First off, the ability to pull this show off proves once and for all, that the Paracast is the gold standard as the new tagline states. Putting together that group, and giving them the ability to talk about Keel and the related topics with thoughtful and knowledgeable hosts moving the discussion along, and not having to deal with idiocy from the hosts as per, well, you know, OTHER shows, that right there is fantastic.
I liked this, but the negative tone was surprising, very much so at times. And much of it was honest, and I think illuminating. I've been a fan of Keel, even though I know his thinking has problems. The Mothman Prophecies, along with Coleman's earlier books (Mysterious America, and one or two others from earlier in his career, which I'll come back to in a second), all of which I read in my mid-teens, really revitalized my childhood interest in the topic. I read some of Vallee not too long after that, and all three of them made certain that I'd have a continued interest in the Fortean perspective.
And I think that's where some of the hostility we saw displayed came from. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jerome Clark and Coleman did one book together (which I believe was alluded to in the show), very much in the 1970s Keel/Vallee and eventually Hynek style "demonology" and Forteanism. After that, Clark went pro-ETH, as noted. Coleman did several more books in the Fortean vein, before then going for a decade and more doing straight "flesh and blood" cryptozoology, to the point of taking some ridicule for including obviously folkloric creatures in some of his books (especially those guidebooks). Coleman's hard to figure. He clearly was on the same page as Keel and other like him in the 1970s and into the 1980s. Then he gave it up for a long while, but now does both, he just doesn't intertwine them. So Bigfoot and other cryptids (except Mothman) are flesh and blood, while Mothman has a death curse, the name game still works, etc.. It's like he's writing for two different audiences.
For me, I think that the hostility, and I'd really only call Clark's discussion in the episode to be really hostile, while the others were just brutally frank, comes from reaction. Not competition (since the writer in many ways in competition there would be Steiger), but instead that when you have a very prominent figure in a field or community, some will end up viewing that figure entirely though how it reflects upon them.
For example, I have a background in Maya archaeology and epigraphy, and in the 1970s and 1980s, Linda Schele blew open the doors of Maya hieroglyphics. Not by herself of course, but she was a positively instrumental figure for the field. And sometimes, in her exuberance, she and her close colleagues would move too fast, too far, and end up making mistakes. Well, who doesn't in investigation and research? In addition, she was a colorful character in some respects, and she was an outsider (she made huge impacts before getting a PhD, and in some ways got the PhD to shut up some of the criticisms). Anyway, I have run into not just skepticism of her work, which is valid, but also some significant hostility and ridicule of her work and that of some of her associates. Not that people don't reference her work, and certainly they reference most of her associates. But rather, many feel the need to point out what they find wrong with her, a lot, as sort of a statement on themselves. Even when the academic traditions they belong to have similar or in some cases worse track records when it comes to making mistakes. I think this is because she was colorful, and because she was prominent. It's not envy, it's more a sort of way of reaffirming one's independence and significance.
I don't think Coleman or Clark or the others there need to do that at all, they've all made big contributions. But I think there is some exasperation that after all their work, and after knowing some of the problems with Keel, people still breathlessly talk about Keel and especially Mothman in probably a way out of bounds with it's literal significance as a case study, but in keeping with its literary, theoretical, and historical significance (the paranormal In Cold Blood) is a great way to phrase that).
As usual, I ended up being most in line with Jim Moseley's take on a lot of it. Then again, that's usual for me, I'm the one guy who laughed at his jokes when he spoke at Roswell in 2002 and then was invited to never come back.
And Jadoo sounds interesting, I had always seen it on his bibliography, but never knew what it was. I suspect a lot of it is bunk, as I don't trust much travel writing, especially in the colonial frame, but if I ever run across it, I'll give it a try.
Overall, I think this episode was great because it was no-nonsense, and so much about Keel that isn't often talked about. I thought there was a little too much emphasis on his sad last years, and while that's human to do if you actually know the guy and aren't just talking about him from a historical perspective, there's a reason we have the stereotype of the bitter or out of it old man, because it happens all too frequently, and that shouldn't necessarily reflect on how that brain worked decades earlier.
