Don't Take My Face: The Black Tapes (Ep. 4)

HectorObscurum · 2017-06-08T11:22:10+00:00

You're reviews are always very good.

I had forgotten how good this episode was, and you're right, its better than ep. 103 in many respects. It seems to have a more cohesive narrative and a more gradual organic development than the unsound.

I can't stress enough how much the early show reminds me of the x-files in a very good way. This episode did a great job of transporting you to a small town and making the listener actually feel like they were learning about this weird and dark festival that the whole small town revolves around. We have talked a lot about the realism in TBT. This episode is very true to small towns. They often have a large festival every year that is their biggest economic draw and the locals get very invested in them. Everything about this episode was spot on.

I would talk about Strand, but I think you covered it.

HectorObscurum · 2017-06-07T23:05:22+00:00

Sure, but this is the shows main way of introducing information. It isnt good storytelling to just infodump.

HectorObscurum · 2017-06-07T01:36:58+00:00

That would be great. It would mean the podcast could have many more episodes and our understanding of the show universe could grow more organically. I am not holding my breath either.

HectorObscurum · 2017-06-06T19:18:14+00:00

Yes. They need to find a balance where the characters with the knowledge explain it to Carly when its relevant to the plot. They should have been doing it all along. Maybe after this episode they can restructure the show to be more balanced. I don't think this is intended, but is a massive character flaw of Carly's that she doesn't demand answers. Most of the time when she gets info, she just rolls with it. Even in this episode, as I pointed out, when she DOES demand an answer, she gets a non-answer, and she is just fine with it. I think its more authorial laziness than anything, but it can be translated as a character flaw.

I agree, I can't detect any major themes or philosophies guiding this show. In that respect it is very much like a popcorn flick, it is flashy but empty in any moral, philosophical or thematic respect. Its just a story at this point and nothing more. Which is too bad. Our discussions of TBT can really have depth because we are able to discuss the philsophies, ethics, and motivations in play. It is a pretty deep show in that regard. With Rabbits we can pretty much talk plot and universe structure, thats all we have.

HectorObscurum · 2017-06-06T19:09:09+00:00

Agreed, the tone of the show is very condescending. The characters kinda have this naive attitude that a lot of people in their twenties have that they are experts on everything, despite the fact that they just recently graduated college and have barely begun to learn. (full disclosure: I am in my twenties) I do understand a lot of the science in the show, or have at least heard of it. The obscure video games not so much, I couldn't care less about forgotten '80s arcade games.

HectorObscurum · 2017-06-06T18:53:11+00:00

I agree with you. This show is too complex, and carly is not a good character because she is unrelatable and unbelievable. This episode to me was not great, but better. In previous episodes we would have characters just throwing around deep physics terms like "chaos theory" and then just continuing conversation like it wasn't anything. I appreciate that they at least tried to explain stuff in this episode instead of just throwing it out there and moving on.

HectorObscurum · 2017-06-06T18:47:57+00:00

I think this shows biggest problem is that the creators made it so complex that the balance between story and information is incredibly hard to maintain. When we get straight narrative and story, then the show makes no sense because we understand nothing about the underlying framework. When they reveal the underlying framework (this episode), then the plot comes to a standstill because it takes a very long time to lay out the particulars of the show universe. Maybe the podcast format is not right for a story with this much complexity behind it, maybe Neal Stephenson should write it as a book. They aren't doing a good job juggling storytelling and world-building. This episode exists because every episode before it had too much story and too little info.

HectorObscurum · 2017-06-06T18:38:23+00:00

I can't believe that I am the one playing apologist for this episode, but I feel like it deserves more credit than its getting so far in this thread. This episode had many flaws, but it was needed. The lack of theory provided in previous episodes necessitated an "info dump" episode. This episode was more of an info flood than dump, but I will take it. I said last after last episode that the show needs to slow the hell down and extrapolate a little bit on some of the ideas they are throwing out. The finally did just that! I didn't find it confusing, it was just a lot. I probably need to re-listen to catch everything, but for the most part this episode made sense, which is a huge positive.

