I prefer to work late at night. As I slide towards sleep, and hover in that odd zone, I could begin to somewhat believe in a ghost that I’m writing about. My imagination is much more likely to engulf my consciousness.
I can, between 11pm and 8am, convince myself on a level that I can’t during the day, that dryads exist or that a man could be seduced by cockroaches, something that my mind balks at even now, at 2:13pm at work.
That being said, I have some other coping mechanisms during the day for sliding in. Notes from the night before, written impressions, and music.
I’ve had to rely on music very heavily to drag myself into a half hypnotic state of belief in the irreal. And trust me, I don’t go there easy.
On the other hand, it always reveals to me a significant difference between me and most people in the world. I don’t believe in ghosts or anything supernatural, though I will tinker with the idea for fun on occasion in the name of literature. But many people do. In fact, my cold rationality is the minority, as is Pullman’s. When Chris Carter did the X Files half the episodes were supposed to have Mulder right, and the other half Sculley right, but ratings pretty much drove the rational answer epidosdes into oblivion in favor the of the weird and supernatural ones. Like Mulder, people ‘want to believe.’
I personally think that there is far more data in the universe than our human minds can ever comprehend, so we pick and choose which elements are salient to our worldview.
Thus, the “supernatural” may just be a different way of looking at a “natural” phenomenon as yet unexplained. Take quantum physics: empirical evidence that basically says that there is still much beyond our ken.
Then you get to the philosophical: what makes you you? You can get into the concept of bio-chemistry vs. soul. If there is something beyond bio-chemistry, can that “something” become unattached from its corporeal cage?
Pretty fascinating altogether, IMHO.
Sounds to me like Pullman just has a shitty imagination. Sucks to be him.
The X-Files anecdote doesn’t show that people want to believe so much as it shows that there were plenty of cop shows in the early 1990s, and relatively few fantasy shows.
I also don’t think ghost stories have to convince. They do have to mainfest a convincing metaphor for a sense of loss, which is generally the basis of the ghost story, even the revenge-themed ones.
“Unfortunatly, wanting to believe leads most to ignore facts that might show otherwise, which is inconvenient and challenges world view.”
–Toby, though I mostly agree with you, I have to say this works in reverse, too. Diehard rationalists often refuse to entertain evidence that might challenge their ideas of how the world operates.
Thus, the “supernatural” may just be a different way of looking at a “natural” phenomenon as yet unexplained. Take quantum physics: empirical evidence that basically says that there is still much beyond our ken.
Just because quantam physics is incredibly complex and changes a lot about what was commonly understood about science does not automatically equate to the supernatural being real.
I really fail to accept a direct corrolation between saying ‘there’s a lot we don’t understand’ and ‘therefore everything that currently doesn’t make sense within a scientific framework must then be true.’
I know that the universe is probably not only stranger than I imagine, but stranger than I can imagine. Fair enough. My biz card says: “The future is as strange as we imagine it” which is kinda of a play on the same phrase. But using highly advanced science as a means to toss everything out the window seems…distasteful.
I also don’t think ghost stories have to convince. They do have to mainfest a convincing metaphor for a sense of loss, which is generally the basis of the ghost story, even the revenge-themed ones.
Nick, this is a good way of looking at it. Looking at it in terms of emotion and character, more than the supernatural and wanting to believe aspect, are probably why these things resonate, true, even with a stick in the mud like me. I like this. I’ll have to write it down somewhere. I tend to think of Fantasy too much in terms of what is there, and not these underlying things that really work at people. I’m still more of an events and plot writer than an emotion/character. Working hard at finding a balance there.
The X-Files anecdote doesn’t show that people want to believe so much as it shows that there were plenty of cop shows in the early 1990s, and relatively few fantasy shows.
Good point. Hadn’t thought of that.
Diehard rationalists often refuse to entertain evidence that might challenge their ideas of how the world operates.
True that. The sword cuts both ways on Occam’s Razor 🙂 At that point I tend to recategorize them as quasi-rationalists. I hope I don’t turn into one of them. Certainly all the scientists who rejected quantam mechanics ended up being like that. Personages who rejected a new model and clung to the old until they died.
Calling oneself a rationalist and believing in what science says doesn’t mean one is necesarily possesed of a flexible or adaptable mind.
tb
…using highly advanced science as a means to toss everything out the window seems…distasteful.
I’m not saying that quantum physics proves that ghosts exist. I’m saying that there may very well be things out there which are currently labeled as “supernatural” which merely cannot be measured with our current tools — but which may become tangible in the future as we learn more.
When it comes to writing, though, I’m for the metaphor perspective, myself. Dickinson had it right about Tell the truth/But tell it slant, because analogy has a much greater possibility of breaching the defenses of the conscious mind than dissertation or preaching.
re: X-Files — yes, there were a lot more cop shows than fantasy shows. There have also been a lot of articles in magazines, etc. about the apparent increasing search for spirituality in America over the past decade+. The stories postulated that the popularity of X-Files, Touched By An Angel, etc. were a result of people becoming disillusioned and fatalistic about the state of the world and our abilities to personally affect it.
Terry Pratchett has a take on this slipped into the climactic stuff in Hogfather.
Don’t remember if I have the words exactly right:
“Grind the universe into the finest sand and sieve it through the finest sieve, and show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy….
… of course you have to believe in things that don’t exist. How else can they come to be?”
C.S. Lewis said that nobody (Meaning, himself) actually believes in the fantastical things he writes about.
I’m – reluctantly – in the category of using metaphors of imaginary lands and situations to explore complicated thoughts going on in my own head, to promote ideas and points of view. Well, that’s one of the two seeds of a story, anyhow. Stories tend to start when one of those thoughts or points of view collides with a few other things.
And those other things are rearely consciously rational. “Gee, that’s a cool take on a werewolf, but the writer ignored these implications. It would be cooler to look at them instead…”
But that’s just the seeds. While I write, what I believe and don’t believe changes almost moment to moment, depending on what part of writing I’m working on (Editing is, of course, very bad for faith), what time of day it is, what music is playing, etc.
Heh. And then there are the times I’m writing *about* believing (or not) in things.