The Performance of Ghost Hunting Part II

This blog is a continuation of “The Performance of Ghost Hunting, Part I

The critically acclaimed actress Fiona Shaw also volunteered to have her brain scanned, where she would switch back and forth from “acting” in the MRI machine to doing static actions such as saying the ABC’s and counting numbers. The results were that while Shaw was acting, she was using a part of her brain that was responsible for visualization. This caused me to question whether this could also lead to the potential of having some sort of psychic abilities, or in the very least, develop empathic abilities since the very essence of acting is to emulate life and present different emotions with legitimacy. However, every actor hasn’t had his or her brain scanned. But based on the fact that Shaw is an extraordinary actress, the brain activity occurring during her performance may very be similar as to the brain activity of those who use the same performance process as Shaw. Given the success rate of the Ganzfeld by artistic people, it is interesting to consider that since the experiment is partially dependent on the send of images and video, the send creates their own visualizations in their mind and send it over to their fellow artist, who may use the same part of their brain.

And if the actor’s visualization skills are stronger than the average person, perhaps it could be the reason why actors are more vulnerable. Actors and musicians are also able to channel in their emotions more efficiently so that they’re available during their performance or writing their own pieces. Could this vulnerability lead to a higher chance of having ghosts interact with these artists? I don’t think that it is a stretch to hypothesize that performance could be summoning these ghosts even those the performer has no intention of doing so. Or is it possible that the actor could be using that energy in creating their own ghosts so to speak? Like thoughtforms of characters? The actor has a much larger role in theatre hauntings than they expect.

Then we have the factoring in of the actual ghost hunts that are taking place. Ghost hunting really is a performance from the perspective of the ghosts are your audience members, and you are saying certain words and doing certain actions for the purpose of getting a response from the ghost, just as when the actor performs on stage, they are anticipating some kind of reaction from laughter to tears. But just as an actor can have a bad performance, the ghost hunter can have a bad investigation. Maybe the wrong questions were being asked, or the ghost hunter and the ghost just weren’t connecting. It can be hard to figure out exactly where the investigation went wrong. But there are things that the ghost hunter to do to ensure a smoother time, which includes doing your historical research as well as making a completely game plan of the events of the investigation.

Even in our day-to-day routine, we are in the midst of a performance until we are alone at home. In the same sense, ghosts are constantly in performance mode as well. Think about it. They might be unaware of the amount of energy they carry, and with the wrong movement, they could reveal their current state. Or if the ghost has a message to send, and is in desperate need to get the sender’s attention, the ghost may put on a performance to make sure that they are being listened.

On that note, will we ever reach a time where we will no longer expect a performance from ghosts and just allow them to talk? That will actually be my next communication experiment at the Tenth. No more expecting “yes” or “no” answers, but instead, just allowing them to talk. Once I approach an investigation in that way, collecting tangible evidence would be more difficult, unless I was able to obtain better equipment that was more sensitive and could play back the information that was collected.

The performance of ghost hunting places responsibility on both sides of the investigation relationship. It is a tug of war relationship between the ghost hunter and the ghost, as they continuously trade roles from performer to audience member, and then back again. However, unlike the ghost hunter, the deceased are forced to perform when requested by the ghost hunter. I almost want to imagine circus animals that are being chained to their cages while the ringleader cracks their whip to get them to perform. In some cases, the ghost hunter may threaten the presence with religious objects such as crosses or threaten to force the deceased to cross over to the other side. The investigation process, while this will be ironic for me to say, shouldn’t be a performance like this, but instead a mutual agreement to engage in conversation and finding the most productive method of establishing that communication. The need to impress or outdo other teams is primarily responsible for the circus-like spectacle since a team’s value seems to lie upon whether they can capture the best evidence or not. While evidence collection is important, it is being used for the wrong way. Which is probably another reason why we have so many people trying to pass off their photos of dust as evidence of a ghost, or why people are faking evidence so that they can get their 15-minutes of fame. It really is a shame, and it does nothing more than harm the research field for the paranormal, and it is the reason why this community has yet to find widespread respect.

Perhaps I am not one to talk since I was interviewed by public television about the Tenth Avenue Theater, but that opportunity came about unexpectedly, and I did not ask for the interview. The field right now is flooded with people who are using the paranormal to gain a celebrity status. Is it right? I don’t know. If I were to criticize it, I would also have to criticize those who use theatre to get famous as well. It is a hard line to tow indeed. As a believer in karma, and the mindset of “what goes around comes around”, I wonder what price we will have to pay for putting the deceased out there in the public eye and not only making them perform tricks, but forcing them to become entertainment for our own pleasure.