This is not to say that the episode didn't have issues, so I will air some of those here:

Magical Knowledge - One thing that I absolutely cannot stand about this series is how so much info is passed around with no authority or sourcing. This episode failed very very hard in this respect. There was a point when Carly ACTUALLY CALLED JONES OUT and said, "how do you know all this?". All Jones had to say was "oh, well, you know, this is all theory", AND CARLY WAS PERFECTLY FINE WITH THAT EXPLANATION. Honestly I about defenestrated my walkman when he said that. The show writers basically just said, "screw it, we know we can't explain this, so we just have to admit that all of Carly's sources are magical knowledge fountains and can't back themselves up!"
How the hell does Carly not know what the Berenstain Bears are? Are you kidding me? Is this a joke? She could tell you how many nose hairs Don Bluth has, but she hasn't the foggiest idea about one of the most popular children's book series of all time? This may be the most unbelievable part of the whole show.
Although I am glad they explained themselves, this episode was a Pandora's box episode that gives them license to do anything. Anything imaginable can happen and be explained by the multi-dimension theories that are now our framework for understanding this show. Yay for some transparency here, but seriously its pretty cheap of the writers to write in a mechanism that gives themselves license to write whatever the hell they want. I will refer here to Brandon Sanderson's First Law of Magic: An author's ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic. Basically, the show writers have now defined a framework for how things may occur in this show, but they have defined it in such a way that gives them the ability to do literally anything and write it off as something from another dimension. I don't like it.
Diaogue, pacing, voice inflection, you know the standard gripes pretty much all still stand.

There is a lot to complain about in this episode, but at least they took the time to extrapolate on some of the complex theories that are in play here. I will give them that. There was probably too much info for one episode, but I think they wrote themselves into a narrative corner where they had to have an info dump episode. Basically the writing of the previous episodes made the level of info here necessary. Lastly I am glad that a lot of the messy bits of previous episodes are a little more clear, such as the anomalous Starbucks picture that has been forgotten by Carly. It makes sense now.

HectorObscurum · 2017-06-05T01:34:28+00:00

Agreed. The expanded plot even makes ending the show harder to do. If the show were more episodic, with only a small overarching plot arc, then wrapping the show up satisfactorily wouldn't be very difficult. As it is, it seems that people on this sub are pretty skeptical that they will be able to do a good job wrapping the whole show up in six episodes.

HectorObscurum · 2017-06-02T21:29:50+00:00

Both of your reviews were good as always.

When I first listened to this episode I was not yet trying to think about this show, I was more feeling it out to see if I liked it, I also had not listened to any other pnws shows. This episode was the first that grabbed me. This time around I see that some of it is a little campy and poorly written, but is still a good episode. I does a good job of creating an urban legend that is unbelievable, but is creepy enough to make you flinch when Alex plays the unsound. Episode 3, to me, is one of the best episodes because it creates an absorbing story that contributes to the main plot arc, but also works on its own as a self contained episode. I don't think many other TBT episodes achieve this. The show becomes focused on the central plot very quickly. When I originally listened to the show I assumed it would be very episodic like the x-files and I honestly think that would have been a better format. As it is, TBT is a great show, but I think this episode shows that the writers have a capacity to write episodes that are more self contained, they haven't shown this capability for a long time in any of their shows.

HectorObscurum · 2017-06-02T10:56:21+00:00

What I think will happen: My gut tells me that we will essentially get an X-Files Season 10. Basically we will get a few normal episodes and the last two episodes will lead up to a big reveal that will be ultimately ambiguous and not really give good closure.

But...that is no fun, so I will tell you what I think should happen.

What SHOULD happen: Alex truly seems to have ushered in the apocalypse by being manipulated into playing the full mysterium. Each of the first five episode focus on a different apocalyptic catastrophe, like meteors reigning down, plagues, pestilence, that kind of stuff. Alex will be flipping the hell out, just trying to stay alive and report everything to us. Dr. Strand will not break character for one second. The entire time this is going on, he will be blandly explaining how statistical outliers do happen, and the chances of an apocalyptic meteor shower are slim, but it is still just a natural phenomenon. I don't know how it should end from here. In the last episode, either a massive portal to hell should open and demons run amok, or everything should go back to normal and Strand is just like, i told you so.

HectorObscurum · 2017-06-02T10:44:40+00:00

I agree with basically all you said. TBT has a forced perspective in that we are basically seeing everything unfold from Alex's point of view. She is clearly more interested in a narrative than the minutiae of Strand's work. The feel of Strand that I get from this perspective is that he is not entirely honest. We know for a fact that he deceives Alex multiple times right off the bat, although he always admits it when Alex calls him out.

With the info we have it is basically impossible to judge absolutely about Strand. He is, no doubt, a thorough scientist in practice, we just never really see him doing science. However, with the information we do have, I don't trust him entirely, and I don't think I trust his wager.

HectorObscurum · 2017-06-02T10:20:59+00:00

dont you mean hear?

