Can anagrams ever be used as evidence?

[R Wallace]

Can the presence of anagrams identified in an author's works ever be used as evidence regarding state of mind, intent, or action?

The case for Charles Dodgson, aka Lewis Carroll, being a person filled with rage (as opposed to the historical saintly persona) and possibly perpetrator of the Jack the Ripper murders is based on the presence of anagrams throughout his works. It is this author's contention, as presented in The Agony of Lewis Carroll (AOLC) and Jack the Ripper: Lighthearted Friend (JTR), that Dodgson began using anagrams to express his real state of mind and anger at his parents and society as a child, using publications supported by his parents as the publishing vehicle. And, that he continued to do so under the guise of nonsense in his poetry and famous Alice books as well as his much later works, all under the pseudonym of Lewis Carroll.

While the "discovery" of anagrams within anyone's writings and inferring meaning is filled with risk, if an author is known as an expert -- even a genius – in word games and play, as Dodgson was, is it beyond the pale to suspect that he could have used them in his works? Especially if the author wrote at times such that he created words, as in his "nonsense" poem Jabberwocky – "Twas brillig and the slithy toves..." In his Foreword to JTR, Colin Wilson suggested that if there was any literary figure who could or might do that, it would be Charles Dodson.

What does it mean if a reader of these works accepts even a single anagram as more than coincidence? Does it forever change a reader's view of Lewis Carroll, suggesting strongly that he was at the least more devious than ever even considered? Would it forever spoil one's (perhaps life-long) love for his works and, therefore, precondition one to reject even considering that he intentionally buried them in his nonsense?

Some of the discussion thus far has taken place in the prior thread. But without in some way "resolving" these issues, "evidence" regarding Charles Dodgson as Jack the Ripper is as sorely lacking as any of the other suspects. At least some of the answers to the above question require as a minimum the reading of JTR, which contains a generous summary of AOLC.

[Phil H]

No - it would be utterly subjective, unless the author had deliberately and unmistakably provided the key and admitted motive.

Phil H

[Sally]

Anagrams eh?

Well, why not. What I really want is a suspect who left a series of wordsearch puzzles for us to solve.

That would convince me, for sure.

[Phil H]

Sally - you'rea joy and a wonder. So certain, so clear, so straightforward.

Phil H

P.S. Is there an anagram in your post?

[Sally]

An Anagram? Why Phil, there are several - of course.

Would you expect anything less?

[Phil H]

With you, Sally the subtlest of anagrams, within an anagram, wrapped in a riddle and folded in an enigma.

Phil H

[R Wallace]

To Phil H

Why would anyone up to no good leave an admission? Wouldn't he keep it hidden and protect deniability should anyone stumble on it, which is what I think LC did? The whole idea is to play games with those who might be searching for him.

[Phil H]

Then the discovery will ALWAYS be subjective.

Phil H

[R Wallace]

To Phil H

Doesn't a pattern of subjective inferences lead toward a circumstantial case when there is no hard evidence? I think the conclusion reached is that there's a case to be made from a series of things being more than coincidental.

In fact, I believe I also discovered clues that LC left which greatly aided the identification of which of his words, phrases, or sentences, or, indeed paragraphs could be anagram targets. The clues were his use of quotation marks, italics for no apparent reason, or, in the Alice books as well as the Sylvie books, reactions of characters which were inappropriate for the overt writing, but appropriate for the covert writing.

And, of course, there's his Poeta Fit non Nascitur, which describes exactly how to do it. Basically it's write a sentence, then break it up into letters and rearrange them; and in Sylvie and Bruno, it's rearranging sentences until they have the most sensational meaning.

Is all of that still subjective? Perhaps yes, but we reach at least tentative conclusions all the time on a subjective basis.

R Wallace

[Steven Russell]

Come on, R Wallace. They're all over the place if you can be bothered to look for them and have a natural aptitude for anagrams. Which I don't but no. 1 is mine:

He right if ET landed: Light Hearted Fiend
I'm a merry bachelor: Michael Barrymore
Naked tit model: Kate Middleton

Alright so mine's rubbish but the other two are good and completely co-incedental.

Didn't I once read a critique of you theories which stated that the author had found the very same anagrams in Moby Dick? Thar she blows!

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Phil H]

If it floats your boat, is all I can say, R Wallace.

A theory based on such a method will never convince me and I regard its aherents with about as much respect as I would someone who builds a model of the Victorian London sewer system out of matchsticks.

