GOTHIC SUBCULTURE AND THE INTERNET

The internet is an important and powerful tool for the gothic subculture in the US that helps to shape it, keep it alive and gives it yet another possible means of expression. Nowadays, gothic internet is an indispensable part of the subculture. We can verify this fact quite easily. When we type “goth” or “gothic” into any search engine on the internet, we will get millions of hits. Browsing through them, we will see that many of the listed websites are related to the subculture and not to its tribal namesakes or literary predecessors. Of course, the search engine hit count shows the number of hits worldwide, so we do not know how many of them come from America. Yet we can at least get the idea of the massive scale of data we have at our disposal. The problem is that internet is a dynamic medium and hence the websites change, emerge and disappear. Therefore no exact statistical count that would be always correct can be done. Still, internet holds much precious information about goths and gothic websites represent the creative aspect of the subculture. It is also evidence of the vitality and flexibility of goths.

It is true that internet has been widely used only since the early 1990’s and therefore the first wave of goths was not able to take any advantage of it. The first goths had to rely on other means of communication such as fanzines e.g. Propaganda.²⁶ However, as soon as internet appeared, it did not take long for the gothic subculture to make it its best ally. In the US the level of influence of internet on culture in general is high due to the early introduction of internet to the public and easy access to it. It is one of the reasons why internet is more tightly interwoven with the gothic subculture in the US than in Europe.

Nevertheless, the next equally important reason why internet was incorporated into the subculture with such readiness was that the American media and TV generally ignored the gothic subculture and this situation has not changed much since the early 1990’s. If goths were mentioned at all it was mostly in negative sense. A good example of this was the case of the Columbine High School shooting in 1999, when the members of the local goth scene were accused by the media of being the murderers’ close friends and thus likely from the same mould.²⁷ Teenage suicides seem to be blamed on the subculture quite often too and it is only natural because goths do not hide their Romantic preoccupation with death and suicide at all.

This tendency of the main stream media to portray goths negatively or to ignore them entirely is, as it seems, specifically American because in Europe, they get much more media attention and on top of that, it is usually neutral. European goths actually infiltrated the media realm. It was quite easy for them because they encountered no other obstacles than those of limited budget as opposed to fear and suspicion that American goths had to deal with from the beginning. The European goths simply started their own music magazines that created a huge following and music TV only followed the trend. As of now, there are several widely distributed dark/gothic/electronic music magazines e.g. Sonic-Seducer, Zillo, Orkus, Side-Line, and D-Side²⁸ in Europe. On German music TV channel Viva Zwei,²⁹ the videos of a number of explicitly gothic (some of them, of course, only image driven) bands are broadcasted in daytime and massively popular among German teenagers.³⁰ The internet still plays an important role for European goths, especially for the local communities and individual goths, but because they can rely on the magazines for information, it is not quite as vital for them as for the American goths.

The members of the American gothic subculture took another route. First the American goths produced the self-made and xerox-copied fanzines and used them as a means of self-promotion and communication. However, this method was quite popular among the goths worldwide, so they were not any special in this. Only later, when gothic subculture had been around for about fifteen years, the technology of internet became available and American goths seized this opportunity, immediately started using internet actively and fully enjoy its possibilities. Internet slowly and naturally replaced the fanzines because it was more accessible and more comfortable to use. Thus internet became more important for American goths than printed media that simultaneously thrived in Europe.

For all goths in general, the internet is a perfect place to freely and at low cost spread the word about local or international gothic communities, bands, events, fashion, literature etc. It also enables the individual “dark souls” that might otherwise live in isolation (e.g. in small towns) to get in touch quite easily with other like-minded people. The flexibility and relative accessibility of internet also suits the creativity of goths as they can use it to publish their literary works, fine arts works, graphic novels (comics)³¹ or even to try their hand at designing the pages and otherwise creatively put the technology to use (flesh animations, interactive pages etc.). In fact, the popularity of gothic themes among internet community led to the emergence of a special category of goth called net-goth. These people like to spend time on some gothic internet project or chatting with goths.

Since the different internet pages are created by goths and mainly for goths with no or only minimal restraint (we have to take into consideration possible legal restraint), internet is a perfect source of information about the subculture because gothic web pages are bound to reflect, in some way, everything that constitutes the subculture. The imagery, photographs and the language can provide an insight into the ideology and esthetic of the subculture, but only indirectly. Literary works by goths published online can tell us a lot about the literary tastes and creativity of goths. Yet luckily, there are also many descriptive and self-reflective texts about the subculture available on the internet that can give us more direct information. The amazing number of these explanatory texts and personal accounts (usually answering to the questions: “What is goth?”, “Why did I become goth?” and “Why goths are what they are?”) shows that the members of the subculture feel a constant need to, more or less clearly, define themselves against the main stream culture and explain the reasons behind their apparently strange behavior, look or life-style.

It is in itself an interesting feature of the subculture that it strictly insists on its “otherness” or “monstrosity” as Hannaham referred to it in his essay.³² The members of the subculture keep expressing this attitude even on the internet where they do not have the benefit of influencing the visitor of the website directly by their persona appearance (many gothic websites include personal photographs, though). And it is exactly this feature, this tendency to “show off” their difference, that can be very helpful to us because by means of internet and these explanatory texts we have been granted at least partial access to the minds of the individual members of the subculture or even to their collective minds in case of collaborative texts. Even this access is limited, though, because as all humans they show us only a part of themselves, only the public self and that filtered through language – a very tricky and deceitful medium. All we can do is try to see through this and extract some knowledge about the subculture from the texts.
ANALYSIS OF THE GOTHIC SELF-EXPLANATORY TEXTS FROM THE INTERNET

If we take a close look at some of these self-reflective texts and the websites they are located at, we will immediately see to what extent they can differ from one another in form, style or their approach to the issue at hand and what variety of opinion they express. Keeping in mind that we are focusing mainly on the gothic subculture in the US, we have to choose the texts with regard to their origin. Regrettably, there is no way to fully verify that they come strictly from the US except when the author’s biographic details are provided. Another problem is that most American gothic websites simply do not mention their origin because the creators, being aware of the huge internet undercurrent in the subculture in the US, assume that it is not necessary. It might also mean that their first identity is goth and than only American, so they mention only the more important one. There are always some details that can help us with identifying the originator or originators of the website, though, at least as most probably American, so this is what we will pay attention to. A separate comparative study of American and European gothic websites would be even more enlightening especially as for the specifically American features of gothic internet, but that would require more time and space than is afforded here. We will focus here on four web pages containing self-reflective texts, each of them as different from the others in form or content as possible³³ so that we can see the variety.