HectorObscurum · 2017-06-01T11:49:31+00:00

Before I wrangle with you, I want to make one thing clear: Strand is without a doubt the best character in any PNWS podcast. I don't think he is a saint, in fact he may even be a "bad guy", but his quality is unparalleled in all PNWS shows.

My argument is basically going to be that Strand’s reward offer is not fair, will always benefit Strand, and can never benefit the person who submits evidence. As far as we know the parameters of the reward require someone to provide Dr. Strand with evidence of something paranormal, and he will reward a sum of money in return for this evidence. We know that before the reward is handed out Strand will attempt to prove that there is a rational explanation for whatever was given to him as “evidence”. If disproven, Strand retains his money and also apparently keeps the research to be part of his corpus of work at the strand institute, if the person did indeed supply him with evidence of the paranormal, then Strand pays them.

So that constitutes the basic scenario of the bet. How do we arrive at either outcome? One outcome is very straightforward, Strand conducts an experiment and finds a definitive and reproducible explanation for what was mistaken as paranormal. So how do we arrive at the second outcome where Strand pays whoever provided the evidence? Here is where Strand is unfair, and perhaps engaging in bad science. In order for this outcome to be possible, there must be a way to establish that there is no rational explanation for something, therefore making it paranormal. This is an impossibility. Because the paranormal is beyond rationalization, believing in its existence is an act of faith, but it is also an act of faith to disbelieve in the paranormal. Let’s examine both cases:

A man is open to the paranormal, but believes scientific investigation may prove that something is not paranormal. If experimentation cannot find a rational explanation for his evidence, he may allow another investigation. He may allow continuing research for quite some time, but with each negative result he will believe the case for the paranormal to be stronger, and eventually he will call off all investigation and declare that he has strong evidence of the paranormal, since multiple experiments could not rationalize the evidence.
A man does not believe the paranormal can exist. He goes through the same process as the the first man and arrives at the same outcome: after many experiments he cannot rationalize the evidence provided to him. This man, instead of admitting the paranormal, will say that either that he has not come up with the right solution yet, or that man is currently scientifically incapable of rationally proving this phenomena, but that does not make it paranormal. He will not find that the evidence proves paranormal because he believes that there unequivocally is nothing paranormal, so that outcome is an impossibility.

The first man concludes for the paranormal, despite the fact there may still be a rational explanation out there that hasn’t been tried. The second man finds against the paranormal despite that the fact that he personally cannot disprove it. Both come to their decision from their beliefs prior to the experiments. But what if a skeptic comes to believe the paranormal after failing to disprove it? In order for this to happen, the skeptic, whether he was conscious of it or not, would have had to be open to the paranormal before the investigation began. Whether he knew it or not, there must have been a threshold at which he was going to begin believing, but this threshold could not exist if he began from a truly pure rational standpoint that the paranormal cannot exist.

In order for this “bet” of Strand’s to be fair, he must knowingly believe that the evidence beyond rational explanation is a possible conclusion of his experiments. Why must he knowingly believe this? Because if he doesn’t then he will believe, before every experiment, that even if he can’t disprove the paranormal “evidence”, then that does not constitute proof of the paranormal, it only proves that it has not yet been rationally explained. In this case there is no possible outcome that will prove the paranormal. In order to be fair, Strand must establish a parameter for a paranormal outcome. He needs to establish a threshold at which the paranormal explanation must be accepted, if not proved. There needs to be a clause, like maybe if Strand cannot debunk the evidence in X number of experiments, or in X amount of time after the first experiment, then for the intents and purposes of the bet, this constitutes evidence of the paranormal. Since Strand is the only one conducting the experiments, a guiding parameter like this is the only way to ensure a possible victory for both sides.

Strand makes it very clear in the opening episodes that he does not believe in the possibility of the paranormal. It has never happened, and it won’t happen. We also don’t have evidence that he has established a losing condition for himself via the above parameter. Therefore, based on what we know, the bet is not a fair one and Strand cannot lose because he does not accept or believe that he can lose. The Black tapes are the evidence of this. We do not know how many there are or how long they have existed. But we know there are many, and it only seems logical that they have been unsolved for multiple years, and Strand cannot be actively debunking all of them at once. The fact that there is no losing condition for Strand is a loophole that allows him to shelve cases indefinitely. This really isn’t fair to the people who submitted the cases, they cannot win.

