Review of "PopCo"...

I'm a lousy fiction reviewer, probably for two main reasons: (1) creative writing classes taught me how to spot when writers are cheating (in order to make me a more honest writer myself); and (2) years of Voynich Manuscript-related research has made me constantly alert for infinitesimal details upon which the answer might just hinge.

Put these two together (a lie-detector and an adrenaline-fuelled eye for detail), and you have a completely unfair toolkit for reading novels, simply because novels are very rarely actually "novel" - they're more often an assembly of ideas.

Take Scarlett Thomas' "PopCo" (FourthEstate, 2004), for example. Superficially, it's like a 500-page anagram of my life (BBC Micro / chess / maths / philosophy / Godel's Incompleteness Theorem / videogames / business / marketing / cryptography / cryptology / secret history / Voynich Manuscript / etc), together with a load of other untaken doors (Bletchley Park / SOE / crosswords / vegetarianism / vegan / Go / low-level drug-use / homeopathy / etc), and it's written quite well: so I really should be engaged by it, right?

Problem #1 is one of construction: the first tranche is basically Douglas Coupland (specifically Microserfs), the second tranche Iain Banks (his fiction rather than his science fiction), then a bit of Martin Gardner's puzzle columns and Simon Singh's The Code Book: there's a kind of teenage girls' magazine section along the way, and a rather clunky historical pirate romance, before it all flips out into Thomas' fictional take on Naomi Klein's No Logo... Yet to me, a book needs to be more than merely a collage of influences, a narrated scrapbook: but perhaps that makes me too old-fashioned for contemporary fiction. If you wanted to be kind, you might compare it with Kurt Schwitters' Merz, carefully arranged collections of found objects (forged Merz pieces get placed on eBay all the time): but sorry, Thomas is no Schwitters.

Problem #2 is the lack of parents. The other day, while watching (the original TV series of) Batman on BBC4, my four-year-old son asked me where Batman came from. Well, I said, a man called the Joker killed both Bruce Wayne's parents, and when a bat bit him in the caves beneath his mansion, he somehow gained a super crime-fighting ability. OK... so where did Spiderman come from? Well, I said, after both Peter Parker's parents died, he was bitten by a radioactive spider, and gained amazing spider-like powers. My son paused, looking back at the screen. But what about Robin, he asked. No, don't tell me, I know: both his parents were killed... Before he had a chance to say "(and he was bitten by a radioactive robin)", I suggested we look Robin up on Wikipedia (though sadly he was basically correct). In PopCo, the main character Alice Butler is basically Crypto Girl, a sort of Elonka-lite: her mother dies and her dad runs away, and she gains her m4d cryptological and prime factorisation sk1llz from her grandad. Put it that way, and it all looks a bit comic-book thin, doesn't it?

Problem #3 is that I'm wise to novelistic conceits. I know that in a cryptological novel, someone called A[lice] is going to communicate with someone called B[en], who will pass on what she says to someone called C[hloe]: and this kind of spoils it. Incidentally, Ron Rivest denies that he used "Alice" and "Bob" (in his 1978 paper introducing RSA public-key cryptography) in any kind of homage to the film "Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice" (which is actually a bit of a shame). It would also have been cool if PopCo's Alice had been born in 1978 and openly named in crypto homage to Ron Rivest's paper, but I think she's too old (is she 29? I can't find the page, rats!).

Problem #4: cringeworthy logic/maths puzzles. To give texture to her story, Thomas brings together loads of lateral puzzles and mathematical ain't-that-amazin' fragments, the kind of thing that you sometimes hear being trotted out at student parties. For example:-Two men go into a restaurant and order the same dish from the menu. After tasting his food, one of the men goes outside and immediately shoots himself. Why? (p.109) The explanation given for this in PopCo is ludicrous (it involves an albatross and a dead child, don't get me started): but why is one not simply a food-taster for the other? Fugu: mmm, delicious... hey, what's that trainee doing in the kitchen... aaaarrgggh!

