Cryptomundo » One Way or the Otter, Radford/Nickell X-Files-Labeled

One Way or the Otter, Radford/Nickell X-Files-Labeled

Posted by: Loren Coleman on July 13th, 2007

Don Getty River Otters Photo

Don Getty, River Otters, Grand Tetons. Used with full permission of Mr. Getty. The photograph does not, however, appear in Ben’s and Joe’s book from last year. Would it have helped lessened the blow of this review against their flank?

One would expect that the respected Journal of Folklore Reseach at Indiana University would come down on the side of Benjamin Radford’s and Joe Nickell’s recent skeptical book, Lake Monster Mysteries: Investigating the World’s Most Elusive Creatures.

It turns out it didn’t work out that way, and the journal, instead, found the book had shortcomings. Did Ben and Joe receive the shaft from Indiana’s JFR? Or a fair review?

Lake Monster Mysteries

As the name suggests, the book Lake Monster Mysteries is grounded in cryptozoology and as such is one that deals with the legendary creatures that supposedly inhabit the lakes and lochs across the globe. The possibility that a broad spectrum of creatures exists in these bodies of water is dealt with through interview, reportage, and document analysis. The case-study approach includes a focus on the more well known leviathan forms such as the Loch Ness Monster and the lesser known examples such as those inhabiting the depths in bodies of water in Turkey and South America.

In more specific terms, as stated in the introduction to this book, the purpose of the text is to provide an account of serious investigation as opposed to a collection of “enticing and amusing” narratives that characterizes other books dealing with this topic. On page eight of this section, the authors claim that the book is unique in this respect, as it demonstrates a “much needed scientific rigour and scholarship to a field better known for its wild, unsubstantiated claims than its careful examination of the facts.” It is in this facet that the book falls short.

The text is comprehensive in that it deals with numerous creatures on a global scale on a case-by-case basis, and it utilizes a mostly rigorous qualitative approach in its data collection. However, while the individual case studies of “close encounters” with these creatures are described in relative detail and the first-hand data as provided by apparent observers and photographers are clearly spelt out in a well constructed report format that carefully weaves in emic and etic descriptors, overall it fails to meet the intent of scientific rigor. The occasional comment by the authors clearly reveals a lack of understanding of the paradigm they chose to use. A case in point is the authors’ claim on page one hundred and sixty four that if data-collection details of all first-hand sightings could occur, then the research would be statistically and scientifically valid. This is not the ontological purpose or epistemological function of case-study investigations, or indeed of qualitative research.

The lack of understanding of how to collect, unpack, and make sense of observational and reportage data is further revealed in the findings and conclusions at the end of each section and in the concluding chapters of this book. After providing examples of interviews, document analysis, and photographic evidence, the analysis and conclusions fall into the category of “stating the obvious” or a recount of the observational methods employed. What is needed, as suggested in a fleeting remark by the authors, is a focused analysis on the psychological reasons as to why these reports of mysterious creatures have surfaced and continue to do so across time and cultures. There is no attempt to compare, contrast, or explain in any depth the transtextual narratives the authors utilized or the data they unearthed. Description in the guise of analysis is a trap that continues to haunt this form of investigation. Thus, while having the best intentions and coming tantalizingly close to their purpose, the authors have simply recreated a set of “enticing and amusing” narratives that have a paratextual and archetextual similarity to The X Files. Review by Phil Fitzsimmons, University of Wollongong, Australia, of Lake Monster Mysteries: Investigating the World’s Most Elusive Creatures by Benjamin Radford and Joe Nickell. Journal of Folklore Research, posted on July 12, 2007]

Random Posts

This entry was posted on Friday, July 13th, 2007 at 4:55 pm and is filed under Books, Breaking News, CryptoZoo News, Cryptomundo Exclusive, Cryptotourism, Cryptozoologists, Cryptozoology, Folklore, Lake Monsters, Loch Ness Monster, Ogopogo, Reviews, Sea Serpents. You can follow responses via our RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.

