something 'bigger than us' in the sense of God or... just something bigger.:)

I think the book or at least its sequel basically implied that out there somewhere a species had evolved to intelligence and found that they were the only ones. So they began tinkering with the evolution of other species on other worlds to make more like them.

2001 is great.
It's fiction, people. So long as it doesn't try to have a "message" (which is one of the reasons Heroes is so pukeworthy, with the stupid woo nonsense the narrator keeps inserting), à la Shyamalan, that tries to give credibility to woo beliefs, or to pass itself as a true story, I don't care if it has ghosts, gods, aliens, psychics or greater-than-great metaphysical entities.

Heroes is real.

Save the cheerleader, save the world.

Y'know, I've been watching Heroes the same way I read comics. Complete suspension of disbelief. Magento controls magentism, why can he astrally project? Mutant gene, red sun->yellow sun, yadda yadda yadda.

Loss, I'm not saving you a cheerleader. Go ahead and shoot a nuclear warhead into the earth's core. But the cheerleaders are all mine.

[ConspiRaider]

See, I always thought it was representing something 'bigger than us' in the sense of God or... just something bigger.:)
It was, that Monolith in 2001. That was a very tall, very big man-ape who was heavy-duty into depilation. Wonder why we have a dickens of a time finding Bigfoot? We should be looking for rectangular footprints (shouldn't BF be renamed Boxfoot then?). I guarantee that when you next encounter a Bigfoot, lasso him and then dry-shave his entire body he's gonna be asking ya when's the next transport to Jupiter.

[Morrigan]

My problem about the "woo" in Heroes isn't the superpowers, it's the annoying narrator who keeps inserting these dumb little messages such as "we only use 10% of our brain, who knows what the human mind is capable of? blah blah blah".

(Not to mention that the show is complete garbage, but that's neither here nor there. ;))

[LostAngeles]

My problem about the "woo" in Heroes isn't the superpowers, it's the annoying narrator who keeps inserting these dumb little messages such as "we only use 10% of our brain, who knows what the human mind is capable of? blah blah blah".

(Not to mention that the show is complete garbage, but that's neither here nor there. ;))

Oh, you so need to stop talking crap about my TV-boyfriend-with-Magical-Medical-Training-That-Shows-Up-Conviently. And about my TV-best-friend-forever Hiro.

:D

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

A lot of it has to do with context for me. I can enjoy the paranormal storyline if it's consistent with the rest of the work. If I could use video games as an example, in Oblivion, I can make my character invisible, shoot fire from his hand, and have him summon a skeleton to fight a ghost. I love this game, even though everything in it is paranormal. In another game, Rainbow six Vegas, you use real-world weapons against enemies that react in real-world ways to getting shot at. If this game had some special experimental device that allowed you to become invisible, it would annoy me, and I would not have enjoyed the game as much. For me, it's about consistency.

[Madalch]

I always enjoy such literature and film- I liked "Skeleton Key" and "The Gift", so I'm obviously not that discerning. The fact that the skeptics are portrayed as either bad guys or idiots is always a bit frustrating, though.

[Seismosaurus]

If it's just a story, then no amount of woo really bothers me that much. I liked The Gift even. I watch movies about Vampires and Werewolves, Ghosts, you name it, no problem.

What irritates the hell out of me is when the woo is paraded as being reality. Medium is an example. The Sci-fi channel shows these little interview clips between shows, with the real Allison Dubious, The actress playing her, or others connected with the show - and most of them are talking about how all this is real stuff, they've just twisted it a bit.

Dubious has one where she says when a kid is kidnapped or murdered, she can't project into the kid's mind because they don't understand what's going on, they don't look at things like street signs or think about where they are being taken. So she has to project into the abductor's mind, and that's much more disturbing for her.

It's absolutely sickening, listening to her cashing in on stuff like this. You can practically hear the register going "ka-ching" in her head as she talks. I have never and will never watch one second of that show becasue it makes every effort to convince them that this is a fictionalised account of real, true stuff - and that is contemptible.

[TheGline]

I'm going to add my vote to the pile re: woo-for-profit.

I don't mind being told a fantasy that is unashamedly a fantasy. I deeply resent being told something that's clearly fantasy but has to be sold to me with the disclaimer that it's "based on true events", or somehow rooted in "fact", to be important or meaningful or even worthy of my attention.

[SoBitter]

I have my own reasons for not seeing movies that are paranormal based or even true-crime horror. They don't scare me, so I don't see the point. I also won't see most "comedies" because they don't make me laugh.

[thaiboxerken]

The Prestige really pissed me off. It's about magicians, which is fine. They don't really give away any magician secrets except at the end in which:

[spoiler]You find out one of the guy's secret is that he had Tesla build a machine that duplicates himself. Pure and utter non-sense.[/quote]

I think the movie was a slap in the face to magicians.

[Morrigan]

You didn't close your spoiler tag correctly...

but I'm glad you didn't, because I read it, and now I want to avoid the movie. :)

[bjornart]

A lot of it has to do with context for me. I can enjoy the paranormal storyline if it's consistent with the rest of the work. If I could use video games as an example, in Oblivion, I can make my character invisible, shoot fire from his hand, and have him summon a skeleton to fight a ghost. I love this game, even though everything in it is paranormal. In another game, Rainbow six Vegas, you use real-world weapons against enemies that react in real-world ways to getting shot at. If this game had some special experimental device that allowed you to become invisible, it would annoy me, and I would not have enjoyed the game as much. For me, it's about consistency.

I agree with this, and with the previously mentioned posts about messages.

The alchemist for instance annoyed me, especially with the afterword hammering in the message.
Fantasy fiction with gods, and spirits and life after death I can enjoy. I don't even mind "swords and sorcery in space", as long as that's what I get from the start.
Medium, Ghost Whisperer, "scientific" programs about the unknown on the other hand make me wish there was a way to anti-subscribe to, among others, Discovery Channel.

[Lensman]

I remember when the movie Stargate came on Sky TV, I happened to mention that I'd watched & enjoyed it to a workmate who was very into conspiracies & woo, he said to me, "I thought you didn't believe in this sort of stuff?"

I gave him a blank look & replied, "It's just a movie - it's fiction - I also like Star Trek TNG but I don't believe there's a kilometre long starship flying through space crewed by mostly humans!"

For most movies with a woo/conspiracy theory theme I can usually suspend my disbelief for long enough to enjoy the movie.

It's the same with books, I don't believe in magic but I enjoy reading "The Lord of the Rings", The Harry Potter books and other such stories.

[krazyKemist]

No problem with anything sci-fi, fantasy or paranormal. It's even most of what I read and watch. I figure as long as I'm sitting to read or watch something that's not going to help with the thesis, it better be something other than reality. Reality, I can live it for real, which is much better than to sit and watch it.

The only problem I have is when there is obvious overuse of pseudoscience, or badly twisted actual science. I just can't take sloppy work of that kind.