FT252

[escargot]

The Official Monster Raving Loony Party were campaigning in my home town last year and I had a drink with them. Nice people.

We discussed the late Lord Sutch, of whom my family were fans back in the 60s. Having owned all his singles, I could name and sing the 'b' sides. 8)

 

[Timble2]

That badge sounds a lot like the one I had, with Guardian in the Grauniad font.

If "nothing is lost until it's left the planet", then it's not lost but in a box somewhere....

 

[escargot]

Don't start me off. There are many, many boxes up there. :shock:

 

[ramonmercado]

I'm a pale pink, wishy-washy, Guardian-reading liberal (I used to have a badge from our local anarchist bookshop that said this)

You used to be able to choose from a huge range of badges saying '****s against the bomb', such as 'Vegetarians' or 'Motorcyclists' or 'Medical Students'. I wore my 'Guardian Readers against the bomb' badge with pride. 8)

Best badge I saw was Gay Whales Against The Nazis, with an image of a pink whale.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

My copy was delivered yesterday.

Considering how much heat the 'Hoax', Pt3, article seemed to have generated, I've spent tonight reading all three parts of the article. I haven't read the notes.

There are a few terms, that I either had to check, or look up, to make sure I knew what they meant. Mostly, they are reasonably well explained in the articles.

Ostension. Pretty well explained, contextually, in Pt2. The idea that something, experienced, or imagined, can be demonstrated experientially, by some sort of enactment.

Veridical: Something which is, possibly, truthful, yet maybe unknowable in a real physical sense.

Liminal: A sort of boundary, or threshold, of misciblity, between two different Worlds, between what is accepted and what is either unacceptable, or unknown.

That sort of language. I must admit, I was expecting something a bit more impenetrable. The term, Deconstruction, does turn up, once, in the text, and for a moment we do indeed hang over the precipice of the Post-Modernist hoax. However, with a bit of close reading, the text does hang together and enough clues are given, within the text, to convey the authors' meaning.

I agree that the first two parts do not quite convey enough information to justify all of the concluding third part of the article, the segues between deception, art and ritual seem a little rough and abrupt. I have to agree, a leisurely five parter, rather than a slightly compressed three parter. However, a tantalising glimpse of what might lie behind a great deal of what truly makes Fortean phenomena interesting.

I have to say, that the conclusion seems to leave out the possibility that something of the hoaxer, the trickster, or the artist's endeavour to make the impossible, or the unlikely, real, may also be an attempt to portray that which is, as yet, unimaginable, as feasible and also, of course, that which is inevitable, yet almost unimaginable, encompassible, if not comprehensible. Isn't that why they so often strive to instil a sense of wonder?

If there was no room for an article like this in the Fortean Times, then the FT would be thin gruel, indeed.

--- --- --- --- ---

I can't say that I was impressed by the colourful pictures of human misery and misfortune, in the double page spread of impalings.

Bizarre, indeed.

 

[Stormkhan]

Nice to see that the Right Rev. Manchester, Bishop of Glastonbury, still reads the FT. He must use some spot-bot to flag up mentions of his feud with Farrant (a one-time ardent poster on here, if my memory serves).

Shame he has to use almost a whole page of text to say (in summation) that David Farrant was not, nor ever been, President of the British Occult Society. IIRC, m'learned collegue Farrant entered into some discussion here about the title of the occult group he claimed membership/chairmanship/High Muckety-muck* of. Considering how much time has passed, methinks RRevManchester is annoyed that Farrant got a retrospective in before himself.

I'm sorry, but it all seems so petty. I can personally attest to the effect of the Bish/Farrant feud on Highgate Cemetary. I decline to give details in the public forum for the fear that one or t'other will have a hissy fit and start employing the vulturine talents of Mssrs Seuitt, Grabbit and Runne ("Where there's blame, there's a claim.")

*Who cares what the title is - if you invent a club, you can call yourself what you want.

 

[_Lizard23_]

I don't think you are even allowed to say that name on FTMB

 

[rynner2]

I don't think you are even allowed to say that name on FTMB

It's OK if you don't say anything libellous...!

