I know I said I was going to review Nick Redfern's Bloodline of the Gods book here. If you check the blog archive, you'll see that I set out on that quest.
Alas, almost as soon as I held the book in my hand I realized it was drivel. About the same time, I got a library book about the history of the discovery of the Rh blood factor that was quite interesting. No temporal combination of experiences has ever so undermined my interest in the field of paranormal commentary as much.
Redfern had a certain street cred for me; I've read books he's written that weren't insane and wielded enough logic to make my suspension of belief regarding the topics he discussed unproblematic. He's been an articulate, rational, clear-thinking and open-minded participant on many podcasts I've listened to.
Bloodline of the Gods was, however, unmitigated bullshit. I felt unclean for even buying it. I guess it comes down to feeling betrayed by the Nick Redfern brand. I can't believe I paid almost ten dollars for this collection of recycled internet garbage; worse still, I can no longer trust one of the few people I thought I could rely on to provide thoughtful, well-considered, well-researched paranormal content.
I've tolerated the necessity of sorting through plenty of bullshit with regards to the paranormal or UFOs. To see someone like Redfern, who usually comes down on the side of at least minimal research and then drawing plausible conclusions, jump the shark so dramatically as he did in Bloodline is pretty much the final straw. I wish I could go all Tyler Kokjohn (who recently did a serious review of David Jacob's new book) or Jason Colavito and put together a really cogent review of why Bloodline is such incredible bullshit, but frankly working out or petting my cats is far more interesting. I am severely disillusioned. I can't enjoy listening to the usual paranormal bullshit anymore. Maybe that's healthy?
Bloodline was sort of a watershed experience for me. Not only was it a disappointment in itself, it poisoned the whole paranormal topic for me. It exemplified so many of the dodges that make paranormal "research" bullshit. The entire reference section consists of URLs? Bad sign. Absolutely NO discussion of actual blood science about a major and well-documented discovery? Indicates the author is out to pander. No discussion or consideration of other science, either established or cutting edge, that may have to do with the topic (e.g., genetic sciences)? I get better stuff in my Twitter feed. Reliance on established bullshit artists like Sitchin and conflating mythology with reality like the Bible? I can't be the only one with a BA in liberal arts here. No critical discussion of anything whatsoever; just a weakly stitched narrative that, who knows, might in a century become the basis for a whole new witch hunt. Because Rh negative or whatevs.
Forbidden science ho!
Alas, almost as soon as I held the book in my hand I realized it was drivel. About the same time, I got a library book about the history of the discovery of the Rh blood factor that was quite interesting. No temporal combination of experiences has ever so undermined my interest in the field of paranormal commentary as much.
Redfern had a certain street cred for me; I've read books he's written that weren't insane and wielded enough logic to make my suspension of belief regarding the topics he discussed unproblematic. He's been an articulate, rational, clear-thinking and open-minded participant on many podcasts I've listened to.
Bloodline of the Gods was, however, unmitigated bullshit. I felt unclean for even buying it. I guess it comes down to feeling betrayed by the Nick Redfern brand. I can't believe I paid almost ten dollars for this collection of recycled internet garbage; worse still, I can no longer trust one of the few people I thought I could rely on to provide thoughtful, well-considered, well-researched paranormal content.
I've tolerated the necessity of sorting through plenty of bullshit with regards to the paranormal or UFOs. To see someone like Redfern, who usually comes down on the side of at least minimal research and then drawing plausible conclusions, jump the shark so dramatically as he did in Bloodline is pretty much the final straw. I wish I could go all Tyler Kokjohn (who recently did a serious review of David Jacob's new book) or Jason Colavito and put together a really cogent review of why Bloodline is such incredible bullshit, but frankly working out or petting my cats is far more interesting. I am severely disillusioned. I can't enjoy listening to the usual paranormal bullshit anymore. Maybe that's healthy?
Bloodline was sort of a watershed experience for me. Not only was it a disappointment in itself, it poisoned the whole paranormal topic for me. It exemplified so many of the dodges that make paranormal "research" bullshit. The entire reference section consists of URLs? Bad sign. Absolutely NO discussion of actual blood science about a major and well-documented discovery? Indicates the author is out to pander. No discussion or consideration of other science, either established or cutting edge, that may have to do with the topic (e.g., genetic sciences)? I get better stuff in my Twitter feed. Reliance on established bullshit artists like Sitchin and conflating mythology with reality like the Bible? I can't be the only one with a BA in liberal arts here. No critical discussion of anything whatsoever; just a weakly stitched narrative that, who knows, might in a century become the basis for a whole new witch hunt. Because Rh negative or whatevs.
Forbidden science ho!
I don't have a copy yet, but would love to do a follow-up review that totally Kokjohns it (in all my spare time, of course).
ReplyDeleteEllen Tarr (Tyler Kokjohn colleague)
> Bloodline of the Gods was, however, unmitigated bullshit.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your series on this topic.
Recently, after trying to read the egregious Close Encounters of the Fatal Kind, I accused Nick of pandering to the consumers of paranormal literature. He took exception! But how else to explain the dreck he has been writing lately? Nick's "research" has been reduced to "the customer is always right."