Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind production of My
Speaker 1: Heart Radio. Hey you welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind.
Speaker 1: My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Joe McCormick, and
Speaker 1: we're back with the second installment this year of our
Speaker 1: anthology horror series. Uh. This, I guess is going to
Speaker 1: be the fifth anthology episode overall. Yeah, I believet so
Speaker 1: this should be episode or yeah, volume five. How do
Speaker 1: you want to look at it? Um? Yes, always last year.
Speaker 1: If it's a volume you have, it's a volume. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So basically this is just a continuing experiment we've been
Speaker 1: doing where we look to the wonderful world of horror
Speaker 1: and sci fi uh TV anthologies and uh and cinematic
Speaker 1: anthologies and pick out little episodes, little uh audio visual
Speaker 1: short stories. They generally have some horror or sci fi
Speaker 1: or some sort of in some sort of weird h
Speaker 1: and perhaps grotesque twist in them, and we use that
Speaker 1: as a focal point for a discussion of science and culture.
Speaker 1: Sometimes we're having to really um read into the episode
Speaker 1: a lot more than the creators anticipated. Other Times it's
Speaker 1: just it's really baked into an already intelligent script. Um.
Speaker 1: It just kind of varies from piece to piece. Well,
Speaker 1: I got one to talk about first that is definitely
Speaker 1: baked in some way. Okay, what what have you got
Speaker 1: for us? Joe? Okay, today I wanted to start by
Speaker 1: talking about a classic episode of Are You Afraid of
Speaker 1: the Dark? Rob? Did you watch Are You Afraid of
Speaker 1: the Dark? I? I did. I I can't remember what
Speaker 1: channel came on. Maybe it was a Nickelodeon thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I remember catching episodes of it, and I remember it
Speaker 1: as being occasionally like really creepy, like it was effective.
Speaker 1: It was not uh you know, it wasn't. I mean,
Speaker 1: it was a kid show, but it could really creepy
Speaker 1: out a little bit. It was. It was well done.
Speaker 1: Is that recall? Yeah, A lot of the episodes really are,
Speaker 1: and I would say even the bad episode, going back
Speaker 1: and watching them as an adult, it is an extremely fun,
Speaker 1: nostalgic rewatch. Uh. A lot of the episodes that I
Speaker 1: found very scary when I was young. You know, it
Speaker 1: is a kid's show, so they don't quite have the
Speaker 1: punch they did when I when I was eight or whatever,
Speaker 1: but a few of them are are still kind of surprising,
Speaker 1: and one of my favorite things about the show is
Speaker 1: that it is just egregiously adorably Canadian. One of the
Speaker 1: fun things about going back and watching it now is
Speaker 1: that you frequently encounter child versions of Ryan Gosling or
Speaker 1: Nev Campbell or somebody else you recognize from later work.
Speaker 1: And when it comes to the older actors, they weren't
Speaker 1: usually people who you'd recognize from big movies or anything,
Speaker 1: but a lot of them have this powerful energy of
Speaker 1: like a local character beloved in some town. Like you
Speaker 1: often get the sense that when you meet Dr Venk
Speaker 1: or somebody like that, it's like you're you're looking at
Speaker 1: the r C. Baits of Toronto. Yeah. I the episode
Speaker 1: I mostly remember from this show is, if I if
Speaker 1: I'm remembering it correctly, is the Tale of the dead
Speaker 1: Man's Float, which has to do with like a haunted
Speaker 1: high school swimming pool that remember, I'm I don't know
Speaker 1: if I'm remembering correctly. I may be misremembering that it's
Speaker 1: somehow in the in the basement of the school, but
Speaker 1: maybe not. Yeah, there's a swimming pool in the It's
Speaker 1: like a cursed swimming pool that was on a cemetery
Speaker 1: or something. Yeah, And I think this is the one
Speaker 1: where like when I when it follows came out. There's
Speaker 1: a sequence in it it follows a swimming pool, and
Speaker 1: it it made me think back to this episode, you
Speaker 1: are a thousand percent correct. I I think I made
Speaker 1: that connection at a subconscious level, but the moment you
Speaker 1: said that, you're you're totally right. But the episode I
Speaker 1: want to talk about today is one I don't remember
Speaker 1: actually which season it's from. I should have looked that up,
Speaker 1: but anyway, it's called The Tale of the Super Specs,
Speaker 1: and it's notable for being I think one of the
Speaker 1: episodes with some legitimately scary imagery, which is achieved via
Speaker 1: very low tech means. It's just it has some very
Speaker 1: creepy images of people draped in black cloth. But it also,
Speaker 1: I think, is the episode that introduces the fan favorite
Speaker 1: recurring character Mr Sard, who is a vain sort of
Speaker 1: scheming magic and novelty shop owner who gets angry when
Speaker 1: people call him Mr sar Do and he always says
Speaker 1: his catchphrase that's sar dough, no Mr accent on the dough.
Speaker 1: That seems that seems very particular, like he's not an
Speaker 1: added to calling him sar Do. Right, it's more than
Speaker 1: that Yeah, he's been. He's being a little fussy about
Speaker 1: this point. I think, I mean, you invite these problems
Speaker 1: when you decide to be a single name guy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but okay. So the premise of this episode is that
Speaker 1: there's a young man named Weeds who is kind of
Speaker 1: a prankster, and he's browsing in Sardo's Magic and Novelty Shop.
Speaker 1: That's the kind of place that's got masks and fake vomit,
Speaker 1: but it's also got apparently legitimate spell books and referenced
Speaker 1: homes on the occult, and real magical artifacts and objects.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure why they're all crammed together in this
Speaker 1: one shop, but so he's sort of looking around for
Speaker 1: things and he comes across a bag of magic dust,
Speaker 1: which while simultaneously reading a spell out of an ancient tome,
Speaker 1: he accidentally spills this magic dust over some plastic glasses
Speaker 1: that are being sold as super specs, which are supposed
Speaker 1: to grant X ray vision. I think I think the
Speaker 1: original understanding is these are just novelty glasses, but they
Speaker 1: get imbued with magic power when he says the spell.
Speaker 1: Also there in the magic shop is Weeds his girlfriend
Speaker 1: Mary Beth, and she decides to try out the super specs,
Speaker 1: but when she does, she sees shadowy figures who are
Speaker 1: draped in black cloth from head to toe, and they're
Speaker 1: following her everywhere. And they are multiple occasions, you know,
Speaker 1: like they go to school and she puts on the
Speaker 1: glasses again and she sees the figures, and then she
Speaker 1: goes home and she puts on the glasses again and
Speaker 1: sees them another time. She also sees um elements of
Speaker 1: alternative reality, so like she'll look at her fireplace and
Speaker 1: without the glasses there's no fire, and with the glasses
Speaker 1: there's there's a fire burning, so it's very they live
Speaker 1: in a way now. Eventually, what happens is that Weeds
Speaker 1: and Marybeth get convinced that there are invisible people from
Speaker 1: another dimension who are stalking them, and they consult with
Speaker 1: Sardo to try to figure out how to get rid
Speaker 1: of these shadow people. And I won't spoil the ending
Speaker 1: to this one, because I gotta admit the ending is
Speaker 1: pretty good. But the basic premise is what I wanted
Speaker 1: to talk about. It's the premise that there is a
Speaker 1: realm of life that actually occupies the same general spaces us,
Speaker 1: but that we go about our lives completely unaware of
Speaker 1: and it's it's a take on the idea popular in
Speaker 1: some like alien conspiracy theory architecture that aliens are somehow
Speaker 1: already here. They're here on Earth, but they're are invisible
Speaker 1: to us for some reason, or they're hiding in plain sight. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think. I think. I recorded an older episode of
Speaker 1: the show with Ben Bolling and Matt Frederick uh guesting
Speaker 1: where we talked about shadow people and uh particular study
Speaker 1: that linked some of this phenomena to disruptions of the
Speaker 1: body schema. So so basically, like like a situation where
Speaker 1: you know, neurologically your idea of where your body is
Speaker 1: and what your body is doing would be skewed in
Speaker 1: a way that it would be perceived as some sort
Speaker 1: of a shadow being that was close by. Oh, I
Speaker 1: see you. Not to say that's a definitive answer for
Speaker 1: for all of this, but it was. It was one
Speaker 1: idea that was put forth by some researchers. Well, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think we can be pretty safe in assuming that
Speaker 1: they're not actually like people sized organisms that are walking
Speaker 1: around unnoticed on Earth and our aliens of some guy,
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess you can't rule it out, but
Speaker 1: I'm not aware of any kind of evidence that something
Speaker 1: like that is possible. But I wanted to explore a
Speaker 1: maybe more plausible, still unproven, but more plausible and very
Speaker 1: interesting sort of parallel idea. And the place I want
Speaker 1: to start here is I was reading the British astronaut
Speaker 1: and chemist Helen Sharmon. It was actually the first British
Speaker 1: astronaut ever. She was talking to the Observer, I think
Speaker 1: earlier this year and saying that you know, it was
Speaker 1: her opinion, and that just given the size of the universe,
Speaker 1: the number of planets out there, the number of opportunities
Speaker 1: for biochemistry to arise, that she's pretty convinced that there
Speaker 1: must be aliens out there somewhere in the universe. And
Speaker 1: then she adds, quote, will they be like you and me,
Speaker 1: made up of carbon and nitrogen? Maybe not. It's possible
Speaker 1: they're here right now and we simply can't see them now.
