The Disappointed Reader

RilalyLeave a comment

“I’m disappointed, and I just can’t hide it!” I whisper/shout to the author of the book I’m reading. “You had me. You really had me, and it’s almost painful hanging here.”

Hi, I’m whatever his name is, but you can call me what’s his face, and I love a great story. Some love money and power, some love their family, and some love a really good cheeseburger. I love the great story. I love them big and small, on a device, in a book, and in a mall. I love the story you told me last week about that big, hairy guy you saw in a tank top last Tuesday at Walmart who shouted something about the price of a 3-pack of Fun Pops. If it’s unique, funny, and complete, you might have me on the edge of my seat. I might ask you so many question that you’ll “Just let me tell the story for God’s sakes” me, because I love your details. I love them so much that you will probably joke that I focus on parts of your story no one ever has ever considered before. That’s just kind of what I do. I might ask you to repeat that word you just used to describe that 3-pack of Fun Pops fella, and I might even use it later. I want to be there with you, in your story. I want to love it, enhance it, and make it my own. My leading questions might even help make your story better. I’ve done it before, without intending to do so, and I’m sure I’ll do it again. 

I might be phony in a number of ways, but my love of a great story is authentic and organic. I’m not saying my passion is greater than anyone else’s. I’m saying, we all love spending some time in the hands of a great storyteller. We used to go to the town square to hear a great story, before that the amphitheater, and the rock opposite the storyteller. No matter where or when we heard, saw, or experienced the great story, the elements have not changed. That great, classic intro led us to that rock, and the perfect climactic ending almost made us forget the fascinating information in between. Some stories entertain, some educate, but the greatest storytellers of all time find a way to meld the two in an unforgettable tome. Some of us, most of us, don’t particularly care what we are at the end, as long we’re something. Which is why when I have the finished product of a master craftsman in my hands, and they drop the ball, it’s tantamount to an ugly divorce.

They can get me. I’ll give them that. These skilled wordsmiths, who are far better at their craft than I will ever be, can have me flipping pages rapidly, flopping around at night, hours after I’ve put the book down, wondering what they’re going to do to me next, and I’ll probably be talking about those progressions the next day. When the novel is that good, I become so obsessed that I’m thinking about the possibilities throughout the day, into the night, and in my dreams. Then, boom! Nothing.

What? Why is that bookmark rotting in the place it’s been in for six months? After the flurried pace, why do I not care what happened to these characters now? It’s often so relative why we lose interest that it can be tough to pinpoint, but at some point, the author and the reader part ways on the best way to conclude this buildup.

I am a lot more patient with the author of a niche book that happened to cover a topic of particular interest to me. This book they wrote might be the only book they ever write, partake in, or have ghost written for them based on an interview. If that’s the case, my maniacal mind ask theirs, “Aren’t you afraid of losing the reader?” I try to frame my internal question in a very generous scope. They’re obviously not writers, but this product that they’re putting out has their name on it. I cut them an enormous amount of slack, in other words, but I searched for the topic of their book, so I’m obviously an eager customer. I read through the summary of the book, and it fit so well with what I was searching for that I decided to download a sample of it. Depending on the book, the sample is either the first tenth of the book. A song on the radio is a sample of an album in much the same way, the first tenth of a book is a sample of that book, right? It should contain the best writing that book has to offer. If I can barely make it through your sample, on a topic I’m inordinately interested in, the author’s writing must be terrible.

“You had me with the topic, and the summary, but your writing reads like that teacher from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” My favorite writers can make the history of grills in Mattel’s Barbie fascinating. I don’t expect that level of mastery of powerful, provocative prose from every author, but in this particular case, they have a topic that I am dying to learn more about, and they can’t even write a decent enough sample to get me to purchase their book? The author, or ghost writer, just gets lost in the description of the inanity, but even inanities can come to life with powerful prose. I’ll admit, I’m a little bitter in the sense that I can’t get published, and this guy has, but that doesn’t affect my reading selections. I might be hyper-critical when it comes to writing, but it’s only because I know I can do better. It’s not because I think I’m more intelligent, talented, or gifted in anyway. I’m just more demanding of myself. I read through what I’ve written with the fear that with any given sentence or paragraph, I can lose the reader. I’m probably more paranoid than most writers.