The first text³⁴ to consider is quite a lengthy and informative description of the gothic subculture, presented under the name “A Goth Primer.” It is hosted on the San Francisco gothic community website³⁵ and therefore we can assume that it was most probably created by American goths from the San Francisco area. No specific details are provided, though. In “About This Site” section, the creators claim that it is based on discussions of several people (although unfortunately not credited) and feedback from the visitors of the website. They even warn the visitors not to use it for academic purposes because it is subject to change.³⁶ The text sums up basic information about the subculture, their own ideas about its origins and even tells us something about the divisions within the subculture. “A Goth Primer” is split into sections that explain individual terms connected with the subculture, each of them on a separate page.

The authors explain various things about goths in the text and they even go as far as to list the “Goth Types” – a description of the types of people, their attitude, tastes and fashion styles that can be considered goth and are accepted in the subculture. They only do it to give us an idea about the actual goths, quickly adding: “don't believe in generalizations about goths, not even the ones you read here.” However, these “generalizations” that they provide help us to see that there is a considerable variety of styles and attitudes among goths. Although in these “type” descriptions we see that fashion is fairly important for the members of the subculture, it is not stressed in the text as the most important aspect of being goth. The authors do admit in several places in the text, though, that for goths fashion is a way to highlight their “otherness” and sometimes shock the up-tight majority. The authors do not dwell too much on this topic, though, and rather prefer to talk about the psychological, artistic and sociological aspects of the subculture. Still they admit that goths use the different style of dress to delimit themselves as a subculture.³⁷

Overall, the tone of the text is humorous, but the content seriously tries to get to the core of what is the essence of the subculture and even what were the causes of its birth. Even though, it is full of plays on words and self-mockery and relate this quality even to goths:

You simply can't maintain a room full of despairing people dressed in black for very long without someone starting a chain of laughter. Once you realize you've gone over the top, there's nothing left to do but laugh. It's a self-deflating culture that delights in self-parody and in ridiculing itself. To put it plainly: it's fun.

In the section called “Super-culture” the authors look for reasons why goths came into being. They go back into history and relate their emergence to the state of Western society in 19^th century, industrialization and modern science, thus connecting contemporary goths to the writers of gothic novels and the increased interest in gothic architecture and stories of that period. The authors also mention that when the gothic movement in literature first appeared, “already underway was the Victorian period, whose social norms were based on repression and self-denial,” and the gothic literature was an answer to this repressed culture. The authors later conclude that similar development towards conservatism at the end of 20^th century probably facilitated the revival of the gothic tradition. They find that these two periods have many things in common and that the revival of the literary gothic tradition into a new gothic subculture was only natural for the circumstances were similar.

The authors state many different things about the nature of the subculture throughout the text, but mostly stress the importance of emotions, beauty and the irrational that, according to them, are pushed aside as unimportant and useless by modern society. They claim that goths are the ones who feel and want to feel fully all emotions that life brings. This high sensitivity and sensuality prevents them from complete integration into the main stream culture and society that does not value emotions like goths. The authors also seem to express the idea that unlike the majority of people, goths are not profit and success oriented. The authors sum up their view of the subculture nicely in this sentence: “In a dehumanized society, goths are the canary in the coal mine.” In other words, they represent a warning sign for others that there is something amiss in the society.

The terms that the authors use to describe the subculture are worth attention too. They include the terms “counter-culture, subculture, super-culture” and also “underground world” and “gothic scene,” but they do not always explain them. For instance, the authors define the gothic subculture very simply as “comprised of goths.” There is nothing else said and we are left to guess that probably they mean something like: a group of people connected loosely by the fact that they are goths. “Gothic scene” means for them the gothic clubs and events and people that attend them.³⁸ The gothic scene thus must have some level of social interaction, but again the authors do not tell us how goths actually meet or how their groups or communities are organized. Another term that they mention is “underground world.” This term can have several meanings as well. It can be the world of independent, unknown and eccentric artists, the shadowy world of gothic clubs, an allusion to the subversive elements of the subculture (just like in the name of Underground Railroad) or simply the world of people that eschew the main stream culture in general. They could have meant all of that or even something totally different. The idea is not expanded upon, though, so we do not know what kind of underground world the goths exactly occupy or even why they call it that way.

The concept of “super-culture” is used in relation with “counter-culture” and “subculture” and these terms appear in several places in the text. With the help of these terms the authors try to define the position of goths in relation to the main stream culture (or super-culture to use their term), which is “counter-culture to some, and simply subculture to others.” In other words, the subculture opposes some values of the main stream culture and therefore some elements of it could be described as counter-cultural (as goths are descendants of punk, there still might be a spirit of rebellion for some goths), but some others fit within the main stream culture and therefore it could be called subculture too. This is also what the authors prefer to call it.

There is also a special section called “Goth as Counter-Culture” that deals specifically with this issue. The authors put the punk movement in contrast with gothic subculture as an example of an ideology much more antagonist towards the society than that of goths. They claim that goths mostly lead quite regular lives except for their artistic and social preferences and the fact that they “do not possess a normal level of interest in 401k plans and the bone-crushing capacities of various SUVs.” From what the authors say further in this section, we can still assume that there are values shared by the goths which oppose the values of the rest of the society such as high level of tolerance towards people with different sexual orientations. To put it differently: If they thought that this kind of tolerance is shared by the whole society, there would be no need for these goths to even mention it in their text as an important aspect of the subculture. It is something that the whole society openly endorses or wishes to endorse, but fails to accomplish. Therefore goths actually do not oppose the society when they make it central to their subculture, they oppose only those segments of society that resist the idea of such tolerance.

When we take a look at the appearance of the website, it can also tell us something about its originators – a group of goths - and their idea about what a proper gothic website should look like. The design of “A Goth Primer” is not particularly elaborate or decorative. There are only a few small illustrative photographs of goths on some of the pages, probably meant to give the reader an idea about gothic fashion and what the actual goths look like. Among all the other decorative elements, only the gothic script chosen for the heading belongs to the assortment of gothic design clichés that date back to the times of the gothic novel. The girl in the picture that complements the heading is holding a rosary, which is a decidedly Christian symbol³⁹ that became associated with the subculture probably via the gothic novel imagery of monasteries and crumbling gothic churches. There is not much decoration otherwise, though, except the background textures. Most of them look like ruffled velvet, again a sort of anachronism that serves to enhance the gothic atmosphere as well.