Speaker 1: I want to be clear that I'm not aware of
Speaker 1: any evidence whatsoever this is actually the case, and I
Speaker 1: don't think Sharmon was suggesting that we have evidence of
Speaker 1: this being true, but it does raise the very intriguing
Speaker 1: question of how would we know if aliens in some
Speaker 1: sense or some kind of alternate organism, we're already here,
Speaker 1: already somehow within range of our senses. Well, first, is
Speaker 1: there any conceivable way that something like that could be true?
Speaker 1: And second, if it were true, would there be any
Speaker 1: way to sort of put on the superspects, any way
Speaker 1: to figure it out? So to further investigate this idea,
Speaker 1: I was reading a great article from Astrobiology magazine from
Speaker 1: two thousand six, So this is a little bit older,
Speaker 1: and some of the science, the underlying science, might have
Speaker 1: changed somewhat since then, but I think the basic question
Speaker 1: still stands as posed. And this is by the UC
Speaker 1: Boulder philosophy professor Carol Cleland, and the article is called
Speaker 1: a shadow biosphere. Now, by a shadow biosphere she means
Speaker 1: a rarely considered form of alternative life, not aliens from
Speaker 1: another planet, but aliens from Earth, an unrecognized alternative biology
Speaker 1: that may exist parallel to us, invisibly here on this planet.
Speaker 1: And she asked the question, if something like that existed,
Speaker 1: what would these alternative biologies entail in order to have
Speaker 1: escaped our notice? So they could possibly include alternative forms
Speaker 1: of information coding, so forms other than DNA or RNA,
Speaker 1: or they could include different amino acids to build their proteins,
Speaker 1: or quote any other means by which the chemistry of
Speaker 1: early Earth could have combined to form life we are
Speaker 1: not familiar with. And so there are there are a
Speaker 1: few things we can probably rule out from you know,
Speaker 1: any reasonable question, The first of which is the superspect
Speaker 1: you know, the literal superspect scenario, where there are like
Speaker 1: human sized organisms that are going unnoticed. She says, probably
Speaker 1: if these shadow biological organisms were on the scale of
Speaker 1: familiar plants or animals, we would have already noticed and
Speaker 1: detected them, right, Yes, we would. Somebody would have figured
Speaker 1: it out by now. So what we're probably talking about,
Speaker 1: if there were such a thing, would be microscopic organisms.
Speaker 1: But microscopic organisms can have big impacts, They do a lot,
Speaker 1: and so the the impact of a microscopic shadow biosphere
Speaker 1: could be enormous, and it would be very interesting to
Speaker 1: discover that it had gone unnoticed this long. You know,
Speaker 1: I can't help but be reminded of a a great
Speaker 1: great end quotation marks here uh Saturday Night Live parody
Speaker 1: commercial from I guess back in the nineties for the
Speaker 1: fecal vision glasses. Did you ever see this one? No?
Speaker 1: I didn't. Where everybody puts on the fecal vision glasses
Speaker 1: and then like fecal matter glows bright green, and of
Speaker 1: course they just they just show a ridiculous amount of it,
Speaker 1: Like the entire room is basically covered in it. There's
Speaker 1: a baby covered in it, that sort of thing. Um.
Speaker 1: But in a way, you know, seeing the unseen um
Speaker 1: world of life forms around us. I think that's an
Speaker 1: excellent point of comparison. Keep keep that, keep that image
Speaker 1: in mind as we move on. So one of the
Speaker 1: first things, of course, you'd have to consider if you're
Speaker 1: addressing this question of could there could there in fact
Speaker 1: be a shadow by sphere is um? What counts is life?
Speaker 1: You want to make sure you're defining your terms properly,
Speaker 1: because you're if your definition of life is overly inclusive,
Speaker 1: it could lose all meaning. Right, you don't want to
Speaker 1: end up with the definition of life that includes like
Speaker 1: volcanoes and waterfalls as life. But obviously there are lots
Speaker 1: of different definitions of life that are in competition with
Speaker 1: each other. I was reading an article by an astrobiologist
Speaker 1: named Samantha Rolf and she points out there are probably
Speaker 1: more than a hundred legit definitions of what constitutes a
Speaker 1: life form. Most of them encounter some potential objections here
Speaker 1: or they're just As one example, she points out that
Speaker 1: that if you zero in on the definition of life
Speaker 1: that centered on the ability to reproduce, you arrive at
Speaker 1: a strange conclusion that like a three D printer that
Speaker 1: can print and as symbol copies of itself is alive,
Speaker 1: but a mule, which is sterile, is not alive, And
Speaker 1: that doesn't quite seem right. Yeah. I think we've discussed
Speaker 1: in the show before some arguments about viruses, but also
Speaker 1: about fire, the degrees to which fire can be classified
Speaker 1: up to a point as a as an organism. It's
Speaker 1: not an organism, but but you can make an impassioned
Speaker 1: argument of your feeling argumentative about it totally, or like
Speaker 1: forms of crystals, things like that. I mean, you run
Speaker 1: into a lot of difficulties actually, if you're trying to
Speaker 1: come up with the definition of life that rules in
Speaker 1: everything we want to think of his life and rules
Speaker 1: out everything we don't. So in this two thousand six article,
Speaker 1: Carol Cleveland zeros in on the following distinctions what what
Speaker 1: she thinks is important is, first quote, the capacity of
Speaker 1: a system to maintain itself as a self organized unit
Speaker 1: against both internal and external perturbations. So basically that means
Speaker 1: a life form has has some type of structural resiliency,
Speaker 1: It sort of protects its own integrity and has some
Speaker 1: form of resistance against just dissolution by external and internal forces.
Speaker 1: And then the second thing she says is the ability
Speaker 1: to reproduce and transmit to its descendants adaptive heritable modifications. Now,
Speaker 1: all the life that we know of on Earth that
Speaker 1: meets those two criteria is defined by a common chemistry.
Speaker 1: We know what the primary types of molecules involved are,
Speaker 1: and those molecules are proteins and nucleic acids. Nucleic Acids
Speaker 1: of course would include DNA and RNA, and they store
Speaker 1: hereditary information and they produce proteins. Proteins then make up
Speaker 1: the structure and the machinery of cells and of the
Speaker 1: life form as a whole, and the interface between these
Speaker 1: two functions the hereditary function and the structural or mechanical
Speaker 1: function of the of the protein. This is handled by
Speaker 1: a very important structure known as the ribosome, which is
Speaker 1: made of both proteins and RNA, and which translate the
Speaker 1: hereditary information stored in nucleic acids into usable proteins. This
Speaker 1: is how all the life we know of on Earth works.
Speaker 1: And yet Cleveland says, we just don't know how different
Speaker 1: life could be. Maybe that's the only chemistry in the
Speaker 1: universe capable of producing the functions we usually attribute to life,
Speaker 1: and maybe not, she writes, quote Moreover, we can't rule
Speaker 1: out the possibility that the most important characteristics of life
Speaker 1: have yet to be discovered. The functions traditionally attributed to
Speaker 1: life maybe little more than symptoms of more fundamental but
Speaker 1: as yet unknown properties. So, for example, at the time
Speaker 1: she was writing this, all life on Earth built its
Speaker 1: proteins out of the same twenty amino acids, which which
Speaker 1: all of these amino acids in life forms share the
Speaker 1: same chirality. Reality is something we talked about, I think
Speaker 1: actually in a previous Horror Anthology episode when we were
Speaker 1: talking about to Serve Man. Oh yes, yes we did.