With master storytellers, I fall head over heels in love with their characters. I admire some from afar, embodied others, and sympathize and empathize with the rest. My favorite authors know how to create and substantiate characters, and some of them know how to juggle them in a gargantuan tome. 

In the introductory phase of the huge novel, the author’s juggling skills mesmerize, as the author introduces the MacGuffin to each character in a variety of unique ways. (The MacGuffin is a term for the literary device authors use in their plot to motivate the characters to act. The MacGuffin can be the monster in a horror story, a ring in Lord of the Rings, a glowing object in Pulp Fiction, and as filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock said, “What everybody on the screen is looking for but the audience doesn’t care about.”) The MacGuffin provides the conflict, the goal, and the theme of the interactions between the characters. Yet, even in the best novels, the MacGuffin is almost irrelevant, and we see this at the end when the MacGuffin is finally defeated in an anticlimactic and unceremonious manner.

The MacGuffin doesn’t need too many details, as the best authors allow us to paint their MacGuffin in our mind’s eye. We also see need for a simplified MacGuffin in those stories that involve intricate detail that might play well in the author’s mind, and some detail-oriented readers, but for the rest of us a simple tale of good vs. evil will do. I’ve witnessed the opposite, where a MacGuffin received painstaking detail. The author was/is a painter also, so he provided intricate detail of the visual elements of the monster, and rich details regarding their lives, values, and goals. It was so much that it was too much, and my bookmark remains in the 2/3rds of that description to this day.

I stressed the word defeated, because most modern authors try to avoid having their MacGuffin defeated. Modern authors don’t enjoy having their readers think in terms of good vs. evil or triumph vs. failure. Winning and losing is not a part of their equation, as it’s too simplistic or something, and they fear that it paints their narrative as a game or sporting event. Some authors even introduce the delusional elements of victory by having the characters defeat the MacGuffin, only to have it rise again in the midst of their celebration. When this happens, we know the author is mocking the simple-minded notion of victory, as we are only three-fourths the way through the novel. We also know to prepare for a complicated, winding effort the characters will employ to form a collusive effort that helps them overcome whatever personal, inner demons they may have had that caused them to be susceptible to their fears of the MacGuffin, or the unknown in general. In Stephen King’s It, for example, Pennywise mocks the groups’ efforts to defeat It. In It’s mockery, it actually instructs one of the individual members on the best way to defeat It. I don’t know if King struggled with the best way to convey the information necessary to kill It, but I have to think it would be better that this information comes from anyone else but the MacGuffin. It just seemed odd that It, or anything else would aid in their own destruction. If they’re evil, perhaps they should lie to the good guys, but telling them how they should approach an attack next time kind of dispels the notion that they’re truly evil. It’s complicated and deep and some of the times, readers wonder if it might be more fun if the author dropped all the pretentious efforts to please their peers and the critics and just wrote a simple novel of good defeating evil. 

In the early stages, the characters encounter the MacGuffin individually, and they’re overwhelmed by it. “We obviously cannot do this alone,” the characters say throughout the narrative in individual ways. One important trait of the typical monster story is that the meager human cannot do it alone … if at all. The methods of warfare we’ve developed are inferior to the ways of the MacGuffin, and the creativity of the human being is incredibly primitive in reference to its power. For these reasons and others, many, many others, I could not write a compelling monster narrative, for my tale would be far more interested in the human ability to overcome. My tale would be less interested in the power of the monster and more in the resolve most humans find when they’re backed into a corner. A theme of my tale would be, you think the badger is deadly when backed into corner, try a human. We might not think much of our fellow humans on most days, but while we don’t have the claws of the badger, the jaws of the alligator, or the ferocious strength of the bear, there’s a reason we sit atop the animal kingdom, the human brain. The best you’ll ever see of a human happens just after they’re backed into a corner. When they’re so desperate that they think their lives will end, they will find some levels of ingenious resolve they didn’t even know existed. My characters want to live, and they will do whatever is necessary to see one more day. If the gun doesn’t work, and it doesn’t in an overwhelming majority of most monster stories, they’ll try something else, and then something else to help them survive. Such a theme would not play well in most monster movies, because at all points in between, and with very specific characters, it’s not about them, and they usually do nothing but lay there in the spot the director designated for the death scene. If they fight or thrash about a bit, it’s often a minimal fight. More often than not, all they do is scream.  

