Sample Essay - Defining Hoaxes

Read the texts 'Gorgeous Guy' A big fat lie and A Wee Scam and explain to what extent the 'hoaxes' described in these texts do in fact correspond to the definition offered in your third text, Contriving Wonderful Stories for the Publick.

In his text ‘Contriving Wonderful Stories for the Publick’, Larkin explains that Alex Boese has chosen to use the Oxford English Dictionary’s 1808 definition of hoax in order to choose which stories he will include on his web site museumofhoaxes.com. The choice of definition is of course important because, depending on how he chooses to define ‘hoax’ certain stories may or may not be acceptable on a site devoted entirely to hoaxes. Undoubted, Boese’s main objective in setting up the web site was to offer entertainment to his visitors. Therefore any story that can be considered ‘wonderful’ by the ‘publick’ is a suitable story to include on his site.

However, Larkin in his text also offers an alternative definition of hoax : ‘a deceptive scheme that takes advantage of people’s credulity’. Also if we return to the Oxford English Dictionary and instead of choosing the 1808 definition, we choose the most recent one: we find that a hoax is a ‘a humorous or mischievous deception, usually taking the form of a fabrication of something fictitious or erroneous, told in such a manner as to impose upon the credulity of the victim’. This more recent definition of hoax offered by the Oxford English Dictionary is similar to Larkin’s own offering. In both definitions the most important element is deception. Whether or not we call something a hoax is important because of our general attitude to hoaxes - they are entertaining. If a person’s actions are described as a ‘hoax’ then we tend to forgive them and certainly don’t feel justified in punishing them. However, if we refuse to accept that someone’s deception was a mere ‘hoax’ and insist that it was, rather a crime (most of which are some form of deception) - a fraud, a scam, a - then the consequences are much more serious.

If we turn now to look at the incidences described in the texts “’Gorgeous Guy’ a big fat lie” and ‘A Wee Scam’ we will find that neither can be said to really be in accordance with the 1808 definition of hoax. However they can both be said to illustrate the more modern definitions of hoax offered by Boese and the Oxford English Dictionary. However, ‘Gorgeous Guy’ fits more accurately the modern definitions. The actions described in ‘A Wee Scam’ are somewhat suspect and although they fit the modern definitions this particular account may lead us to question the accuracy/appropriateness of these modern definitions.

In ‘Georgeous Guy’ we learn that a series of messages concerning one particular guy began appearing on an internet bulletin board. The messages began with someone claiming to have once met this guy but having failed to get his contact details - even his name. The writer claimed that she was so impressed by this guy that she was really keen to reestablish contact and so she appealed to other readers to help her locate him. A series a messages followed which resulted in the generation of a lot of interest in what became known as ‘Gorgeous Guy’. It was even discovered at what bus stop ‘Gorgeous Guy’ queued every morning and crowds of women began gathering in order to have a look. Thus the identity of Gorgeous Guy became known - Don Baca, a local bank worker. Ultimately it was discovered that it was Baca himself who had sent the original messages and started the whole scheme. It would appear that he did it in order to attract attention and further his ambitions of becoming an actor or a model.

•

The second ‘hoax’ described in ‘A Wee Scam’ is somewhat more straighforward. Forrest signed a contract with a football team for which he was to play part time. There was a clause in his contract which would allow termination if he were to find a full time position. One day he received a phone call during which he was offered a full time position with another team. He promptly resigned from his current team and another footballer, Paul Browne was immediately appointed as his replacement. However when he went to the new football team’s grounds he discovered that the manager there had never phoned him and offered him a job. After further investigation it was discovered that Paul Browne (his replacement) had made the bogus call in order to cheat Forrest out of his place on the team.

Neither ‘Gorgeous Guy’ nor ‘A Wee Scam’ can be said to be in accordance with the 1808 definition of hoax because neither story was ‘contrived’ for the ‘publick’. Both stories were contrived with the purpose of the perpetrator benefiting personally. Baca acted in order to draw attention to himself in the hope of becoming famous and possibly becoming an actor or a model. Paul Browne in ‘A Wee Scam’ acted in order to secure himself a part-time position on a football team. Admittedly, in the case of Baca the public were involved but they were drawn into the incident for Baca’s own benefit not for their own amusement. Ultimately some members of the public may have ‘got a kick’ out of the whole incident but it is important to note that their amusement was not the goal or purpose of the ‘hoax’.

Applying a more modern definition to the two accounts it may be said that both are hoaxes depending on your sense of humour. Both stories involve deception - an essential element. That both accounts are of deception is not questioned. Also both accounts take advantage of other’s credulity. In Baca’s case the credulity of the general public and in Browne’s case only the credulity of one man, Forrest. However if we look at the OED’s requirements a little more closely we find that this deception needs to be ‘humourous and/or mischievous'. So the big question is whether Baca and Browne’s deception was humourous and/or mischievous? This is the kind of question that would need to be answered in a court of law in determining whether someone should be punished or lauded. Personally I find Baca’s deception humourous but not Browne’s. Baca’s is humourous because it conjures up in one’s mind, crowds of women gathering in the early morning around a San Francisco bus stop. If I were from San Francisco I may not find this funny but being a foreigner I find a lot of things that American’s do, amusing. It gives me a chance to once again laugh at the antics of Americans.

Browne’s actions on the other hand are for me downright reprehensible. We can all tell lies but this doesn’t mean we should. I can’t imagine anyone finding what he did amusing, not Forrest, not the members of the football teams concerned and not even Browne himself.

If were are to accept the modern definition of hoax suggested by the Oxford English Dictionary, then it would seem that whether or not something should be considered a hoax depends of the individual’s judgement about what is humourous and what is not. This seems a somewhat unsatisfactory situation, as whether something is to be called a hoax becomes a subjective decision. Unsatisfactory as this may feel it probably is in fact the way things are. Individuals do in fact disagree as to whether something is a hoax. We need only look at Kennedy’s own article which he has chosen to call “A Wee Scam” rather than ‘A Wee Hoax’.