Speaker 1: That was a really fun one, uh about like how
Speaker 1: would you the dangers of constructing, say, food for an
Speaker 1: alien being exactly, and and the idea that aliens would
Speaker 1: want to eat us we might be poisonous to them
Speaker 1: if their molecular biology is somewhat different than ours. But
Speaker 1: just as a brief refresher, chirality or the handedness of
Speaker 1: molecules refers to like which way they're oriented in terms
Speaker 1: of like a mirror image of each other. And Earth
Speaker 1: life uses left handed molecules, but it maybe could use
Speaker 1: right handed molecules. A biotic processes, like processes not associated
Speaker 1: with life, are known to create all kinds of amino
Speaker 1: acids that are not found in life forms. Cleveland references
Speaker 1: more than a hundred known amino acids that are created
Speaker 1: by a biotic processes, So why does life as we
Speaker 1: know what not employ more of these amino acids or
Speaker 1: different chirality of amino acids. Lab experiments show that you
Speaker 1: can build proteins out of alternative amino acids and molecules
Speaker 1: with right handed chirality. Likewise, with the exception of RNA viruses,
Speaker 1: all life on Earth stores its genetic information in DNA,
Speaker 1: but it's possible DNA could use different combinations of bases
Speaker 1: and amino acids. So she's sort of asking the question
Speaker 1: in general, why all these particular ers, why while these
Speaker 1: particularities of Earth life that, as far as we can tell,
Speaker 1: are totally contingent, and Cleveland thinks that the best explanation is, well,
Speaker 1: this is just how it happened in the conditions of
Speaker 1: the young Earth when life first arose, and these contingencies
Speaker 1: of molecular biology have been recopied down the ages since then,
Speaker 1: ever since these life forms have been reproducing quote. So
Speaker 1: it is unlikely that the ribosomes found in the cells
Speaker 1: of familiar life represent the only possibility for translating hereditary
Speaker 1: information stored on nucleic acids into proteins, let alone the
Speaker 1: original mechanism utilized by the first protocells. Had circumstances on
Speaker 1: the early Earth been different, familiar life would also have
Speaker 1: been different. But this raises a really interesting question if
Speaker 1: these features of molecular biology as we know it are
Speaker 1: really just contingencies. In other words, if it's just chemically
Speaker 1: how things happened to shake out when the first life
Speaker 1: forms were coming together, how do we know that other
Speaker 1: life forms, other forms of molecular biology did not arise
Speaker 1: at different times in places on Earth in the history
Speaker 1: of Earth, with their own contingent chemical quirks making them
Speaker 1: hard for us to recognize with tools that are honed
Speaker 1: in the search for familiar forms of life. I mean,
Speaker 1: in a way, what you can discover is sort of
Speaker 1: determined or bounded by what kind of tools you use
Speaker 1: and what you expect to be looking for. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean it reminds me a bit of recent discussions we've
Speaker 1: had about, um, how you would just how you would
Speaker 1: describe a sense that you have to a being that
Speaker 1: is lacking that sense, you know, like it's it's it's
Speaker 1: hard to to to to explain that, and like that
Speaker 1: works in reverse, like looking for the thing that you
Speaker 1: can't experience. Now, from here, Cleveland goes on to address
Speaker 1: some objections that are usually raised to the idea that
Speaker 1: there could be alternative forms of molecular biology on Earth. So,
Speaker 1: first of all, there is the claim that quote any
Speaker 1: variations in the earth eliest forms of life would have
Speaker 1: been combined by lateral gene transfer into a single form
Speaker 1: of life. Right, So that we've talked about horizontal gene
Speaker 1: transfer on the show before, and the idea is that,
Speaker 1: you know, there just would have been like sort of
Speaker 1: a cross fertilization of genes that way, and they kind
Speaker 1: of would have been absorbed into the dominant biosphere. But
Speaker 1: she argues against this by saying, you know, we can't
Speaker 1: assume compatibility and opportunity for lateral gene transfer between our
Speaker 1: ancestral microbes, the microbes that became us, and whatever these
Speaker 1: alternative critters are. There could be chemical and compatibility, there
Speaker 1: could be geographic isolation, and so forth. And then there
Speaker 1: is a second argument, which is that well, our single
Speaker 1: celled ancestors would have wiped out these alternative biological organisms
Speaker 1: in the competition for resources, and she argues against this
Speaker 1: by saying, well, rare microbes that we know of tend
Speaker 1: to occupy unique ecological niches, so they're not necessarily in
Speaker 1: deadly competition the same resources. They might just kind of
Speaker 1: have different needs, have established different niches, and they're just
Speaker 1: writing it out as as sort of rare, unique and
Speaker 1: isolated communities of organisms, or even within communities of of
Speaker 1: conventional organisms. And then finally she talks about the argument
Speaker 1: that if these things are still here, we should have
Speaker 1: found evidence of them by now, and so against the
Speaker 1: we should have found it by now, she argues that
Speaker 1: given the tools we possessed at the time she was
Speaker 1: writing this, it was very possible to miss things like, Okay,
Speaker 1: you can look at microbes under a microscope, but that
Speaker 1: can only take you so far because convergent evolution means
Speaker 1: that a lot of different microbes will kind of look
Speaker 1: superficially similar in structure, like archaia kind of look like bacteria.
Speaker 1: And then we have other tools like lab cultures, but
Speaker 1: lab cultures just might fail to grow them. Uh. And
Speaker 1: then another option we have for detecting microbial life that's
Speaker 1: difficult to culture is known as PCR amplification. That stands
Speaker 1: for polymerase chain reaction. It's chemical process for multiplying genetic
Speaker 1: material so that it can be detected. And PCR amplification
Speaker 1: that relies on ribosomal RNA would not be able to
Speaker 1: detect a microbe that didn't have ribosomes or that had
Speaker 1: a different form of ribosomal RNA. So basically Cleveland's case
Speaker 1: here is that our best tools for looking for chemical
Speaker 1: signs of life, at least the time she was writing,
Speaker 1: are kind of tuned to the kinds of life that
Speaker 1: we know about, and they might completely pass over a
Speaker 1: potential shadow biosphere if it existed. Now, there's another possible objection,
Speaker 1: which is that wouldn't we have observed these microbes, the
Speaker 1: shadow microbes, by the effect they have on their environment.
Speaker 1: Of course, we observe the effects of common known microbes
Speaker 1: on the environment all the time, She says, quote. Life
Speaker 1: invariably modifies its environment, extracting energy, building structures, producing waste products.
Speaker 1: So you know, all of the oxygen in the atmosphere
Speaker 1: is a product of of microscopic life, or at least
Speaker 1: was originally. Now I guess it's also the product of
Speaker 1: macroscopic life. But she says, actually, you know, this is
Speaker 1: a really good way to look for these things, to
Speaker 1: look for the effects they have on their environments. And
Speaker 1: Cleveland argues that it's possible that up until now their
Speaker 1: effects have always blended in with the background noise of
Speaker 1: effects produced by other microbes. So it's possible we just
Speaker 1: haven't looked closely enough in the right places, or we've
Speaker 1: been hindered by the bounds of an existing paradigm of
Speaker 1: molecular biology. She writes, quote. Similar cases can be found
Speaker 1: in biology, such as the discovery of Archaea, a new
Speaker 1: variety of familiar microbial life that revolutionized biological taxonomy, and
Speaker 1: so as background, our archaea is now considered one of
Speaker 1: the three main domains or super kingdoms of life. You've
Speaker 1: got eukaryotes, which includes all multicellular life bacteria, and then Archaea.
Speaker 1: And Archaea used to be thought of as just a
Speaker 1: type of bacteria. It's now recognized, has been recognized since
Speaker 1: the nineteen seventies. And think nineteen seventy seven that Archias
Speaker 1: is a totally different domain, a different evolutionary history. But
Speaker 1: she goes on, in hindsight, it's clear there were signs
Speaker 1: that some prokaryotes are fundamentally different from others, despite their
Speaker 1: remarkable similarities and sell morphology. But because biologists were working
Speaker 1: under the prokaryote eukaryot paradigm, which used cellular morphology as
Speaker 1: the guiding principle for understanding taxonomic relations, these signs went unrecognized.
Speaker 1: So we were just looking at the shapes of cells
Speaker 1: and thinking that would tell us everything we needed to know,
Speaker 1: and it didn't. Actually and then finally, as she ends
Speaker 1: the article by calling out a possible example of a
Speaker 1: place to look for alternative microbiology or alternative molecular biology. Sorry,
Speaker 1: she singles out an example known as desert varnish. And
Speaker 1: this is a thin coating of discoloration, usually kind of
Speaker 1: a red or dark discoloration that you see on exposed
Speaker 1: rock faces in deserts and their dry areas. You've probably
Speaker 1: seen it before if you looked at some desert rocks
Speaker 1: that had a kind of dark red or black shiny surface.
Speaker 1: And I've read that since this two thousand six s
Speaker 1: a new discoveries have made desert varnish appear to be
Speaker 1: very unlikely as a result of shadow biological processes. But
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean the question has gone away. I mean
Speaker 1: the questions about a possible shadow biosphere remain. More recently,
Speaker 1: I was reading an article about this in Science by
Speaker 1: Emily Conover. This was in and Conover points out developments
Speaker 1: since the original idea of a shadow biosphere have continually
Speaker 1: been introduced. They make it more and more interesting. For example,
Speaker 1: discoveries that make clear how our traditional definitions of Earth
Speaker 1: life are just not quite inclusive enough. They don't necessarily
Speaker 1: capture all the possibilities. For example, quote recently discovered giant
Speaker 1: Amiba infecting viruses blur the line between life and non life,
Speaker 1: although they rely on their hosts for essential biological functions,
Speaker 1: meaning you know they're not self sustaining the bacteria sized
Speaker 1: viruses have complex genomes. So the question would be, then,
Speaker 1: how are scientists currently looking for signs of possible alternative
Speaker 1: biochemistry if there's a shadow biosphere on Earth. Uh And
Speaker 1: she quotes the planetary scientist Carolin Porko of the Space
Speaker 1: Science Institute in Boulder, Colorado, who says, you know, a
Speaker 1: really good way to look for these things is to
Speaker 1: go back to the last point that Cleveland raised in
Speaker 1: the article, look for disequilibriums in nature. Look for environments
Speaker 1: that are sort of out of balance or out of whack. Quote.