We should not forget about the colors that play an important role because they are also indicators of what is acceptable in gothic fashion and design. The colors that were used are evocative of certain, mostly melancholic, moods. The main page background as well as the background of most of the other sections is black and except for the light, almost pastel colors of the lettering, the whole website avoids bright colors except for red. These pastel colors appear on several sections of the page, but as there is a different color on each section, it looks as if they were chosen only to distinguish the sections and lighter colors were simply necessary for legibility of the texts.

When we look at all these features, we can clearly see that the design of the page contains clues to the nature of the subculture itself, its basic gothic symbolism. It also means that the people who created the page deemed it necessary to maintain some kind of gothic decorum even though their aim was to explain the subculture mainly in words. The authors either used this design in order for the page to be immediately identifiable as unmistakably gothic page even for outsiders or they simply followed the gothic design fashion. It could have been a combination of both these reasons. Therefore we cannot say for sure that the design has no other purpose than decoration and unimaginative perpetuation of gothic design evergreens. It is true that it might seem so because some of the elements from “A Goth Primer” could be seen on many other gothic internet pages. Nevertheless, the design shows the visitor of the page what he/she can expect on this page and its features actually allude to cultural elements contained within the gothic subculture. For this reason, it cannot be dismissed as redundant or only decorative.

The second text⁴⁰ that we will look at is similar to the first one in content, but unlike “A Goth Primer” it is written by a single person. The author is Preston A. Elder, based in the US, who has run a website⁴¹ that caters to the needs of goths from all over the world since 1997. Therefore we have the right to expect that his knowledge of the subculture must be quite extensive. Nevertheless, no biographical details about him are provided, only details about the history of the website itself. His answer to the question “What is goth?” differs from the first text mainly in tone because it is serious and not so playful. He tries to explain what “goth” means for the individual members of the subculture and their reasons to become goths. The text is quite short, though, and does not give as much information as the first text.

The first thing you might notice about the text is that Elder’s style is much more argumentative than that of the authors of the first text. He sees the subculture in direct cause and effect dialectic with the society and thus his argument follows this line. The main idea of the text is that tolerance is the most important value shared by the subculture and Elder puts it into contrast with the dogmatic and narrow-minded “normal” society. Formally, Elder’s text is divided into short chapters or sections, each answering some basic question about the subculture that the visitors of the website might have.

In the short section called “Why do people become goths?” he claims that the main reason why people join the subculture is to seek others with the same notion of freedom of expression and tolerance. He revolves around this idea in the whole text. Apparently, he does not see the gothic esthetic preferences as the most important aspect of the subculture that attracts new people to it, although he also admits that “Many goths today are goths for a variety of other reasons.” Elder returns to tolerance again in the section “How do I get into goth?” and argues that these values that are shared by the members of the subculture are also responsible for the incredible variety of people found within the subculture that can interact successfully without friction.

Elder’s most interesting conclusion, though, is probably the one where he states that the existence of the subculture is beneficial for the society as well as for the members of the subculture:

However because of this rejection from 'normal' society, goths have banded together to associate with other free thinkers. This has a beneficial effect on both the individual and society as a whole. For the individual they have a sense of belonging, and friends they can associate with. For society it removes one more misfit filled with rage from society's streets.⁴²

This argument also shows that Elder felt that he needed to somehow justify the existence of the subculture to the readers and prove that it also fulfilled a meaningful function within society, but at the same time show, along the lines of his cause-and-effect dialectic, that it emerged as a reaction to “rejection from ‘normal’ society.” In this statement, he in fact gave one possible answer to the question why some people need such a community and why it is – quite contrary to all expectation - allowed to exist, although it clashes with society’s conventions in many ways.

Another interesting point in Elder’s text is that he talks about the age of goths, including among them not only teenagers, but also “a class of mature goths.” He apparently does not consider the gothic subculture to be only a matter for young - thus implicitly immature - people. According to him, goths tend to retain their gothic inclinations even in their adult lives, unlike punks. The first text does not mention age at all, although the authors state that “Most goths have jobs or are in school.” Thus we can assume that they do not come from only one age group. The authors of the first text do not comment on age any further, although they describe the regular lives of goths in the same section and could as well include it. In fact, the question of age is not much discussed in any of the chosen texts. The authors do not pay too much attention to it, although they give many other details. It is probably not as important to them as the other aspects of the subculture or they simply avoid it for some reason. It could be that they feel that if they admit that people that join the subculture are mostly teenagers (although there are many adults among goths too, as Elder stresses), their texts would lose some credibility and they would be dismissed as mere youngsters with issues. This fear could well prevent them from mentioning the age question (and other more problematic questions) at all. The fact that only one of the chosen texts – and one that is, otherwise, not very long or too detailed - actually says something particular about it does point in the direction of purposeful avoidance of the issue by the other authors.

Fashion is not too important for Elder, even less than for the authors of the first text. When Elder describes the subculture, he describes the gothic fashion in only one sentence, mentioning “the traditional flowing victorian style garments” and “the buckled and studded style regalia.” He also cautions, but not too emphatically, in one place that black clothing is a must, when you first go to a gothic club.⁴³ Still he does not spend too much time with the outwardly aspects of the subculture. He does admit that goths “can be a rather pretentious bunch,” but he immediately adds that all the dressing-up for shock value is done mainly to add up to the fun.

Elder also stresses the self-mocking ability and humor of goths as another important feature of the subculture. He says: “The gothic sense of humour is highly developed “ or “Goths have learned to laugh at themselves.” However, he does not dwell on this topic too long, only one paragraph. Probably his serious tone and limited space does not allow him to explain more about gothic “fun” to his readers. Gothic humor is something that we can find in many of these texts on the internet. The authors almost never fail to mention that nothing in the subculture should be taken too seriously and literally because goths have a well-developed sense of humor (of the darker kind) that can be directed at outsiders and insiders alike. This makes things even more difficult for an observer that wants see the subculture objectively and therefore we should be careful about making any quick judgments about the subculture.

The design of Elder’s site is quite simple again, but more sophisticated than “A Goth Primer” in terms of technology. There are only three colors used on the page – black, red and white. Black is the most popular color among goths for all occasions and it is the stock color of gothic fashion as Elder does not fail to emphasize in the text. Another color that is repeated here again is red. Red also belongs to the widely accepted gothic colors and is often used in design and fashion together with white. Overall, the simplicity of the design gives the website a certain elegance and air of professionalism, even though it can still be quite easily identified as a gothic website.