I have mixed feelings about guided ghost tours that take place night after night. While I love the idea of having access to haunted locations and investigating, I often find that these tours are there for the specific purpose of entertaining people. So, in this case, the audience is the tourist. I do pay for my ticket to be a part of the ghost hunt, and I often find myself being the most experienced in the group, with the rest of the attendees borrowing equipment from the host team and going around ready to jump at the first sight of a ghost. I have distinctly mixed feelings because while I feel like it is a great opportunity to expose more people to the paranormal field, it is also subjecting the deceased to being performers, all the while the teams that are hosting these tour are proclaiming that they care about the ghosts. When these tours are happening year round and people are paying a good chunk of money to be a part of the experience, I find it comparable to running a circus and cracking the whip on the animals while saying you care about them under the same breath. I have also noticed that these ghost tours actually outnumber any historical research based tours. You can tell whether people would rather learn about history or be entertained, and so which direction is society heading?

It seems that we are at an impasse, both the living and the dead trapped in the world of continuous performances. Even in life, we perform all the time from our work duties, to tasks that need to be taken care of at home. With each changing social circle, our audiences change and thus, our performances change. I don’t act the same way at home as I do with I’m with my best friend at a bar enjoying a drink. In death, it should be our time to rest. But with the constant popularity of ghost hunting, it may be a while before the dead gets a hint of peace and quiet, or “rest in peace” so to speak. Is this what we have to look forward to after we die? It is a wonder why ghosts would even stick around and bother to communicate with the living world in the first place. What if the connection with the living world is worth being objectified and turned into a performer? Or perhaps, the messages from the other side are crucial enough to share that the living world needs to be an audience for these paranormal performers in order for them to receive these messages.

The Real Doctor Faustus

Faustus summoning Mephostophilis
Faustus summoning Mephostophilis

The legends of brilliant men making pacts with the Devil in order to acquire their knowledge is a tale as old as time.  Theophilus the Penitent was one of the earliest legends, but a man from Germany would become more famous, and immortalized in many works such as Christopher Marlowe’s play, Doctor Faustus, and Goethe’s Faust, just to name a few.  The legend of Doctor Faustus served to show the consequences of one’s decision to commit themselves to evil, but also, it seems to me that it also showed the views of those who were rather brilliant so to speak, and that “obviously” someone must have made a pact with the Devil in order to be that intelligent.  Evidence also suggests that he was a “sodomite” and a “sorcerer” that found him to be banished from several of the towns he visited in his travels.

While Doctor Faustus remains a primarily German legend, this man, named John or Idealporträt_Joannes_FaustusGeorge Faustus was most likely an actual person who was an itinerant scholar or a fortune-teller of some sorts who was a well-traveled man.  Documents that have surfaced date his activities around 1507 until around 1540, and it is believed that he died not long before 1545.  Unfortunately, any historical accounts of the real Faustus do not paint a very favorable picture of him.  The first full account of Faustus was written by an anonymous Protestant and published in 1548 was the first to associate him with the supernatural and any possible pact with the Devil.  This text would be called, Historia von D. Iohan Fausten.  The German-text’s introduction called him “a conjuror and master of black magic” and someone who “sold himself” to the Devil, as well as claiming that the enclosed accounts were from the real diaries of Faustus during his travels.

Another portrait of Faustus circa 1480
Another portrait of Faustus circa 1480

Evidence of the cause of death of Doctor Faustus have been hard to come by. Allegedly, the real Doctor Faustus died a brutal death from an explosion from an alchemical experiment.  His body was terribly mutilated, which supported the idea that the Devil did indeed collect what was due.  However this was recorded by Wikipedia and I haven’t been able to find a strong source to be completely convinced.

Then an English translation called, The History of the Damnable Life and Deserved Death of Doctor Faustus, within five years after the German-text was released.  The author was only known as P.F., and while P.F. remained consistent in the translation, there is a very apparent branch off when Damnable Life includes details that are not included in the German text.  Because of these extra details being included in Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus, it is very likely that Marlowe used Damnable Life as his main source.  Whether he used the German-text is quite possible, but there isn’t enough evidence to confirm it since Damnable Life includes all the information from the German-text.

Hopefully, this has piqued some interest for you to explore more about the Faustus legend, and make the decision for yourself.  Do you think Doctor Faustus really consorted with the Devil?  Or was he the victim of ignorance?