Speaker 1: Life takes in and uses energy, altering its environment in
Speaker 1: the process. Without life, for example, our planet would not
Speaker 1: have an oxygen rich atmosphere, as chemical reactions tend to
Speaker 1: deplete oxygen. She also mentions some other interesting possibilities, such
Speaker 1: as the idea that this one is raised by David
Speaker 1: Lynn of Emory University, who draws attention to the idea
Speaker 1: of misfolded proteins representing a possible type of alternative life.
Speaker 1: Says quote, they show some similarities to life, namely that
Speaker 1: they can generate diversity in the different ways that they fold,
Speaker 1: can undergo chemical evolution, in which those folded proteins are
Speaker 1: selected not genetically but chemically, and this could be a
Speaker 1: kind of precursor to some sort of of chemical network
Speaker 1: that would be very different than what we're familiar with.
Speaker 1: Uh And I was also reading an article this is
Speaker 1: the one I mentioned earlier by Samantha Rolf, which is
Speaker 1: about the hypothetical option of a shadow biosphere based on
Speaker 1: silicon molecules instead of carbon molecules. And silicon, of course
Speaker 1: is not nearly as good at as as carbon doing
Speaker 1: the kinds of things molecules need to do inside a cell,
Speaker 1: But there have been experiments that created silicon bonds in
Speaker 1: bacteria that make it seem at least possible that some
Speaker 1: kind of silicon based life form could exist. So in
Speaker 1: the end, I want to be very clear that we
Speaker 1: don't know that there is a shadow biosphere of some
Speaker 1: kind on Earth. We don't have any strong evidence that
Speaker 1: there is, but we do know at least that if
Speaker 1: it exists, it probably consists of microorganisms if it exists
Speaker 1: at all. But some some science fiction I want to
Speaker 1: see exploring that is, like the idea of big sort
Speaker 1: of network effects created on the Earth by micro organisms
Speaker 1: within a shadow microbial ecosystem, you know, if memory serves
Speaker 1: me correctly. Uh, it's been several years since I read these.
Speaker 1: But Peter Watt's book Starfish involves a plot element that
Speaker 1: it that it entails this. Uh, an ancient apocalyptic microbe
Speaker 1: called Behemoth think gets unleashed on the earth. It's been
Speaker 1: like hiding out in the bottom of the ocean. That
Speaker 1: sounds good. Yeah, yeah, it's it's it's it's quite good.
Speaker 1: I don't know why I haven't read Starfish yet. Maybe
Speaker 1: they'll be next on my list. But you know, Peter
Speaker 1: Watts aside, what does what does sar Do have to
Speaker 1: say about this? You know sar Do unfortunately the Charlatan.
Speaker 1: And this raises a question that is true of I
Speaker 1: think many sort of I don't okay kind of fast
Speaker 1: and loose horror or or or supernatural properties, which is
Speaker 1: that it often appears that you are able to buy
Speaker 1: real magical artifacts and serious tomes on the occult within,
Speaker 1: just like crank magic shops that have fake vomit in them.
Speaker 1: Why why is that so common? I mean, part of
Speaker 1: it's the hunter gatherer instinct, right, the idea that we
Speaker 1: could go into a junk store and find something of value,
Speaker 1: you know, Like it's why I will go into a
Speaker 1: thrift store and I'll see if I can find a
Speaker 1: copy of Jerry Maguire and VHS like It's it seems
Speaker 1: unlikely that such treasures are still available, but I'm still
Speaker 1: gonna look and occasionally I find one that's true magic.
Speaker 1: Though Sardo is also contributing to the Pyramid in the Desert.
Speaker 1: Yeah so, butter then, I also think another big part
Speaker 1: of it is the kind of like small town magic
Speaker 1: op and and God bless them where you can still
Speaker 1: find them. Uh, you know, anytime I see one, I
Speaker 1: have to I have to check it out. But but
Speaker 1: shops like that too. We like the idea that they
Speaker 1: could have genuine u occult things in them because that
Speaker 1: means we have access to them. That means there is
Speaker 1: a possible there a possible connection between ourselves and the
Speaker 1: supernatural and the fantastic. I guess, for some reason, at
Speaker 1: a gut level, I find it much more plausible to
Speaker 1: find the occult tome or the real magical artifact in
Speaker 1: a thrift shop or something that I do in the
Speaker 1: in the novelty magic shop. I don't know, maybe that's
Speaker 1: just me well, you know, strange sudden deaths are always
Speaker 1: happening to legitimate wizards. And then who's going to sell
Speaker 1: their stuff? And where are they going to sell their stuff?
Speaker 1: It's gonna get pawned off to the local magic shop.
Speaker 1: I guess that's it. You you combine them the thrift
Speaker 1: shop and that they've got a secondhand element, and that
Speaker 1: can then anything can happen. Yeah, now it's probably eBay.
Speaker 1: It's the most of your monkey pops are being bought
Speaker 1: on eBay these days. And then you get it and
Speaker 1: you're like, all the fingers are still are folded on
Speaker 1: this thing. I don't even get all the wishes. Here's
Speaker 1: something I want to hear from listeners. What is the
Speaker 1: creepiest like most cursed antique or artifact object you've ever
Speaker 1: bought her or or somehow acquired. Yeah, I'd love to
Speaker 1: hear that too. All Right, on that note, we're going
Speaker 1: to take a break. But when we come back, more
Speaker 1: horror anthology. Thank thank you, thank you. All right for
Speaker 1: our next UH anthology selection this year, I'd like to
Speaker 1: return to the crypt Tales from the crypt Uh the
Speaker 1: the the the awesome HBO series that that was was
Speaker 1: It was an adaptation of these older pre code horror
Speaker 1: comic books, and as we said before, just does it
Speaker 1: generally does a great job of creating these, at times
Speaker 1: kind of trashy uh in nasty tales of often bad
Speaker 1: things happening to be happening to bad people, bad people
Speaker 1: getting their come upance in some sort of grizzly twisted manner.
Speaker 1: This one that you picked for for today. This episode
Speaker 1: I watched last night and it has a spectacular intro
Speaker 1: full of puns by the crypt Keeper. Can we share
Speaker 1: some of these puns or do you already have them
Speaker 1: written down? I do not have them written down, but
Speaker 1: if you, if you have them just floating around your head,
Speaker 1: let's see what were they? So? I can't do crypt
Speaker 1: Keeper voice, but it has something to do with getting
Speaker 1: a house, getting a little house on the scary a
Speaker 1: tomb with the view, what are you afraid you can't
Speaker 1: get a mortgage? Yes, So, the the intro to the
Speaker 1: show was amazing, The crypt Keeper segments were amazing, and
Speaker 1: then the the episodes themselves are often um. I mean
Speaker 1: it's rare that there's not something notable about them, either
Speaker 1: a major star or someone who would become a major star,
Speaker 1: just a great character actor is present, oftentimes big lead directors,
Speaker 1: uh you know, slummed it up for Tales from the
Speaker 1: Crypt or or likely just had like a really good
Speaker 1: time with the series. And um yeah, I find my
Speaker 1: stuff returning to them time and time again. UM it's
Speaker 1: I remember watching it often half scrambled on HBO when
Speaker 1: I was like a middle schooler, and it was, you know,
Speaker 1: this perfect cable TV nether world of titilation and gore
Speaker 1: to immerse yourself in. Um, and it's it's it's interesting
Speaker 1: that you know back then that that that was the
Speaker 1: way to watch it, like sort of like pirated half
Speaker 1: scrambled format. Uh. And nowadays, as of October, it looks
Speaker 1: like the rights to the series are contested or something.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't I don't know the precise
Speaker 1: legal prison that it finds itself in. But you cannot
Speaker 1: stream it anywhere. Um, you can't buy it digitally. Uh
Speaker 1: So as of right now, the only place you can
Speaker 1: watch these episodes are like on YouTube and daily motion
Speaker 1: unless you have like pre existing digital purchases, which I
Speaker 1: have on some of the episodes but not all of them. Well,
Speaker 1: I think what you're getting at is that it actually
Speaker 1: feels appropriate with the low quality because it's like watching
Speaker 1: it through like a scrambled cable saying yeah, yeah, it's
Speaker 1: actually better quality than uh than most of the time
Speaker 1: when I was watching it when I was younger. Um,
Speaker 1: but uh yeah. I keep hoping that it will come
Speaker 1: back because you know, there's still other tales to tell,
Speaker 1: and they could retell others and create new ones in
Speaker 1: the same vibe. I mean, clearly people have been doing
Speaker 1: that over and over again across the decades. And also
Speaker 1: John Cassier, the the voice of the of the crypt Keeper.