Problem #5 (probably the biggest of all for a Voynichologist) is that PopCo uses the Voynich Manuscript as a MacGuffin (or do I mean a "Philosopher's Egg MacGuffin"?). Alice's grandfather spends years on the VMs, and even gets her to count the words and letters on each page (and later to factorise large numbers): perhaps washing his car would have been a better way to earn pocket money. Alice says that she's learnt so much from the journey, from the search for the heart of the VMs: but really the manuscript is no more than occasional wallpaper for the narrative. The Beale Papers also make a brief appearance: my guess is that Scarlett Thomas would have used them as the central hook, had there been more than a paltry $20million dollars' worth of treasure linked to them: the alternative "Stevenson/Heath" pirate cipher mystery Thomas constructs is a bit thin when held up against real ones, regardless of the size of its haul.

...and so on. I feel in a bad place: I really wanted to like PopCo, but all I can do is whinge (and I haven't even moaned about her merging Alberti's and Vigenere's cryptography, etc). Other reviewers (such as here and here) seem basically to like the book: and compared to Dan Brown's Digital Fortress (where I wanted to kill all the main characters by the end of Chapter One, all the minor characters by the end of Chapter Two, and the publishers by the end of Chapter Three) it's Shakespeare.

Cryp-lit like this requires a certain kind of technical devotion from the reader, and if you are a diehard crypto-geek PopCo is something you really ought to read. But only if you've read the good stuff (like Neal Stephenson's excellent Cryptonomicon) first.

Warwick/Warburg course 2008, Day Two...

It's been a rollercoaster of a day for me at the Warburg Institute on the Early Modern Research Techniques course, like being given the keys to the world twice but having them taken away three times. I'll try to explain...

Paul Taylor kicked Day Two's morning off in fine style, picking up the baton from Francois Quiviger's drily laconic Day One introduction to all things Warburgian. My first epiphany of the day came on the stairs going up to the Photographic Collection: an aside from Paul (that the institute was "built by a madman") helped complete a Gestalt that had long been forming in my mind. What I realised was that even though the Warburg's "Mnemosyne" conceptual arrangement was elegant and useful for a certain kind of inverted historical study, it was actually pathological to that entire mindset. Essentially, it seems to me that you have to be the "right kind of mad" to get 100% from the Warburg: and then you get 100% of what?

(The Warburg Institute is physically laid out unlike any other library: within its grand plan, everything is arranged neither by author, nor by period, nor by anything so useful as an academic discipline, but rather by an arbitrary conceptual scheme evolved to make similar-feeling books sit near each other. It's not unlike a dating service for obscure German publications, to make sure they keep each other company in their old age.)

My second epiphany arrived not long afterwards. On previous visits, I'd walked straight past the Warburg Photographic Collection, taking its darkness to mean that it was closed or inaccessible: but what a store of treasures it has! My eyes widened like saucers at all the filing cabinets full of photographs of astrological manuscripts. I suddenly felt like I had seen a twin vision of hell and purgatory at the core of the Warburg dream - both its madness and its hopefulness - but had simultaneously been given the wisdom to choose between them.

It was all going so well... until Charles Hope (the Warburg's director) stepped forward. Now: here was an A* straight-talking Renaissance art historian, sitting close to the beating heart of the whole historical project, who (Paul Taylor assured us) would tell it like it is. But Hope's message was both persuasive and starkly cynical: that, right from the start, Aby Warburg had got it all wrong. And that even Erwin Panofsky, for all his undeniable erudition, had (by relying on Cesare Ripa's largely made-up allegorical figures) got pre-1600 iconology wrong too. With only a tiny handful of exceptions, Hope asserted that Renaissance art was eye candy, artful confectionery whipped up not from subtle & learned Latin textual readings (as Warburg believed), but instead from contemporary (and often misleading and false) vulgar translations and interpretations - Valerius Maximus, Conti, Cartari, etc. And so the whole Warburgian art history research programme - basically, studying Neoplatonist ideas of antiquity cunningly embedded in Renaissance works of art - was dead in the water.

To Hope, the past century of interpretative art history formed nothing more than a gigantic house of blank cards, with each card barely capable of supporting its neighbours, but not of carrying any real intellectual weight on top: not unlike Baconian cryptography (which David Kahn calls "enigmatology"). All of which I (unsurprisingly) found deeply ironic, what with Warburg himself and his beloved Institute both being taken apart by the Warburg's director.

