Futility Closet - 026-A Practical Joke on a Grand Scale

Episode Date: September 15, 2014

In 1810 someone told hundreds of London merchants that Mrs. Tottenham at 54 Berners Street had requested their services. She hadn't. For a full day the street was packed with crowds of deliverymen struggling to reach a single door -- and the practical joker was never caught. In this episode of the Futility Closet podcast we'll hear descriptions of the chaos in Berners Street and meet Theodore Hook, the man who probably planned the whole thing. We'll also revisit the mysterious corpse found on an Australian beach in 1948 and puzzle over an octopus stuck in a tree. Sources for our segment on the Berners Street hoax: Judith Flanders, The Victorian City: Everyday Life in Dickens' London, 2012. Robert Chambers, The Book of Days, 1832. Theodore Hook, The Life and Remains of Theodore Edward Hook, 1849. John Gibson Lockhart, Theodore Hook, A Sketch, 1852. John Timbs, Lives of Wits and Humourists, 1862. Satirist, or, Monthly Meteor, "The Hoax: An Epistle From Solomon Sappy, Esquire, in London, to his brother Simon at Liverpool," Jan. 1, 1811, pp. 59-61. Listener mail: The new developments in the mystery of the Somerton man are detailed in this article on The Advertiser. Here's "No E," four minutes of E-less hip-hop by Zach Sherwin and George Watsky (thanks, Jocelyn): This week's lateral thinking puzzle was contributed by listener Nick Madrid. You can listen using the player above, or subscribe on iTunes or via the RSS feed at http://feedpress.me/futilitycloset. Many thanks to Doug Ross for the music in this episode. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at [e-mail]. Thanks for listening!

Welcome to Futility Closet, a celebration of the quirky and the curious, the thought-provoking and the simply amusing. This is the audio companion to the popular website that catalogs more than 8,000 curiosities in history, language, mathematics, literature, philosophy, and art. You can find us online at futilitycloset.com. Thanks for joining us. Welcome to episode 26. I'm Greg Ross. And I'm Sharon Ross. In today's show, we'll learn about a practical joke that caused bedlam in a London street in 1810, get an update on the mysterious corpse that appeared on a South Australian beach in 1948, and puzzle over how an octopus came to be in a tree.

At 5 a.m. on November 27, 1810, a chimney sweep knocked on the basement door of a respectable house in Burner Street in London, just north of Oxford Street. He said he'd been sent for. He hadn't. They said they didn't need him and just sent him away. But he was followed by 11 more chimney sweeps. It was going to be a very long day for the residents of 54 Burner Street because this was the beginning of what came to be called the Burner Street Hoax, which is one of the greatest practical jokes in history. It's 200 years old now and still remembered. The chimney sweeps were followed by wagons bringing coal that had been ordered for the same address, and after them came fishmongers with a day's catch. Everyone, all these merchants, had been told that someone at 54 Burner Street had ordered their services or goods, and none of them had been. Someone had ordered all these merchants had been told that someone at 54 Burner Street had ordered their services or goods,

and none of them had been. Someone had ordered all these things in their name. They were all said to be required by the house's mistress, who was named Mrs. Totten, and we don't know anything more about her, but she's now immortal for being the victim of this hoax. I just want to read a few descriptions of this from the time, because they convey the scale of this thing. It wasn't just a few people. It was absolute bedlam that took up the whole day and must have taken weeks to prepare. This is, I'll just run through this list of descriptions.

Piano fortes by dozens and coal wagons by scores, 2,500 raspberry tarts from half a hundred pastry cooks, a squad of surgeons, a battalion of physicians, and a legion of Here's an account in verse from 1811, the next year. That Undertakers is actually just one little particular detail here they opened the door at one point to find a coffin ready made for mrs dottonham made to measure five feet six by 16 inches and sent that away as well oh somebody put a lot of work into this somebody yeah but i mean it would have taken weeks and weeks i mean this is pre telephone pre-email so you would have had to have like yes individually written out letters or invitations or bills or whatever you know for and the thing is i may as well say we don't even to this day know for sure who did it but almost all fingers point to theodore hook who i'll get into in a second he was a man of letters and

composer and wit and practical joker who was never caught. I mean, practically everyone agrees that he was the one who was behind this. But because he never admitted to it and was never forced to confess, we don't really know his end of it. We don't know how long all this took to arrange. Or why he did it? No. I'll get into that in a second. Here's one more description.

