• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Docufiction In Ufology


With 9 being the most fictional, where do Whitley Strieber's claims rate as docufiction?

  • DF-1

    Votes: 2 5.9%
  • DF-2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • DF-3

    Votes: 2 5.9%
  • DF-4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • DF-5

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • DF-6

    Votes: 2 5.9%
  • DF-7

    Votes: 6 17.6%
  • DF-8

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • DF-9

    Votes: 20 58.8%

  • Total voters
    34

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Docufiction ( or docu-fiction, often confused with docudrama ) is a neologism which refers to the cinematographic combination of documentary and fiction. It is a film genre which attempts to capture reality such as it is (as direct cinema or cinéma vérité) and which simultaneously introduces unreal elements or fictional situations in narrative in order to strength the representation of reality using some kind of artistic expression. - Wikipedia

I submit that the principle of docufiction extends to any form of media including books, e-books, audio books, lectures, radio and other means of communication. How much docufiction do we find in ufology? That is the question for this thread. Don't forget to vote above!
 
So far ... people think more than half of what Whitley says is fiction ... not surprising really. When Communion first came out I thought it was a novel until I saw him interviewed on the Tonight Show.
 
I'm curious why you think it's valid to consider it docufiction when his books are clearly labelled as either fiction or non fiction. Furthermore, he's very clear about the differences between the two, he describes his fiction as a mix between things he's heard or claims to know but cannot prove, which is consistent with the concept of docufiction. His non fiction, however, is supposed to be completely real. That's how he presents it, anyway. I think just labeling it all docufiction is a bit of a cop out.
 
So is your issue with Strieber or docufiction in ufology?

I'm not sure what context to put the word "issue" in. So I'll try to clarify it this way: I'm not trying to "make an issue out of it" ( as in make it into a point of argument or contention with respect to Strieber ), so much as just put it out there for general discussion with Strieber as an example. Muadib suggests that "labeling it [ Strieber's work ] all docufiction is a bit of a cop out", and I'd have to agree. However at the same time, I don't think standard publisher labeling includes a designation for "docufiction" so they probably just list it under whatever they think is appropriate, and they don't really take the time to make the kind of analysis that we do.

The topic of docufiction also brings up the issue of opportunism. How many of these sketchy YouTube videos of vague night lights off in the distance do we have to wade through in the name of ufology? It's as if it's a given fact that if you post any stupid alleged UFO video you're guaranteed so many page views, and of course if you can get enough, then the advertising revenue kicks in. So where do we draw the line between a hoax and "docufiction"? In my view the series pilot of the X-Files was a good example of docufiction where over 90% was fiction, but because we knew it was drama that was based very loosely on real events, it made it entertaining to watch and discuss. Perhaps it boils down to the other point that Muadib made about how it's promoted to begin with. We can't deny the logic there, but it's not always a simple matter to establish intent ... or is it ... thoughts?
 
I'm not sure what context to put the word "issue" in. So I'll try to clarify it this way: I'm not trying to "make an issue out of it" ( as in make it into a point of argument or contention with respect to Strieber ), so much as just put it out there for general discussion with Strieber as an example. Muadib suggests that "labeling it [ Strieber's work ] all docufiction is a bit of a cop out", and I'd have to agree. However at the same time, I don't think standard publisher labeling includes a designation for "docufiction" so they probably just list it under whatever they think is appropriate, and they don't really take the time to make the kind of analysis that we do.

The topic of docufiction also brings up the issue of opportunism. How many of these sketchy YouTube videos of vague night lights off in the distance do we have to wade through in the name of ufology? It's as if it's a given fact that if you post any stupid alleged UFO video you're guaranteed so many page views, and of course if you can get enough, then the advertising revenue kicks in. So where do we draw the line between a hoax and "docufiction"? In my view the series pilot of the X-Files was a good example of docufiction where over 90% was fiction, but because we knew it was drama that was based very loosely on real events, it made it entertaining to watch and discuss. Perhaps it boils down to the other point that Muadib made about how it's promoted to begin with. We can't deny the logic there, but it's not always a simple matter to establish intent ... or is it ... thoughts?

Normally, I'd completely agree with the fact that establishing intent is a very difficult proposition. In Whitley Strieber's case, however, he's done it for us. He absolutely claims that the events documented in his non fiction books are real events, many of his books state it right in the preface or within the first couple of chapters. We also need to look at his statements on his fictional books, which is that they are based on things that he has heard, been told or believes to be true, but he cannot prove. Which would imply, to me anyway, that his non fiction books contain material that he can prove. To my knowledge, and I've been a reader of his for a long time, he hasn't brought forward what I would call conclusive evidence to prove his claims but nevertheless, he does claim to be able to prove them. I think removing his obligation to prove his case by labeling all of his books docufiction is, like I said, a bit of a cop out. If Whitley wants to make claims he has the same obligation that anyone else does in establishing that claim as fact, since he hasn't done that we definitely shouldn't take his claims that some of his books are non fiction seriously, but we also shouldn't ignore the fact that his intent is to present them as real events. Whether this is done simply to sell books or because he really believes them to be true is a matter for further debate, though I do find him sincere in his assertion that the events that happened to him are real, even if I do disagree with some of his interpretations. I think Ward said it best in the other thread, sometimes Whitley seems to have trouble distinguishing between fantasy and reality. I also don't think that we need to follow him down the rabbit hole to enjoy his work. That's just my opinion though.
 