Speaker 1: He is very much alive. Not only is he alive,
Speaker 1: but he is on cameo. I found out I was
Speaker 1: I was talking with my wife about a friend of
Speaker 1: ours getting cameo videos for their their spouse for their birthday,
Speaker 1: and I was like, yeah, cameo just doesn't really interest
Speaker 1: me unless it was the crypt Keeper. Maybe if it
Speaker 1: was the crypt Keeper, I'd be interested. And sure enough, Uh,
Speaker 1: he's on there seventy dollars a pop. Um. He holds
Speaker 1: a crypt Keeper like mask over his face when he
Speaker 1: does it, so you don't get the full puppet performance,
Speaker 1: but still you get the voice. After you brought this
Speaker 1: to my attention. I was investigating, and I found out
Speaker 1: you can get cameo messages from Zordon from Power Rangers,
Speaker 1: but not how about Sardo Sardo on there. Oh, it
Speaker 1: didn't look for sar Dough. I should have. All right,
Speaker 1: we'll have to look for Sarto later. Um. Anyway, like
Speaker 1: I said, a lot of these episodes of Tales from
Speaker 1: the Crypt are ghastly and grizzly, and there's a lot
Speaker 1: of blood in them. Um. But this one that we're
Speaker 1: going to discuss here is is a bit different. Uh.
Speaker 1: This one is titled Maniac at Large and it's uh,
Speaker 1: it's really a rather tasteful affair as far as Tales
Speaker 1: in the Crypt goes. And it's directed by John Frankenheimer,
Speaker 1: famous for such films with the Manurian Candidate. And it
Speaker 1: stars Blithe Danner, a veteran of stage and screen that
Speaker 1: you've probably you've almost certainly seen her in something before
Speaker 1: because she's been in everything. It also has Salomi Jen's,
Speaker 1: who I found out was in a movie called Terror
Speaker 1: from the year five thousand, which was a I think
Speaker 1: a double feature drive in double feature from the late
Speaker 1: fifties with the brain Eaters, which is one of my
Speaker 1: favorite movie posters of all time. That is a great
Speaker 1: movie poster. Yeah, that's I've never seen it, but I've
Speaker 1: seen the movie poster time and time again. I think
Speaker 1: I've had it as a desktop wallpaper before. Um. It
Speaker 1: has a couple of other notable character actors in it, well,
Speaker 1: one character actor in one kind of rock star celebrity.
Speaker 1: Clarence Williams the Third is in it. He plays a
Speaker 1: security guard. He's another actor. You look him up. You've
Speaker 1: definitely seen something with Clarence. Clarence Williams the Third in it,
Speaker 1: and he gets He gets a fun role that it
Speaker 1: is at times kind of creepy. But then Adam Aunt
Speaker 1: himself shows up as a mega creepy library patron. Adam
Speaker 1: Aunt has strong ted Ramie vibes in this. Yeah, so
Speaker 1: again this this episode is extremely solid, quite reserved for
Speaker 1: a crip episode, but with some satisfying twists and turns.
Speaker 1: The basic plot here is that Danner's character, Margaret has
Speaker 1: just started a job at a library in the big city.
Speaker 1: She's trying to navigate the environment, figure out you know,
Speaker 1: who she can trust, who she doesn't, What do the
Speaker 1: clientele like what's this creepy adamant dude all about um
Speaker 1: uh and getting you're just getting used to the new job,
Speaker 1: all while a serial killer remains at large in the city.
Speaker 1: I would say this is very much part of the
Speaker 1: early nineties urban hell sub genre, which is the I
Speaker 1: don't know if it's a genre really, it's just sort
Speaker 1: of a set of assumptions shared by it seems like
Speaker 1: every movie made in like the late eighties early nineties,
Speaker 1: which is just that like cities in general and New
Speaker 1: York in particular are hell on Earth, and and uh,
Speaker 1: that you just don't want to be in the city,
Speaker 1: and that it's associated with just like littering and crime
Speaker 1: and traffic and and misery. But but anyway, yeah, it's
Speaker 1: very much the idea that this is the city is
Speaker 1: a bad place, and the library is is not a
Speaker 1: great place within the city. But she's doing the best
Speaker 1: you can. Now, I will say there's some there's some
Speaker 1: twist and turns that occur that turn some of these
Speaker 1: elements on their head. But this one's got a good twist.
Speaker 1: I think this is a good twist. We're not gonna
Speaker 1: ruin it. Go check it out. A And as of
Speaker 1: this recording. You can probably just find it on YouTube,
Speaker 1: which is that you should be able to watch this
Speaker 1: in a more pristine quality, but at any rate, several
Speaker 1: elements worth pulling out for our discussion here. Adam Ants
Speaker 1: character Pipkin is obsessed with serial killers, so he keeps
Speaker 1: coming up to Margaret and just chatting her up about
Speaker 1: serial killers, saying just all sorts of creepy things, just
Speaker 1: an overload of creepy serial killer obsession things. I just
Speaker 1: remembered something. It was at the back of my mind
Speaker 1: and then I pulled it up. There was a movie
Speaker 1: from n that I watched in a terrible VHS copy
Speaker 1: many years ago called spell Caster that also has Adam
Speaker 1: Ant in it. And Adam Aunt had a fairly extensive
Speaker 1: film career. In this movie, I think he plays an
Speaker 1: evil wizard. Well, he's good in this. I have to say.
Speaker 1: His name is Dia Blow. All right. So you have
Speaker 1: adam Ants character Pipkin, just being obsessed with serial killers
Speaker 1: and being very creepy and suspect. Also, Margaret herself has
Speaker 1: become increasingly obsessed with the idea that she will be
Speaker 1: the killer's next victim. Creepy things keep happening, People keep
Speaker 1: acting creepy um, and she keeps and she's clearly obsessing
Speaker 1: over the fact that she could and perhaps will be next.
Speaker 1: And it's this is sort of spurred on by Adamant's
Speaker 1: character because he's like, who's the next victim going to be?
Speaker 1: I think it'll be a woman this time? Yes, yes, yeah,
Speaker 1: he said, slimy, it's wonderful. But then also she keeps
Speaker 1: she was bringing some of this up to the head
Speaker 1: librarian Mrs Pritchard, and Miss Pritchard she tries to like
Speaker 1: stamp this down a bit. She just largely dismisses the
Speaker 1: serial killer as being this inflated news story in a
Speaker 1: matter of mass hysteria. So I thought all of this
Speaker 1: would be a perfect reason to explore the question why
Speaker 1: are we so obsessed with serial killers and true crime?
Speaker 1: And you've you've probably noticed this already, but murder podcasts
Speaker 1: are big business. I feel like barely a week goes
Speaker 1: by without a new announcement about some new ghoulish podcast.
Speaker 1: Asked either it's either at least true crime, if not
Speaker 1: a serial killer podcast as well, Robert, I hate to
Speaker 1: break it to you, but the call is coming from
Speaker 1: inside the house because so we we we got quite
Speaker 1: a number of these within our own family here. Oh yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I mean it's a big it's an ever growing family,
Speaker 1: so it encompasses all sorts of types of podcasts. Even
Speaker 1: sports podcasts are around. Uh So, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: mean to be judging on that that fact, or just
Speaker 1: judge you about true crime enthusiasm to begin with, because
Speaker 1: I can. I can easily think of some great reads
Speaker 1: I've enjoyed that are about serial killers. I've enjoyed some
Speaker 1: true crime content in the past, and and heck, we're
Speaker 1: talking about a great episode of Tales from the Crypt
Speaker 1: that concerned serial killers. Um. And as far as just
Speaker 1: more general true crime goes, I like a lot of
Speaker 1: people grew up watching Unsolved Mysteries and scaring, you know,
Speaker 1: the pants off of myself, not only about ghosts and aliens,
Speaker 1: but also about just random acts of crime and madness.