Further Reading

Faust Legends Translated by D.L. Ashliman

Goethe’s Faust

The Faust Book (or Faustbuch)

Christopher Marlowe’s play, Doctor Faustus

If you want to obtain the original text for The History of the Damnable Life and Deserved Death of Doctor Faustus, go to your local library or university and inquire as to whether they have a partnership with Early English Books Online (EEBO).

Cambridge – The Source of Doctor Faustus

Calphurnia and Portia: Rome’s Unwanted Women

Okay, back to business.  No more paranormal for a while and back to research!

julius-caesar-portia-woundJulius Caesar is a play that is suspended between the realms of history and tragedy.  The play is maledominated, with only two women roles: Calphurnia, Caesar’s wife, and Portia, Brutus’ wife.  The lack of female presence is noticed in comparison to other Shakespeare plays where female roles are favorable, such as Twelfth Night, As You Like It, and The Merry Wives of Windsor.  David Mann discusses in Shakespeare’s Women, “Why should one play, say As You Like It, seem so sensitive to the minutiae of a woman’s feelings, and yet another, say Julius Caesar, be so cursory in its treatment?  The answer surely is that it depends entirely on the focus of the play, which, with the exception of a small group of romantic comedies, is generally on the male characters, and always reflects the male point of view”  (Mann 23).  Shakespeare created the absence of a strong female role in order to prove the tragic flaw of an ambitious, male dominated world in terms of Julius Caesar.

It is important to analyze the actions and choices that are made by these men in their world. Gail Kern Paster elaborates in the essay, “In the Spirit of Men There Is No Blood: Blood as Trope of Gender in Julius Caesar,” “The conspirators can only remake themselves, it would seem, by regendering Caesar; they can throw off the appearance of womanishness by displacing their own sense of gender-indeterminacy onto the body of their adversary and renegotiating the differences between themselves and Caesar in diacritical terms of the bodily canons” (290).    This quote touches on a common insecurity among the men of the Senate. They are envious and fearful of Caesar’s growing power.  In relation to the weak female roles of the play, the men themselves do not want to appear weak and feminine because then they will be overpowered. There is also the fear of being overruled by emotions and not being able to think rationally because of these emotions.  As Cassius states:

Let it be who it is: for Romans now
Have thews and limbs like to their ancestors;
But, woe the while! our fathers’ minds are dead,
And we are govern’d with our mothers‘ spirits;
Our yoke and sufferance show us womanish.I, ii, 79-83. Emphasis Added.

This is also proven when Caesar is being attacked over his inability to impregnateScreen shot 2013-01-21 at 4.11.35 PM Calphurnia and even requests Antony to brush by her to make her more fertile, “Forget not, in your speed, Antonius, /To touch Calphurnia; for our elders say, /The barren, touched in this holy chase, /Shake off their sterile curse. (I, ii, 10-13).  Paster also explains an interesting point that the more Caesar grows, the conspirators (or the Senate) shrink.  They must assassinate Caesar in order to secure their own masculinity.

When analyzing Caesar and Brutus and their own personal downfalls, one must look at their wives and their relationships with them.  These two ladies serve as a point of reasons and foundations for their husbands even though their warnings are not heeded.  Also, this play conveys an interesting point of view into a world without a female presence.  Or to be put more plainly, a civilization without women.  In this play, it seems that the two marriages are related into more of a partnership, as shown in the strength of these two women.  Calphurnia is so alarmed by her dream that she strongly urges Caesar to stay at home.  She is outspoken and clearly has a personality and self-made identity.  She warns Caesar and tells him to not go to the Senate. Her statement, “You shall not stir out of your house today”  (II, ii, 13) is written as a direct order and not a request.  Instead, Caesar listens to Decius’ alternate interpretation of her dream, which leads to his downfall.  Juliet Dusinberre elaborates in her book, Shakespeare and the Nature of Women, “Shakespeare’s women dream and see visions in vain, surviving to suffer the devastation they predict.  Decius interprets Calphurnia’s dream to flatter Caesar, and sketches the scorn which would attend his hearkening to his wife’s fears…” (Dusinberre 281).

To Caesar, he doesn’t heed Calphurnia’s warnings and nightmares because they are subjective.  Based on her womanly role and femininity, she is working primarily from emotions.  Instead, he believes in Decius’ interpretation and chooses to not lie to the Senate or the people regarding the condition of his health. He is murdered due to this choice.  But another reason why Caesar considers Decius’ interpretation of the dream is because it flatters his own personal confidence.  If he [Caesar] followed Calphurnia’s orders and lied to the Senate and stayed home, Caesar would have seen this as him not following through with his appointed role.  Decius’ interpretation was not only more persuasive, but also encouraged Caesar to continue to the Senate and walk into his own death sentence.

