Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
So I was on holiday up in Scotland recently and tried to cram as much stuff in as possible. Being a sceptic does NOT stop me loving a great ghost story and some spooky chills so I did not one, but two different tours of haunted locations, (not including other attractions like Mary Kings Close that just happen to mention that Derek Akorah or some other medium sensed a ghost there).
Now what made me roll my eyes was not the incredibly nice true believer woman who was astounded at how many orbs might be seen around the woman with the candle, nor the guy who insisted Most Haunted was valid because is twas on the BBC (erm, it isn't) or the spin put on a paranormal experiment by the local science festival, or anything like that. The guide has to buy into the supernatural as real for the tour to work, and to be honest a willing suspension of disbelief and critical thinking is required to enjoy the entertainment, just as it is in a horror movie.
After doing one of the tours, The Double Dead Tour of vaults and the coventors prison in Greyfriars cemetery, I discovered there was a book about the tour going into far more details of the haunting. The Ghost That Haunted Itself, by Jan Andrew Henderson, writing about tour guide Ben Scott (no prize for guessing what name the same person has also written under) whose tour seems to be provoking a poltergeist who scratches, burns, and attacks victims on or around greyfriars. It's an entertaining book, a good old ghostly yarn, and it ends with the solemn warning that the ghost is getting more powerful.
As part of the tour you stand in the epicentre of the activity, the Black Mausoleum, it is explained how many people e-mail or phone after the tour to describe unexplained cuts and scrapes they later found. A particularly effective ghost story is tol to get your fear up. Then they mention that the "thing" hunts by pheremones.
All good scary fun (and I have to say the tour itself had some effective chills, some funny jokes and as far as these sorts of tours go, was very well done). At least if you don't think too hard.
Not about the idea of spooks and demons and the sort. About the logic of the tour, book, and whole bundle. On the one hand we can be fairly confident the aim of the tour (and book) is to make money by letting people believe just for a little while in the effects of our own imagination. On the other, if the tour is making this alleged spook upset, and making it stronger and more dangerous, given there is a whole book about all the people who had terrifying side effects of encountering the thing, does that not mean that to suspend disbelief you have to allow that both myself the customer and to a pretty hefty extent the tour guide are morally dubious?
I am probably way over thinking this. But given that there are those who genuinely believe in the paranormal, and will see the newspaper clippings as evidence of the ghost being very real, is there a line in the sand that we should be wary of when dealing with allegedly haunted locations.
Suppose for a moment that you were touring any "genuine" haunted location, and later discovered bruises or cuts you couldn't explain. There are thousands of reasons they could be there, but you are expecting "ghost" so you put them down to ghosts. Maybe you get a thrill for having brushed with the other side and brag about it when you gossip. What happens if you bruise yourself a week or two later? Or every few weeks? Every few months? What happens if somebody thinks maybe something followed them home from their holiday?
Now what made me roll my eyes was not the incredibly nice true believer woman who was astounded at how many orbs might be seen around the woman with the candle, nor the guy who insisted Most Haunted was valid because is twas on the BBC (erm, it isn't) or the spin put on a paranormal experiment by the local science festival, or anything like that. The guide has to buy into the supernatural as real for the tour to work, and to be honest a willing suspension of disbelief and critical thinking is required to enjoy the entertainment, just as it is in a horror movie.
After doing one of the tours, The Double Dead Tour of vaults and the coventors prison in Greyfriars cemetery, I discovered there was a book about the tour going into far more details of the haunting. The Ghost That Haunted Itself, by Jan Andrew Henderson, writing about tour guide Ben Scott (no prize for guessing what name the same person has also written under) whose tour seems to be provoking a poltergeist who scratches, burns, and attacks victims on or around greyfriars. It's an entertaining book, a good old ghostly yarn, and it ends with the solemn warning that the ghost is getting more powerful.
As part of the tour you stand in the epicentre of the activity, the Black Mausoleum, it is explained how many people e-mail or phone after the tour to describe unexplained cuts and scrapes they later found. A particularly effective ghost story is tol to get your fear up. Then they mention that the "thing" hunts by pheremones.
All good scary fun (and I have to say the tour itself had some effective chills, some funny jokes and as far as these sorts of tours go, was very well done). At least if you don't think too hard.
Not about the idea of spooks and demons and the sort. About the logic of the tour, book, and whole bundle. On the one hand we can be fairly confident the aim of the tour (and book) is to make money by letting people believe just for a little while in the effects of our own imagination. On the other, if the tour is making this alleged spook upset, and making it stronger and more dangerous, given there is a whole book about all the people who had terrifying side effects of encountering the thing, does that not mean that to suspend disbelief you have to allow that both myself the customer and to a pretty hefty extent the tour guide are morally dubious?
I am probably way over thinking this. But given that there are those who genuinely believe in the paranormal, and will see the newspaper clippings as evidence of the ghost being very real, is there a line in the sand that we should be wary of when dealing with allegedly haunted locations.
Suppose for a moment that you were touring any "genuine" haunted location, and later discovered bruises or cuts you couldn't explain. There are thousands of reasons they could be there, but you are expecting "ghost" so you put them down to ghosts. Maybe you get a thrill for having brushed with the other side and brag about it when you gossip. What happens if you bruise yourself a week or two later? Or every few weeks? Every few months? What happens if somebody thinks maybe something followed them home from their holiday?
bviously he was not able.This has altered my general view of things.Your post was quite interesting to me,due to my own experiences.I want to explain my experience also,but fear skeptics will start to ridicule it as a lie.