The exact symbolism of colors used on gothic websites is, however, very difficult to decipher because it depends not only on cultural differences, but also on individual differences and taste. We can infer that some colors are more popular among goths than others and therefore they appear on their websites more often. In general it is black, white, red, purple and darker shades of other colors,⁴⁴ but no color is in fact strictly avoided. The favorite gothic colors are the ones usually associated with dark moods or horror. Black is the most important one and it is a color ripe with symbolism in Western cultural context. Mainly it is the color of death, mourning and the night and all it stands for. In gothic context, red is the color of blood and it is associated with horror like in the title of Poe’s “The Masque of the Red Death” and sex (or the dangers of sex), but in other contexts and for other individuals, it might be also a symbol of life, fire and energy. White means innocence as in the collocation “white wedding” or victimized innocence (again, this notion comes from gothic novels), but it can stand for snow, winter or emptiness. As all individuals perceive colors differently, it is hard to tell what exactly prompted the creators of any gothic website to use this or that color. It could be a matter of fashion, individual preference or just following a certain established tradition within the subculture. Still, we can say that goths in general tend to use similar colors on their websites.

Except for the typical colors on Elder’s page, there is only the symbol of the moon, the decorative font on the heading and the runic script in the menu that hint at the gothic nature of this website. The moon is quite a universal symbol often used and even over-used in poetry and literature. It can stand for night and darkness, but also for melancholy and mystery. As such, it is perfect for goths to employ it in their design as it expresses the notions closely connected with the subculture. The runic script is not so readily associated with gothic subculture; it rather points to the pagan religions or the world of fantasy literature. However, enthusiasts of both these worlds are frequently absorbed into the gothic subculture, so even these decorative elements still can hint at features of the gothic subculture.

The third chosen text⁴⁵ is a part of a project called “Encyclopedia Gothica” created by John J. Coughlin. He is a webmaster of various gothic and Wiccan websites and as such he is a good example of how well being a goth combines with other different things such as pagan religions and being active on the internet. According to his personal website, Coughlin is currently based in Hudson Valley, but is connected to New York City, New Jersey and Connecticut gothic scenes.⁴⁶ Therefore we can probably take him for a genuine American goth. Coughlin’s project “Encyclopedia Gothica” tries to systematically list all things connected with the gothic subculture and it is done on the principle of public collaborative effort. The entries are, therefore, written by different people including Coughlin himself (nicknamed Dark Wyccan). It includes bands, people, terminology etc., but unfortunately it is not as extensive as we might expect. The text itself is again an answer to the “what is goth?” question and is credited to one of Coughlin’s contributors, a person or group of persons calling themselves “Academia Gothica.” Nevertheless, there is an editor’s note below that tells us that the originator of the project agrees more or less with what is said. Thus we can assume that Coughlin chose this text exactly for that reason. As the number of authors of the text remains undisclosed and Coughlin also had a hand in it by choosing it in the first place, we can take it for a collaborative text. At least two people cooperated, one by writing it and one by approving it and putting it on his website.

In the text, the author is trying to sum up all the typical aspects of the subculture, all its oddities and discrepancies, but quite briefly again. Almost at the beginning, in the second paragraph, the author presents his⁴⁷ main idea about what lies at the core of the subculture. For him it is “an appreciation for the dichotomy of life, the contrast between light and dark.” This idea is quite similar to the idea of “acceptance of all aspects of life” and not avoiding the darker side of human psyche that was the core statement of the first text. However, in this text, unlike the first one, the state of the society and culture is not mentioned as a direct influence on the subculture. The author also fails to include the influence of the gothic (not even in the connection with the name of the subculture). For him, it is mainly the love of music, art and literature that sets goths apart from the others, but any influence that the rest of the society might have on the subculture is not discussed. No substantial reasons for creating their own culture alongside the main stream culture are given either.

The author only hints at the kind of community the goths really are, when he says: “Being goth is, in the end, a form of tribalism, a way for people of like interests and mindset to find each other and have a place to belong.” The term “tribalism” could be well understood figuratively for from what we know from the texts and other sources, goths really do not live in tribal communities. The term is, therefore, probably used here as a reference to the notion of urban tribe, again a very vague term coined in early 1980’s,⁴⁸ originally meaning the urban youth gangs. Since then it has been applied to many things, but nowadays it means something close to a group of urban people with the same interests that have friendly relationships among themselves. If this general definition is what the author of the text had in mind, then he is right as goths could really be described – and often are - as an urban tribe, among other things.

Gothic fashion is only mentioned as something that goths can be recognized by, but the author does not discuss it too much just like the other authors. We can say that he almost avoids this topic, but he betrays his policy by the last two sentences of the article: ”We're not really that terribly different from any other subculture. We just dress more imaginatively.” When he says that, he actually confirms that fashion is indeed important for goths and that they even take pride in it, although the author does not say so directly in the text. Other than that, though, he describes the gothic fashion only briefly as “velvet and lace” and “fishnet and leather.”

It is also interesting that the author speaks as “we” in this short ending of the text, thus letting us know that he belongs to the subculture. Otherwise he speaks in third person which is a more neutral and detached manner. All the other authors seem to prefer to speak like this too, except for the last one that presents us with her personal experiences and therefore switches into first person occasionally. The authors probably intend to sound more objective by separating themselves from their subject matter, although in reality we know that they are goths too. We know it because they either confess to it right away or it is clear from other indicators on the website such as the fact that it is a part of some gothic project etc. Yet they keep this semblance of objectivity, as if somehow they are not willing to put themselves in the position of spokes-people for the subculture. It might be another indicator of the fact that they do not express the opinions of all goths, but they rather speak only for themselves. They try to interpret the gothic subculture to others in these texts, but do not preach it, do not insist that they are always right. They even admit that the questions they are dealing with have no definite answers.

As in the first text, the author does not discuss his points, he only presents them. However, the text is still the most critical of the three. It openly admits that there are subgroups or cliques in the subculture that are not always on friendly terms with one another because they have different opinions on music, fashion or what the real gothic attitude should be. This is called the “gother-than-thou” attitude within the subculture.⁴⁹ Knowing that there are no exact dos and don’ts, no clear-cut ideology, not even strictly prescribed identification sign (such as clothes, jewelry etc.)⁵⁰ for the members of the subculture as is also demonstrated in these texts, we should not be surprised. It is quite natural then that the debates about these issues might cause some division within the subculture. This rule of chaos might, on the other hand, be the reason why the subculture is capable of regenerating itself and has not burnt itself out yet. The fact that there exists an ongoing discussion about the issue of “what is goth?” among goths, as we can see in these texts, allows the members of the subculture to constantly reassess and readapt their attitudes to new circumstances in culture and society around them. Still the fact that the author can see the faults or less ideal features of the subculture and is not silent about them, adds to the objectivism of his article. It shows that at least some goths are able to look at themselves from a distance and do not only feel the need to justify the subculture, thus denying any negative aspects of it in their texts.