There are still a couple of (locked) threads on here, for those who wish to explore further...

 

[brotherluth]

I have to say, that the conclusion seems to leave out the possibility that something of the hoaxer, the trickster, or the artist's endeavour to make the impossible, or the unlikely, real, may also be an attempt to portray that which is, as yet, unimaginable, as feasible and also, of course, that which is inevitable, yet almost unimaginable, encompassible, if not comprehensible. Isn't that why they so often strive to instil a sense of wonder?

Thanks for your measured appraisal, Pietro. On the point quoted above, I wonder if it is possible for an artist, or anyone, alone, to "portray the, as yet, unimaginable", or whether that is an example of something that can only ever be the product of the kind of collective imagination - 'what Ken Campbell used to call the x-quotient of an artwork, artefact or performance – that magical spark that binds actor and spectator' - described in part three.

 

[ramonmercado]

I don't think you are even allowed to say that name on FTMB

It's OK if you don't say anything libellous...!

There are still a couple of (locked) threads on here, for those who wish to explore further...

I think some questions should be asked about how he gained his title. How many Real Bishops were involved in consecrating him as "Bishop"?

Ah, to hell with it. I'll accept his as "Bishop" if he makes me Dean of Dublin.

 

[Stormkhan]

If your real name was Dean, then you could be Dean Dean of Dublin.

 

[Timble2]

Dean can be a forename too so you could be Dean Dean Dean of Dublin..

 

[stu neville]

I don't think you are even allowed to say that name on FTMB

It's OK if you don't say anything libellous...!

Still a sore point with some of us . Ooh! they're repeating All Gas and Gaiters on Radio 7.

(waves to lawyers)

Hello!

There are still a couple of (locked) threads on here, for those who wish to explore further...

Probably best if we don't draw attention to them, though. Especially not this one.

 

[gman72]

well, I think that the Hoax pt3 article was informative, interesting and extremely well written. Sorry.

 

[47Forteans]

My copy arrived Friday. Now I know what the debate about the hoax article is about, even if I don't understand the article itself - mind you, there is a lot of stuff I don't understand, so nothing new there!

I found the article itself to be interesting.

Rather short of odd letters this month. They all seemed so rational!

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Rather short of odd letters this month. They all seemed so rational!

There's usually one which was probably written by a bit of a crank.

--- --- --- --- ---

I enjoyed the Welsh UFO article, by Andy Roberts, too. The uncovered information and the sequence of events all seemed quite plausible. A nice bit of good old fashioned research.

 

[ramonmercado]

...

Rather short of odd letters this month. They all seemed so rational!

There's usually one which was probably written by a bit of a crank.

Indeed. Rather... interesting letter by the Right Reverend Manchester.

 

[Marrowpod]

Pietro Mercurios, gman and 47 forteans all seem to have had no problem with our articles, which is good and welcome news, and thankyou all for taking the trouble to say so. I think it was Henry James who said one should write for just one intelligent reader, so a score of 300% on his scale could be taken as good going. Lawd knows what the silent majority think, but if they will be silent...

The best badge I ever had the privilege to wear had "Queen's Own Dorset Yeomanry" emblazoned beneath a wreath along with some battle honours. I think this has the edge on anything that greenie crank Guardian rag could offer, what?

Don't ask why I am not Marrowpod this time, I haven't a clue. I don't know how tanks work either, I just ride in 'em.

 

[47Forteans]

Pietro Mercurios, gman and 47 forteans all seem to have had no problem with our articles, which is good and welcome news, and thankyou all for taking the trouble to say so. I think it was Henry James who said one should write for just one intelligent reader, so a score of 300% on his scale could be taken as good going. Lawd knows what the silent majority think, but if they will be silent...

If I don't have a problem with something, I either don't fully understand what is being said, or don't know enough of what is being said to be able to be critical about it! It does make me go off and read more about it to see what all the fuss is, which is the best thing about FT! It expands the mind and introduces one to all sorts of topics one doesn't find in "standard" life!

