tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149307856443561797.post6048761108901150085..comments2023-06-08T00:30:34.180+10:00Comments on Diary of an Amateur Vampirologist: The FVZA Is Not a Factual ResourceAnthony Hogghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08647370834507823458noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149307856443561797.post-70186435108385320492011-01-31T17:18:07.928+11:002011-01-31T17:18:07.928+11:00Andrew,
Well-spotted, mate!
Montague's is w...Andrew,<br /><br />Well-spotted, mate! <br /><br />Montague's is written in a populist format, seemingly for a juvenile audience. Lotsa pretty pictures, but <i>no freakin' bibliography</i>, which is what makes such "lifts" to risible. If she's gonna make such authoritative claims, then she could at least have helped us with a source.<br /><br />Her use of pluralising is equally damaging, because the text - as you've pointed out - has clearly been taken from the FVZA website. I don't dispute that maybe other authors have come up with the theory, too, but all signs point to FVZA. Slightly altering their text, as she's done, doesn't change this.<br /><br />I'm not impressed that Cheung used the FVZA as an authoritative source, but, at least she actually mentions her source material. Montague really shoulda known better.<br /><br />Fictional theories (i.e. theories found in deliberately fictional works, or proposed for fictional works) should be delineated from factual theories (i.e. theories proffered as a legitimate explanation for certain phenomena, even if pseudoscientific). <br /><br />This is why the regard for Pecos as an authoritative source is somewhat troubling, as he doesn't even <i>exist</i>. <br /><br />If the context is laid out, I'm cool with that. If not, then we're essentially corrupting serious research into the field. <br /><br />I can name at least two sources that incorporate imaginary works on vampirism into legit bibliographies - and both did so because of the subtle insertion of fake works into real ones. Thus, the fake source is reproduced. We gotta combat that sneakiness wherever possible.Anthony Hogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08647370834507823458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149307856443561797.post-28412305075935342752011-01-29T20:23:22.948+11:002011-01-29T20:23:22.948+11:00Anthony, further to my last comment (for clarity) ...Anthony, further to my last comment (for clarity) when I mention the multiple use principle, and Montague pluralising, I know that you have shown websites that use the FVZA quote (either cited or not) but they are direct lifts. <br /><br />The use of the word "stories", to me at least, makes it sound that it has been used as a concept in several stories (in other words films/novels or other works of fiction) rather than a website simple lifting and quoting for a list or semi-factual discourse and (of course) the other sources you show quote the FVZA directly and do not change the concept to epilepsy leading to a fiery death.Taliesin_ttlghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10105263634442191232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149307856443561797.post-35419544477758674872011-01-29T20:12:07.892+11:002011-01-29T20:12:07.892+11:00Anthony, glad you found the source but you are rig...Anthony, glad you found the source but you are right - it doesn't let her off the hook indeed it places her further on said hook in my opinion.<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />Firstly she still failed to quote the source. I have no problem with Montague using a fictional source - she is discussing the fictional vampire, but she should source it.<br /><br />Secondly, looking at the quote I used: <i>"later stories, vampires might collapse or explode when hit by sunlight, the ‘scientific’ explanation..."</i> - this indicates multiple uses of this as a principle in a variety of stories, not just mentioned in one specific fiction. <br /><br />Thirdly, she has changed the theorem, indicating that she didn't read the source properly. the FVZA <i>"As dramatic as this reaction may appear, it will <b>not be enough</b> to start a fire."</i> (my emphasis)<br />Montague: <i>"...and <b>possibly setting them on fire</b>..."</i> (my emphasis again).<br /><br />So, from being source-less, she is now sourced and seen to have altered that source! <br /><br />But, again, my thanks to you for diligently tracking this down :)Taliesin_ttlghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10105263634442191232noreply@blogger.com