The second step backwards came when I tried to renew my Warburg Institute Reader's Card: you're not on the list, you can't come in. (Curiously, there were already two "Nicholas Pelling"s on their computer system, neither of them me.) It seems that, without direct academic or library affiliation, I'm now unlikely to be allowed access except via special pleading. Please, pleeeease, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease... (hmmm, doesn't seem to be working, must plead harder). If I had a spare £680 per year, I'd perhaps become an "occasional student" (but I don't).

My third (and final) step backwards of the day was when I raced up to the Photographic Collection both during the afternoon tea-break and after the final lecture and had an Internet-speed finger-browse through the astrological images filing cabinets. Though in 20 minutes I saw more primary source material than I would see in a fortnight at the British Library, I ended up disappointed overall. Yes, I saw tiny pictures of a couple of manuscripts I had planned to examine in person next month (which was fantastic): but there didn't seem to be anything else I wasn't already aware of. Rembrandt Duits has recently catalogued these mss in a database (though only on his PC at the moment), so perhaps I'll ask him to do a search for me at a later date...

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seemed to me that even though old Warburgian/iconological art history is basically dead, the new art history coming through to replace it revolves around precisely the kind of joint textual and stylistic interpretation I'm doing with the Voynich Manuscript, with one eye on the visual sources, and the other on the contemporary textual sources. Yet the problem with this approach is that you have to be an all-rounder, a real uomo universale not to be fooled by spurious (yet critical) aspects along the way. All the same, though I'm no more than an OK historian (and certainly not a brilliant one), I'm now really convinced that I'm looking at a genuinely open question, and that I'm pointing in the right kind of direction to answer it.

Don't get me wrong, Day Two was brilliant as a series of insightful lectures on the limits and origins of art historical knowledge: but I can't help but feel that I've personally lost something along the way. Yet perhaps my idea of the Warburg was no more than a phantasm, a wishful methodology for plugging into the "strange attractors" beneath the surface of historical fact that turned out to be simply an illusion /delusion: and so all I've actually lost is an illusion. Oh well: better to have confident falsity than false confidence, eh?

As a curious aside, for me this whole historical angle on the Warburg also casts a raking light across the "Da Vinci Code". The book's main character (Robert Langdon) is a "symbologist", a made-up word Dan Brown uses to mean "iconologist": and as such is painted on the raw canvas of the Warburg 'project'. What cultural archetype is the ultra-erudite, friendly (yet intellectually terrifying) Langdon based upon? A kind of Harvardian Erwin Panofsky? In my mind, the "Da Vinci Code" (and its 'non-fiction' forerunner, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail") both sit astride the ebbing Warburg wave, both whipping at the fading waters: and so the surge of me-too "The [insert marketing keyword here] Code" faux-iconology books and novels is surely Aby Warburg's last hurrah, wouldn't you say?

R.I.P. 20th Century Art History: now wash your hands. :-(

"The Messiah Code"...

I'll admit it: I spend so much time (and money) servicing my 100-a-year non-fiction book habit, it's been a while since I've strayed into the world of fiction. I did read Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" and "Digital Fortress" (yuk), just in case there was anything I should flag in my book (I mentioned his "O Draconian Devil!" and "Oh, lame saint" anagrams in chapter 6). Actually, the last novel I read was Susanna Clarke's epic "Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell".

But with the 2008 Voynichian novel tsunami fast approaching us all, I thought I'd warm up for Michael Cordy's forthcoming VMs book by reading his first book, "The Messiah Code" (1997): this follows the generic blockbuster template, mixing together fat themes (religion, gene therapy, gene paranoia) with thin characters.

Unfortunately... though the writing is pacy and spare throughout, Cordy's plotting inexperience shows through everywhere. The book ends up like an argument between two kids playing cliche Top Trumps - who would win, the genius Nobel laureate geneticist fighting for his child's life, or the ruthless, conflicted, 2000-year old super-rich Templaresque secret society? The perky female black genius Nobel laureate computer scientist from the 'hood, or the shape- and gender-shifting unfeeling uber-killer with a surprising childhood secret? You feel like asking: yeah, and would Mechagodzilla kick the Transformers' hollow butts?