The author, however, does not stop at these subdivisions and elitist behavior of some goths, but goes even further in his criticism and talks about how “superficial, artificial, and pretentious” the subculture can be. Probably the author means again the elitism of some people within the subculture, but at the same time the superficial take on the subculture of others that only like the clothes, music or the people in gothic clubs, but do not know or understand the essence of all that. In fact, pretentiousness and superficiality together with promoting suicide and depression are the main counts that goths are accused of and not only by the public, but also by those several scholars that researched the topic. It is exactly what also James Hannaham criticized about them, when he doubted the sincerity of gothic rock musicians:

Everyone feels a certain amount of alienation, mental stress, and fear of death. However, not everyone puts on white pancake makeup, black lipstick, teases their hair and then gets onstage and sings about it. The requisite adornment that goes hand in hand with a “Gothic” aesthetic, as rock and roll defines it, calls the sincerity of the wearer into question.⁵¹
This criticism is quite understandable because when you look at goths from the point of view of an outsider with almost no insider information, all you will see are people that take pride in dressing extravagantly, act as if being depressed is hip, listen to or make strange music and read old poetry and obscure books or try to write it themselves, are able to discuss art and nail polish in one breath and blatantly show their disinterest in the comforts of affluence and conformity. This is what you can probably see from the outside – and even these texts can perpetuate such image - and much of these outwardly features can really look like a sign of superficiality and even snobbery. Apparently, goths are aware that this is how the public perceives them and they make fun of it and of themselves too as mentioned in all the texts. Still, only the author of the third text is able to admit that some members of the subculture really enjoy only the outwardly aspects of it. For us as the observers of the subculture, this ambiguity of superficiality and sincerity (that we can suspect in all such highly defined subcultures, though, such as hip hop) makes it even trickier to analyze because we have to always try to see through possible deceit.

After expressing such criticism, right in the next paragraph, the author emphasizes the artistic and intellectual nature of the subculture, as if to appease what has been said before. He gives several examples to show us the refined taste of some goths and their wide range of highbrow interests. Since both the negative and the positive aspects are put side by side in this article, we are actually left with another dichotomy of sorts between the occasional superficiality and profoundness within the subculture. This corresponds to the main idea of this text that explains the essence of gothic subculture as the appreciation of the existence of dichotomies and brings the problem of its sincerity into a new perspective.

This principle of extremes of all kinds put side by side seems to rule the subculture and we can find it everywhere in it, if we focus on it. The texts, so far, seem to work around this principle as well. They introduce the dark and gloomy side of the subculture, but then they say that it is all done for fun. They describe different highly artistic interests of goths, but then admit that some people within the subculture simply only dress to shock. They claim that goths are interested in darkness, but they write about it in a light tone. There are many more contradictions like that within the texts. If we relate this fact to the subculture itself, we can see that the authors confirmed by their own style of writing, deliberately or not, their basic ideas about the subculture - the ideas that the subculture was based on acceptance of both sides of life, both extremes of any issue etc.

The website layout corresponds to its function and it is simple and practical. The only colors are black, white and only a little red here and there. There is really nothing that can catch the eye, nothing too conspicuous. The only hints at its gothic nature are the decorations with skull and Celtic cross framing the menu on the left. These symbols, different from the symbols on the other pages, refer to death and Christianity. Symbols of Christianity have been used twice already on the chosen websites and are also often worn as jewelry by goths and used as ornaments. For goths these symbols, though, are not necessarily connected to Christianity, but they are rather an allusion to the spiritual in general and more directly, to the gothic churches and gothic novel and Victorian times. The proof of this rather weak connection to Christian relgion is that goths also use other religious symbols such as the ankh or the pentagram. The exact meaning of those is also blurred because we cannot simply assume that goths express their religious beliefs this way. The variety of these symbols itself or – which is even more surprising - their inter-changeability (you can find various on the same website or on the same person) suggests that they rather express the possibilities of different spiritual inclinations or their relativity. A good example of this is Coughlin himself who appears to be inclined towards Wicca and in spite of this uses a cross as a decoration for one of his websites. On another level, this free use of religious symbols can be also a sort of a badge of tolerance for different faiths or world-views that goths so often profess. Therefore the Celtic cross on the website is not merely a Christian symbol, it belongs among the mélange of symbols that goths adopted and reshaped for their own use.

The fourth text to consider is a set of texts written by Jennifer Pitcock, a gothic artist and writer from Tennessee.⁵² Apart from her own personal website where she presents her artwork and writings, she also created a website called “Sunlight and Shadow – Understanding the Gothic Subculture”⁵³ that contains explanatory texts about gothic subculture. She describes the subculture both from an objective point of view (if we can even talk about objectivity, when goths write about goths), but also from her own experience. By explaining it, she tries to defend it in the context of the aftermath of the Columbine massacre. Probably to make the text easier to read, it is again divided into sections that are dedicated to different issues just like in “A Gothic Primer” – our first text.

Another notable thing is that unlike the previous authors who always speak about gothic subculture without mentioning any geographical names, this author firmly sets her text in the US, even referring to American media and quoting goths from different American cities. It is hard to tell exactly why the other authors failed to locate the subculture geographically, but because they were describing the subculture in more or less general terms, they probably did not think it necessary.⁵⁴ The authors could have avoided this issue deliberately because they could not speak about the situation in the whole US or in the whole world for simple lack of experience and knowledge. If they could not rightly say that goths were such and such in this or that part of the country (or the world), the safest way was to not to mention this issue at all. Thus the issue of where these goths that are being described in the first three texts actually reside remains a mystery to the reader because the authors do not provide this information for one of the above stated reasons.

Pitcock, on the other hand, is more open and even provides us with some of her sources of information, which is an exception too because the other authors depend only on themselves. Besides, her text focuses mainly on teenage goths (it keeps referring to high school incidents) and does not tell us much about adult goths. This means that she does not refuse to hint, at least, at the fact that many goths are of high school age like the other authors do. She does not hide it, but she does not discuss the age question in depth either.

