Rick Froman wrote:
> I don't know if this switch reflects changes in
> society or encourages them or both but it is a difference you
> can see clearly comparing older mysteries to today's fantasy/mystery mix.
I'm not sure that I see the change over time, in light of everything from
Casper to Clarence to Samantha to Jeannie. However, I have long wondered
about the role that matter-of-fact magic in the movies and tv plays in
making the paranormal believable (the "encourages them" side of your
speculation). People apparently find it very easy to believe in all sorts of
magical powers, universal cures (ever really look at the lists of claims for
those herbal supplements?), and religious miracles. Surely the belief is not
the product of the very meager real-world evidence. One would expect these
to be the kind of exceptional claims that require exceptional evidence, but
they're treated almost as though the burden of evidence is in the other
direction (as though _natural_ explanation is the odd route to take, the
last resort).
It seems quite likely that the routine portrayal of the supernatural in
fiction (and in some of what is purported to be nonfiction) plays a role in
making supernatural explanation seem reasonable. I'd love to see some kind
of test of this notion.
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