In the end, for all its page-turning readability "The Messiah Code" is a book about ciphers, for that is what all its characters are - nulls, blanks, voids, zeroes. But maybe that's the whole point: perhaps all that blockbuster readers want is a satisfying mental knot to untangle on the beach, and aren't really interested in much beyond that.

At least Michael Cordy did his research properly, so the "science bit" largely holds up: and for that I was grateful (though a "terrabyte" did sneak in somewhere, *sigh*). But I hope he's come a long way in the ten years since...

Comets in Quire 20...?

After my recent (and unexpectedly extended) foray into Voynich-themed novels, I thought it would be a good idea to get back to proper manuscript research.

One small feature I've been mulling over is the "starred paragraphs" in Quire 20, the final gathering in the VMs (the one which famously ends with the "michiton oladabas" page). I posted about this section not long ago, discussing Vladimir Sazonov's suggestion that it might originally have formed some kind of 365-paragraph calender. But what I'm thinking about here is the possibility that the "tailed stars" used to mark the start of each paragraph here were actually comets, chosen on the basis of a Latin pun.

Back circa 1500, the named structures used for written works were often slightly different from now. What we moderns would call a chapter or part, would typically have been called a book: while a modern subsection (a block of continuous text with a descriptive header) would typically have been called a chapter, or capitulum (literally "diminutive caput", "little head"). Ironically, the short punchy chapters in Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" are closer in spirit to this medieval world of text than most other modern books.

What we therefore see in Quire 20 is what I think would have been understood in context to be not so much a series of paragraphs, but a series of "chapters" within a "book". With this in mind, might those little shapes that have usually been called the "stars" or "tailed stars" be instead iconic comets?

Our word "comet" originally came from the Latin cometes, which itself was a loan-word from the Greek kometes, "wearing long hair" (it's in Aristotle). Similarly, the Latin term crinis means hair, or tail of a comet, or rays of sun: and so a comet may be called a stella crinita, a 'hairy star' (yes, really!)

So, when I now look at the starred paragraphs, I do think that the "stars" there are very probably comets comprised of a little head (capitulum) and a deliberately hair-like tail. This kind of punning visual / Latin iconographic word-play would be consistent with the view of the VMs as a high-culture cipher: but perhaps seems a little too ornate or too conceptually 'fancy' for a mere hoax.

Modern astrologers (even such mainstream ones as Jonathan Cainer) are still sent into a tailspin (if you'll forgive the pun) by comets, seeing in them omens for, well, all sorts of things, such as the death of Benazir Bhutto, etc: which is, of course, no different to ancient, medieval and Renaissance astrologers alike, for whom comets had the power to invite speculation, wonder, and fear.

But for the VMs, where should this research thread go next? As far as art history goes, Giotto famously depicted the 1301 appearance of Halley's Comet in his Adoration of the Magi: and if you subscribe to a likely Quattrocento origin for the manuscript (as I do), I would guess that there is a lot more to find in Roberta Olson's (2000) "The Florentine Tondo" (ISBN10: 019817425X, ISBN13: 9780198174257, £85) - pricy (but supposedly fascinating). I would also suggest "Cometary theory in Fifteenth Century Europe" (Kluwer, 1985, also £80 or so) by Jane L. Jervis, and Lynn Thorndike's (1958) "Some tracts on Comets 1456-1500" (in Archives Internationales d'Histoire des Sciences 11 (1958) pp.225-260), none of which I've seen myself but perhaps will one day soon (if I spend a day at the BL, or win the lottery). I've also read that Galileo discussed (in his "Il Saggiatore") the three comets that were seen in 1417: and so there was presumably much debate on this at the time.

I don't know: it seems possibly too lightweight an issue to devote a great deal of time to. And yet there is much in the VMs that points to astronomical and astrological thinking - enough that I can empathize with Enrique Joven's novel "Castle in the Stars", where the VMs is imagined as being part of that general tradition (No! Enough with the novels, already!). Maybe there is enough there after all...

Yet another Voynich novel...

