Futility Closet - 047-The Scariest Travel Books Ever Written

Episode Date: February 22, 2015

Victorian children's author Favell Lee Mortimer published three bizarre travel books that described a world full of death, vice, and peril. In this week's episode of the Futility Closet podcast we'll sample her terrifying descriptions of the lands beyond England and wonder what led her to write them. We'll also review the movie career of an Alaskan sled dog, learn about the Soviet Union's domestication of silver foxes, and puzzle over some curious noises in a soccer stadium. Favell Lee Mortimer's travel books for children are all available online: The Countries of Europe Described (1850) Far Off, or, Asia and Australia Described (1852) Far Off, or, Africa and America Described (1854) In 2005 Todd Pruzan published a collection of the most xenophobic passages, titled The Clumsiest People in Europe: Or, Mrs. Mortimer's Bad-Tempered Guide to the Victorian World. Listener mail: Here's a BBC documentary on 1925 serum run to Nome: Fast Company has an article about the breeding of friendly foxes by Russian researchers. And National Geographic goes into greater depth regarding the genetics and evolutionary aspects of domestication in this 2011 article. This week's lateral thinking puzzle was submitted by listener David White, who sent these corroborating links (warning -- these spoil the puzzle). You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on iTunes or via the RSS feed at http://feedpress.me/futilitycloset. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- on our Patreon page you can pledge any amount per episode, and all contributions are greatly appreciated. You can change or cancel your pledge at any time, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation via the Donate button in the sidebar of the Futility Closet website. 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]. And you can finally follow us on Facebook and Twitter. 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 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 47. I'm Greg Ross. And I'm Sharon Ross. Favelle Lee Mortimer was a popular children's author, but her travel books described a world full of drunkards, murderers, and thieves. In today's show, we'll sample these laughably harrowing books

and wonder what letter to write them. We'll also review the movie career of an Alaskan sled dog, learn about the Soviet Union's domestication of silver foxes, and puzzle over some curious noises in a soccer stadium. Just a couple of notes before we get started today. First, a programming note. We'll be taking next week off.

In a normal week, the podcast consumes most of our week, and the only way we're going to get our income taxes done is to take a week off and just start plowing through them. It's not really a week off. Yeah. So if you are picturing us lying on a beach somewhere in the sun, no, we'll be slaving over income taxes. So look for our next episode on March 9th. And in the meantime, if you're missing Futility Closet, you can check out our new social media accounts. At last. Yay. yes, at last. Futility Closet finally has accounts on Facebook and Twitter. A million thanks to Megan Walsh-Girard for setting these up for us because without her help, this may never have happened. Yeah,

thank you, Megan, very much. If you've seen other accounts using the Futility Closet name on both Facebook and Twitter, those actually aren't our accounts. They were mostly started by fans. We think. And they're not the official Futility Closet accounts. If you're going to look for ours, we're the Futility Closet blogger page on Facebook. And on Twitter, we're at underscore Futility Closet, one word. And on Twitter, we're at underscore Futility Closet, one word.

We'll have links to the correct pages on the Futility Closet website and also in our show notes. Favele Mortimer was an English author of educational books for children in the 19th century. She's largely been forgotten today, but she was very popular in her day. She published 16 children's books altogether, the most popular of which sold a million copies in 38 languages. She was considered to be unusually adept at phrasing things, at communicating with children, so she was very good at writing educational books for children, or so it was thought at the time. The reason she's remembered mostly today

is that she wrote around the middle of the century in 1849 what's been called one of the most outspokenly sadistic children's books ever written. It was called The Countries of Europe Described, and it starts out innocently enough like this. She starts with her own country, England. What country do you love best? Your own country. I know you do. Every child loves his own country best. Let us talk together about England. What sort of land is it? There are green fields and shady lanes and white cottages with little gardens. There are birds which sing sweetly, nightingales and goldfinches, larks and linnets.

But is not the robin your favorite bird? Not because it has a pretty red breast, but because it comes in winter to the window to be fed. That's nice enough. Nice enough. But she starts to go afield. Though the Welsh are not very clean, they make their cottages look clean by whitewashing them every year, and sometimes they whitewash the pigsties, too. The discerning reader might detect a note of condescension creeping in.