Spread the Word!

del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit StumbleUpon Help

Similar Phenomena:

22 Responses to “One Way or the Otter, Radford/Nickell X-Files-Labeled”

Daniel Loxton responds: July 13th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Groan.

My rule of thumb is that an article employing the terms “etic” and “emic” could go either way. So could “paradigm,” “epistemological,” and “ontological,” though seeing them all pop up together in the space of a tiny little 500-word book review is frankly a pretty bad sign.

But the moment you see the word “transtextual” — or, heaven help us, “paratextual” — my advice is to put the article down immediately and go for a nice walk.
Benjamin Radford responds: July 13th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Is this a joke?

I am always pleased with intelligent criticism of my work and research, yet the reviewer apparently misunderstood what parts he did read. The review is written in such stilted prose that Fitzsimmons’s meaning is hard to decipher, but let’s take his “case in point” (taken from Appendix 2, not the body of the book itself):

A case in point is the authors’ claim on page one hundred and sixty four that if data-collection details of all first-hand sightings could occur, then the research would be statistically and scientifically valid. This is not the ontological purpose or epistemological function of case-study investigations, or indeed of qualitative research.

This claim was not made in the book, nor on page 164…. he is apparently referring to the following sentences: “But to accurately understand eyewitness accounts, researchers can’t pick and choose. They must consider all reports, focusing not just on the unidentified but also on the misidenfied. Only with this scientific and statistical understanding does a valid picture emerge…”

Readers can judge for themselves if the above can be fairly characterized as claiming that “if data-collection details of all first-hand sightings could occur, then the research would be statistically and scientifically valid.” Fitzsimmons has created a straw man argument, criticizing the book for something it never claimed; furthermore, the section he cites is from an appendix dealing with eyewitness testimony specifically (a hunter who shot his son), not lake monster investigations.

The real howler comes later when he writes, What is needed… is a focused analysis on the psychological reasons as to why these reports of mysterious creatures have surfaced and continue to do so across time and cultures….

See, this is why folklorists don’t make good investigators. Instead of actually going to the lakes, doing field research, interviewing eyewitnesses, searching lakes with divers and sonar, analyzing and re-creating famous photos of lake monsters, etc., Mr. Fitzsimmons suggests we were wasting our time and instead should have focused on the psychological reasons people see the creatures.

Silly me; I was busy investigating the evidence for lake monsters, including the folkloric aspects (see especially the section on Ogopogo). Would readers really have wanted 180 pages of speculation about the psychological reasons for sightings? Apparently that would have pleased Fitzsimmons.
Rillo777 responds: July 14th, 2007 at 12:23 am
I have to admit it: I’m confused. It sounds like Mr. Radford wrote one book and the reviewer critiqued another. This is why I take reviews with a grain of salt except to see if maybe the book is something I’m interested in reading.

In this case, it sounds like the reviewer wrote it with a thesaurus on his lap and maybe a really big dictionary.

In short, it didn’t tell me anything much about the book but a lot about the pseudo-intellectual leanings of the reviewer.
Rillo777 responds: July 14th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Incidently, I have a minor in folklore from I.U.

When it comes to studying Cryptids that field is only good as a starting point, in my opinion.
Ceroill responds: July 14th, 2007 at 2:48 am
Sigh.

Perhaps the reviewer was under the impression that the book was intended to be on the level of a peer reviewed technical journal. That might explain his sesquipedalian writing style (sorry. had to.). Ah well, I agree with Rillo about reviews in general. I generally apply a healthy dose of salt to all reviews. In my experience reading reviews of various kinds over the years, most reviewers are hardly objective. They begin with an intent to find as many problems with their target as they can, rather than to provide balanced observations. Ok, I’ve rambled on enough. I’m not intending to step on anyone’s toes or impugn anyone’s reputation, simply making some generalized musings.
Lyndon responds: July 14th, 2007 at 3:14 am
Reminds me of the ‘reviews’ of Jeff Meldrum’s book. Clearly these ‘reviewers’ aren’t really paying much attention to the books they are supposed to be reviewing.
shovethenos responds: July 14th, 2007 at 6:14 am
What good is the field of “Folklore” in cryptozoology?