After they experience nothing but failure in the face of the MacGuffin, they seek others who’ve experienced similar, but different, failures in their respective interactions with it. They learn a lot about it and themselves in the process, and they bring that knowledge to the other group, who have uncovered their own truths. They then use that combined knowledge to carve out some temporary peace for themselves. In doing so, the author effortlessly funnels these characters together in a quest to defeat, uncover, or discover a truth about the MacGuffin. The ebb and flow of this part of the narrative is often the most engaging and provocative part. If it wasn’t so engaging, I would consider dropping most novels at this point, because the buildup, for me, is the part that builds the obsession. 

At some point, the author needs to make an initial reveal, a tease, and a summation of what the author has spent hundreds of pages foreshadowing. The reveal involves a progressed, unexplained truth about the MacGuffin. The quality author teases this out, and they leave us in some doubt about whether or not it is in fact a truth. There are relative truths each character discovers and even though the author depicts their characters as weak, the narrative is still about them, and their perspective. It is about the MacGuffin, but it’s not.  

In this reveal, we’re not entirely sure what happened, but we know that one of the novel’s most beloved, but expendable side characters, (the proverbial red-shirted Ensign from Star Trek), is dead. Some believe the guy in the red shirt did something ill-advised, and they place much of the blame for his death on him. This permits them to continue to believe the MacGuffin is benevolent, as they continue to argue with those who view the MacGuffin as vindictive and vengeful (a hint at various interpretations of God, Satan, or some confusing hybrid of both). This scene also permits the author to reveal the powers of the MacGuffin, a power that will cause the reader to fear it, but the power will later be diminished by whatever the group of characters chose to define it.

One character, often the militaristic lunatic, steps forward to demand revenge or retribution. He wants to eradicate the MacGuffin from the Earth as a result of the beloved side character’s death. The militaristic side character also seeks to disguise his bloodlust as a form of protection, under the proviso that he could be next, or we could, and he believes in the tooth for a tooth response to what he perceives to be the MacGuffin’s deadly aggression. The majority disagree and side with the saner main character who suggests the group needs a more complex, less violent resolution. 

The characters have obeyed the rules, based on the nature of the MacGuffin they’ve collectively discovered thus far, but they’ve also found some loopholes. If they do this, while doing that, there will be no ramifications from the MacGuffin. There are rise and fall and fall and rise, a rise, fall, rise, or a fall, rise, fall arcs throughout to build the tension. The characters learn from their mistakes. 

The various arcs appeal to just about everyone, as we try to keep an open mind. At some point, we begin to identify with the problem-resolution ideas of one character over the others. We also enjoy the love-interest angle two of the leaders developed, how the sick child became sick, and if it can be attributed to the MacGuffin in some way, but we keep coming back to the ultimate resolution. 

For those of us who have read a number of modern books, and watched such storylines play out on current TV shows and movies, we pretty much know where 99% of them are headed. We might disagree with the angle the characters choose, but more that, we know that eventually the author will have to choose sides in this dilemma, and we always know what side the more modern authors are going to take. The only drama left, is how is they are going to get there.

They often lead us into “their” position with numerous, failed efforts by the lunatic, military type to wipe the MacGuffin off the face of the planet with some drastic overreach that will affect life on Earth. We are to side with the intellectual pacifist, normally employed as a scientist, a professor, or a reporter in most modern stories. This is where the gist of the story becomes clear. The MacGuffin is not bad, or evil in the simplistic terms we use to define good vs. evil. Is the white shark bad, the bear, or the tiger? No, they just want to eat, but in our cartoonish narratives, we often depict them as mean, and they always have an otherworldly growl that shakes us to our bones. Plus, there is a now a complex, rational explanation for the death of the beloved side character, and any related activities that follow. The whole idea that the MacGuffin was a bad entity, was a relative term defined by the obnoxious, military man who just wants to blow stuff up. The more rational scientist, professor, or reporter finds another way that turns out to be correct. They find a way to communicate with the MacGuffin. This narrative often dismisses the fact that some MacGuffins we encounter in life are bad, and  in real life we shouldn’t be so naïve as to believe every MacGuffin is misunderstood. We might meet a real bad guy in life, our MacGuffin, and if we choose to try to talk to them, or advise counseling, they’ll be back to do what they did to us, to someone else. This part of the narrative is often the whole purpose of the artist starting this project, to have the author’s side win. Logic often prevails, but the conflicted logician may employ some violent tendencies, as a subtle ode to those who enjoy some level of violence in every storyline, or to display the main character’s progressed desperation, but it’s often directed at the the real bad guys of this narrative, the irrational, militaristic bad guys who won’t listen to her.