This is from 1832. No. I'll get into that in a second. Here's one more description. This is from 1832. Coal wagons heavily laden, carts of upholstery, vans with pianos and other articles, wedding and funeral coaches all rumbled through and filling up the adjoining streets and lanes. One estimate said at the height of it, this hoax disturbed a quarter of the city, which is a huge area. Sweeps assembled with the implements of their trade, tailors with clothes that had been ordered, pastry cooks with wedding cakes, fishmongers with codfishes, and butchers with legs of mutton.

There were surgeons with their instruments, lawyers with their papers and parchments, and clergymen with their nooks of devotion. Such a babel was never heard before in London, and to complete the business, who should drive up but the Lord Mayor in his state carriage, the Governor of the Bank of England, the Chairman of the East India Company, and even a scion of royalty itself, Part of what made this even harder to manage is that each tradesman would struggle his way eventually up to the door and get turned away, and then stay in the street to watch the next wave and laugh at them.

So this just compounded the difficulty. Oh, man. No one was leaving. The one exception was the Lord Mayor, who got very angry and drove off to the police office to lay a complaint. Here's an extract from one of the newspapers of the day. The police, by the time they got involved, it was such havoc that there wasn't much they could do, and it became clear that the thing had been orchestrated to unfold in waves.

Here's that article. Every officer that could be mustered was enlisted to disperse the people, and they were placed at the corners of Burners Street to prevent tradespeople from advancing towards the house with goods. The street was not cleared at a late hour, as servants of every description wanting places began to assemble at 5 o'clock. It turned out that letters had been written to the different tradespeople

which stated recommendations from persons of quality. In other words, it had been arranged that people who were seeking work had been sent letters leading them to believe that there was someone in the street who might be willing to hire them and those were all arranged to show up at 5 o'clock, for instance. So there was just no stopping this once it had started.

I'm kind of astounded at how many people would have been, not only highly inconvenienced, because you would have taken time out of your day to come here, but like if bakers had to bake a whole wedding cake. Right. I mean, or build a whole coffin. Yeah. Wow.

Yeah, and then there was no one to complain to because he was never caught. Anyway, the man behind this, everyone pretty well agrees, was named Theodore Hook, who was basically a writer and composer who was somewhat dissolute, but brilliant and very witty and very popular for that reason. It's kind of funny reading up about this and doing the research. There are, you know, any story like this tends to get embroidered over time and some of the details get hazy. There are some sources differ. Some say it happened in 1809 as opposed to 1810. But there's three things that everyone agrees on. One is that he's almost certainly behind it, although he was never caught and never confessed.

And two, unfortunately, is that everyone agrees on the address. You'd think that'd be one thing that would sort of be lost. 54 Burner Street, London. And the name of the woman, the poor woman who was the victim of all this is Mrs. Tottenham. I don't know anything more about who she was. We're not sure. Again, I say because if Hook did it,

whoever did it, we don't have his end of the story. So we don't know if Mrs. Tottenham was just chosen arbitrarily or if some accounts say that Hook and his friends had a particular grudge against her and we just don't know.

But one, for instance, 1852 biography says, It is recorded that in walking down that street one day, his companion called his attention to the particularly neat and modest appearance of a house, the residence, as was inferred from the doorplate, of some decent shopkeeper's widow. I'll lay you a guinea, said Theodore, that in one week that nice quiet dwelling shall be the most famous in all London. So it could have been that random, which makes it even worse. Just that simple. Wow.

I don't think that particular line can be accurate because there's no way you could have arranged all this in one week. Yeah. Yeah. There's one biography says that six weeks were spent in preparation, which sounds maybe about right. preparation, which sound maybe about right. Some sources say that what Hook basically had done, had written hundreds of letters to various tradespeople, arranging to have all of them deliver on the same day. That's how this was orchestrated. We know that much. And the number of letters, estimates vary from a few hundred up to the highest number I see consistently quoted as 4,000 letters he had written, which I think must be be high even if he'd spent all of six weeks working on this writing four thousand letters in six weeks is writing 95 letters every single day

for a month and a half which i i'd be very impressed if that was the case but certainly he wrote at least several hundred um and they weren't just formed letters for instance he got some of these dignitaries to come by dreaming up particular exigencies that would draw them out. For instance, the chairman of the East India Company and the governor of the Bank of England both showed up because they'd been told they'd be given information about frauds within their companies. Oh, I was wondering how you get someone like that to show up. That's how you do it. So it was a responsible thing. They sort of had to come with that inducement.