In the very first section, Pitcock explains her reasons to undertake this project. She begins by briefly describing two kinds of angst-filled teenagers – the non-violent and artistic goths and the ones for whom violence is the only kind of self-expression. She wants to prove that goths are unjustly accused of such violent behavior because people see them under the influence of various misconceptions and prejudices. Pitcock compares this situation to the discrimination against African Americans or women. These groups and their problems have been acknowledged and fought against, though. This fight did not ensure the same rights for all groups, apparently. Pitcock claims that goths increasingly face similar discrimination which is, in many cases, institutionalized like in the cases that she quotes e.g. high schools or even incidents involving the police. This discrimination is largely based on unfounded rumors and lack of real knowledge of the subculture. That is why she tries to dispel these misconceptions by creating the website and writing her text.

Pitcock ends this opening part by asking all her readers, including possible opponents, to “maintain a heart free of hatefulness and a mind open to new possibilities.”⁵⁵ Judging only from this section, her whole effort seems to be an appeal for tolerance for goths from the rest of the society, which makes it very different in purpose from the other texts. They were so far only descriptive, although clearly meant for people that are looking for some information about the subculture, either other goths or outsiders. The exact purpose of the text was not so directly stated in any one of them like in this one, though. This last text is very similar in this to the website of Alicia Porter Smith that was mentioned in the Introduction, but Pitcock’s text is much more passionate and artistic whereas Smith chooses a more pragmatic and systematic approach.

When we first look at Pitcock’s text, we can immediately notice that the style of her writing is very different from the previous authors. It is elaborate, maybe even to the point of unintelligibility. There is no hint of humor; all is written in solemn tone. This portentous style is something that goths are often being reproached for because it seems unnatural and affected. It is one of the features of the subculture that is taken to be one of the proofs the “pretentiousness” of the subculture. However, when we look at it from the point of view of some goths that really do read a lot of 19^th century literature (and older) and consequently develop a personal liking for the language of that literature, we can see that it may be quite natural to use and imitate that language for them. The old-fashioned language might also serve as a code used among people with the same interests and a way to make their interactions more interesting and entertaining. Of course, sometimes the language might get out of hand (as in some gothic poetry that can be found in large quantities on the internet) and it is too archaic or decorative, but Pitcock’s style does not go that far. Still, it is too poetic to be strictly academic. It is true, though, that for some members of the subculture this language might be only a way to show off their supposedly superior knowledge and therefore this elaborate style of writing or speech is a frequent subject of mockery by goths themselves. Thus using such language is dangerously close to what the other goths might consider “gother-than-thou” attitude. We cannot estimate how popular this stylized language really is within the subculture without further research, but maybe the fact that Pitcock is the only one among the authors of our chosen texts that uses such language can give us an approximate idea. It seems not to be a standard practice within the subculture.

The next section called “The Lynch Mob Goes After Goths” is wholly devoted to particular cases of discrimination against goths that reportedly worsened after the Columbine shooting. Although the author mainly describes the situation the goths are facing, she also meditates on the possible causes of the increasing teenage violence right in the opening paragraph of this section. She enumerates the usual suspects that this trend has been blamed upon, the gothic subculture being a recent addition. Pitcock also hints at a certain unwillingness of the society to acknowledge that the fault may lie within the family of the perpetrators or simply on the perpetrators themselves. Because of this unwillingness, the other suspects are blamed, but goths being the only actual group of people among them (and quite powerless too) are the easiest target.

Pitcock heavily quotes from an article in Seattle Times where different people talk about the issue, including The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) staff who testify that their organization is dealing with complaints from goths who are harassed by high school officials and often suspended for no real reason. The problem is that they are being punished for having different opinions or even for having only different clothes and that is something that worries the ACLU. By presenting these different examples, the author is able to convey the feeling of anti-gothic paranoia that goths increasingly encountered after the Columbine shooting and show how absurd the accusations often were. She did not go too much into detail and did not exactly overwhelm the reader with data, though. She simply introduced the problem with the help of these few examples to provoke an emotional response exactly in the same vein of the rest of her text.

The section where Pitcock deals with the particular misconceptions about goths bears the title “Gothic Myths and Gothic Facts” It lists only three of them, though, probably those that she thought to be the most frequent. First she is trying to explain what the word “stereotype” means and how it can get attached to somebody. The most original definition that she provides is: “Stereotypes are essentially cardboard cutouts that represent tired ideas rather than real living, breathing human beings.” She finds that uninformed stereotyping is the cause of the problem of discrimination against goths.

The first erroneous assumption Pitcock wants to dispel is that black clothes and make-up necessarily mean that goths are Satan worshippers. It is one of the reasons why goths in her exemplary cases were harassed. She declares that the origins of the black clothing trend that exists among goths go back to the Beatniks who also used to wear black. The clothing together with the extreme black and white make-up have also other interesting explanations like e.g. “mourning attire for a miserable and dying society,” which is again typically poetic expression of Pitcock, but similarly typical of goths in general. After that she goes on to clarify goths’ attitude towards religion, which is quite open-minded: “There are Goths of all faiths, from Jewish to Christian, Muslim to Buddhist, Wiccan to Atheist, and yes, even Satanic.” Apparently, according to Pitcock, being a believer does not prevent people from becoming goths and vice versa.⁵⁶

The issue of goths’ obsession with death and suicide, a very important one in relation to society because it is potentially dangerous and inspires fear, is discussed at length as Pitcock continues her argument against intolerance against them. First, she focuses on the supposedly fragile mental health of goths. She claims that goths are depressed or suicidal as often as other people, but their gloomy appearance and openness about their feelings make it only more visible and therefore also attract more attention to them. Although she does not quote any source of hard data for this claim, it is still a very reasonable argument. Assuming that goths are necessarily prone to suicide and violence only because they wear black clothes and say that they are sad, when they really are, is what she protests against. However, it is also important to mention that being open about and not to suppress one’s negative feelings is a part of the gothic decorum and as we have seen in previous texts, also one of the core ideas of the subculture. Probably it is a protest against the concept of “keep smiling,” in other words against the assumption that it is considered good manners never to complain and hide the true feelings. Feelings are always important for goths and the emphasis on feelings reappears in most of our chosen texts. On the other hand, goths, in love with melancholic moods, may be often exaggerating their melancholy – whether they do it consciously or not – which puts the sincerity of their emotions in question again and might explain why outsiders are so bothered by their behavior.