Again, I could not write a modern monster story, because my problem solving techniques would be too simplistic, anti-climactic, and a little boring. My resolution would probably involve a gun. One of my characters would pull out a gun and shoot the MacGuffin dead. If that didn’t work, my character would shoot it again, multiple times, until it is dead. If that didn’t work, the character would try something else. This resolution would probably bore most modern monster book readers, because they prefer conflict resolutions that are deep, complicated, and multidimensional. My methodology is if one thing doesn’t work, try another. Gather all of the most brilliant minds, militaristic and otherwise, and try to develop a master plan of attack. In the modern monster movie, nothing works. I understand that leads to some compelling drama that defines their desperation, but this cliché often leads the authors to fall prey to some formulaic storytelling. 

It’s not that I want the author to write a story that employs my fundamentals, or that I want my side to win, it’s the eventual formula of these stories I find so deflating. Most modern authors play it safe with a formula loaded with so many clichés, tropes, and stereotypical characterizations that I eventually put the book out of its misery. I empathize with the difficulty of adding it all up to a fiery crescendo, but how many endings just crush? I’d say very few. I don’t know if some authors write too many books, or if they overcome blocks by just writing what amounts to the same endings every time out, but their formulas often leave me wanting. 

“What would you have done different?” defenders of the modern author might ask. It’s not my project, and I’m not the skilled author that brought the reader, almost effortlessly to point ‘R’, in the ‘A’ to ‘Z’ progression. They fumbled the ball three-fourths the way through is what I’m saying, and they had such a healthy drive going. “Do you think you could’ve done better?” No, but I would’ve done it different. I’ve given up on the big ‘O’, originality, because it’s almost impossible to be original nowadays, and an artist could go mad in the effort. Doing different is not always original, but the author could vie for unique. Every modern author, it seems, travels from ‘R’ to ‘Z’ in almost the exact same way. Why wouldn’t you take a right at ‘T’ or a left at ‘V’ to surprise me with something different? There’s just so much same-same going on in most novels that I can predict where they’re headed.

I still love the great story, and I probably always will. I might ‘X’ some authors out for the predictability of their formula, but that doesn’t mean that I’ve given up on the art of storytelling. I’m always on the lookout for the next great story from the next great author who shocks me with their innovative approach, unique techniques, their style, and a crushing crescendo, but I’ve been beat down by those who fall back on the tried and true. 

Rilalities XII

RilalyLeave a comment

Story, Harrowing Story

“Our son overdosed on Tylenol,” a mom and dad said entering a hospital’s emergency department. When they were directed to a room, they informed the nurse that the family experienced a dispute in their home. Their teenage son didn’t deal with it well. “He overdosed to teach us a lesson,” the parents informed the nurse. The argument, it turned out, was based on a huge misunderstanding. After emotions subsided, the three put the missing puzzle pieces back in place and realized what happened. (The author doesn’t know the particulars.) The parents and their son concluded their Q&A with the nurse by telling her they were in the emergency room that day to get their son’s stomach pumped.

“Okay,” the nurse said after the parents explained what happened in their home. “When did he take the Tylenol, and how much?”

“It’s been a couple days,” the mother said, “and he took almost an entire bottle.” She had the near empty bottle with her, and she informed the nurse that it was full before the incident. The mother finished that explanation with a compassionate smile directed at her son, and she mouthed, ‘It’s okay,’ to him.

The nurse made a mental note that she later shared with the doctor “that the three appeared almost happy, or maybe relieved in some odd way.”

The doctor agreed, and he said, “I think they were relieved that the heated argument was over, and they were just happy to have their son back.” 

 

“The treatment for an acetaminophen overdose is a drug called acetylcysteine,” the doctor informed them when he sat in the emergency room, about a half an hour after the nurse left, “but it only shows maximum effectiveness within an eight hour window of the overdose. We will use acetylcysteine, and we will also perform a gastric lavage or nasogastric tube suction, or what you call a stomach pump, but there are similar time constraints on the maximum effectiveness of those procedures too. The problem with ingesting so much acetaminophen and leaving it in the system for so long, is that it has been absorbed by the liver.”