If you’re approaching a particular situation from a “Folklore” perspective you are already assuming your conclusion - that these are a bunch of manufactured or exaggerated stories that people have made up and passed on over the years. This isn’t compatible with an objective investigation applying scientific principles and empiricism.

I can only think of one aspect in which “Folklore” might be helpful in objective investigations of cryptozoological phenomenon - the research skills might be helpful in locating old accounts of sightings in newspapers, books, legends, etc.
Benjamin Radford responds: July 14th, 2007 at 9:48 am
At first, I thought it was a hoax like the one pulled about ten years ago by Alan Sokal, where he published jargony gibberish in a respected journal…
mystery_man responds: July 14th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Well, I haven’t read Mr. Radford’s book, so I don’t know how accurate this review is and therefore to avoid the risk of talking out of my other end, will make no attempts to discuss it. I will say that I am interested in reading the book and think that more people should become familiar with the skeptical side of the argument whether they agree or not. I think this book actually sounds quite fascinating.
Rillo777 responds: July 14th, 2007 at 11:53 am
shovethenos- the only thing I can see that might be beneficial as far as folklore goes is the collecting of stories with the idea that there might some of grain of truth behind it.
If enough Bigfoot folklore came from one area for example, we might be tempted as researchers to check that area out.
That’s what I meant by my comment that it might have some value as a starting point. Other than that…well…they’re are just stories.
Folklore usually is passed down because there is some moral point to the story. Not always, of course, but rather often there is. A good sense of what might be folklore and what might be a genuine event is needed in many tales of Bigfoot and studying Folklore is a good way to help weed out the potentially true account from the campfire story. You become familiar with common motifs and details that seem to permeate folklore stories and also become less gullible or, perhaps I should say, more astute at picking up on subtle facts that don’t fit the usual folklore tale.
Loren Coleman responds: July 14th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Seems to me that a split is happening here in comments:

(1) Is folklore a subject of cryptozoology and worthy of our attention?

and

(2) Did the Radford/Nickell book deserve this review?

My opinion:

(1) There is no doubt about the value of folklore in knowing the level of zoological knowledge as expressed in the ethnological folklore of local people, Natives, First Nations, Indians, Sherpas, Scottish folks, or whomever are the residents and keepers of the traditional histories of an area. Why else would so many of us collect folklore, legends, and myths to try to decipher what actual zoological species might be referenced in the tales and oral renderings? Is there zoological fire under the folkloric smoke? How do we find that out? By way of cryptozoology, of course.

(2) The review is confusingly written and gives little insights to specific criticisms of the book under discussion. That, I feel, is its major shortcoming. Meanwhile, it seems to try to entertain the assumed readership and perhaps the editor of this journal with words used to project intellectual understanding. What they do, instead, is to make this review even more foggy in the critiquing. I walked away from this review thinking the reviewer merely was not happy with the way the book he was reading was written. It is clear all he really is say is that this book was penned differently than how he would have authored it.
Jerome Clark responds: July 14th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Some of the correspondents here apparently fail to understand the concept of “folklore,” which is not — popular misuse aside — synonymous with “fantasy,” “fiction,” “lies,” or “nonsense.” It is a neutral term which refers to traditional lore, often (though not exclusively) transmitted orally. It has nothing to do with whether the subject of that lore is actual or imaginary. All that matters is that such occurrences (whether mundane or fantastic) are reported and speculated about, and it is the process of transmission of such notions and images, along with the way such things change over time and distance, that is the focus of their interest.

