Docufiction In Ufology

[Randall]

I'm there for the idea of the docufuction artform; however, those who promote the fiction as non-fiction, start talking circles that look more like cults or religions, need to be up front about the artform aspect, instead of misleading people down a long and winding road. And TalkingMeatSuit is right, this type of peeing in the pool of Ufology only sets the discipline backwards, and runs the risk of damaging people who might have real, legitimate needs based on really strange, painful and disturbing experiences. The whole abductee phenomenon needs some serious revisions.

My point with Strieber is that he tends to talk in story form and metaphors, and although he's built up a mystique around himself on the reality of many of his experiences, he tends to leave the assumption of specific realities up to his audience. Even Mack was cautious about making claims regarding the objective material reality of the phenomenon. Is docufiction really the academic equivalent of peeing in the pool? Perhaps. But at the same time I'm reminded of the following clip from Finding Forrester ...

​

​

Whether it's the work of Strieber or the National Enquirer or the MUFON Journal, it all has a place in ufology. The job of the experienced ufologist ( armchair or otherwise ) is to know where that place is, and when he or she does, then something useful, if not enjoyable can be gleaned from it all.

 

[Burnt State]

Whether it's the work of Strieber or the National Enquirer or the MUFON Journal, it all has a place in ufology. The job of the experienced ufologist ( armchair or otherwise ) is to know where that place is, and when he or she does, then something useful, if not enjoyable can be gleaned from it all.

But maybe this is the problem with the field? From the contactees we get more of the metaphor of Ufology regarding peace, love, space brothers and other ways for our society to groove together, and the whole ET thing is really just a back seat to their primary message, or more aptly, their vehicle to express their own personal concerns. However, many are in the field (armchair or otherwise) to try to find an answer, usually an answer to what they themselves saw once upon a time. For those looking for answers, they are often looking for something more stringent to believe in, so the Striebers, Greers, and Romaneks are clouding their vision in a big way. I also feel that their commentary is in a large part responsible for why there is no public seriousness around the topic, as historically the contactee metaphor writer, the self-aggrandizing egoist UFO prophet and those with other outlandish claims based on personal fancy do not illicit anything but guffaws from the media. Suddenly, everyone in the field is wearing a tinfoil hat and I believe many in the field want something more concrete to hold onto to help them understand the seriousness of the phenomenon. I'm always interested in any writer who has really good, thoughtful and creative ideas about 'what's going on' and found that Stieber's usefulness in the field to have fallen off sharply right after Communion. Without a serious, historical, academic chain of discovery to point to we will forever be spinning our wheels and bickering and never will the field rise above its current, perpetual tabloid status.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I fully agree with Burnt State. We really should hold anyone's feet to the fire when it comes to dishonestly and grandiose claims. He and several others in this thread have absolutely nailed it. It's about public perception and how that deeply interacts with the overall social investigative psyche. To allow for any level of "let's dress it up to make it more entertaining" is to forward a "let's include it all" form of convolution that really distorts the accuracy of consensus observations within a field that is knee deep in confabulated claims due to it's very speculation prone nature. We should tolerate no waste of time or misdirection as any discipline based within phenomenology is a serious and rigid study centered on the necessarily strict veracity of observation based reporting.We owe ourselves as much.

IMO, Strieber is merely a Charlatan. He may or may not have had initial experiences (I believe that much could be true) but the rest reads like the perpetual continuation (confabulation) of an initial experience based assessment in what could be likened to a Carlos Castaneda series of books. It could all be total fiction as there is simply no way of confirming his professed truth apart from the reader's faith. More or less a spin off of "the secret and amazing adventures of Wesley Strieber" mixed with "and now for the magic pills of philosophy that I just know you are dying to swallow". In short, it all reads post Communion like some weak minded truth searcher's next meal, and like MR. Strieber's next meal ticket.

 

[Randall]

@Jeff Davis | @Burnt State

So nobody liked the clip from Finding Forrester?

On one hand I entirely agree with you both, on the other, I recall some words of wisdom from Nick Redfern who reminds us to take off our ufology hats once in a while and permit ourselves to have an occasional laugh, even if it's at our own expense. After all, if we're secure in our approach, then that really shouldn't be a problem. The trick is in knowing when it's appropriate.

I'm not sure I always get it right, but I tend to feel that I'm among peers here who know what should be taken seriously. We don't have to worry that if we visit the Christine Day website we'll suddenly become converted by the Pleiadian Initiations of Light. We can uphold our standards without foaming at the mouth every time someone mentions the word "contactee", and we can build respect for ufology by remaining cool and consistent.

When it comes to consistency, the PIC method, ( Positive, Immediate, Consistent ), works well most of the time. In other words by addressing dubious claims by engaging in a positive discussion whenever one is confronted with such a claim, over time one can build a reputation for being open minded and informative. At the same time we all need to draw lines, and as you mentioned, I lean more toward holding people's feet to the fire than simply giving them a pass.

 

[stonehart]

@Jeff Davis | @Burnt State

So nobody liked the clip from Finding Forrester?

On one hand I entirely agree with you both, on the other, I recall some words of wisdom from Nick Redfern who reminds us to take off our ufology hats once in a while and permit ourselves to have an occasional laugh, even if it's at our own expense. After all, if we're secure in our approach, then that really shouldn't be a problem. The trick is in knowing when it's appropriate.

I'm not sure I always get it right, but I tend to feel that I'm among peers here who know what should be taken seriously. We don't have to worry that if we visit the Christine Day website we'll suddenly become converted by the Pleiadian Initiations of Light. We can uphold our standards without foaming at the mouth every time someone mentions the word "contactee", and we can build respect for ufology by remaining cool and consistent.

When it comes to consistency, the PIC method, ( Positive, Immediate, Consistent ), works well most of the time. In other words by addressing dubious claims by engaging in a positive discussion whenever one is confronted with such a claim, over time one can build a reputation for being open minded and informative. At the same time we all need to draw lines, and as you mentioned, I lean more toward holding people's feet to the fire than simply giving them a pass.

Just watched it.. and that fits the thread very well

 

[tom1961]

I have to admit I liked Communion.
But all his crazy stories have gotten silly.
No one could have that many things happen to them.
He wasn't such a bully it would not bother me as much.