 

[ramonmercado]

Pietro Mercurios, gman and 47 forteans all seem to have had no problem with our articles, which is good and welcome news, and thankyou all for taking the trouble to say so. I think it was Henry James who said one should write for just one intelligent reader, so a score of 300% on his scale could be taken as good going. Lawd knows what the silent majority think, but if they will be silent...

The best badge I ever had the privilege to wear had "Queen's Own Dorset Yeomanry" emblazoned beneath a wreath along with some battle honours. I think this has the edge on anything that greenie crank Guardian rag could offer, what?

Don't ask why I am not Marrowpod this time, I haven't a clue. I don't know how tanks work either, I just ride in 'em.

Ha!

Like all Bondian Super Villians you give the plot away. You're not just Marrowpod and Duke Mendoza, you are also Pietro Mercurios, gman and 47 forteans! There is no end to your perfidy!

I reckon you're really Peter Mandelson.

 

[Mal_Adjusted]

I went and bought the Lawson book mentioned coz of that article.

proper philosophy it is and no mistake.

I may not finish it.

 

[escargot]

Read it a bit at time, in bed. Get your money's worth.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

... On the point quoted above, I wonder if it is possible for an artist, or anyone, alone, to "portray the, as yet, unimaginable", or whether that is an example of something that can only ever be the product of the kind of collective imagination - 'what Ken Campbell used to call the x-quotient of an artwork, artefact or performance – that magical spark that binds actor and spectator' - described in part three.

I personally think it's the job of any good artist, or shaman, to try and take their audience one step further, beyond what they know. Yes, it's probably more effective if it's a group experience, with the artist, working behind the scenes, as a sort of instigator.

Exactly the sort of event we've been discussing and an appropriate comment from its creator, the American artist, Peter Coffin.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8066061.stm?ls

http://www.euronews.net/2009/05/24/brazilian-light-show-goes-alien/

 

[gman72]

I'm afraid Mr Mendoza is not me. Unless there is more than one personality in here, mutually oblivious to each other, my girlfriend and children... so yeah, I suppose technically possible.

 

[Shoegazer]

I read all three Hoax articles together. Liked the first two, yet I didn't really get the third one.

I wouldn't say that it was postmodern but the language was a bit academic and clunky.


I think I underst but I'm not sure. It basically equated hoaxes with art while suggesting that art was itself something of a hoax because it was run by an exclusive "art world".

Didn't understand the point of the third article.

I guess I probably didn't understand it.

 

[brotherluth]

I think I underst but I'm not sure. It basically equated hoaxes with art while suggesting that art was itself something of a hoax because it was run by an exclusive "art world".

(..)

I guess I probably didn't understand it.

The main point about the 'art world', Sardan2, was that while that particular social construct may not accept it as such there is much artistic activity going on outside it. In the 'fortean world', for instance. The authors' contended that 'art' is more of a transaction between artist/performer and audience/spectator than a community that values 'who made it' over 'what it does' (the authority of artists) would have it.

One obvious example of this divide is the difficulty this community has with artists' anonymity, while so many successful fortean hoaxes depend upon it.

Not so much "art is a hoax", then, as 'art' and 'hoax' are more closely related than we are led to think.

 

[47Forteans]

Pietro Mercurios, gman and 47 forteans all seem to have had no problem with our articles, which is good and welcome news, and thankyou all for taking the trouble to say so. I think it was Henry James who said one should write for just one intelligent reader, so a score of 300% on his scale could be taken as good going. Lawd knows what the silent majority think, but if they will be silent...

The best badge I ever had the privilege to wear had "Queen's Own Dorset Yeomanry" emblazoned beneath a wreath along with some battle honours. I think this has the edge on anything that greenie crank Guardian rag could offer, what?

Don't ask why I am not Marrowpod this time, I haven't a clue. I don't know how tanks work either, I just ride in 'em.

Ha!

Like all Bondian Super Villians you give the plot away. You're not just Marrowpod and Duke Mendoza, you are also Pietro Mercurios, gman and 47 forteans! There is no end to your perfidy!