Pitcock’s observations about attitude to death among goths are also worth closer inspection. She explains that goths deal differently with “unpleasant” side of life, ascribing it the same importance as to the “pleasant” one. Death is one of such unpleasant things in life. It is usually not talked about as if it did not exist because the idea of it is disturbing to us. However, goths, she says, “accept death as a natural part of life” and therefore they are not silent about it. They deal with it, they do not avoid the idea of it like the rest of us tend to do. This scheme fits quite well with the “appreciation for the dichotomy of life” idea from “Encyclopedia Gothica” text and “acceptance of all aspects of life” from “A Goth Primer.” The terms “unpleasant” and “pleasant” side of life that Pitcock invents in this description form yet another dichotomy that goths so often emphasize when talking about their subculture. Since the controversial theme of death is explained in depth, she does not have to dwell too long on the alleged suicidal tendencies. Pitcock simply denies that this “respect” to death could mean that goths are inevitably suicidal or murderous. She ends: “those things would upset the natural balance as much as denying death does.”

The last issue she discusses is seemingly not as serious as the previous ones and does not concern goths and their lifestyle directly. Pitcock rejects the notion that the subculture is structured around the cult rock singer Marilyn Manson.⁵⁷ This issue might seem trivial, but considering the popularity and media attention this musician attracts in the US, it is important for her to set things straight. She goes into great detail about this, but the basic message is that Marilyn Manson cannot be a true representative of gothic subculture because all he does, he does with one objective only - to shock the general public. On the other hand, Pitcock’s goths mainly want to be left alone to think and feel freely, although some other people like Preston A. Elder, one of the authors of the texts, admit that there is a certain level of desire to shock within the subculture too. The most obvious reason why goths and Marilyn Manson are connected in the eyes of the public is that he uses and abuses a lot of gothic imagery, fashion etc. for his own ends, simply put, to horrify parents of his young fans. This is something that does not leave goths, like Pitcock, cold because it only contributes to the negative image that goths have in American society. Since Pitcock works on improving that image with her website, she cannot let the problem of M. Manson vs. goths go unexplained.

The following section deals with the history of the gothic subculture in the US. The main purpose is to emphasize the fact that gothic subculture has been around for quite a long time and has had time to establish itself and develop into a rich and sophisticated culture. Therefore, she argues again, it is wrong to think that “the subculture revolves around Marilyn Manson and Devil-worship.” Pitcock recounts the history with special attention to different “generations” of goths, putting it in relation to the developments in American society, but never once mentioning the connection of the subculture (and its name) to the gothic rock music and its British roots.

According to her description, the first generation of American goths would probably correspond to the first wave of goths worldwide that emerged in late 70’s and early 80’s. She calls them “the Beatniks of the Reagan era” and suggests that they were responding to the “suburbanite,” happy, but shallow way of life of the period. First these people called themselves “New Romantics” and, she says, only later the name changed into “Gothic.” Pitcock claims that this name was adopted directly from their literary predecessors - authors of gothic novels and poetry. She fails to talk about the influence of post-punk gothic rock music again, but she includes punk as one of the sources of inspiration for the first goths. Their main ideology was “the belief in the beauty of all things” and “the challenge of traditionally held ideas, beliefs, and stereotypes.” Pitcock, like the other authors, also mentions their highly artistic inclinations.

There was a slight pause between this first “generation” and the second one that came roughly in “the late Reagan and early Bush years,” so around the year 1989. The two “generations” were different, the second one being “a bit more vocal,” but eventually they merged. The third “generation” came afterwards in mid 1990’s and, as Pitcock says, it was heavily influenced by the media portrayal of goths. She infers that these people joined the subculture to gain “the coveted ‘rebel’ status” because at that time goths were portrayed in the media as something that upsets parents. So instead of joining the subculture for its other values, they did it mainly for the shock value. Pitcock maintains that this trend still continues because the media perpetuate this distorted image of the original subculture that was quite non-violent, depicting it as evil and aggressive. Consequently, this aggressive image attracts types of people to the subculture (people that start calling themselves goths) that are not of the same mind with the first goths at all. The media influence turns this development into a vicious circle. For all these reasons, she claims, many contemporary goths have almost no knowledge about the original subculture, which Pitcock herself apparently adheres to. She is not exactly criticizing her fellow goths like the previous author, she rather blames all this on the media, but it is clear that she is not happy with some tendencies within the subculture. The interesting point is that she considers these “shock-value” goths to be a recent thing, not an integral part of the subculture from the beginning as others suggest.

Pitcock does not provide any quotes or any sources for her history of the gothic subculture and thus we can assume that it is only her view of it. As it is quite different from the other histories, both in length and content, it is yet another contribution to the variety of opinion within the subculture shown in the texts. We can see that even in the case of the history of the subculture, we get slightly – and in this case very - different views from all of the authors. The first three authors relate the subculture in some way to the gothic novel and gothic rock or see it as a continuation of certain cultural trend in Western culture, but Pitcock comes up with her own theory about the emergence of the subculture as a reaction to the affluence and conformity of the Regan era and with yet another theory about different generations of goths. She mentions the literary connection, but only when she wants to explain the name of the subculture. Although the authors’ opinions differ, they do not contradict themselves and thus all of them can be a part of the truth about the subculture.

The next chapter of Pitcock’s text bears the title “Gothic and Evil are Not Synonymous.” Within this chapter, she works meticulously to destroy all possible stereotypes about goths by explaining them away. She does this by presenting herself as an example. Her style is again quite poetic in the descriptions, but it is also argumentative. The section starts with a short story from the author’s own experience with prejudices on the school premises. She goes on by introducing her own gothic preferences and interests. Then she lists all the things she has been accused of. There are assumptions about her relationship with parents, suicidal tendencies and self-esteem included in the list. The sole existence of this list shows us that Pitcock has felt that people outside the subculture often consider her problematic in some way and act accordingly towards her. Besides, from her account it looks like all these false assumptions about her are based only on the fact that she is known to be a goth.

As an answer to all of these stereotypical notions, she describes herself and her true qualities and attitudes. Understandably, most of what she says is quite contrary to the stereotypes that she is trying to uproot. She sums it all up at the end and concludes that most goths are similar to her rather than the other way around, although there are “a few ‘bad apples,’ as there will be in any identifiable group.” It is only natural that she chose this way to dispel the various stereotypes because she cannot rightly speak for anybody else and there is no study about goths that would focus on these things and that she could use. Therefore she described the goth at hand which was herself. It is clear that it makes her text very subjective, but also powerful because she introduces a real person to the reader, not only some abstract concept of a goth.