How much docufiction do we find in ufology?
Quite a bit of docufiction, starting with Donald Keyhoe. He colorfully interpreted events to portray them as flying saucer cases and then added scenes and dialogue to depict the scenes dramatically.

Once a reader learns a story via a docufiction account, can they be expected to relearn the story with the dramatic enhancements elements excised? I think the first exposure will always be dominant and make it difficult for them to approach things on the basis of the facts alone.
 
I may be among the few here, but I don't see why sprinkling in some fiction for salt and pepper's sake automatically means Strieber's stories are all bogus. Like I've said before, that behavior is not only innate to who he is, but since we just need a small percentage - any percentage - of the contact experience to be true, the rest is dressing anyway.

Do we care if all the surrounding stories about his odd experiences in NYC or as a kid are bullshit if the stories in upstate NY were (mostly) true? I don't.
 
Quite a bit of docufiction, starting with Donald Keyhoe. He colorfully interpreted events to portray them as flying saucer cases and then added scenes and dialogue to depict the scenes dramatically.

Once a reader learns a story via a docufiction account, can they be expected to relearn the story with the dramatic enhancements elements excised? I think the first exposure will always be dominant and make it difficult for them to approach things on the basis of the facts alone.

The inclusion of scenes and dialogue that were part of an actual event does not make a work into fiction, and I don't recall Keyhoe doing a lot of obvious embellishing. The accounts in his books are from NICAP case files, which were managed by Richard Hall, who did excellent work. I don't think we can begin to compare the objectivity of Keyhoe's books to those of Strieber or other alledged contactees or abductees . They're just not in the same league at all.
 
Normally, I'd completely agree with the fact that establishing intent is a very difficult proposition. In Whitley Strieber's case, however, he's done it for us ...

All really well said, but I'm reserving comment on the judgment of "cop-out" for now pending further reflection. That is not to say that it may not apply, but for the sake of discussion, because it is the very nature of docufiction to be promoted as truth while at the same time being heavily embellished, we should expect the creator to make the claim that it's true while at the same time recognizing the work for what it is. If we don't, then that's our fault, which puts the responsibility on the viewer to either buy into it or not ( caveat emptor ). So now we have to ask ourselves, where is the line between caveat emptor and false advertising? Or even more to the point, is docufiction a legitimate form of artistic expression? In the case of Strieber, he is a well known fiction author and therefore has a background that establishes him as an artist. Hypothetically, a reasonable argument could be made that his reputation legitimizes his docufiction as a genuine art form.
 
I may be among the few here, but I don't see why sprinkling in some fiction for salt and pepper's sake automatically means Strieber's stories are all bogus. Like I've said before, that behavior is not only innate to who he is, but since we just need a small percentage - any percentage - of the contact experience to be true, the rest is dressing anyway. Do we care if all the surrounding stories about his odd experiences in NYC or as a kid are bullshit if the stories in upstate NY were (mostly) true? I don't.

His stories about his childhood experiences really resonated with me because I had some similar experiences. As mentioned above, the more I look at Strieber's work, the more I see it as an art form, and like other art forms the experiencer tends to extract their own meaning from it.
 
I think he's pretty clear about what he saw. The problem he seems to have is placing a label on it.

If I were to write docufiction, I'd be pretty clear about what I saw too. But I'm not a fiction writer like Strieber. I think I voted 6 on the poll, and that's going way out on a limb. I'm just going on a sort of intuitive belief that some of it is true and some is fiction. Some is more well delineated ( Global Superstorm, Wolfen ), some much less ( Secret School ).
 
I don't normally go for the "throw the baby out with the bath water" route. For example, I think that some of Lazar's story may be true, even if he faked his academic credentials.

In the case of Strieber though I throw the whole thing out. The guy has 1-upped himself over and over again. Every time he's on Coast to Coast he has some new thing that he's experienced. The fact that he's a decent writer makes it hard to believe ANY of it at this point.

If I get reallllly bored some day maybe I'll make a compilation of all his claims. There's a reason he only goes on shows that lob him softballs: it would be too hard to keep all of his stories straight if he was on Paracast. I'd love to hear you guys take him to task on his "evolving" story.

Have a DF-9 Whitley. I have no love for people that piss in the pool just to put a few shekels in their back pocket.
 
So now we have to ask ourselves, where is the line between caveat emptor and false advertising? Or even more to the point, is docufiction a legitimate form of artistic expression? In the case of Strieber, he is a well known fiction author and therefore has a background that establishes him as an artist. Hypothetically, a reasonable argument could be made that his reputation legitimizes his docufiction as a genuine art form.

I'm there for the idea of the docufuction artform; however, those who promote the fiction as non-fiction, start talking circles that look more like cults or religions, need to be up front about the artform aspect, instead of misleading people down a long and winding road. And TalkingMeatSuit is right, this type of peeing in the pool of Ufology only sets the discipline backwards, and runs the risk of damaging people who might have real, legitimate needs based on really strange, painful and disturbing experiences. The whole abductee phenomenon needs some serious revisions.
 
Back
Top