Scotland, one of the chief faults of the Scotch is the love of whiskey. Another fault is the love of money. They often ask more than they ought and are very slow to give. They are industrious but disobliging. They will not take much trouble to please strangers. They are not as clean as English people, and they let their books be covered with dust and even black with soot. These were in books for children.

These were books for children. Books for children. Yeah, this is the first of three, actually. This one came out in 1849, and then she did two sequels. This one's just about Europe, and the others are about, the first one's about Asia and Australia, and then Africa and America. But they all have this venomous tone. And nobody thought it was a problem to say in a book for kids about how the Scotch love whiskey.

Oh, it gets much worse than that. Okay. The further, there seems to be a rule, basically the further you get from England, the worse it gets. The whole book seems designed to terrify children from leaving England, but I don't understand why. She actually had quite a good upbringing.

She was the daughter of a co-founder of Barclays Bank and had, became quite strictly religious. And that shows up in some of her other writings. But there's no, it doesn't seem to be religion that's driving this. She belonged to a sect that wanted to impress on children the pains of hell and the importance of salvation and a really sort of strictly moral, religiously moralistic upbringing. But that's not what this is. This is just sort of cutting down anyone who's not English, basically. Instill a sense of patriotism? The English are just the best by far?

I don't know. It's a real puzzle. Anyway, it gets worse and worse. There are no huts in the world so miserable as the Irish cabins or cottages. Where is the window? Where is the chimney? There are none. Potatoes are the food. Potatoes for breakfast, potatoes for dinner, and potatoes for supper. Dress? Rags. This is the dress of the poor Irish. They do not mend their clothes so the holes get larger and larger. Their coats

are made of a gray woolen cloth called frieze, and they are worn till they drop off the back. First one tail of the coat comes off, then the other, and then the sleeves disappear until at length nothing but a heap of rags remains. I should point out, she only left England twice in her life, and once was after she'd written these books. So when she was writing these, she'd only been to Brussels and Paris as a teenager once, and she's writing about the whole rest of the world. And so where's she getting the information from, or we just don't know? Well, ostensibly from books, but there cannot be books that say things like,

there are some men in Spain who act like wolves. There are robbers and murderers there. They hide themselves among the caves in the mountains and among the thickets in the forest. Whenever a person has been murdered by the roadside, a cross is set up to mark the place. I'm not sure exactly how old the kids are that these are aimed at, but her most popular book, the one that sold a million copies, is called The Peep of Day, and that was aimed at about very young children, like four years old. Presumably these books were read to children by their parents. About how the men in Spain act like wolves and hide in caves to sneak out and kill you? Okay. But the book sold well enough to deserve, apparently, two sequels.

And I keep thinking these kids, I mean, when you're a kid, you don't know what the truth is. So there are, and you're very formative years. Many of the adults probably didn't either at this time period. Many of the adults in England probably hadn't been to Spain themselves. So the adults wouldn't know any different. And if you never went to spain i don't know yeah you might grow up for quite some period believing that was actually true portugal though

the portuguese are indolent like the spaniards they are not so grave and sad and silent they are proud like the spaniards but they are more deceitful no people in europe are as clumsy and awkward with their hands as the portuguese it is curious to see how badly the carpenters make boxes and the smiths make keys. She could not have got that from a book. That Portuguese carpenters make crooked boxes. Maybe she ordered something from Portugal one time and it showed up badly made and she decided all of Portugal was shoddy. That she would warn the world. Yes.

So it's, I don't, I don't understand the project here. Also, I don't, like, I don't like spinach. I wouldn't write a book about spinach just inventing lies

about it to stamp out spinach eating among other people. It just doesn't make any sense. I don't understand the whole point of this. And to write any book takes a good amount of effort.