Pitcock continues in the same section by using another list to clarify more things about the subculture. As she wants to persuade the readers that gothic subculture is a harmless group of people with artistic inclinations, she presents them with seventeen statements taken from another website⁵⁸ that are supposed to test, whether someone is a goth or not. The test is not complicated; you can only answer yes or no. When some of the listed statements are true about you (your answer is yes), then you are most probably goth. Most of the statements emphasize the non-conformist and intellectual nature of the subculture. However, Pitcock agrees with the author of the test that the most important statement is the first one: “You feel the need to spend a lot of time creating things (music, art, poetry, philosophies, stories and the like).” Thus we can see that both Pitcock and the author of the test value the creative and artistic aspect of the subculture above everything else and consider it to be the central idea of the subculture. Pitcock also gives examples of various artists that fit these statements who were never described as “cruel, violent, or ‘evil’ person” unlike goths.

The appeal for tolerance is even more pronounced in the final section of the website called “Balance: The Integration of Light and Dark” where Pitcock again argues against harassment of goths in schools and in the streets. She uses the same simile from the opening section about discrimination against African Americans and women versus discrimination against goths. Society does not tolerate anymore the discrimination against the former or many other previously stereotyped groups, but does not react similarly in case of discrimination against goths. Goths simply do not enjoy the same level of tolerance of their differences. Pitcock concludes that goths also have “no ‘isms’ to call upon” and fight against like the previously mentioned groups have.

Again, she quotes examples of harassment of goths and also another of her own experiences with being questioned by school officials for wearing “black attire” that seemed “disturbing” to other students. The same school officials failed to act, though, when she needed their protection from abuse by other students. After this re-introduction of the problem, Pitcock continues by discussing a set of guidelines that was issued by The Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice, in 1998,⁵⁹ to prevent violence at American schools. It included a section called “Early Warning Signs,” a brief description of behavioral traits of possible violence perpetrators. These guidelines were already in use when Pitcock herself was at school and had the above mentioned experience. Many of these warning signs can really fit the goths such as “social withdrawal,” but Pitcock claims that others like “low interest and poor academic performance” or “intolerance for differences” have nothing to do with them. Still, the teenage goths are put into the same category as aggressive or bullying teenagers. Pitcock never says anything that would be totally against these guidelines, but rather the way they are applied. She explains that the guidelines contain specific instructions how to use them to avoid “stigmatizing individual students”⁶⁰ and Pitcock points out “that most parents and teachers don’t quite get to that part in their hysterical panic to assume the worst.” She is very critical and bitter about this situation in this ending section of the whole text, trying once again to get her point across. She ends the section and the whole text with a passionate plea: “This is all we ask: Let us be.”

When we look at the design of Pitcock’s page, the first impression we will get will be probably that of abundance of bright colors. Not only that the background is dark blue instead of black, but also the heading and menu, connected into one decorative element, contains red, yellow, light blue and other shades of these colors. It is done in the form of a stained glass window, with symbols of the sun and moon at the centre of attention and yellow and red letters in historicized font. The design and colors in general are quite different from the previous pages, although the website still contains certain hints pointing to the subculture. The stained glass window motive is one of them because it alludes to churches and thus also religions that we have discussed above. The division into sections of light and shadow is another one, showing again the nature of the subculture as a dichotomy.

Since Pitcock is trying to persuade the visitors of her website about the need for tolerance for gothic subculture, the use of more positive colors might help her to smooth down the provocative aspects of the subculture, namely the morbidity and melancholy connected with the black color. She even avoided explicitly religious symbols or symbols connected with horror literature, but still managed to express some ideas about the subculture by using less conspicuous elements. The cheerfulness of the design as opposed to the gloominess of the design of the other pages might be also a result of Pitcock’s intention to break the gothic design cliché and do it her way. She is also able to show the visitors of her site that she herself refuses to follow the established rules and prefers creativity to conformity even in case of a group of people that she otherwise identifies with.

We have looked at four explanatory (or self-reflective) texts created by goths and presented on the internet. All of them contain a lot of useful information about the gothic subculture, although it is not very consistent. Since we have to also assume that the texts, consciously or not, have their inner politics and try to manipulate the reader into believing something about the subculture, the information that is only implied might be even more important than what the texts literally say. Still, there is some common ground in all of these texts that we can identify. First of all, artistic inclinations of goths and their high level of tolerance keep resurfacing in all of them.

Specific gothic fashion is also always mentioned, although the authors take care not to emphasize it too much. As the authors’ attitude towards this aspect of the subculture is so ambiguous in the texts, we can assume that they have trouble confessing that the extravagant clothing is really important to them. We should not wonder because the authors who are goths themselves must have been confronted with accusations of superficiality on these grounds many times. There could be no other reason why they would avoid this theme so much, even though it is obviously a big part of the subculture.⁶¹

Another common feature of these texts is that the design of the websites they are on is tale-telling. All of them contain elements that point to the subculture, no matter how skillfully disguised or indirect. The creators of the pages (who were probably the authors themselves in most cases) obviously wanted to give the visitors a full picture of the subculture, including even the visual elements of it. The gloominess and heightened sensitivity of goths is also described in all of them and the same goes for the gothic humor, quite contradictory features. Most importantly, in all of the texts, we have traced a concept that seems to rule the gothic mind – the concept of highlighting of contrasts, contradictions, extremes or dichotomies (as one of the authors chose to call it). The texts revolve around them and if we are to believe the authors, the subculture probably too. Goths simply want to see both sides of every issue and consider them equally fit for a discussion even if it is a discussion about life vs. death.

Three out of four of the texts see the correlation between certain conditions in the society and the birth, revival and perpetuation of the subculture. We could argue that these conditions must have been the same in all the countries where the first goths appeared, but the authors of these texts cite specifically American phenomena like “Reagan era” or “for-profit HMOs, prenuptial agreements, overworked absentee parents, factory farming.” Therefore we can assume that at least some American goths feel that their subculture emerged as a reaction to the developments in American society and that these tendencies or phenomena still influence it.

The texts gave us some idea about the subculture, although we have to remind ourselves of their subjectivity and relative unreliability. Nobody knows if the authors are deliberately lying about something or not. However, there is no reason to expect that because only the fact that the authors made an effort to explain something about the subculture and that they were even able to comment on its negative aspects shows that they cared about the truth being told. As American goths have been using internet for more than ten years now, the quantity of such texts can be enormous. They are certainly helpful resources, still they constitute only a small part of what goths create on the internet. And internet constitutes only a part, although substantial, of what is happening within the subculture. As the gothic subculture is a dynamic organism, we can never say that our knowledge about it is complete, but these texts allowed us to see some of the aspects of the subculture.