Voynich Manuscript as storyboard...?

Note: this article has now moved to voynich-manuscript-as-storyboard on Cipher Mysteries

A couple of VMs-related links for you today, one old and one new (but nothing blue, sorry): I thought I'd run them together for a bit of fun...

Back in January 2005, the Independent on Sunday ran a piece called "Nudes, triffids and the mother of all riddles", a review of Gerry Kennedy & Rob Churchill's book "The Voynich Manuscript: the unsolved riddle of an extraordinary book which has defied interpretation for centuries". The writer - Scarlett Thomas, who Voynich News regulars will doubtless recognise as being the author of crypto-geeky NoLogo-esque Voynich-themed novel "PopCo" - colourfully described the VMs as like "a storyboard for an other-dimensional remake of Day of the Triffids", and thought that the basic story of the VMs' history "(which makes The Da Vinci Code seem like a slightly lame round of Hangman) would work in the hands of any authors." The conclusion of her review was that Kennedy & Churchill's book should be sufficient to bring the "beautiful, frustrating and compelling" VMs to the attention of the world.

Fast forward to last weekend (June 2008), and the Guardian's book review section ran a short review by Steven Poole on "The Enigmas of History" (third piece down on the page) by Alan Baker. Though this covers a number of non-enigmas, the Voynich Manuscript does get a reasonable mention (I should hope so too!), with Poole describing the VMs as being "like a storyboard for The Matrix with annotations in an indecipherable language."

Hmmm... two book reviews, both with Voynich storyboard metaphors... Perhaps, back in 2005, Scarlett Thomas was secretly hoping for her book to be optioned by a moneybags film studio (these things do happen, though not as often as novelists would like) and this guided her choice of words; and then Steven Poole (or indeed Alan Baker) happened to read her review.

Or is there a Voynich film lurking in the collective unconscious? Even though the story of the VMs may well be something that a "proper" historian could never sign off on, it may well be a set of bones that Hollywood screenwriters could happily boil up into a tasty filmic soup. Do you think?

As long as they don't cast Tom bl**dy Hanks as a Warbugian-style secret historian again and they leave Jesuit priests right out of it (the VMs very probably predates the Society of Jesus by 50+ years!), I wish them luck! :-)

Voynich-related novel reviews...

In much the same way that the Voynich Manuscript has provided a blank screen for generations of amateur cryptologists to project their code-breaking desires onto, it has in recent years provided a rich loam for writers to plant their novelistic seeds into.

In the bad old days of novel-writing, the VMs would simply have been treated as an interchangeable cipher-based Macguffin, a time capsule mechanically carrying [powerful / occult / heretical] ideas forward from the [insert bygone era name here] to satisfy the present-tense needs of the plot. Plenty of old-fashioned writers continue to hammer out such formulaic Victorian penny-dreadful tat even now: what kind of barrier could ever hold back such a tide?

Thankfully, contemporary writers have begun to engage with other ideas in the cloud of ideas surrounding the VMs. Though I personally don't think it will turn out to be delusional nonsense, channelled writing, off-world DNA-creation technology, or even a deliberate hoax, I think these are interesting angles far more worthy of being explored in fiction.

With this in mind, here's a list of the novel reviews on my site:-

(1) It's brutally old-fashioned, but Indiana Jones and the Philosopher's Stone [review] by Max McCoy presses all the right buttons. It knows it's a piece of junk but simply doesn't care: it's having too much fun. Recommended!

(2) I had high hopes for "PopCo" [review] by Scarlett Thomas, but it just ended up like a creative writing collage. If you can cope with the crypto-geeky Gen-X No-Logo buzzwordiness of the whole concept, you'll probably enjoy it: but for me it fails to work on most levels.

(3) Rather than engage with the VMs directly, "Vellum" [review] by Matt Rubinstein creates an Australian doppelganger of it, and has a lot of fun exploring a would-be decipherer's descent into madness and/or confusion. Recommended!

(4) "Enoch's Portal" [review] by A.W.Hill boils up a heady stew of alchemy, cultishness and quantum pretension, where Leo Levitov's Cathar hypothesis about the Voynich Manuscript is merely one of many spices sloshed into the mixing bowl. No Michelin stars, sorry.

Beale Papers: solved (or not)?

Here's a claimed solution to the Beale Papers (but press Cancel on the login popup, and if browsing there under Windows, I wouldn't advise installing the ActiveX control that pops up) which I didn't know about until very recently. I thought I'd mention it here because, as any fule kno, the Beale Papers are one of the few encrypted historical mysteries to parallel the Voynich Manuscript to any significant degree.

To be precise, the Beale Papers comprise not one long ciphertext (putting the VMs' thorny Currier A-B language continuum issue to one side) but three short codetexts, all allegedly dating from 1819-1821: part 2 was publicly announced in 1885 already solved (for its codebook, the encoder used a slightly mangled/miscopied version of the Declaration of Independence)... but the directions to the buried treasure were in the undecoded part 1, while the shorter (and also undecoded) part 3 listed the people involved. Of course, only someone who has broken the two remaining codes would know if all of this is true or not. :-)

So, it's basically a kind of Wild West bandit take on a pirate treasure map (which to me sounds like an Alias Smith and Jones script, oh well) but made obscure with some kind of dictionary code: all of which is reassuringly familiar if you've just read PopCo. Confusingly, some people argue that the Beale Papers are a fake (possibly by the promoter of the 1885 pamphlet, or even by Edgar Allen Poe, etc), claiming justification from statistical aspects of the cryptography and/or on claimed anachronisms in the language, etc: but a definitive answer either way has yet to be found.