Yeah. So, I just can't understand what she was thinking. Italy. This gets much worse one very bad custom is burying the poor people in large pits

in the evening the dead bodies in coffins are taken in carts and thrown into a deep hole and covered up when a man is condemned to die instead of being hanged his head is cut off and then stuck upon a pole for everybody to see

and you're going to read this to your four year old yes cut off and then stuck upon a pole for everybody to see. And you're going to read this to your four-year-old. Yes. And that's, we're still just in Europe. It's going to get worse than this, if you can imagine. Here are some general highlights about the rest of Europe for your travel planning. On Easter, the streets of Petersburg are filled with staggering, reeling drunkards. Nothing useful is well done in Sweden. The Greeks do not know how to break up

their children. A great many people have coughs in Vienna because the east wind blows very cold. The Hungarians are much wilder people than the Germans. They are not industrious. They do not know how to make things. Most of them cannot read or write. The greatest fault of the Norwegians is drunkenness. The Poles love talking, and they speak so loud they almost scream. And they are proud of this and say the Germans are dumb. Denmark is flat, but not nearly as flat as Holland, nor as damp, nor as ugly. That's sort of a home run right there, that last one. So as I say, this this first one which is called

the countries of europe described came out in 1849 the next one she goes even further afield in 1852 it's called far off part one asia and australia described and as i say unfortunately people apparently in her eyes get less and less civilized the further afield you go from england so this gets pretty dark. For instance, she describes Tartary, which is northern Asia, with this paragraph. Nothing can be so dreary as the steps appear in wintertime. The high wind sweeping along the plain drives the snow into high heaps and often hurls the poor animals into a cold grave.

Sledges cannot be used because they cannot slide on the ground. I suppose it's possible that she thought this was literally true. Although I don't know where she would have gotten these ideas. She certainly hadn't been to Tartary herself, and I can't imagine anyone else describes it this way. But whether she was just trying to scare children or really thought it was literally true, it's a horrible view of the world. Or just trying to make money and, you know,

just coming up with imaginative things to put in her books. Yeah, I guess this would sell books. I don't have any indication that this was scandalous at the time, I guess I should say. I mean, she wasn't selling things in order to just make a sensation. I don't know what people thought. I mean, obviously people knew these things weren't true. But maybe, as you say, people bought them not knowing what the truth was. Right, most people didn't know that they weren't true.

Actually, I've never been to Tartary. Maybe it is actually like that. Here's some more things you should know about Asia and Australia. The reason why the Armenians live in holes in the ground is because they hope the Kurds may not find out where they are. This is out of context. I can't remember why they don't want the Kurds to know this. But that's an interesting picture.

It is impossible to trust a Persian. The Buddhists are full of tricks by which to get presents out of people. The Chinese are very selfish and unfeeling. The Arabs are so unforgiving and revengeful that they will seek to kill a man year after year. In disposition, the Siamese are deceitful and cowardly. And it must be very terrible to live in the midst of such murderers as the people of Bokhara seem to be. As I say, there's not a lot, she was very religious herself and sort of strictly moralistic. There's a lot of longer passages in these books that talk about particular

missionary expeditions and so on. And she does have some scanty things to say about other religions, particularly Catholicism. She says here, well, as long as we're in Asia, all the religions of China are bad, but of the three, the religion of Confucius is the least foolish, which I think is the closest she comes to a compliment. If you're interested in getting sort of a condensed dose of this, Todd Prusan came out with a book in 2005, which is sort of her best of, sort of her greatest hits, a book called The Clumsiest People in Europe, in which he relies on the first editions, which tended to be the most virulent, and he cuts out some of the longer passages. But it doesn't appear that her motive in writing this was a

religious one. She wasn't trying to scant other religions in particular. She's just, if you read them, she's just cutting down every other country in the world. Maybe it just made the British feel good about being British, you know? Like if you live a kind of a poor, mean life in the, you know, mid-1800s and you've never been anywhere and you don't have anything to feel good about, You've never been anywhere and you don't have anything to feel good about. You read this book and think, well, at least I'm not Asian or Irish or, you know, from Holland, which is just ugly. She's strangely incurious, though. Prusann points out at one point that her writing desk was about 80 miles from Wales.