“So, so, what does that mean?” the family asked.

“Our medical team is going to do everything at our disposal today,” the doctor said, “but my job is to make sure you are well aware of the facts of the situation here.”

“And the facts are?” the mother asked.

The doctor had sympathy for the patient and his parents inability to grasp the severity of the matter, and he tried to describe the ramifications as delicately and with as much sympathy as he could. He chose his words carefully while repeating everything he said about the effectiveness of acetylcysteine and stomach pumps after a couple of days, and he repeated what he said about the medical team at that hospital doing everything they could do to help their son, “But if your son took as much Tylenol as you’ve described here today, this is going to be as difficult a situation as you can imagine.”

We can only imagine how difficult this was for the doctor, and we can imagine that the parents put the doctor through it over and over in excruciating detail, asking questions we might regard as obtuse, but what was, in fact, a couple of parents and a son having a difficult time digesting the grim reality of the situation. We have to imagine that they interrogated the doctor, until he finally broke down and said, “In cases such as these, the normal life expectancy is around two-three-days.”

After the initial hysteria broke down, we can also imagine that the parents and their child enjoyed their final moments together. The reports suggest that this is a painful way to die, but if the son was able to manage the pain to a certain degree, we can imagine that the three of them did everything they could to celebrate his last days on earth. 

The team of medical professionals tried acetylcysteine, they performed the stomach pump, and anything and everything at their disposal. The teenage boy died two days later. 

I heard this story decades ago, and it still haunts me. It’s the da Vinci of stories. It doesn’t matter the angle, or perspective, it stares back at you as hard as you stare at it. How could the parents not know their child overdosed? For a couple of days? Was the argument so intense that they were not on speaking terms? I don’t know much about overdoses of this nature, but how was he not showing concerning symptoms, concerning to him in particular? We can only imagine that the parents have dreams where they spot something and do something sooner.

As much as the parents probably went through, and still go through, we have to imagine that no one involved in this situation will ever forget it. Everyone from the nurse, to the doctor, to anyone else involved still have nightmares about it. It’s also a harrowing reminder that no matter how bad the fight, or how profound the disagreement, get it out, get it all out, speak to the ones you love, and straighten it all out before it’s too late. 

Heart Attack

Those who were there know that I had a rocky relationship with my dad. We were two stubborn, ornery, Irish roosters butting heads. He kept me in check by threatening to kick me out of the house. I didn’t want to leave my home, and I didn’t want to be known as the kid who got kicked out of the home. My plan, once I got out on my own, was to never forgive him and never forget what he did to me. Years into the plan, my dad had a massive heart attack. His chances of survival were slim. I visited him and saw him hooked up to a variety of machines, and I realized that no matter how awful he was to me, he was the last parent I had left in life. He survived, barely.

We spent the next eleven years rectifying everything that happened during my youth. During these eleven years, I thanked him for assuming the role of step-father for me when I was two-years-old. That was so hard. It was difficult to avoid qualifying it, and placing “But you did this to me” type of asterisks. I left it as a standalone thank you. 

It was the best thing I ever did. I wish he would’ve lived for another ten to twenty years, but he didn’t. When he eventually passed away, however, I said goodbye to him with a heart free of anger, without the need for some sort of retribution, and hatred. If he died after the first heart attack, I would’ve been an absolute wreck. The moral of the story is, no matter how bad the fight between you and your loved ones is, get it out, speak to one another, and straighten it out before it’s too late.

Why I Write

Ever drive down the road and see a bumper sticker with exclamatory statements on their car? How about that guy who wears a T-shirt, in public, that says something meaningful? And what about that guy we all know who debates his friends on a variety of topics, with a palpable sense of frustration. “No one will listen to me,” he shouts. Everyone who talks to that guy feels his underlying sense of frustration, and they know how angry he is. We begin to interact with him less and less, because we know he can turn everything from a discussion on geopolitics to whether or not the snap pea is a delicious food into an uncomfortably confrontational argument. Every time I meet that guy, I’m so glad I’m not him anymore. That guy has no venue. He needs to express himself all over you. Whether you deem the material I discuss valuable or not, I found my venue. 