Also, the Duke of Gloucester came, this is even worse, because he'd been told he would hear the deathbed confession of attendant an attendant of the royal family that's another thing you really can't say no to um so whoever had written these letters presumably hook had had put a lot of time and care into thinking up what would actually bring people to the street uh the story often says that Hook himself had hired rooms in the house across the street so he could watch all this. And for all I know, that's true. There's no way of proving it now.

And then he withdrew to the country afterward with the story that he was convalescing from an illness and just stayed away until it all blew over. Robert Chambers in his 1832 book of days says, he never avowed himself as the originator of the trick, though there's no doubt of his being the prime actor in it. I say that we didn't have his end of the story. That's not quite true.

He was a writer, and in 1836, he wrote a semi-autobiographical novel called Gilbert Gurney, where his stand-in within the novel, this is fiction, but his stand-in is a character named Daly, and at one point Daly says, quote, There's nothing like fun. What else made the effect in Burner Street? I am the man. I did it. Sent a lord mayor in state to release impressed seamen, philosophers and sages to look at children with two heads apiece.

Nay, I dispatched even royalty itself on an errand to a respectable widow lady, whose concourse of a visitor is by my special invitation choked up the great avenues of london and found employment for half the police of the metropolis that's fiction so it's not a confession but it was written by the man himself and sounds a lot like a like a admission that he had done it um as i say this has been famous for 200 years and i suppose will continue to be it It's hard to know what to think about it. It makes a great story, but at the time it caused real trouble, as practical jokes often do. John Gibson Lockhart in his 1852 biography of Theodore Hooke writes,

Fierce were the growlings of the doctors and surgeons, scores of whom had been cheated of valuable hours. doctors and surgeons, scores of whom had been cheated of valuable hours. Attorneys, teachers of all kinds, male and female, hairdressers, tailors, popular preachers, parliamentary philanthropists, had been alike victimized and were in their various notes alike vociferous. But the tangible material damage done was itself no joking matter. There had been an awful smashing of glass, china, harpsichords, and coach panels. Many a horse fell, never to rise again.

Beer barrels and wine barrels had been overturned and exhausted with impunity amidst the press of countless multitudes. And there was an investigation made, Chambers says it was made the subject of a solemn investigation by many of the parties who'd been duped, but so careful had the precautions been taken to avoid detection that the inquiry proved entirely fruitless he'd covered his tracks in planning this and so to this day we don't no one can say for certain that it was hook who was behind it and certainly he was never charged no criminal charges were ever brought um so you can make up your mind how to think about this in his day hook was so charming and witty and well-liked that people

sort of took it in that spirit um but now it seems a little juvenile maybe to you know i mean he wrecked the day and maybe the week or even the month for many many people yeah not just mrs tottenham but all these other people who've been duped. In 1832, Robert Chambers introduced his article on Hooke with this, which I think maybe sums it up well. If fine personal qualities as a handsome figure and agreeable countenance, quick intelligence and brilliant wit with an unfailing flow of animal spirits were alone able to secure happiness, Theodore Hooke ought to have been amongst the happiest and most fortunate of mankind, for he possessed them all. We know, however, that something more is needed,

above all conscientiousness, sense of duty, or at least common prudence to make life a true success. So that was, what, about 20 years after this had happened. There was already some shadow over it, I guess. Depends what spirit you want to take it in. There's one other little glimmer of what Hook himself thought of this. This again shows up in that autobiographical novel, Gilbert Gurney, that he wrote in 1836.

And I'll give him the last word. This is apparently his own thought in looking back on it. There were a lot of imitations made. It was so famous in its day that in Paris and elsewhere, there were a lot of similar hoaxes that were taken. He didn't apparently care for those and thought they didn't measure up. But this character, this stand for him, says, Copy the joke and it ceases to be one.

Any fool can imitate an example once set, but for originality of thought and design, I do think that was perfect. If you haven't yet seen our book, you should head over to Amazon and check it out. Look for Futility Closet, an idler's miscellany of compendious amusements. It's full of hundreds of short, intriguing tidbits, a tantalizing mix of historical oddities, quotes, wordplay, paradoxes, and puzzles, sure to keep your brain amused. See why other readers have called it a great fun read that will never leave you bored

and full of wonderful discoveries for the curious mind. In our last episode, we covered the mystery of the Somerton Man, a well-dressed corpse that was discovered on Somerton Beach in Adelaide, South Australia in 1948. In 66 years, no one has ever been able to figure out who the man was or how he came to be there or even how he died. Acree wrote in to say, I have really enjoyed listening to your podcast and especially love when you discuss real life mysteries like the Somerton Man in episode 25. Coincidentally, my husband and I have been watching The Americans, which stars Keri Russell as a KGB spy living undercover in America in the early 1980s, and I heard about The Somerton Man through, nerd alert, a subreddit about the show.