Speaker 1: I would say one of the most power are full
Speaker 1: sounds in the entire world in terms of unlocking just
Speaker 1: a host of creepy associations in my brain is the
Speaker 1: Unsolved Mysteries theme music. The moment that plays the trapdoor
Speaker 1: in my brain opens and everything comes out. Now obviously,
Speaker 1: when we're talking about your crime. There's a broad spectrum
Speaker 1: of good and bad taste with it within the genre,
Speaker 1: and it ranges greatly. I mean, there's the whole domain
Speaker 1: of police procedural true crime, which of course entails say that,
Speaker 1: the work of David Simon and others. There's also the
Speaker 1: grizzlier stuff that can border on just sort of creepy
Speaker 1: serial killer obsession. And then there's there's the psychologically minded stuff,
Speaker 1: you know, the mind of a killer type approach, which
Speaker 1: I guess can be a little on the creepy side
Speaker 1: at times, but also can just be very well put
Speaker 1: together and formulated and and and in many cases based
Speaker 1: on actual psychology and the actual um uh, you know,
Speaker 1: the actual studies into the minds of serial killers. There's
Speaker 1: also highly journalistic stuff as well as the kind of
Speaker 1: sort of citizen journalist and citizen investigator uh fair that
Speaker 1: has also proven highly popular. But it really does seem
Speaker 1: at times like our our appetite is just insatiable and
Speaker 1: uh and it leads us at times to wonder like,
Speaker 1: what does it all means? Where does this, where is
Speaker 1: this coming from? What is the the itch that it
Speaker 1: is scratching? Uh? You know, and and is it some
Speaker 1: sort of modern phenomenon or is it just an aspect
Speaker 1: of of of the human experience. I'm interested in what
Speaker 1: creates the difference between the tolerance for uh, fictional violence
Speaker 1: versus the tolerance for true crime. Like just personally, I
Speaker 1: like a lot of, like, you know, violent, scary fictional
Speaker 1: horror stuff, but I don't have much of an appetite
Speaker 1: for true crime. And there are people who are totally
Speaker 1: the opposite, you know, like a monster movie to them
Speaker 1: would seem like gross and overwhelming and unpleasant, but they
Speaker 1: will just devour true crime. And obviously there's some kind
Speaker 1: of difference at play there, but I'm not sure exactly
Speaker 1: what it is what it. Rocky Ericson have said about it.
Speaker 1: Didn't he have an insightful quote about different types of horror?
Speaker 1: I think you might be thinking of where he says
Speaker 1: that today's movies prey on your inner feres and steady
Speaker 1: your outer fears. And that's why I wrote the line,
Speaker 1: don't slip in mud or you'll slip in blood tonight.
Speaker 1: Just the Night of the Vampire doesn't necessarily clarify a lot,
Speaker 1: but there there's some kind of obscure wisdom Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I agree, it's worth keeping in mind as we move forward.
Speaker 1: And even though again he's referring to just a division
Speaker 1: within horror fiction as opposed to uh, fiction versus reality.
Speaker 1: So I think one thing to get out of the
Speaker 1: way is that I think we can we can safely
Speaker 1: dismiss the idea that this is a new phenomenon because
Speaker 1: we've pretty much always had crime stories of one sort
Speaker 1: or the other, and our fascination with it is to
Speaker 1: a large extent fueled by our fear of real crime.
Speaker 1: But if you look back to a lot of of myths, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, you find something interesting. You know, these are
Speaker 1: stories of people who commit crimes off and now they're
Speaker 1: committing crimes against the gods or some sort of you know,
Speaker 1: celestial or infernal order in the world. Uh. But then likewise,
Speaker 1: what are modern laws and social norms but modern gods
Speaker 1: of a sort? I think a lot of anthropologists of
Speaker 1: religion would probably argue that what the gods were with
Speaker 1: some kind of embodiment of laws or norms. Yeah, and uh,
Speaker 1: I've also seen it it argued that if you want
Speaker 1: something more in line with a pure crime story, you
Speaker 1: can look to the the Arabic go one thousand and
Speaker 1: one Night's Tales, and that tradition uh to provide some
Speaker 1: great examples of of what is essentially early crime fiction, uh,
Speaker 1: the exploits of criminals, the come uppance of criminals, etcetera.
Speaker 1: So on one hand, perhaps we're just exaggerating to try
Speaker 1: and make anything out of modern true crime interest as
Speaker 1: if it's something new, But there is a lot of
Speaker 1: interesting insight out there into like what it means, where
Speaker 1: where does this interest in crime fiction uh and and
Speaker 1: and and true crime come from? And one particular expert
Speaker 1: that I was I've heard an NPR story UH featuring
Speaker 1: this is from two thousand nine and they were talking
Speaker 1: with clinical and corporate psychologist Michael mantell Um and UH
Speaker 1: they pointed out that there are several key elements involved
Speaker 1: in our enjoyment of true crime. First of all, there's
Speaker 1: the not me elephant combined with psychological voyeurism. So it's
Speaker 1: if you're not watching a crime or you know, a
Speaker 1: murder or what have you that is affecting you, you're
Speaker 1: watching something that affects somebody else, And we are engaging
Speaker 1: in a certain amount of psychological voyeurism in that case,
Speaker 1: On top of that, there's a catharsis in identifying with
Speaker 1: the victim uh and this is uh. And we have
Speaker 1: like rehearsed anxiety in these cases over terrible occurrences. So
Speaker 1: it's almost like um uh, via our our our empathy,
Speaker 1: we're able to simulate these horrible things with out them
Speaker 1: actually happening to us. Now. The other the flip side
Speaker 1: of that, of course, is that you can also engage
Speaker 1: in compassion and empathy with the perpetrator, not necessarily to
Speaker 1: the level of saying like, oh man, I wish I
Speaker 1: was I wish I was like Charlie, but but more like,
Speaker 1: you know, what if I was like you know, I think,
Speaker 1: I think that's all. That's key to a lot of
Speaker 1: our psychological fascination with serial murders, for instance, is that
Speaker 1: we know that, Okay, this individual, their brain is not
Speaker 1: exactly like our brain, but but a lot of things
Speaker 1: are the same, and therefore it's tempting to analyze that
Speaker 1: those comparisons and think, what if I, you know, it
Speaker 1: was just a few degrees to the left free to
Speaker 1: the right. Could I find myself in this kind of mindset?
Speaker 1: Could I find myself having committed acts like this not
Speaker 1: only as far as nature goes, but also as far
Speaker 1: as nurture goes as well. You know, if my life
Speaker 1: conditions had been a little different, would I be you know,
Speaker 1: the figure on the television right now? Would I be
Speaker 1: the subject of this part cast episode. Yeah, I'd say
Speaker 1: A variation on that is that people might sometimes just
Speaker 1: want to feel like they're getting a better idea of
Speaker 1: what to look out for in other people, because you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's a cliche at this point that somebody commits
Speaker 1: a horrible act as a mass murderer, turns out to
Speaker 1: be a serial killer or something, and you know, the
Speaker 1: the news camera interviews their their neighbor, and it's like, oh,
Speaker 1: he seemed like a really nice guy. I wouldn't have
Speaker 1: known it. And you know, sometimes that is the case.
Speaker 1: People want to be able to think like I could
Speaker 1: figure out I could figure out who was the sick. Oh,
Speaker 1: I could figure out who was the bad guy. And
Speaker 1: maybe there's a sort of feeling, at least a subconscious level,
Speaker 1: that by consuming a lot of true crime you could
Speaker 1: somehow you can discern a pattern. You can figure out Okay,
Speaker 1: here's how I could sniff out the Jeffrey Dahmer. Yes, yeah, absolutely,
Speaker 1: And I want to come back to to some of
Speaker 1: that in a minute. But but it's also worth keeping
Speaker 1: in mind all of this in considering the essential Essentially,
Speaker 1: there are two types of crime stories, right, there's the
Speaker 1: case closed crime story, uh, and then there's also, uh,
Speaker 1: the the open case. So on one hand, we love
Speaker 1: a good, uh you know, structurally complete tale. We love
Speaker 1: a story in which the bad guy is apprehended, the
Speaker 1: right bad guy is apprehended and uh and and the
Speaker 1: case is closed. And you see a lot of that
Speaker 1: in um in true crime, you know, people, especially if
Speaker 1: it's a you know, very oh you know, a lot
Speaker 1: of the police procedural stuff, for example, is about that,
Speaker 1: like how do they catch the batties? What can I
Speaker 1: remember the series the New Detectives, What kind of really
Speaker 1: cool technology are they using to catch the batties? But
Speaker 1: on the other hand, the open cases, the unsolved mysteries
Speaker 1: like that stantalizing as well, because, uh, you know, on
Speaker 1: some level, even if it's it's just a slim chance,
Speaker 1: you could you could watch that and think I might
Speaker 1: be the next victim, or I might be the one
Speaker 1: to solve this, you know, I could I could be
Speaker 1: the one. I could notice this thing, I could learn,
Speaker 1: I know what to look for and and if this
Speaker 1: fellow comes limping up to me with a fake cast,
Speaker 1: I can call him on it and I'll be the hero.