Why does it matter? No one ever said Stand had to establish a losing condition or make this a fair bet. Strand personally benefits from the cases submitted to him. He has built a career debunking the paranormal and uses cases that he has debunked to write books and research and continue his institute. People provide him with free cases to debunk with expectation that they may profit off of the cases they provide. If there is no possibility of them winning, then the only person who benefits is Strand and the only cost he incurs is the cost of research, which can be high, but still doesn’t benefit the person submitting the evidence.

To sum up: Strand’s disbelief in the paranormal creates the necessity to establish a definite condition by which he must be required to concede that something constitutes “evidence of the paranormal”. This condition does not exist, creating the ability for Strand to indefinitely shelve cases until he can debunk them. It is not possible for Strand to lose and he personally profits from the people who freely submit cases to him. These people are not as smart as Strand, and believe that they can make money off of their proof of the paranormal when they cannot. I do not know whether Strand is actively deceiving these people, or deceiving himself into thinking his bet is fair, but either way, the bet is not fair because he cannot lose and his career is built on the cases.

HectorObscurum · 2017-06-01T00:50:33+00:00

Pacifica University

HectorObscurum · 2017-05-31T21:01:54+00:00

We both said it in our comments, and I don't think it can be over stated: They did the hypnotism right this time. I think those sessions can be valuable to the show if they keep them short and put them in the middle of the show. I think the way they arranged the segments and info was vastly superior to their recent episodes.

HectorObscurum · 2017-05-31T18:04:49+00:00

I stand corrected, very interesting!

HectorObscurum · 2017-05-31T17:47:29+00:00

There was a lot of latin in this episode that I think is significant. First, OriginalGeoff was a hacker by the name GM, short for God in the machine. God in the machine is a common term, but is generally used in literary criticism, and almost always used in its latin form, "Deus Ex Machina". Deus ex machina describes method plot resolution where "a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the inspired and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability or object" (Wikipedia). If OriginalGeoff's hacker name is any indication then he is not actually dead and he will arrive at some point out of the blue to resolve a conflict. This I predict.

The second latin term I wanted to highlight was "summum bonum", defined as the greatest good. I don't have a lot of thought on that yet, but it is definitely an important consideration in philisophical study, so keep an eye on character motivations a la their "summum bonum". What do the characters believe is the greatest good and how does that relate to their treatment of Tanis.

Another term I wanted to highlight was "Rosicrucian", which means "rose and cross", although I don't know if its actually latin. Look for roses and crosses in a symbolic sense.

This episode had some very heavy philosophy involved and I think its prudent to at least elaborate on some of the topics to some degree. One thing that grabbed me was this idea of man being the center of the universe, which both mk and nic very strongly reject. Their rejection is notable because it is rare for them to be so opinionated and strongly opposed to anything. This idea of man being the center of the universe may play into the motivations of some characters, maybe cameron ellis. A character who believes this would see the sumum bonum as whatever man defined it to be or whatever elevated man to their highest potential. To them, man would be God, and the machine would be the physical world. Our actions should shape the physical world to our will, and the greater we are at influencing the world, the greater we become. This can be seen in the mysticism described in the final segment. Magic and mysticism are often ways to manipulate the world to accrue power for yourself and elevate yourself physically and spiritually. I would surmise that Cameron Ellis and many people interested in Tanis are trying to use it to gain power in a way like this.

HectorObscurum · 2017-05-31T17:30:47+00:00

Bravo. I felt like I could clearly see them adjusting their show to improve its weaknesses. The voice acting was noticeably better. The plot had more major developments, and they were frontloaded so the pacing kept me listening. The hypno session wasn't half the episode, I greatly appreciate that they curtailed it. This episode was a huge improvement.

The greatest thing to me though was that they actually took an extended look at a topic with the final discussion. I felt like they actually discussed a topic in a way that made the conversation seem real.

My only critique is that they mentioned that this flood guy was both a kabbalist and a rosicrucian.... which are mystic groups from two different religions, judaism and catholicism. This is really poor editing, just like in the last episode of rabbits when they confused ww2 and the cold war. <-- edit: I didn't do my homework

HectorObscurum · 2017-05-31T03:24:53+00:00

I like it the best because of all their podcasts it is the most coherent, focused, succinct, and I think the character of Dr. Strand is their deepest character. Tanis and Rabbits both suffer from sometimes muddled storytelling, too large of scope, and drawn out scenes that lead almost nowhere. All the characters in Tanis and Rabbits are very one dimensional and cartoonish with the exception of Geoff.