Similar to Calphurnia, Portia is determined to make sure her voice is heard and understood.  Portia goes a step further as she expects Brutus to be completely honest with her.  She desires a partnership with her husband and wants to be involved in his life.  Not only do these two share a partnership, but also Portia considers herself to be an extension of Brutus himself.  But he ignores her at first, thinking that she could not handle the real truth of his life and work. But Portia is extremely intelligent and has the ability to use language to aid her to get what she desires:

BRUTUS:  You are my true and honourable wife,
As dear to me as are the ruddy drops
That visit my sad heart

PORTIA:  If this were true, then should I know this secret.
I grant I am a woman; but withal
A woman that Lord Brutus took to wife:
I grant I am a woman; but withal
A woman well-reputed, Cato’s daughter.
Think you I am no stronger than my sex,
Being so father’d and so husbanded?
Tell me your counsels, I will not disclose ’em:
I have made strong proof of my constancy,
Giving myself a voluntary wound
Here, in the thigh: can I bear that with patience.
And not my husband’s secrets? II, i, 287-301

BrutusPortia challenges Brutus’ love for her.  If Brutus sees Portia as a comfort from his troubles, then he should be able to tell her of the conspiracy.  But he doesn’t and Portia uses logic and reason to explain her position as the wife of Brutus.  Portia’s voluntary wound is a representation of her strength and endurance as a woman in a man’s world.  Paster explains the voluntary wound as, “Portia calls attention to this bodily site not to remind Brutus of her femaleness, her lack of the phallus, but rather to offer the wound as substitute phallus” (294).  She purposely inflicted pain and injury onto herself in order to prove a physical strength that was masculine and the physical cut would serve as that proof, just as a male sexual part is proof of “manliness”.  She considers herself to be nearly like a man from her strong father who raised her, to Brutus, her husband.

Portia intentionally wounds herself to prove that she is just as strong as a man. Paster discusses that, “Later in the same scene, Portia’s self-wounding and voluntary self-display corroborate the same significance of bodily intactness as an ideological format of gender. Portia stakes her claim to knowledge of the conspiracy by seeking to efface the physical difference that separates her from her husband, difference that Brutus himself is intent upon marking”  (292).   This means that Portia’s desire to know about the conspiracy is so strong, that she intentionally wounded herself to rid herself of any signs of being a woman.  She is attempting to mutilate herself in order to be physically just like a man.

The actual action of this self-wound is significant because she is attempting to prove a point to her husband.  Paster goes on to explain that, “But Portia, unable by talking to prove her ability to keep still, turns to self-mutilation.  The gesture seems intended to imitate in little the suicides that Roman patriarchy valorized as the supreme expression of personal autonomy”  (293).  But Portia desires more than just to know about the conspiracy, she desires an equal partnership with her husband.  If she can prove that she can physically handle pain and to literally carve herself into a man, it will grant her that partnership.  Unfortunately, only so much can be done physically when her emotional state does not change genders.

Her emotional and mental state remains feminine.  Similarly, Brutus himself Portiademonstrates a flawed understanding of human emotion. Honor Matthews explains in Character and Symbol in Shakespeare’s Plays, “Both before and after the assassination he suffers sleeplessness typical of a troubled conscience […] Nevertheless, he strives to be honest with himself and others; he is idealistic, a loving husband an adored master.  Indeed Brutus’ true ‘sin’ is never wrongful self-assertion.” (Matthews 43).  This statement is interesting because it puts Brutus in more of a heroic position rather than a troubled conspirator who doesn’t know how to handle loss or failure.  This is supported by Antony’s speech in the end of the play where he regards Brutus as the only assassin who killed Caesar with Rome’s best interest at hear, “ This was the noblest Roman of them all;/ All the conspirators save only he/Did that they did in envy of great Caesar…” (V, v, 76-78).

There is an interesting point to consider in the scene where Brutus finds out about the suicide of his wife.  The news is delivered twice and both times Brutus is emotionally distant and unattached to the event. And Cassius is more affected by Portia’s death than Brutus himself.  Portia’s suicide, however, is not a sign of weakness.  David Mann explains that, “The values of the Roman matron are held up for admiration in many of the plays and are closely related to the willingness of such to commit suicide to maintain their reputations” (Mann 138).  This is supported by Brutus’s suicide after he has begun to lose the war.  Could this mean that Portia ultimately failed in attempting to be her husband’s partner and equal?  But the absence of Portia supplements a catalyst for his spiraling downfall into his own death.