I mean, she's right. I wrote you what read you what she wrote about Wales. And she just she could have gotten up and taken a trip just to look at whales with her own eyes and didn't do that. Didn't bother to do that. The last book came out in 1854. It's called Far Off Part 2, Africa and America Described. Uh-oh. We'll go through Africa quickly and get to America. Those who wish to visit Nubia ought to go there in a boat, for there is no other pleasant way.

Perhaps there is no Christian country in the world as ignorant as Abyssinia. Cruelty is the chief vice of the Khafre. Newfoundland is a dreary abode. There's a tidy little sentence. And though Mexico is so beautiful at a distance, yet the streets are narrow and loathsome, and the poor people walking in them look like bundles of old rags. Here's a telling paragraph.

It is a rare thing in Egypt to speak the truth. There was an Egyptian by trade a jew, who was a man of his word. His countrymen were so much surprised to find that he spoke the truth constantly that they gave him the name of the Englishman. I think she must have invented that out of whole cloth. I can't believe that's actually true, but it's kind of telling that that's what she came up with. The United States, to my astonishment, actually comes off pretty well. I think because we're sort of a proto, we used to be British. I was bracing myself.

I know. It's really not that bad. We're not as good as England because we have slaves, and we're in 1850, we did. We chewed tobacco and were less attractive. She says it might be supposed that the Americans would be just like the English in appearance, but they are not. Round and rosy cheeks, so common in England, are rare in America. Whenever a ruddy complexion is seen, a plump face, and a stout figure, the Americans guess that the person is from England. It is chiefly the heat of the climate which has made them so different from their English ancestors.

And there's one detail here I just wanted to share with you because you and I both grew up outside Washington, D.C. She says, Washington is one of the most desolate cities in the world, not because she is in ruins, but for the opposite reason, because she is unfinished. There are places marked out where houses ought to be, but where no houses seem ever likely to be, which is just a bizarre detail. It certainly wasn't that way when I was growing up, and maybe in 1854, there were just dotted lines on the ground. I don't know much more about Favele Mortimer. Her niece wrote a biography of her years later, one of the details of which, she died in 1878 at age 76,

and the biography says her doctor said she was the only person he ever met who wished to die. I think she's just a very unhappy person. But I don't know quite what to make of that. I'll put links to all three of her books in the show notes, so if I have not managed to insult your country, you can look it up and see what's wrong with it. Also, again, I recommend Todd Prusan's book,

The Clumsiest People in Europe, which came out in 2005. He cuts out the dull bits and gives you sort of a concentrated dose of her vitriol. We're sending out a big Futility Closet thank you this week to Ricky Hughes, our newest super patron, who has pledged $10 an episode in our Patreon campaign. It's supporters like Ricky and all our other patrons who are helping us to keep the show going. Just a reminder that everyone who pledges at least a dollar a show gets access to our activity feed, where we post comments about each episode, behind-the-scenes peeks into the show, and occasional outtakes. And if you support us, you get the satisfaction of knowing that you are one of the reasons that the podcast keeps being made. If you want to learn more about contributing to our Patreon campaign, go to

patreon.com slash futilitycloset, or look for the link in our show notes. In episode 46, Greg told us about the 1925 serum run to Nome, which was a desperate attempt to use a relay of dog sleds to stave off a deadly diphtheria epidemic. I had mentioned during it that the whole thing seemed tailor-made for a great movie because it was just such a dramatic story full of so many dramatic events.

And a number of listeners wrote in to let us know that there was an animated film from 1995 called Balto, which is set during this serum run to Noom and focuses primarily on Balto, who was one of the dogs involved in the relay. Apparently it was a very good kids movie because a number of listeners seemed to have very fond memories of the movie. But it was a fairly fictionalized account of the events of that time

um it seems like they they tried to appeal to children uh and you know so tried to introduce themes and events that kids would really relate to so they didn't follow the events strictly no yeah they really didn't um it does have the movie has the amusing tagline, amusing to me, of the true story of an American hero. But, you know, the movie makes it seem as though Balto was mostly responsible for the whole 600 mile run himself. It would be impressive. right the whole thing and he starts off the movie as an outcast who's ostracized by the other dogs and he has to make this like heroic um you know rescue in order to gain acceptance by the other dogs which you know you could see that's a theme that kids might relate to yeah um and he also you know he fights with a bear and the whole thing is pretty fictionalized um but it must have been a good movie because it's even got two sequels.