For what it's worth... my opinion is that, as with the VMs, cries of hoax are more Chicken Licken than anything approaching an ironic postmodernist reading. Really, it does look and feel basically how a home-cooked Victorian code-text ought to, with an emphasis towards lowish numbers (up to 350) plus a sprinkling of higher numbers (possibly for rare or awkward letters): Jim Gillogly's observation (in October 1980 Cryptologia) of an alphabet-like pattern in part 1 (if you apply part 2's codebook) seems to me more like a clue than a reason to reject the whole object as a hoax. As an aside, a few years ago I heard (off-Net) whispers of one particular cryptographic solution that had yet to be made public: but Louis Kruh in Cryptologia reported several such plausible-looking solutions as far back as 1982, so what can you say?

However, all of this is an entirely different claim to the "Beale Solved" code solution linked above, which was (re)constructed by Beale treasure hunter Daniel Cole (who died in 2001). Even though the dig that was carried out as a result of Cole's decryption revealed an empty chamber (the website claims), the cryptographic details (ie, of how the codetext links with the plaintext) have yet to be released... which is a tad fishy.

A quick check of the first page of Cole's version of part 3 reveals that he didn't read it as a simple cipher or codebook, because repeated code-numbers only rarely get decoded as the same letter (for example, the five instances of '96' get decoded as "s / e / r / h / n"). Yet this seems somewhat odd: if there was some kind of strange offsetting going on, the distribution of code-numbers would not need to so closely resemble the kind of distribution you see in code book ciphers.

But once you confess to having taken a single step down the whole "it's actually a strange cipher pretending to be a codebook code" route, nobody will believe a word you say, right?

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.

Yet more Voynich "solutions"...

I recently found a German Voynich Lexicon wiki-page, with lots of nice things that appear almost nowhere else (such as a link to my Compelling Press Voynich book page, *sigh*).

It has quite a light touch, reminiscent of my old Voynich friend Elmar Vogt: for example, it has a short "Newbold of the month" section pointing to two latter-day Voynich "solutions", neither of which I'd heard: Erhard Landmann's book, and Dirk Schroeder's kabbalistic numerology.

Perhaps more usefully, the site also has a list of Voynich media mentions, going from 2001 all the way up to 2008. OK, it's in German: but even so, you can get a good idea of what's being said about the VMs (and where). There's a link there to a 2007 Suddeutsche article I was interviewed for (and which I'd forgotten about until I saw it there just now).

But here's the punchline: the more Voynich coverage from around the world I see, the more it seems to me that the English-speaking world doesn't currently give a monkey's about the whole issue. With all due respect to the army of novelists out there slaving away on their Voynich-themed soon-to-be-masterpieces, you might consider avoiding making them too parochial: the translations may well make you more money...

Incidentally, I'm now 50 pages into Scarlett Thomas' novel "PopCo": I'll post a review here as soon as I've finished it...

More & more Voynich books...

Today, I stumbled across yet another Voynich book: which then led me to a whole cache of them, like a hidden nest of gremlin eggs high atop a mountain. Don't give them any water, whatever you do...

First up was "Les Livres Maudits" (1971, J'ai Lu) by Jacques Bergier, chemical engineer and [al]chemist, French resistance fighter and spy, writer and journalist: in it, he painted a picture of the VMs as containing a secret so powerful that it could destroy the world. Could it have simply been an idea: like "being nice to people doesn't work"? According to my old pal Jean-Yves Atero, Bergier was convinced this secret was so devastating that (basically) Men In Black will always track its progress, and will stop at nothing to keep the truth about it from being brought into the open. Errrm... hold on a minute, there's someone at the door...

Rather more recently, there was "The Magician's Death" (2004) [published in French as "Le livre du magicien" (2006)] by prolific historical mystery writer Paul C. Doherty, in his 'Hugh Corbett' series. This has Roger Bacon writing an unbreakable code, various English and French factions trying to crack it, and loads of people getting killed (or something along those lines).

Coming out in the same year was "Shattered Icon" (2004) (later re-released as "Splintered Icon" (2006), and published in German as "Der 77. Grad." (2007)] by Bill Napier. As far as I can tell, this uses the deciphering of a Voynich-style 400-year-old journal / map to tease out a mystery thriller take on the Roanoke Island expedition.

Scarlett Thomas's novel PopCo (2004) also mentions the Voynich Manuscript (it claims on the German Wikipedia page), as part of a "richly allusive" [Independent on Sunday] pop-culture novelistic riff on cryptography. She now lectures in Creative Writing at the University of Kent in Canterbury. I find this a bit worrying: it conjures up an image of a classful of uber-literate proto-writers, all looking at the VMs and thinking "Hmmm... an 'unreadable book', eh? An excellently ironic leitmotif for my postmodern anti-novel..." [*], which I will then have to laboriously add to the Big Fat List, and perhaps even to try to read (Lord, protect me from any more Generation X knockoffs). Blogging can be hell, I'll have you know.

• [*] Doubtless spoken in a E.L.Wisty voice

Other VMs-linked novels mentioned on various language Wikipedia sites include:

• "L'intrigue de Il Romanzo Di Nostradamus" by Valerio Evangelisti apparently has Nostradamus battling the VMs and its black magic ilk;
• Dan Simmons' 832-page epic "Olympos" (2006) apparently namechecks the Voynich as having been bought in 1586 by Rudolph II (though how this gets fitted in to a story about Helen of Troy is a matter for wonder: I'm sure it all makes sense, really I do); and
• "Datura tai harha jonka jokainen näkee" (2001) by Finnish writer Leena Krohn (published in German as "Stechapfel") is centred on the hallucinogenic plant Datura (AKA jimsonweed, Magicians' weed", or Sorcerors' weed), and it is an easy step from there to the Voynich Manuscript. Back in 2002, I posted to the VMs mailing list about various plants such as Datura: so this is no great surprise.

Oh well, back to my day job (whatever that is)...