I always valued friendship over the temporary feelings one can derive through defeating another in an argument, but I felt a certain sense of frustration when no one would agree with me. When I expressed some anger and frustration, people would give me that extra look. If you’ve seen that look, you know it. That look follows you, and it says something uncomfortably revealing about you. It’s a double-take that precedes most rational, sane people just walking away. Others, who care about you, say, “Maybe you need some counseling.” Tried it, didn’t work for me. I wouldn’t say the counselor was stupid, or I am more intelligent, but she didn’t understand me. I didn’t understand me, until I found an outlet. I wouldn’t say I was complex, or anything extra ordinary, but there was no question that I needed to do something to get everything that was in me, out. 

“Music sets the sick ones free,” Andrew Wood, lead singer of Mother Love Bone, once wrote. That was me. I didn’t just love music, I needed it. I could drop the cliché that I needed music, like some people need oxygen, but it wasn’t that severe. I prefer to think of my need for music to help balance my mental stability as one might view a farmer living out on the prairie with little-to-no law enforcement. I needed music the way those farmers need to be armed to protect their land, their livestock, and their family. The only issue was I never wanted to be anything more than a music listener. I didn’t know how to play an instrument, and I didn’t have the patience to learn one. Yet, I was in desperate need of some form of self-expression in some sort of artistic manner. 

If “Music sets the sick ones free,” and I believe it does, writing was directed neurological therapy for me. Music was equivalent to a neurologist prescribing necessary over the counter pain medication. Writing, would prove the directed neurotherapy a neurologist might prescribe after repeated visits and extensive study of my reactions to everything prior.  

I was never ill, compromised, or depressed in any substantial manner, but I had an internal itch that ruined days. Writing felt substantial to me. I wanted it all, but when it didn’t come, I kept writing. I was no prodigy. I wrote some awful stuff, but I loved it, needed it, and I kept wanting to do it no matter what. Writing anything and everything I could think up is what has led me to the definition of sanity I now know.

No Hugging and No Learning

When I watched Seinfeld, I had no idea why it appealed to me so much. It was funny, of course, but there were dozens of situation comedies on the air at the time, and hundreds of them throughout history. Seinfeld was special to me, and I had no idea why. When I learned that the writer’s room had a “no hugging and no learning” thematic approach, I said, “That’s it” to myself.

Seinfeld was special, because it wasn’t “special”. Everyone from the creators, writers, on down to the actors made no effort to be special, nor did they add special ingredients into the mix. The special ingredients for most writers on most situation comedies involved the “very special episodes”. These episodes made special connections to the audience through special issues. A character, in their narrative, discovers that they’ve been so wrong for so long that they now question their foundation, and the audience understands, agrees, cries, hugs, and leaps to their feet in “clapture”. Clapture is a framing technique used by comedy writers to get the (Emmy!) audience to clap with laughter, or to agree with them more than laugh. I didn’t realize, until Seinfeld, how cringeworthy those special, meaningful messages were. The Seinfeld writers maintained that there would be no hugging, no learning, and if I might add, no special understandings in their show. They just tried to be funny. When we watch such shows, we always wonder if they reflect our values, or if we begin to reflect theirs. I think Seinfeld, more than any other sitcom I’ve watched, reflects my values. I prefer a good steak with very little seasoning and nothing else! Unless steak sauce is used to cover up the quality of the meat, I want nothing else on my steak. If you’re going to come at me and tell me what you really think of me, I prefer that you come bold with no qualifiers. I also prefer music that is complicated, fun, interesting, creative, relatively brilliant, unique, and utterly meaningless. Don’t tell me what you think of the domestic economy of Istanbul, the mating habits of the emu, or anything else that you wished you put in your college thesis. Just write lyrics that fit the music and be done with it. Seinfeld, in my opinion, met all of those standards.  

The “Afflicted” Girls in the Salem Witch Trials

RilalyLeave a comment

In the months between February 1692 to May 1693, nineteen citizens of Salem, Massachusetts (14 women and 5 men) were executed for the charge of being a witch. One person was tortured to death for refusing to admit he was a witch, and five people died in jail after being accused. More than 200 people were accused in what we now call the Salem Witch Trials, and five dogs. As harrowing as it is to believe that a small American village executed twenty of its citizens, Europe executed up to 80,000 between 1500 and 1660. 