Apparently the daughter of the nurse has come forward claiming her mother was a Soviet spy. I wondered if you'd read this article and disregarded it as an unsatisfying answer, Sure. So, Acree sent in a link to an article in an Adelaide newspaper from November 2013 that discusses some of the latest developments in this whole mystery. If you recall from the last episode, Somerton Park nurse Jessica Thompson November 2013 that discusses some of the latest developments in this whole mystery. If you recall from the last episode, Somerton Park nurse Jessica Thompson lived really near where the body was found and was implicated in the whole story by a phone number that the mystery man seemed to have written in a book. People who lived in the area had also reported seeing the man knocking on Jessica's door the day before he was discovered dead.

So apparently Jessica's daughter, Kate Thompson, has now said that she believes that her mother was a Soviet spy, who may have even had a hand in the murder of the Somerton man, who was also possibly a Soviet agent himself. So they might both have been spies. They might both have been spies, yeah. At the time that when Jessicaessica was questioned by the police she had denied knowing who the man was although the police thought she was probably lying yeah uh and kate has actually specifically says that yes her mother told her that she lied kate said quote she said to me she she knew who he was but she wasn't going to let that out of the bag so to speak she did know and she told me that it is a mystery that was only known to a level higher than the police force. And of her mother, Kate said, quote, she had a dark side, a very strong dark side. So that's even more mysterious than

the nine levels of mystery we had before. Yeah, yeah. So you have, you know, Kate weighing in here with what her mother supposedly said to her. According to the newspaper article, unfortunately all the police records relating to the case have been destroyed and Jessica, the only known link to his identity, is dead. So nobody can continue to ask her about it. But besides Kate, Jessica also had a son named Robin, who also is currently deceased. But Robin's wife and their daughter

have come forward claiming Robin was the son of the Somerton man and Jessica Thompson. And they are backing a new bid to have the Somerton man's body exhumed so that he can be DNA tested and they can compare it to Robin's daughter. So far, all attempts to have that done have been denied by the authorities. Robin's daughter has said, quote, it to have that done have been denied by the authorities. Robin's daughter has said, quote, it may be confronting, it may not be pleasant, but I'd rather find out the truth. Somerton Mann is potentially my grandfather, so that to me is very important. It's hard to know what to think of these developments, as the article doesn't cite any actual evidence for any of these claims, other than, you know, what Kate says her mother had said, but they don't cite any actual hard evidence for any of this. Yeah,

there was, that's one other interesting wrinkle that I didn't manage to fit into the segment that we originally recorded. Apparently, the plaster bust that was taken of the Somerton man's body before it was buried shows that he had unusually shaped ears and teeth and photographs of the woman's son Robin I guess his name was show that he also has the same oddly shaped ears and teeth which if they're not related is very unlikely yeah that's not proof but it does sort of lend some weight to the idea that the Somerton man was the father of her son. Right. But there again, it seems like really to decide this stuff conclusively, you'd really need a DNA sample.

And from everything I understand, the authorities won't permit that. Just curiosity, even rampant curiosity isn't a good enough reason to exhume a body. And I guess none of that really proves whether or not either of them was Soviet spies or Soviet agents. Yeah, that's another. Anyway, that's a whole different layer there. Yeah. So, we'll have a link to the newspaper article in our show notes. Thanks so much to Jocelyn

and Akery and everybody else who writes in to us that we don't have a chance to mention on the show. And if you have any questions or comments for us, you can leave them in our show notes at blog.futilitycloset.com or email them to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. So our lateral thinking puzzle segment this week, Greg's on the hot seat and he's already looking like he's totally enjoying himself. No, I'm going to kill this one.

You're going to kill this one. Okay. Terrific. Two weeks ago, we did a puzzle by Nicolas Madrid. That was actually a really excellent puzzle that you did struggle with a little bit. Yes. But it was a really fun puzzle. That was a really good one.

That was a good one. And I actually have another one for you this week by also Nicolas Madrid. Okay. And coincidentally uh and coincidentally completely coincidentally nicholas happened to have set his puzzle in adelaide australia which is pretty funny he actually sent this to me before we done our episode about the somerton man so it has that would be a very difficult right so the hint is this has nothing to do with the somerton man even though it's set in adelaide, Australia. Okay, so here's your puzzle.