Thomas Clayton explains in his text, Should Brutus Never Taste of Portia’s Death but Once, “The latter part of the play shows him characteristically and nobly enduring the consequences of his earlier folly even as he compounds it” (Clayton 244).  Brutus’ slow deterioration is due to his actions.  His initial motivation for taking part in the assassination of Caesar involved a patriotic act but soon realized the consequences both mentally and physically.  As seen in his unaffected reaction to Portia’s suicide, Brutus does not have a good handle on his own emotions.  Dunsinberre explains that, “Nevertheless, commanding his own emotions, Brutus underestimates the way in which other men are swayed by theirs.  Brutus may have more integrity than Antony but he is obtuse about passions which Antony understands”  (Dusinberre 290).

78941_juliuscaesar_mdBrutus’s disconnection from stable human emotions is his tragic flaw.  As those around him are reacting [healthily] to the events around them, Brutus does not comprehend which emotion to use.  Could it be that he emotionally shut down as soon as Caesar was killed?  Or did he disable his emotions to thwart the efforts of Portia’s insistence of knowing her husband’s secrets?  Clayton goes on to say, “There is no mistakening Brutus’s dissembling, and yet it does not register as discreditable, because of the mood and level of exchange, the residual effect of Brutus’s grief manifested to Cassius when Brutus told him of Portia’s death, and Brutus’s evident – it is more apparent – sincerity” (Clayton 251).

There are only two small roles for women in the play.  Calphurnia only makes a brief appearance and sternly tells her husband to stay home because of her vivid (and prophetic) dream.  Caesar simply puts Calphurnia’s concerns aside and instead listens to Decius’ alternate interpretation of the dream because it was more appealing and positive.  Listening to Calphurnia would have resulted in moral repercussions in his role as a leader and his reputation.  But not listening to Calphurnia resulted in his assassination by the Senate.

Meanwhile, Portia attempts to prove her role as an equal to Brutus.  Her desires to know the conspiracy of the Senate are much more than the pursuit of knowledge.  It is an attempt to become the extension of her husband and to have that partnership that her emotional state hungers for.  Even though she is attempting to prove her worthiness by physically mutilating herself into becoming a man, her emotional state remains as a woman.  Her suicide is resulted from Antony and Octavius’s rise to power and realizing that the Senate’s conspiracy plan has ultimately become a failure.  Even though she commits suicide first, Brutus is not too far behind her. Both husband and wife demonstrate an emotional disability and to preserve their honors, they commit suicide.

Shakespeare wrote Julius Caesar as a way to convey the absence of a strong female role in a male dominated world and the consequences of ambition.  Calphurnia demonstrates strength in her when she demands that Caesar lie to the Senate and stay home with her to ensure his safety.  But the attempt is counter-argued by a stronger male presence in her life.  This ignorance on Caesar’s part leads to his death.  Portia desires an equal relationship with her husband, and while she can handle the physical pain and demands of a man, she cannot handle the emotional demands of being a man.  Even though she may self-mutilate a phallus onto herself, she cannot change on the inside.  Both women are neglected and ignored.  They are unwanted women.  No matter what actions they may have performed or words they may have spoken, they did not have the power to change the story or fate of their husbands.

 Bibliography

Clayton, Thomas. “‘Should Brutus Never Taste of Portia’s Death but Once?’ Text and Performance in Julius Caesar.” Studies in English Literature (Rice) 23.2 (1983): 237. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 27 Apr. 2010.

Dunsinberre, Juliet.  Shakespeare and the Nature of Women.  New York:  St. Martin’s Press. 1996. Print.

Mann, David.  Shakespeare’s Women.  New York: Cambridge University Press. 2008. Print.

Marshall, Cynthia. “Portia’s Wound, Calphurnia’s Dream: Reading Character in Julius Caesar.” English Literary Renaissance 24.2 (1994): 471-87. Print.

Matthews, Honor.  Character and Symbol in Shakespeare’s Plays. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1962.  Print.

Paster, Gail Kern. “”In the Spirit of Men There Is No Blood”: Blood as Trope of Gender in Julius Caesar.” Shakespeare Quarterly 40.3 (1989): 284. Print.

Rebhorn, Wayne A. “The Crisis of the Aristocracy in Julius Caesar.” Renaissance Quarterly 43.1 (1990): 75-111. JSTOR. Web. 6 Apr. 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2861793>

Shakespeare, William. Riverside Shakespeare. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997. Print.

Smith, Warren D. “The Duplicate Revelation of Portia’s Death.” Shakespeare Quarterly 4.2 (1953): 153-61. Print.