And as I said, a number of our listeners seem to have very fond recollections of it. I'm glad that somebody made a movie about it. Even somewhat fictionalized, it's just such a great story. Yeah. I think my problem is how much credit Balto seems to get. He became the face of the whole thing for everybody. I mean, at the time and later. And it just, it seems like a bit of a shame because there was so much contribution by so many people and so

many dogs. 150 dogs. Yeah. So that it gets all centered on Balto. But Richard Dalloway and Emma Markham wrote in to let us know that there's a BBC documentary about the whole adventure called Icebound, the greatest dog story ever told. And Richard included a synopsis of the film, of the documentary, which does sound a lot more accurate, as you would hope, and does mention that there were 150 dogs, but says, among them, the famous Balto. Well, that's accurate. I mean, Balto did get an awful lot of limelight. He really did, apparently. And Emma also notes that Balto himself starred in a short documentary from 1925 that was called Balto's Race to Gnome, which, again, sort of implies that Balto single-footedly did this himself. IMDb lists the full cast of this documentary as Balto playing himself. He's the entire cast of the whole documentary.

Running to Nome. Running to Nome. That's some dog. Apparently, Balto also made guest appearances in several other films from the 20s and 30s. It's listed on IMDb, all the films that he starred in. And, you know, again, I don't begrudge Balto anything. I'm sure Balto was a terrific dog. It just seems a little unfair.

Yeah, because Balto was the last dog in the relay. So he's the one who dramatically carried the serum into town. Right. So if you want to capture the whole thing in one image. But he didn't even do the longest stretch. No, Togo did that. Or even some of the most dramatic parts. But yes, so we're not riffing on Balto.

Apparently people love Balto. But we'll have a link in our show notes to a YouTube file of the BBC documentary. And also about last week, a few listeners wrote in about the puzzle solution. So if you haven't yet listened to the puzzle from last week and you plan to still do so, go ahead and skip ahead a bit because this is unfortunately going to give away the answer to the puzzle. There's no help for that. But last week's puzzle was from Sloan and McHale and hinged on their claim that humans haven't domesticated any animals

in the last 4,000 years. Apparently this is not the case. There's at least one very well-documented example of researchers in Russia that have been domesticating the silver fox since the 1950s. And several listeners sent in links to stories on that, which it's a really cool thing. They've taken foxes that normally would not respond well to humans and would be aggressive towards them. And within a few generations, they've got foxes that are basically act like, you know, golden retrievers towards humans. They wag their tails and they deliberately want contact with humans. They're very affectionate, very human seeking and act a lot like dogs.

So one thing that I also thought was interesting in this research was that Darwin himself had noted that when you domesticate a species, there's phenotypic or changes that you can see, appearance changes, between the domesticated and the wild versions. And the Russian researchers in this case found the same thing. Within a few generations, the foxes weren't only much friendlier to humans, but they now had floppier ears and spotted coats, which you wouldn't find in wild foxes. But the researchers weren't selecting for that. They weren't. They were selecting entirely for their friendliness to humans. And in each generation, just picking out the friendliest foxes based on how they reacted to humans. So they were selecting for temperament or behaviors and end up getting these appearance changes, which is apparently common in domesticated animals. So it just raises a bunch of interesting genetic questions

about apparently these appearances are linked to temperament genes, which is just, I thought, really kind of an interesting twist that you might not have expected. No, that's interesting. But anyway, yeah, there are these foxes. If people want a domesticated fox, they are available in Russia. I understand they're rather expensive, but they appear to be very sweet and cuddly. So thanks to everyone who writes in to us.