In truth, some kinds of extraordinarily anomalous experiences (including alleged encounters with cryptids) have been preserved largely by folklorists, because “serious” scholars deemed them unworthy of attention or preservation. I have found the folklore texts in my own library (and, of course, elsewhere) to be a wonderful, mostly untapped source of testimony to out-of-the-ordinary perceptions. As often as not, when forced to address the issue of what their informants reported as firsthand experiences, folklorists typically profess themselves — with commendable modesty — at a loss. What is in my judgment the finest book ever published (at least in English) on anomalistics — David J. Hufford’s The Terror That Comes in the Night (1983) — is by an academic folklorist. Folklore work and analysis ought to be of enormous value to cryptozoologists.
Benjamin Radford responds: July 14th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
I agree with Jerome Clark that folklore is an important part of the study of animals; in fact, for most of the lake monsters we investigated, we included a discussion of the stories about the creatures. The folkore surrounding Ogopogo is particularly fascinating, and in fact I wrote an entire article on the monster primarily from a folkloric perspective: http://www.csicop.org/si/2006-01/ogopogo.html.
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 14th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Okay, I’m confused, both by the review and the otter references (Although I must admit to being happy to see people referencing the pictures I found). How would having pictures of otters moving in lines have effected the reviewer’s opinions on the book? The reviewer even said that:

After providing examples of interviews, document analysis, and photographic evidence, the analysis and conclusions fall into the category of “stating the obvious” or a recount of the observational methods employed.

Am I missing something here? Sure, a psychological study would be interesting, but criticizing the book for not having that is kind of like someone giving a bad review to movie because a character they were attracted to didn’t get naked onscreen.
Rillo777 responds: July 14th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Well said Jerome Clark!
mystery_man responds: July 14th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
MrAtomicEmonster, Good observation. I like Jerome Clark’s thoughts on folklore as well. I myself am very interested in Japanese folklore, so the ideas being presented here are nice to see. I too think that folklore and cryptozoology are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as indeed there could be real animals buried under the supposed myths and this has happened in many native cultures. For example, many animals in Japan that are known creatures are still surrounded by a good deal of legend and folklore, so I get the impression that just because an animal is cloaked in folklore, doesn’t mean it does not exist and there could possibly be a grain of truth to some of the stories. One thing that I find particularly interesting is the presence of remarkably similar folklore in far flung cultures that would not have had any contact with each other. Folkloric references to dragons and hairy hominids, for example are found in cultures throughout the world. What to makes of this? Are these archetypes buried deep within the subconscious of all human beings, a sort of primordial racial memory, or is there another explanation? Fascinating stuff to me.

I think Jerome Clark also hit the nail on the head when he said that in some cases these folkloric accounts could very well be the only records of sightings that were not taken serious by anyone else. Perhaps some of the old accounts can offer interesting insights into the habits or behaviors of these possible cryptids or of other anomalous experiences, as well as how time has tempered the perception of these stories. While I think folklore should not be relied on too heavily in a scientific undertaking, I feel it can be a valuable tool when delving into some of the history behind certain cryptids and definitely is useful for inspiring debate and speculation that can yield good theories.

Again, I haven’t read the book myself, so anyone correct me if I’m wrong but it seems like the research done on this book was done in a scientific way, using scientific methods while using folklore only as a tool. It does not seem that Mr. Radford was trying to write a book on folklore, but rather on a scientific analysis of cryptozoological phenomena with some folklore thrown to illustrate the history and psychological effects of these animals. If that is the case and this is mostly a scientific study, then it seems odd that a folklorist give this sort of review. I do not see any scientists trying to review books on folklore, so it is curious to me.
Benjamin Radford responds: July 15th, 2007 at 10:45 am
“I do not see any scientists trying to review books on folklore, so it is curious to me.”

Well said, MM!
darkshines responds: July 15th, 2007 at 11:25 am
I had a discussion with my skeptic mother last weekend about cryptids. She said if there is a really a monster in Loch Ness, it must be the only creature in the world that can live for hundreds of years, alone. You never see more than one, and it has been sighted since St Columbus. Really? Folklore is interesting, but the sightings from THIS decade will almost certainly not be valid NEXT decade, let alone in hundreds of years. Until we start getting more PHYSICAL evidence, folklore, as far as I am concerned, is a load of drunken ghost stories, rumours and fairy stories. Bring on the proof.