History.com writes that the hysteria swirling around Salem, Massachusetts began in “January 1692, [when a] 9-year-old Elizabeth (Betty) Parris and 11-year-old Abigail Williams (the daughter and niece of Samuel Parris, minister of Salem Village) began having fits, including violent contortions and uncontrollable outbursts of screaming.” Even though the medical community knew about ergotism, the residents did not know what afflicted these girls. The Parris family called in a doctor named William Griggs. Dr. Griggs could not diagnose the girls, and he declared their fits were “beyond epileptic or natural disease”. Dr. Griggs fell prey to the very human condition that applied to their day, as much as it does to today, of filling in the blanks he couldn’t by suggesting that the girls were victims of a supernatural bewitching. 

Based on that diagnosis the Parris family were distraught, and they decided to accuse three women of bewitching their girls, including a woman named Tituba. After weighing the evidence against her, and the cultural climate surrounding Salem at the time, Tituba unknowingly set a precedent for those who would be accused in the future by confessing to “the crime” of bewitching. She confessed, we can only surmise, because she knew the deck was stacked against her, and she would be convicted regardless. In her confession, Tituba implicated others by saying that they worked alongside her in the service of the devil against the Puritans. Seeing how Tituba beat the system by providing states evidence, as it were, future accused witches confessed to similar charges to avoid execution and/or imprisonment, and they, too, began assisting the state by informing on other witches. Hysteria spread throughout the Salem community, and the local justice system was soon overwhelmed.

There were a number of factors surrounding Salem at the time to add to the culture of fear, including the fear of neighboring communities, fear of attacks from Native American tribes, and what historians call “The Little Ice Age” that destroyed their economy and many elements of their daily life. To explain what they considered inexplicable, the residents of Salem turned, in fear, to the supernatural, witches, and the devil to explain why their lives were destroyed.

Amid this culture of fear, four other young girls, all between ages nine to twenty, began accusing their neighbors of witchcraft. The six girls were commonly referred to as the afflicted girls. The afflicted girls would accuse, testify in court, and drop to the floor in convulsions during the witch trials. There are a number of theories regarding why these six girls did what they did to lead to public executions, but the one thing we now know with absolute certainty, with no facts to bolster that certainty, is that they were not lying or faking the convulsions.

One of the most wide-spread modern theories to explain the ailment the Parris and Williams girls suffered from is ergotism. Ergotism, or ergot poisoning is a result of a long-term ingestion of ergot alkaloids, or mold, that can be found on rye, wheat, and other cereals, which were all primary components of the diet of Salem residents. In the list of symptoms of Ergotism is delusions, hallucinations, vomiting and muscle spasms that could lead to convulsions, which many say lines up with the symptoms the Parris and Williams girls experienced.

As with any theory of matters that have occurred nearly three hundred years ago, historians have debunked this theory. Historians Nicholas Spanos and Jack Gottlieb argue if the young girls were victims of ergot poisoning why weren’t there more cases in Salem, and why wasn’t the rest of their family in their homes afflicted? The two historians admit that ergotism only takes place in hosts suffering from a vitamin A deficiency, but they state that Salem was rich with cows and their milk, so they conclude that it isn’t possible for a resident of Salem to suffer a vitamin A deficiency. They do not include the possibility that these two girls did not enjoy the taste of milk, so they didn’t drink it. They also do not include the possibility that the girls suffered from underlying conditions, such as bleeding stomach ulcers or some form of malnourishment that could’ve led to a greater susceptibility to ergotism via the ergot alkaloids. Nor do they consider the general idea that funguses and mold can affect individuals in the same house, with the same genes, different, based on varying underlying conditions.

Another theory is that the four girls who followed the Parris girls may have suffered from a psychogenic illness called mass hysteria in which one exhibits symptoms and another, unconsciously, begins exhibiting the same symptoms.

“We’ll probably never know the truth of what happened to these girls,” one person, with alleged authority on the subject suggests, “but the one thing we know is they weren’t faking it.”

One quick read through the history of the Salem Witch Trials can lead the reader to some impulsive reactions and cynical, knee-jerk assumptions. Those of us who want to know the truth, try very hard not to fall prey to our own biases, so we keep reading and researching. We do find out we’re wrong, on occasion, but more often than not, we read through all the thoughts and theories on the matter, and we find a whole lot of overthinking, until we fall back on our all-too-simplistic assumption that the afflicted girls made false accusations and they faked their convulsions.