And if you have any questions or comments, you can always reach us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. So this is our lateral thinking puzzle segment, and I can't believe how fast two weeks goes by because it's already my turn to solve another puzzle, and it seems like I just did one yesterday. But okay, here it is, my chance to try to figure a puzzle out by asking only yes or no questions. This was submitted by the redoubtable David White, who submitted a lot of excellent puzzles. This one goes like this. In 2012, a soccer match between Brazil and Argentina ended in a tie

and went to a penalty shootout in order to determine the winner. As the shootout began, the first Brazilian player lined up behind the ball in preparation for his shot. As he stood there, however, it was clear to everyone that the man was uncertain about something, and he made no attempt to kick the ball. Suddenly, a sharp burst of noise was heard in the stadium. A few seconds later, the noise was heard again, and then a third time after that. Someone yelled at the player, and he finally took his shot and scored what would prove to be the game-winning goal. What was going on?

Okay. Hopefully I don't need to know a whole lot about soccer to answer this. I don't think you do. Okay, so there was some kind of noise in the stadium, and it happened three times. Was it the same noise each time? Yes. Exactly the same noise, or as makes no matter? Yes, I think we can say it's exactly the same noise each time? Yes. Exactly the same noise, or as makes no matter. Yes, I think we can say

it's exactly the same noise each time. And it came from the same spot in the stadiums each time? No. No. So the same noise was heard, but in three different places? No. No, two different places. Yes. Okay. Okay. Does it matter where from the stadium the noise came? Yes. It does matter where. Okay. Was this a noise produced by humans? Yes.

Okay. More than one human? No. Okay. So each time that the noise occurred, it was produced by one human? Yes. Not necessarily the same one, it was produced by one human? Yes. Not necessarily the same one, but... Oh, yes. I see. Yes.

Okay. So, okay. So were there two different humans producing this noise? No. I mean, because you said it came in two different places. Correct. But it was one human each time? Yes. Okay. Was the human using some other piece of equipment or tool or something else to also make the noise? Or to amplify it?

Either one. When you say to also make... I mean, like if it's a human firing a gun or blowing through a bullhorn, then he would have been using something to help him make the noise. Or if he was using a loudspeaker to amplify it. Okay, I see. So your question is, is that the case? Is that the case?

That the human was using some tool or implement or a piece of equipment? Yes. Yes. Okay. So it was a human plus something. Does it matter who the human was specifically? The identity of the human or any characteristics about the human that I need to know? No.

Okay. So there's some random person. Well. Not necessarily a random person. It depends what you mean by identity. I don't mean to be so. to know. No. Okay. So there's some random person. Well. Not necessarily a random person. It depends what you mean by identity. I don't mean to be so. Okay. All right.

Okay. Let me, let me, let me work on the tool or implement or piece of equipment that was used. Would that be helpful to me? Yes. Okay. Was it a gun? No. Was it something using, that uses electricity?

No. Was it like a megaphone or a bullhorn or something like that? No. No. it um a musical instrument no good guess no okay um hmm um um it's not something you would typically hear at a soccer game correct correct okay these air horn things that people use and various things that people normally use but so it's not something you would typically hear uh okay was it this thing that the human was holding the human was holding something uh was it an animal no like a rooster is purring yay um okay so it's an inanimate object typically that's right okay not powered by electricity so the human was holding something that produced noise but the

human caused it to make noise you would say that no no the human did not cause it to make noise it made noise on its own no no um is this oh is this something um well you said it doesn't run on electricity it doesn't run on batteries of any kind okay so not a smartphone or something like that um and the human was holding it in his or her hands correct okay so small enough to fit in a person's hands right something that the person had brought to the soccer game with them Right. Something that the person had brought to the soccer game with them, presumably? I guess I'll say yes.

I'm not positive, but let's say yes. Okay. Because not something you would typically find in the stadium of a soccer game. Right. If you didn't bring it with you. Is it something that is not legal or permissible to have at a soccer game? No, it's not illegal. Okay. So you can bring this to the soccer game if you want.

Right. But it can't be like a radio or anything like that because I would run on batteries. And it made noise, but it's not that the human deliberately caused it to make noise. No, it's not accurate to say that it made noise. It's not accurate to say, oh, it and the human together made noise. No. No. No.