One can admire the effort and application, but what a waste of time, frankly.

Phil H

[Sally]

With you, Sally the subtlest of anagrams, within an anagram, wrapped in a riddle and folded in an enigma.

Phil H

Why thank you Phil, you're too kind

R. Wallace - this is the stuff of fiction. In the stories, (I can think of a few) there are always clues - cryptic of course. At least, they are presented as being cryptic, but of course in the stories, those clues are always successfully unravelled. The dastardly clue-leavers, whilst tricksy enough for the entire world, and history too, are no match for the hero (or heroine).

Lovely stuff. Not real, though. Its a dramatic device designed to engage the reader - to entertain, in short.

Really and truly, it stretches credulity to entertain the idea that any perpetrator of a crime would sit about writing books/painting pictures etc with an entirely random subject matter and painstakingly insert cryptic clues in said works for the cleverest of detectives to find at some point in the future.

Its implausible for so many reasons. One of those reasons - and perhaps the most obvious, as Phil has already said, is that an anagram hidden in text/secret images hidden in paintings, is utterly subjective.

I mean, how many anagrams can we make out of this post? We could rearrange all the letters and come up with several other posts!

I assure you I have not hidden any cryptic clues in this post, in spite of being so straightforward

[R Wallace]

I'm going to guess that by the tone of your rejection of the notion of anagrams that you won't be posting much on this thread. Perhaps you can clarify whether you've ever read the books cited in the thread message.

Regards,

R Wallace

[R Wallace]

To Sally

I agree with you re the mystery novel, but in that genre the solution of cryptic messages IS the story. Lewis Carroll did not write in that genre so that's not what I'm talking about.

My theory does stretch credulity and is highly implausible. That's exactly the point. But my argument is that we are dealing with a genius in words and a sociopath. Such a writer would not bury anti social things in his works to be discovered, but to be able to serve his extreme narcissism by entertaining himself (and perhaps a few insiders) and getting away with it FOREVER. ("Bluff a rough, sordid, heathen world and cheat death" is the anagram from a message found under the floor boards in the family home; the original poem is an interesting construct.) The laugh is on the world. His attitude would be that NO ONE would ever accuse him, an Oxford don, a churchman, and a beloved nonsense writer, of such content in his works so he'd get away with it. He would forever have deniability if he were caught when alive – the very argument you give – or faithful readers of his works who would provide deniability in the future. He could always claim that the dirty thought is in you, not me. So, we're not talking about a normal person doing this and can't assume there was a normal mental process going on. Why such a surprise when no one considers him a "normal" man? How many sociopaths get away with their crimes forever because getting away with it is their goal? Yes some prefer the adulation of the world with or without clues left behind, but more often those that are caught switch from getting away with it to adulation by the public.

I'm going to infer that you haven't read my books to see the whole array of reasoning, biography, and coincidence of anagrams and would guess that you're not inclined to read them. Hopefully I'll succeed in making you less comfortable with your position and explore it further.

As to creating (you claim to not have left any to solve) anagrams from your post, it's not as easy as it sounds if a requirement is that the anagram be coherent. I won't take up your invitation to try as at my age I don't have either the motive or mental agility. Many people who love to work with anagrams find things like names that work; most don't work, and they never keep or publish them; very frustrating to work and find nothing. There are some samples in the books, especially AOLC. As I indicated in my message for this thread, Carroll left clues that they were present (I believe), which made it much easier once one knew details of his biography that left him in, not anger, but rage. Of course, much of that is interpretive, too, as psychobiography usually is, because he never seemed to have complained or talked about it in the clear, at least. Ah, what a tangled web!

I don't see myself as a sociopath but I tend to be an iconoclast; they, too are often not loved.

Regards,

R Wallace

PS Did you know that Carroll's Sylvie and Bruno books have an Index (much of which points to anagrams)? Why was he breaking new ground by indexing a novel? It's just like a Victorian book written in the clear as pornography; it, too, had an index which ... (you fill in the rest).

[Bridewell]

The Coincidence of Anagrams

Dear R. Wallace,

If the argument for Lewis Carroll as the Whitechapel Murderer is based on "a whole array of anagrams" it's unlikely to find favour on Casebook. Have you thought that the 'coincidence of anagrams' to which you refer may be exactly that?

To address the question posed in the thread:

Can anagrams ever be used as evidence? In this context - no, not in my opinion anyway.

Regards, Bridewell.