On the hottest day of the year, an octopus sits in the upper limbs of a tree near Adelaide, Australia. I like it so far. It arrived there because of a foolish prank committed by a certain man. After a nationwide search, the man is arrested, tried, and sentenced to 20 years in prison. What crime did the man is arrested tried and sentenced to 20 years in prison what crime did the man commit what was the first phrase you used to describe the event you said it was a foolish prank a foolish prank committed by a certain man that is not the Somerton man okay all right an octopus isn't you said basically the top of a tree on the hottest day of the year in Adelaide Australia yes could

this have happened elsewhere besides Adelaide Australia Australia? I would assume so, but... Okay, so that's not essential. I don't think it's essential that it's in Adelaide specifically. I have to ask, did this really happen? I don't think so. Nicholas didn't say. Perhaps he got this from a news story. I don't know.

Okay, and the man... Are there other people involved besides this man and the octopus? I guess you could say so. More than one other person? Um, yeah. Some indeterminate number of people. Yeah. I mean, involved at least in some, to some extent, you know, but.

Okay. You have a man and an octopus. Um, is the fact that it's the hottest day of the year, does that matter? I mean, specifically the hottest day? No, I don't think so. Okay. It's summer? Yes.

Let's say it is. We have to say the weather is hot? Yes. That's part of this? This wouldn't have happened in cold weather? Maybe not. Okay. Okay.

So the man was interacting with the octopus in some way with some other no no the man was not interacting with the octopus so the man's goal wasn't to do something else to the octopus correct did he know the octopus was the there at all i don't even know how to frame that question is a a man's identity or occupation important? No. Good question, though. He's a man, and he sees what he's doing as a prank. Yes.

He's trying to play a prank on another person or people? Would you put it that way? Not that specifically. Okay. He's trying to accomplish something. Sure. And failed in some way. No.

I can't get off the ground with this one. He succeeded. Yes. In doing what he was trying to do. Yes. Before he set out to do this, there was an octopus not in the top of a tree. Correct. And now there is.

Yes. Is he aware of this no okay a man has propelled can i say that an octopus at the top of a tree unwittingly i wouldn't say it like that no okay do i need to know more about the tree it's just a tree in australia in adelaide australia do we need to know where the octopus was before this yeah event happened yeah was it uh in a body of water yes a natural body of water yes do i need to know specifically which one no okay in the sea yes octopus in the sea yes is the sea? No. The man was not in the sea. Was he fishing?

No. Was he near the sea? I mean, was he on the beach or interacting with the ocean in some way? No. No, he wasn't. He was not. Is the tree near the sea? Possibly not.

Possibly not, you know, like right next to it or something. Does this whole, okay, so from beginning to end, the man starts doing something. Yes. And then at the end, the octopus winds up at the top of the tree. Yeah, uh-huh. Is the whole time span more than a few minutes? Yeah, probably. More than an hour?

Maybe. More than a day? Probably not, no. Okay, so whatever this is takes place in a day. Yeah, I would think so. Yeah, let's say yes. And this is, would you call this a mishap? Which part?

The whole thing. I have it stuck in my head that this man was trying to do something else. Yeah, he was committing a foolish prank, according to the puzzle. Right, but was this the foolish prank, according to the puzzle. Right, but it's... Was this the outcome he expected? No. That an octopus would end up in a tree? No.

I wouldn't have thought so. Okay. Is... I don't even... Okay, and you said the fact... The man is aware that the octopus is in the tree. No, no. I said he's not.

Oh, he's not. Okay. And he never interacts with the octopus. But the octopus winds up in the tree. The octopus winds up in the tree, yes. Are there implements or artifacts or something? I mean, just other things that I need to know about. Yeah.

Yeah. I don't know need to know about. Yeah. Um, I don't know how to ask that. Do I need to, I guess I need to figure out how the octopus gets into the tree. Yeah. But the question that the puzzle is asking is what crime did the man commit? Assuming it's not a crime to get an octopus into a tree.

Um, there was another crime that he is actually arrested and tried for and sentenced is he he's a criminal he sees himself as a criminal probably not um but he's culpable of a crime yes when this is. Yes. Does that have to do with harm to animals or endangered species or anything like that? No, no. Is it theft or robbery? No. Does anyone hurt or killed? Yes. Killed?