All of the theories about what caused the girls to go into convulsions are not just possible, they’re probable, but the certainty some display in the face of what happened is what draws us back to our impulsive and cynical guesses. If we can rule out ergotism and mass hysteria, with no proof, how can we rule out the idea that they were lying and faking? Especially when one of them, Mary Warren, admitted that “afflicted persons did but dissemble,” or fake their symptoms. Now we know that Ms. Warren later recanted and accused those who might have pressured her into making the admission, but she provided the only evidence for any of the primary theories.

Another crucial element that leads me to believe that the afflicted girls were faking it, was the timing of their convulsions. We weren’t there for the proceedings, of course, and we don’t have the minutes of the trial, but the historical recreations lead us to assume that the convulsions the afflicted girls experienced in the courtroom were conveniently timed to convince the judges of the accused’s guilt. When Mary Warren was asked, in court, to clarify her statement that “afflicted persons did but dissemble,” or fake their symptoms, the afflicted girls in the courtroom went into convulsions. Mary Warren responded, on the stand, by going into her own convulsions. This fits the definition of mass hysteria, provided above, but it doesn’t explain the case for ergotism, and it could be argued that it only bolsters the cynical argument that they were all faking it.    

One of the reasons, I think, that we seek to nullify the claim that they were lying and faking, is that it’s almost too horrific to imagine that anyone would purposely, and maliciously make a claim that leads to the executions of those they accuse. Cynical types, who impulsively believe the worst of humanity, often have no proof for their assertions, but those who impulsively believe everything is more complicated than all that don’t either.  

One of the causes historians list as a cause for the Salem Witch Trials is the fear of the powerful women. To say full-grown women were second class citizens in 1692-93 Salem, Massachusetts, is being generous, and whatever power women had in Salem, young women had even less. Is it possible that these young women enjoyed their brief moment in the Sun? Not possible? Too cynical?

The next point that most historians consider to bolster their claim that the patriarchy feared and loathed strong women, is that they wanted to keep them in a state of fear. This is plausible, because while the Puritans of Salem considered women equal before God, they considered them more susceptible to the wickedness of the Devil. They suggested the later based on the story of Eve falling prey to the temptation of eating the apple in the garden of Eden. These characterizations are all unfortunately true, but while the thrust of the campaign might have been engineered by men, for men, it may not have gained a foothold in the culture were it not for the accusations made by the young girls. It’s also worth noting that five men were executed, and there is a list of men who were named, accused, imprisoned, and otherwise had their names sullied.  

We’ll never know the truth, and I’m not saying I know better than anyone else, but when someone tells me that one theory is categorically false, without any evidence to back that claim up, my mind immediately invites those possibilities in.

“Think about it,” we say when someone else is so muddled in their thoughts that they can’t see straight. We might say that when someone is so blinded by simple truths that they can’t see the evidence that complicates the matter. We also say it when someone’s conclusion is so clouded by evidence that they sift and sort through it to develop speculation that complicates the matter so much they can’t see a simple truth. The simple truth of the matter is supernatural witches with supernatural powers do not exist. They might exist in a realm we don’t understand, but how often do we use otherworldly spirits to explain the gaps in our understanding of the human mind? We wonder, how can one man kill another with no feeling, he must be a monster, a vampire, a werewolf, or something else supernatural, because no normal man would kill another without reason. We can also use them to explain how a seemingly normal person can somehow fail to generate a sympathetic response to the aftermath of blind rage. It was the nature of residents of Salem, Massachusetts to blame supernatural spirits and monsters to explain what they could not explain then, it’s human nature now, and it probably always will be, because “We’ve seen things that no one can explain.”

We make fun of the people who lived over three hundred years ago for believing in such things, but my bet is that for the next three hundred years we’ll continue to believe someone, somewhere exhibits such powers. The only problem is that over the course of the last couple thousand years, we have yet to find substantial proof of it. Supernatural witches, and their Specters, a fancy term they used for spirits, ghosts, or demonic forces that the accused would allegedly sic on the victim don’t exist in the same manner that vampires, Frankenstein’s monster and Spongebob Squarepants don’t exist.