Speaker 1: I think that's right. But actually another thing just occurred
Speaker 1: to me. And this is based on your earlier point
Speaker 1: about psychological voyeurism, which is the idea of in a way,
Speaker 1: watching like a serial killer story where they ultimately get
Speaker 1: caught is kind of like just another form of the
Speaker 1: watching somebody fail spectacularly thing where you like to see
Speaker 1: somebody who you know, who's in control of things like
Speaker 1: lose control and and spiral out and all that. Uh,
Speaker 1: the just a morbid version of it might be Okay,
Speaker 1: here's the serial killer. They've got a system, they've got
Speaker 1: a method for not getting caught, but then they get
Speaker 1: sloppy and it all spirals out of control and they
Speaker 1: fail and they go to jail. Yeah, this is kind
Speaker 1: of I would say. The lesson is sort of committing
Speaker 1: crime is hard, and it's it can be a weird
Speaker 1: positive experience too, to encounter on or that because it
Speaker 1: can make you feel comfortable and the fact that like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know, if you commit a crime, you're probably gonna
Speaker 1: get caught. It can give you, at times even an
Speaker 1: inflated sense of of of the competency of of police investigations. UM.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, it can be kind of like
Speaker 1: a like, who, I guess I'm not going to commit
Speaker 1: crime because it looks really hard. You know, if it
Speaker 1: were easy, I guess I'd give it a shot, but
Speaker 1: I'd probably get caught, so I better not. I wasn't
Speaker 1: gonna do it anyway, but now I know that I'm
Speaker 1: definitely not going to do it. Actually, now that I
Speaker 1: think about it, this might be even more the case
Speaker 1: in I don't know less grizzly true crime, not just
Speaker 1: in serial killers, but really in stuff where like there's
Speaker 1: a con artist or somebody executing massive financial crime or
Speaker 1: something like that, where there's an element of the hot
Speaker 1: mess allure that you you know, like it's really exciting
Speaker 1: to to see somebody on social media who's just like
Speaker 1: a hot mess and they're flaming out and really making
Speaker 1: things bad for themselves. I think there's a there's a
Speaker 1: strong element of that in a lot of these things,
Speaker 1: like you're reading about Bernie made Off or something. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: and and again it's also yeah, it's it's about bad
Speaker 1: people getting their come Uppan's right, all right, time for
Speaker 1: a quick break. We'll be right back with more, and
Speaker 1: we're back now. One thing that when when Mentell was
Speaker 1: asked in this NPR piece about about about different gender
Speaker 1: demographics in the consumption of true crime now, Mantell said
Speaker 1: that that he didn't see any kind of, you know,
Speaker 1: notable demographic differences, uh. And he he suspected that there's
Speaker 1: still likely there's still likely differences in the sort of
Speaker 1: crime stories that interested different demographics. However, I think most
Speaker 1: of me listening out there, you've probably heard quite the opposite.
Speaker 1: And I know that I've heard this multiple times in
Speaker 1: meetings about podcast listener demographics, that the true crime audience
Speaker 1: use female. And I have to be honest, I don't
Speaker 1: think I was really aware of this until it started
Speaker 1: coming up in podcast meetings. I just, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: I can look back and find some sort of uh,
Speaker 1: some memories and be like, oh, well, that kind of
Speaker 1: lines up with this alleged statistic, But I don't think
Speaker 1: I had really thought about it before then. I don't
Speaker 1: know if there's any evidence to that gender divide or not.
Speaker 1: I assume you'll tell me in a minute. But but
Speaker 1: one thing I would suspect is, even if there is,
Speaker 1: it probably depends on what you define as crime. Yeah. Yeah, um,
Speaker 1: And I'm not sure there is a true, definitive answer
Speaker 1: on that. Like I said the podcast, number of crunchers
Speaker 1: seem pretty sure about it. They're certainly willing to, you know,
Speaker 1: to invest money behind the idea. But one paper I
Speaker 1: did look at was one title captured by true crime.
Speaker 1: Why are Women Drawn to Tales of Rape, Murder and
Speaker 1: Serial Killers? By Amanda M. Vickery and are Chris Freeley,
Speaker 1: published in two thousand ten by Social Psychological and Personality Science.
Speaker 1: So exploring this reported demographic divide here, the authors looked
Speaker 1: at Amazon book reviews and found that men seemed more
Speaker 1: likely to review war books and women were more likely
Speaker 1: to review crime books. Uh, they had research subjects than
Speaker 1: read crime fiction synopsises and report and they found that
Speaker 1: women were more drawn to the psychological content of true crime,
Speaker 1: and they were more likely to read true crime books
Speaker 1: if the victim was female. Okay, so that's not a
Speaker 1: perfect measure of actual reading habits in the wild, but
Speaker 1: that is but it's at least an interesting datum to
Speaker 1: begin with, right, Yeah, if you're gonna start somewhere. Again,
Speaker 1: it's not the most robust um study. I don't think
Speaker 1: they're putting it up is that, but it's a good
Speaker 1: place to start. So um Vicari's take is, ultimately is
Speaker 1: that it all comes down to survival, kind of touching
Speaker 1: on we were discussing earlier. True crime tends to revolve
Speaker 1: in some way around the challenges of surviving a crime.
Speaker 1: It's either just an obvious survival story or it's a
Speaker 1: tale from which one might draw survival ideas. What did
Speaker 1: the doomed character do that that doomed them? You know,
Speaker 1: what can I do differently to avoid said doom And
Speaker 1: so even on a subconscious level, it's about learning how
Speaker 1: to avoid and survive crimes. And this makes sense to
Speaker 1: UH that the authors point out because women tend to
Speaker 1: fear crime more than men and are statistically more likely
Speaker 1: to be the victim of crime. According to the U.
Speaker 1: S Department of Justice in two thousand eight, females aged
Speaker 1: twelve or older were five times more likely than males
Speaker 1: aged twelve or older to be victims of intimate partner violence,
Speaker 1: and additionally, in two thousand seven, intimate partners committed fourteen
Speaker 1: percent of all homicides in the US. And those are
Speaker 1: some pretty sobering statistics. By the way, October is also
Speaker 1: National Domestic Violence Awareness Month in the US. Just a reminder,
Speaker 1: the National Domestic Violence Hotline is one eight hundred seven
Speaker 1: nine nine safe or one eight hundred seven nine nine
Speaker 1: seven to three three. But let's get back to this
Speaker 1: idea of of survival. Um. Uh So, as engaging with
Speaker 1: these crime stories is kind of like a rehearsal for survival,
Speaker 1: learning experience for the survival of crime. Uh, it seems
Speaker 1: implied that the reverse would be the same for these uh,
Speaker 1: these these male readers who are then reading all of
Speaker 1: this war, that it's also about survival. Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: processing the riddle of survival in the brain. And I
Speaker 1: feel like that makes sense Without getting into the the
Speaker 1: idea of the gender divide, I know that that I've
Speaker 1: personally dealt with the stresses of by in part thinking
Speaker 1: a lot about say, war games, clone wars, the galactic
Speaker 1: Civil war, the wars of ants, that sort of thing.
Speaker 1: And and but then likewise, I can think back to
Speaker 1: times in my life where I found similar solace in
Speaker 1: crime fiction where um, you know, I distinctly remember a
Speaker 1: time where there's a fair amount of stress in my
Speaker 1: life and I was watching some these were these were
Speaker 1: fictional accounts, but they're basically like slasher films, and I
Speaker 1: remember even thinking at the time, like, this is a
Speaker 1: weird way to feel chilled out by watching a film
Speaker 1: about a slasher, Like this should be this should on
Speaker 1: some level be making me more anxiou. So they're making
Speaker 1: me feel you know, you know, and more nervous, but
Speaker 1: it's not. It's somehow making me feel better. Yeah. My
Speaker 1: hunch is that there are two different ways that can work.
Speaker 1: One is that if it's an effective slasher movie, then
Speaker 1: there is actually sort of an endorphin you know, emotional
Speaker 1: catharsis thing of like being afraid but then not actually
Speaker 1: being in a threat. You know, once the once the
Speaker 1: fear passes, you kind of get an endorphin release and
Speaker 1: you're like, oh, okay, and that can be kind of calming. Um,
Speaker 1: it can give you a sense of control to have
Speaker 1: the ironic distance and like watch something that is actually
Speaker 1: scary but then know that it's not real. And then
Speaker 1: on the other end, if you're watching like a bad
Speaker 1: slasher movie. I think there's a different there's a similar
Speaker 1: and simultaneously different thing at work, which is there's still
Speaker 1: the ironic difference, but the ironic difference element is played
Speaker 1: up to the point where like watching something that is
Speaker 1: supposed to be scary but is in fact funny is
Speaker 1: very reassuring. You know, it makes you feel like there's
Speaker 1: maybe not that much to worry about. Well, just thinking
Speaker 1: of bad slasher films, like how many of us have
Speaker 1: watched the slasher films and really harped on on the
Speaker 1: the idea of what to do when you get this
Speaker 1: the killer down right, Like, obviously the thing to do
Speaker 1: within the context of the films is if you knock
Speaker 1: the killer out, you slowly approach them and take their
Speaker 1: mask off. You don't say, grab their weapon and stab
Speaker 1: them a million times in the torso to make sure
Speaker 1: they're debt um. But we love so at times even
Speaker 1: just yelling at the screen because they are doing the
Speaker 1: wrong thing. You are not practicing good survival. But I
Speaker 1: at the same time am contemplating survival, and to some degree,
Speaker 1: I feel like you feel like you're learning about survival. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is a good point. A lot of slasher movies.