According to Nicholas's answer, yes. One person? No. Multiple people are killed getting an octopus into a tree. No, they're are killed getting an octopus into a tree. No, they're not killed getting an octopus into a tree. But they're killed during the octopus ascension. Well, not exactly. The people are alive at the beginning.

Yes. This would be the whole episode. Okay, so there's a man doing something. Yes. There's a group of more than one people. Yes. Who are alive at the start of this. Yes. And an octopus is in the sea.

Yes. Yes, the time frame is all great so far. Something very colorful happens. Yes. The people are killed. Yeah. The octopus leaves the sea and is at the top of a tree. Yes.

And the man is guilty of the people's deaths. Would you say that? Yeah, yeah. Of murder? Well, that's probably not the crime. That's not the crime he would be charged with. Of, really? Yes.

That part's okay? Well, not that that part's okay, but that's not the crime he is committed for, according to Nicholas's puzzle. Is there an explosion involved? No. No. But, Jerome, that's kind of close. Is the same, I don't know what to call it, the same calamity that gets the octopus into the tree, is that the same thing that kills the people?

Is it one event that does both? No. No? Not exactly. Do they happen at the same time? Somewhat. I don't know. Like, the octopus ends up as the tree at the exact moment that people are dying

I mean you know but in the same time frame okay and one thing let's there's an indeterminate number of people who are killed

yes but they're all killed by the same cause yes yes yes let's pursue that shall we sure there's not an explosion

there's not an explosion are they I don't know shot no killed with some weapon no killed with fire yes killed with fire yes I don't know, shot? No. Killed with some weapon? No.

Killed with fire? Yes. Killed with fire? Yes. Multiple people, but it's not an explosion. They die in a fire. Yes, yes, yes. The man accidentally sets fire to something.

No. The man deliberately sets fire to something. The man deliberately sets fire to something. The crime is arson? Yes. The man deliberately sets fire... Yes. ...to a building? No. To something? Yes. That man deliberately sets fire to a building? No.

To something? Yes. That contains a bunch of people? Well, there are people in the area. There's people around, and some of them are caught in the fire and die. Right, yes. And the man is then guilty of arson and, I guess, at least manslaughter or something like that. Right, sure.

But how does the octopus end up in the tree? That was a whole lot of progress in like 15 seconds. Excellent. No. as the octopus end up in the tree. That was a whole lot of progress in like 15 seconds. Excellent. Do we need to know the layout of this? Like where the tree is precisely in relation to this structure, whatever it is? No, no, no. I mean, not precisely.

Do we need to know more specifically what it is that burned? No. Like it's a particular kind of building. No, no, no, no. Something burned. Something burned. Is there something in the sea or near it? burned. No. Like it's a particular kind of building. No, no, no, no. Something burned. Something burned. Is there something in the sea or near it? No.

No? Not in the sea or like... Or even necessarily nearby? Well, I guess nearby. Could it be a building on the beach? Can I say that? It's not like a specific building. All right.

He just starts a fire. Like a big fire. Like he starts a fire that ends up being a big fire. The people who die, are any of them in the water? No, probably not. But the octopus is. The octopus is, yes. And there's no explosion.

Yes, I mean, it's set near the sea. What would you do if there was a big fire possibly set near a sea, and you're trying to stop the big fire? Oh, I think I see. So the fire department comes and is pumping water out of the sea to put out the flames. Yeah, and maybe this is something that they don't do a lot in the U.S., but they actually scoop out a lot of water with a helicopter and dump it over the fire. Helicopter.

I didn't get that. Yeah. And a poor hapless octopus ended up being scooped up. And according to Nicholas, this is really sad, is left clinging to the charred branches. So thanks so much, Nicholas, for sending in the puzzles that you have so far. And if anybody else has puzzles they'd like to send in, you can send them to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. That's another episode for us. We want to thank everybody who has been helping to spread the word about Futility Closet.

It's really a big help to us. And if you want to help support our show and you haven't yet, please take a moment to recommend it to anyone that you think might enjoy it. You can also help us out by clicking the donate button in the sidebar of the website. If you're looking for more Futility Closet, check out our book on amazon.com or visit the website at futilitycloset.com where you can sample over 8,000 captivating diversions, perfect for filling 5 minutes or 50. You can see our show notes at blog.futilitycloset.com, where you can post comments or questions, listen to past shows, and see the links mentioned in today's episode. You can also email us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. Our music was written and produced by Doug Ross.

Thanks for listening, and we'll talk to you next week.