Hey, 47 Forteans is one's own person!

 

[AMPHIARAUS]

I must be the only one then who thought the hoax articles could have been compressed into one.
The premise / conclusion seemed padded out with pointless pictures and faddish words. Were the authors paid by the word?

I'm not saying I disagree with the parallels drawn in the piece, or the ideas within, it was just bloated and a bit patronizing.

 

[Marrowpod]

Sorry about this but I seem to have been given the other identity this evening.

This may be a cue for the line "Peter Mandelson denies rumour". On the other
hand, think of that man who has "a touch of the night" about him, and who
featured in a cartoon in The Times (of London) whispering into Mrs
Thatcher's ear "Just one little bite, and I promise you eternal life", and you
may be nearer the mark... And while we're on the subject, if 47forteans has
no alters, why is he 47 and not just one fortean? Does he have that many
children?? Hmmm.

And Amphiaraus has no profile details showing, which is also mysterious. Not
that they're any damn' use, but still. Praps the system has a glitch.

Mine does a bit, in that yes of course we get paid by the word, just like every
other FT contributor, and we felt we needed the words -- we felt we could
have done with a lot more words actually, but the Editor has other things to
print -- to get our story across. I do rather resent the notion that we piled on
the verbiage just for the extra cash, and I imagine Dr Sutton might not be
that taken with the implication that he can be had for another 12 pages by
the wiles of a couple of old charmers who know which buttons to press. It don't
work that way, sunbeam. You get your ration and you does your best. I should
actually like to see our argument reduced to one article, and find this wheeze
ironic in view of others' no less amusing, if altogether attractive, notions that
a "leisurely five-parter" might have been more in order. Why do I have a
wonderful vision of David Sutton reaching for his revolver -- or my rifle --
at the very thought?

So, yeah, babe, you may well be the only one who thought the series "bloated"
and reducible -- renderable, even, like fat into soap -- into 3 or 4000 words.

Sardan2 thought "It basically equated hoaxes with art while suggesting that art
was itself something of a hoax...." Bro Luth gives one right answer to that; I'd
just point out that one idea in the back of our heads could be stated as "All
hoaxes are art, but not all art is a hoax." The mediating terms are deception
and willing suspension of disbelief. Any art form involves the latter (how
else would anyone take, say, opera seriously?), and they're both crucial to the
success of a hoax. There is a stumbling point in that (as Bro Luth says in so many
words) the "art world" -- or the literary world or the musical world, &c &c --
finds it hard to accept anonymous works as art. So, for instance, in literary and
musical circles the idea that folk song is worth attention (unless, of course,
eviscerated by Vaughan Williams or distorted by Bartok) is looked at somewhat
askance.

The late Prof. Wilf Mellors was personally a noxious little man and stingy
at the drinks cupboard, but at least he didn't suffer from that kind of snobbery,
but his kind in still in something of a minority. Historically, the position that
"who did it it" is more important than "what it says" is rare because very
recent. Most of the world's artists are anonymous. Even when we know their
names it ain't much help -- Shakespeare? Homer? And does knowing Brahms
was addicted to black coffee and was in love with his best friend's wife really
affect how you respond to his string trios? If it does, I think you may be missing
something when you listen to them. Or adding too much in.

Too long, too short, this one could run and run. To me it's still intriguing that
very few of the comments here (not that the supportive ones aren't appreciated)
have actually been about the ideas we set out on our overcrowded stall. So it goes.

 

[47Forteans]

Sorry about this but I seem to have been given the other identity this evening.

This may be a cue for the line "Peter Mandelson denies rumour". On the other
hand, think of that man who has "a touch of the night" about him, and who
featured in a cartoon in The Times (of London) whispering into Mrs
Thatcher's ear "Just one little bite, and I promise you eternal life", and you
may be nearer the mark... And while we're on the subject, if 47forteans has
no alters, why is he 47 and not just one fortean? Does he have that many
children?? Hmmm.

As to the 47 in my screen name, it is my shoe size!