posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 08:24 AM
Pity this poor ghost, for it finds itself in a very post-modern predicament. You see, ghosts cannot exist out of context. There is no ghost without
a ghost story.
Without a ghost story, a "ghost" is nothing more than a series of fragmentary anomalies, easily ignored or rationalized. What is terrifying about
ghostly encounters? It isn't seeing the ghost, it is seeing the ghost and knowing what it represents. What happens when someone "sees a ghost" in
their house or in some old long abandoned building but doesn't know the story behind it? They are briefly freaked out, then, usually after they flee
or dawn breaks, they calm down. It is later, when someone tells them the terrible story of the tragic death of the favourite daughter of the third
owner of their house and the sequence of eerie events that followed...it is *then* that they become pants peeing scared.
We don't know anything about the ghost or hoaxster or coincidence of light and shadows that we can see in this picture. A good hoaxster would have
invented a backstory. A more fortunate ghost would have a story compelling enough to be repeated. As it is, I look at the photo and register it as
"A funny looking thing" without context, without purpose, without a story. It moves me not at all.
Incidentally, this is the difference between ghosts and flying saucers. When it comes to flying saucers, nevermind purpose because holy cow there's
something big floating right up in the sky. Ghosts are cursed by their subtlety. With ghosts it is all about perception, because it is all but
impossible to conceive of a medium in which a "ghost" could be recorded that would be at all convincing to anyone who wasn't there witnessing the
event. Everything else can be faked too easily, and nothing about a ghost can speak for itself in the absence of a compelling tale.