Literature and the Voynich Manuscript remain uneasy bedfellows: whereas things like the Knights Templar or even (spare me, oh Lord!) medieval precursors of speculative masonry have a body of archives and associated respectable academics, the Voynich Manuscript has Rene Zandbergen and not much else. It's all a bit empty in Voynichland, credential-wise. :-(

Yet Voynichologists rarely have much of an interest in novels: and anyway, they don't (as a group) exactly amount to anything that might sensibly be called "influential". So: novels making use of the Voynich Manuscript would have to be aimed at the mainstream, while simultaneously providing a mini-introduction to the (real) VMs to bring readers up to speed. I have to say that this seems a fairly awkward mix, which would only work under certain conditions.

By way of comparison, the joy of "The Rule of Four" to me was that its two authors were trying to bring art history to life - but really, they were non-typical novelists, weaving a very particular kind of novel around the fascinating Hypnerotomachia Poliphili. If their next novel turns out to be based on the Voynich Manuscript, I think they would probably be able to carry it off: but I have to sound the warning that most other novelists would probably fail.

(Another danger is that a tiny piece of evidence emerges about the VMs before your novel finally goes to press [there's usually a horribly long lead time in publishing] which causes one or more of the art historical assumptions you've used throughout the book to collapse abruptly. )

Anyway... "The Voynich Covenant" by "ex-special agent" Richard D. Weber is currently up for grabs for publishers: some foreign language rights have already been sold (good news for Bulgarian Voynich-novel-o-philes). There's more on the author's "dark protocols" website (if you can stand the visual clutter). Going through his book pitch, my heart inevitably sank just a little when an enigmatic stranger called "R. C. Christian" and a Jesuit priest (a hearty staple of Victorian penny dreadfuls: at least Dan Brown had the sense to upset Opus Dei instead) each pop up, but what can you do? To me, part of the thrill of the novel is seeing how its author takes a set of cliches and sets them on fire: but put too many of them in a row (like "beautiful forensic profiler Madison Chase") and will it ever catch ablaze?

What should we call all these novels? 'Voy-niche' publishing? As a publisher myself (albeit on a small scale), I find the whole idea quite awful: the Voynich Manuscript still falls short of being a cliche well-known enough for a novelist to be able to turn on its head with any dramatic effect. It's too marginal: the last big mainstream VMs view (Gordon Rugg's Cardan Grille fakery) punted out there was unhelpful at best, nonsensical at worst, and fell far short of setting the world alight - basically, Rugg's 'no-message message' is not really a great premise for a novel. Wired (bless them and their ex-NASA cotton socks) should do a piece on my book instead: Averlino's story is more amazing than fiction. But that's the beauty of the truth, isn't it? ;-p

"The Voynich Solution" (both of them)...

A "life coach, motivational speaker and writer" called Andrea Peters is trying to sell the rights to her book "I'm Sorry... Love Anne" (AKA "Don't Worry... Love Anne" AKA "The Voynich Solution"). The first twelve chapters (all fairly short) are here, which should give you an idea of the kind of brisk, international, Dan Brown-esque caper she's aiming towards.

She's done some crypto research, which is good (Gabriele de Lavinde is there, as is Leon Battista Alberti), though her rendering of early Renaissance history is rather stiff, and my heart did sink a little when Christian Rosenkreutz walked in... *sigh*

And her idea of the earth-shattering secret hidden in the VMs? Well... people keep getting killed with some kind of sound weapon that is millennia old, and there's stuff about the natural frequency each natural thing has: so it's probably going to turn out to be something along the lines of Keely's harmonics stuff.

From a Voynichological perspective, I really hope the key page she's talking about is f56r: according to Stan Tenen, this seems to depict the inverse or hyperbolic ("1/r") spiral, that could well be based on Egyptian mathematics: there's an old post from me (in 2001) on this subject here. As I recall, the Ancient Egyptians constructed their maths around whole number fractions (1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, etc but with the addition of 3/4), and this spiral seems oddly reminiscent of that. Just so you know! :-o

Confusingly, there's another novel out there looking for a publisher called "The Voynich Solution" (2005) by William Michael Campbell (which may possibly explain why Andrea Peters is stumbling around looking for an alternative title). There's a PDF online with the first eight pages, but it's immediately clear that, as part of his research, the author has been reading my posts. :-) He locks in to 1450 as a probable date of origin (pretty close!), and mentions that much of the painting was done later (my goodness, he's attentive!) Perhaps Compelling Press (my tiny publishing company) should consider publishing this... something to think about!