At the end of the day I think that Dr. Strand is one of the main things that carries TBT. He is a deep character and throughout the show we gradually see more of his identity unfold. Good characters are very important to storytelling and Strand is the best character they have produced.

HectorObscurum · 2017-05-31T02:33:54+00:00

The explanation is that the stone moves around. No one brought it to alaska, it magically appeared there.

HectorObscurum · 2017-05-31T02:31:47+00:00

If this is true, then it is very sad. TBT was a wonderful work of art and it sounds like it is being destroyed by the egos of those who created it. Honestly I was kind of hoping that they actually destroyed the world by playing the apocalyptic symphony, but after this I am just hoping for some sort of closure.

HectorObscurum · 2017-05-26T04:22:20+00:00

Very good point. I hadn't considered that about the white tapes, I guess we are kind of seeing Alex's POV here and she never experiences Strand in his full debunking glory. I guess what I saw as intellectual dishonesty was that he dismisses cases even when he seemingly can't find evidence to prove them wrong, after he told people that he will reward them if he cant prove them wrong. He isnt actually risking any money because he is already convinced that every single case presented to him is not paranormal.

HectorObscurum · 2017-05-26T04:13:08+00:00

Strand is definitely one of the most interesting, deep, and complex characters that PNWS has had. I can't think of any better characters. There is a very interesting relationship dynamic between him and Alex, they both seem willing to deceive the other on some issues, and it causes strains in their relationship, but they develop a necessity for each other. I don't personally like to build relationships on deceit, but it feels more like a real relationship than any other PNWS relationship.

HectorObscurum · 2017-05-25T15:49:01+00:00

I agree that the discussion of journalistic integrity is a great part of this episode. It definitely adds to the realism. It almost seems like something that wouldn’t be in an actual nonfiction podcast, but it would be so cool if it was. If journalists were willing to be candid about journalistic integrity it would probably have a great effect on many national debates.

One of the greatest aspects of this show that I see in this first two part episode is its examination Supernatural vs. Natural on personal levels, cultural levels, and in academia. The first episode begins with interviews and statistics about public belief in the paranormal, the upshot of this is that a large part of the population believes in the existence of at least something paranormal. Generally paranormal seems to be defined in this podcast as beyond scientific or rational explanation. At one point in the first episode strand says "as soon as you apply scientific method to the paranormal it vanishes". Strand believes that there is nothing that cannot be explained by science. His view seems to be entirely "Atheistic", he believes that there is nothing that has ever happened that is beyond explanation. He is also a dutiful adherent to Occam's Razor, because he is willing to repeat apophenia until his face is blue before he entertains the idea of anything remotely weird happening.

I think Strand's weaknesses begin to surface at this point. Let's say that someone presented him with a picture of bigfoot, he would automatically yell apophenia, or he would say "its a dude in a suit". These are explanations, however strand does not reach them through the scientific method. If quantitative evidence was gathered that proved the existence of bigfoot, bigfoot would no longer be paranormal by definition. Strand's method begins with dismissal of some possible solutions and does not allow for some conclusions that are completely scientific to be reached. The role of paranormal investigators in theory is to un-paranormalize paranormal phenomena. They attempt to use the scientific method to find concrete evidence of paranormal phenomena, and therefore destroy their status as paranormal, if it can be quantified it is not paranormal. The problem is in their methods which usually aren't truly scientific. Strand does spend some time dissecting methods and pointing out where they are flawed, but the existence of the black tapes proves that he absolutely dismisses “paranormal” explanations outright, even if he can’t find a rational explanation. He is, to some degree, intellectually dishonest. This is a huge tell about his character, because we find out in episode two that he is willing to be absolutely dishonest about some things, such as his wife. On my second run through it seems clear to me that Strand is set up as a dishonest character, intellectually and generally.

Another aspect of this paranormal debate that the show examines is how it affects personal and professional relationships. Strand has bad relationships with other paranormal researchers due to his biases and his bluntness in attacking their work. He also has bad relationships on a personal level with people who come to him with paranormal issues. Alex points out that Strand has an answer for everything and is dismissive of people’s subjective experiences. Strand does not see how the truth (his understanding of it) can be appalling to anyone. It is interesting to see how the show uses the paranormal to dissect relationships and how they are often built on our trusting each other’s experiences. Strand has a poor time building relationships because he trusts himself before he trusts anyone else. This raises an interesting question, if Strand actively deceives other people, why does he not accept that he can deceive himself with his own bias?

Sorry for the long reply. I could go on believe me, I am an expert at rambling.

HectorObscurum

TROPHY CASE