Monsters and conspiracies
Today is the 80th anniversary of the taking of the first known photos of the Loch Ness monster. The photographer was one Hugh Gray, who did not set out to track the monster, but who seems to have known of its legend. Since then Nessie has been the subject of a mass of literature, has featured in a number of, not very good, photos and has produced fame for several people.
A lot of the Nessie literature seems to me remarkably similar to the products of the conspiracy theory industry. Books, articles, TV and radio shows circle round the ‘could be true but probably aren’t’ tall tales their writers produce.
Do they add anything to literature or knowledge or general culture? Not being a fan of this kind of writing, I can’t really say. The couple of examples I’ve read have produced my non-fandom and I haven’t read any since.
Will we ever know the truth behind the events so studied? To me it would be a relief if the subjects could be put to bed and the world could move on to something else; but I’m not sure everyone would agree with that.
In the States we have big foot.
Thank you for reminding me – I had heard of big foot but had forgotten. I imagine there’s a lot of writing about him/her too, and much of it repetitive and trivial.
Yea, now the big thing are pictures. Photo shopping can bring these monsters alive. lol
You’ve pointed out a problem for the future. It’ll be hard to tell if a picture is genuine. I think this might spell the end of amateur snaps of things the people happen to see. Only photos taken by groups of people setting out to find them will be trusted.