Speaker 1: I think could could be effective and could be enjoyable
Speaker 1: to people because there are at least implied rules, like
Speaker 1: there's a there's a system of rules that you can
Speaker 1: suss out, and the fact that they're not announced explicitly
Speaker 1: makes it seem a little bit more interesting and fun
Speaker 1: that you have figured them out. You kind of know
Speaker 1: what a lot of the you know, the mistakes that
Speaker 1: aaracters are going to make ahead of time, and you
Speaker 1: can think that, uh, you know, uh, Dewey here is
Speaker 1: very stupid for having done that. I would have not
Speaker 1: done that. I know better by the way of that
Speaker 1: Vicary and Freeley paper. Uh. They also point out that
Speaker 1: neither female nor male subjects in their study were drawn
Speaker 1: to stories with explicitly emotional or sexual content, but it
Speaker 1: was the psychological content that interested female test subjects. Um So,
Speaker 1: I guess I suppose the idea there is it's coming
Speaker 1: down to um uh again survival, but but on a
Speaker 1: psychological level, like how do you tell which character is
Speaker 1: the creepy killer? Kind of coming back to our tales
Speaker 1: from the crypt episode, like is it is it adam Ant?
Speaker 1: Is it his character? He's sure is acting creepy uh,
Speaker 1: am I able to psychologically analyze him in a way
Speaker 1: where I can guess that he's the killer or is
Speaker 1: it Clance Williams the third or is it Salomi Gen's Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean it's it's one of those episodes where all
Speaker 1: possibilities are on the table. Now, a couple of a
Speaker 1: couple other just short references to to uh some write
Speaker 1: ups that I found insightful and all of this. As
Speaker 1: Sarah Watts points out in her Forbes coverage of the
Speaker 1: aforementioned study, all of this lines up with psycholopsychologist Dr
Speaker 1: John Mayer's view that perfectly ex purposely exposing oneself to
Speaker 1: violence in these um uh, these forms can serve as
Speaker 1: an inoculation against fear. But we also have to consider
Speaker 1: individual differences in all of this. So some of us
Speaker 1: are drawn uh into into say true crime or horror
Speaker 1: movies because of thrill seeking personalities, but it could be
Speaker 1: more about interest in the taboo or an interest in
Speaker 1: dark subject matter. Uh So it's it's ultimately very difficult
Speaker 1: to create like a one size fits all rule for
Speaker 1: why people like true crime or horror or whatever the
Speaker 1: particular piece of media. Maybe you know it's funny I
Speaker 1: feel like I still haven't, even in this discussion, figured
Speaker 1: out the answer to that question. I was asking about
Speaker 1: true crime versus fictional horror, like both both deal with
Speaker 1: violence and fear and threats, but people have extremely different
Speaker 1: reactions to them. I noticed that usually, like horror movies
Speaker 1: are fun, they make me feel good, and true crime
Speaker 1: just kind of usually makes me feel bad. But there
Speaker 1: are people for whom it's entirely the reverse, And I'm
Speaker 1: still not sure why. Yeah, um, and and then I
Speaker 1: don't know. Sometimes it's about how it's presented, right, Like
Speaker 1: I instantly think to how both the Texas Chainsaw massacre
Speaker 1: and Fargo both have the introductions at the beginning to
Speaker 1: try and cast them as legitimate occurrences. You know, this
Speaker 1: really happened, even though both are pure fiction. Um but
Speaker 1: but yet, I guess a lot of it comes down
Speaker 1: to the fact that I often find that the true crime,
Speaker 1: like that's definitely true and not you know, fictionalized to
Speaker 1: a large degree, has a tendency to feel yeah, just
Speaker 1: more just feel sadder, feel like more of a tragedy
Speaker 1: as opposed to a you know, violent romp. But one
Speaker 1: area where we see, um, this this is interesting and
Speaker 1: talking about where the fiction meets the reality. UM. I
Speaker 1: was reading from a book titled Blood Obsession, Vampire, serial Murder,
Speaker 1: and the Popular Imagination by Jorgo Walch, Assistant Professor of
Speaker 1: Modern Languages and director of the Language Resource Center and
Speaker 1: at Ohio University in Athens Um. In this book, one
Speaker 1: of the many points that they're making is that they
Speaker 1: draw this connection between serial murderers, certainly in the modern sense,
Speaker 1: and the vampire myths of old, uh, seeing the modern
Speaker 1: serial murder as the vampire myth uh in real life.
Speaker 1: So you could you could argue that the modern serial
Speaker 1: murder um either in their their stark reality or they're
Speaker 1: sort of presumed reality, you know, they're slightly fictionalized. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the view of their being one around every corner,
Speaker 1: that we're still dealing with a solitary humanoid hunter of
Speaker 1: other human beings that we can obsess over, and the
Speaker 1: vampire is kind of the purely supernatural reflection of that
Speaker 1: same idea. And I think part of this comes back
Speaker 1: to what you said earlier about rules. We like that
Speaker 1: there are rules, and in both vampire fiction and it's
Speaker 1: certainly serial killer fiction, and to a certain extent, true
Speaker 1: crime is often about the rules that they will by
Speaker 1: by anyway, I think I think the distinction is not
Speaker 1: not only you know, fascinating, but also it's worth keeping
Speaker 1: in mind, especially during Halloween. So you can't you can't
Speaker 1: really go all in on Halloween and vampires and all
Speaker 1: and say that you don't get true crime fascination because
Speaker 1: I think ultimately there's a lot of crossover between the two. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's just yeah, Ultimately, do you want your you know,
Speaker 1: the bad guy turning into a bat, or do you
Speaker 1: want the bad guy you know, limping around with a
Speaker 1: fake cast or what have you? Do you want to
Speaker 1: set to Swan Lake or do you want to set
Speaker 1: to the Unsolved Mysteries theme? I would take Swan Lake,
Speaker 1: Uh any time. Yeah, I'm I'm with you. That that
Speaker 1: Unsolved Mystery theme song kind of stirs, uh, just an
Speaker 1: innate feeling of fear. I mean, much like the Tales
Speaker 1: from the Dark Side theme song, the Man that Unsolved
Speaker 1: Mystery song. It's that it's that one like expansive bending note,
Speaker 1: you know, the brandy before the before the beat kicks in.
Speaker 1: It's so powerful and then here comes Robert Stack walking
Speaker 1: out of the mist. The light behind in ghosts? Do
Speaker 1: they exist? Or is this another hoax? Let's watch a
Speaker 1: recreation starring Matthew McConaughey. You know, Unsolved Mysteries gets a
Speaker 1: lot funnier after you've recently rewatched Beavis and butt Head
Speaker 1: do America because Robert Staff agent on that. Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: that was that was good. I remember that. Now. All right, Well,
Speaker 1: we're gonna go ahead and close it up for now,
Speaker 1: but I think we're coming back for a third episode
Speaker 1: this year. What it would be volume six seven six,
Speaker 1: I think so Navy volume six six six be on
Speaker 1: the lookout. Basically, the situation is going to be, uh,
Speaker 1: we will We're gonna be recording episodes during the week
Speaker 1: of Halloween for the week after Halloween, and we don't
Speaker 1: really want to record non Halloween episodes during the week
Speaker 1: of Halloween, so you're gonna get a little extra Halloween
Speaker 1: this year. Um, so hopefully you're okay with that. But
Speaker 1: then then we'll move on to some other topics if
Speaker 1: we feel like it. Yes, all right, If you want
Speaker 1: to check out other episodes of Stuff to Blow your mind,
Speaker 1: you know where to find us, and that's everywhere. Anywhere
Speaker 1: you get a podcast, you can find us and if
Speaker 1: they let you leave feedback and stars and so forth,
Speaker 1: if they let you subscribe, we ask that that you
Speaker 1: do that because that that helps the show out. We're
Speaker 1: told likewise, if you want to find us really quickly,
Speaker 1: you can go to stuff to Blow your Mind dot com.
Speaker 1: That will shoot you over to the I Heart listening
Speaker 1: for this show. And hey, there's a little store um
Speaker 1: listing there. You can click on that and I'll take
Speaker 1: us to the t public store for our show. You
Speaker 1: can get something with our logo on it, and get
Speaker 1: a face mask with our logo on it, or various
Speaker 1: monster shirts that have put out over the years. Huge
Speaker 1: thanks as always to our excellent audio producer Seth Nicholas Johnson.
Speaker 1: If you would like to get in touch with us
Speaker 1: with feedback on this episode or any other to suggest
Speaker 1: topic for the future, just to say hello, you can
Speaker 1: email us at contact at stuff to Blow your Mind
Speaker 1: dot com. Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of
Speaker 1: I Heart Radio. For more podcasts for my Heart Radio,
Speaker 1: visit the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you're
Speaker 1: listening to your favorite shows.