P.S. I’m not a skeptic in anyway, I know sea monsters are real. But like I said, proof would be nice.
DWA responds: July 15th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
mystery_man makes a good point about folklore.

One thing that is interesting about Native American accounts of the sasquatch, and their accounts of scientifically known animals, is that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE in what’s being said. Every animal, from the deer mouse on up, has fantastical powers and qualities. None is portrayed as a simple critter. And pictorial evidence of the sasquatch in West Coast native cultures differs not a jot from the way in which other animals have been depicted. The only difference is the details of the pictures.

One problem with skeptics - one that should be appropriately highlighted here - is the skeptical tendency to seize on the wildest claims, and discuss only those, or in the alternative, to insist that the silly stuff be given equal weight with everything else. It’s pretty obviously off base that “to accurately understand eyewitness accounts, researchers can’t pick and choose. They must consider all reports, focusing not just on the unidentified but also on the misidenfied. Only with this scientific and statistical understanding does a valid picture emerge…” Um, well, wrong there. A valid picture, which we must presume means one that a scientist would buy as worthy of further research, can only be obtained by focusing on the commonalities among reports, as one cannot, by definition, “focus” on outliers that leave nothing to search and could easily be the products of overactive imaginations, True Believers, or just plain liars. If I told you that I saw pink, green and violet moose on my recently concluded trip, would you jump on that track if you were a scientist? Boy, I would hope not. But now, if 650 people from a small Maine town took their sightings of such critters to the press, as a body, things might be a bit more interesting to me.

There lies the big problem with lake monsters, folks. What are the commonalities? What is the Loch Ness Monster? A plesiosaur? A giant slug? The Radio City RockOtters?

The sasquatch is a bipedal ape. If you think it’s anything else, I’ll take the bet. Provided it exists, of course.

THAT, to me, is the difference between a whassit? and something science might want to look into. One thing that can be pretty clearly sussed from folkloric accounts is the commonalities on which a search can be based. And science can take it from there.
Regan Lee responds: July 15th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
As someone who was a folklore major (six years) I just want to support and reiterate Jerome Clark’s post on folklore. Well said!
Ceroill responds: July 15th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
On tangential note, I just saw a theatrical trailer for The Water Horse. I included that bit of it leaping out of the water. Effects look good, but I won’t spoil things any more than that for those waiting to see it themselves. Promises to be a fun film, regardless of your stance on Nessie.
Kathy Strain responds: July 16th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Well, hum…

I am, of course, very supportive of folklore and its application to cryptozoology, but I didn’t understand this review at all. I have Ben and Joe’s book (Ben even autographed it for me) and while I thought it could have used some additional traditional NA stories about water monster, I don’t agree with the review criticism (or at least what I think it was saying…??).

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Cryptomundo
for Bigfoot, Loch Ness, and More

One Way or the Otter, Radford/Nickell X-Files-Labeled

Random Posts

Spread the Word!

Random Posts

22 Responses to “One Way or the Otter, Radford/Nickell X-Files-Labeled”

Leave your comments

Main Page

Join The Search

Mystery Pages

Login

Advertisement

Syndication

Donate Today

The Beyond

Advertisement

T 84 Viagra

taking viagra after the expiration date

cheap gerneric viagra

generic viagra levitra and cialis pills!

cheap gerneric viagra

cheap gerneric viagra

cheap gerneric viagra

Non Prescription Viagra

Viagra Illegal Phillipines

Side Affects Of Viagra

Buy Viagra Online At

taking viagra woman

Viagra And Cannabis

generic viagra levitra and cialis pills!

Viagra Bon Marche

taking viagra woman

Impotence Viagra

cheap gerneric viagra