Oh, did it amplify the human's noise? No. No. Okay. Is this an object that we would have in our noise? No. No. Okay. Is this an object that we would have in our house? No. No. Is this an object that you would generally find outside of a building as opposed to inside of a building?

I wouldn't say so, no. Is it useful for me to try to figure out what this object is, or am I on the wrong track? No, it would be useful, but you don't have to pursue that one. Is it more useful to figure out why the person in the stadium was making noise? Yes. Was the person doing this because he wanted to influence the course of the game somehow? Yes. The person was hoping to deliberately influence the course of the game?

Yes. person was hoping to deliberately influence the course of the game yes okay okay is this do i need to know the employment of this person does this person fulfill a specific like he's a coach or he works at the stadium or do i need to know that um the role or function of the person yes okay so it's not just a spectator correct Correct. Correct. So it's somebody, it's somebody who was there and is paid to be there, was performing some sort of paid employment role. Yes. And that's why this person was at the stadium to begin with. That's right. Okay. Was it something like a coach or something, whatever terms you use in soccer? Like a coach? Yeah. Something like that. Something like a coach or like a referee or more like a coach? Yeah, something like that.

Something like a coach. Or like a referee, or more like a coach? More like a... Somebody who's trying to help, who's paid to try to help one team win in some way. Yes. Okay, so not like just a general stadium employee or somebody who wouldn't, supposedly, who would be more neutral like a referee, but somebody whose job it was normally to try to help a particular team win. I'm hesitating a bit here because I'm not positive from the way David's written this up, but I think that's right.

Oh, okay. Because, you know, like a coach is obviously trying to, you know. Right, I understand. Okay. So you wouldn't say that the person made noise trying to influence the course of the game, trying to help one team over the other? Let's say yes, just to make this simpler. Okay.

one team over the other? Let's say yes, just to make this simpler. Okay. So the person who happened to make the noise happen was trying to help the team that was going to be kicking? Let's say yes. Let's say yes.

Okay. Was the noise that was produced, would it be human speech? No. And he produced it from different parts of the stadium. Was the noise that was produced, would it be human speech? No. No. Hmm. And he produced it from different parts of the stadium. And he was hoping to influence, possibly influence the outcome of the game. Yes. Outcome this specifically, this kick?

Yes. And I already forgot. Was he trying to help the person who was kicking? Yes. He was trying to help the person who was kicking. He was not producing human speech. Was it some other sort of code? Like a code that you would translate to mean something?

The kicker would translate to mean something? I want to say yes to that. Was this intended to convey information to the kicker? Yes. Okay. Okay. So he was waiting for a signal from this guy? Yes. That was supposed to convey some sort of information to him kicker. Yes. Okay, okay. So he was waiting for a signal from this guy? Yes.

That was supposed to convey some sort of information to him. Right. Okay. And then, but why did it happen three times? And what information was it supposed to convey? Are these the things I'm working on? Yes. What information was it supposed to convey?

Anything about weather conditions, like wind or anything? No. Good guess. Well, I'm trying to think. Okay, so this was supposed to be information to the kicker that was going to help him make a better kick. Right. Oh, does the kicker have all of his faculties? No. He's blind. The kicker was blind. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh. Okay. So he was waiting for the noise. Hmm. I don't know much about kicking

a ball in soccer. I don't know much about kicking a ball in soccer. I don't even know what you're trying to do. Tell me again what's the kicker trying to do? I don't remember. It's a shootout. Basically, he's just trying to kick the ball through the goal. Okay. So was he waiting for noise to tell him where the goal was exactly?

Yes. That's enough. I'll give it to you there. Oh, so there were... Okay. David writes, The game in question was a five-a-side soccer match, better known as blind soccer. Five-a-side soccer players are either partially or completely blind

and play the game using a ball that makes a noise as it rolls. There are a number of professional blind soccer teams in many tournaments worldwide, including the Paralympic Games, which is the setting of this puzzle. The goalkeeper in blind soccer is usually not visually impaired. In a penalty kick situation, just before the player kicks the ball, a guide will orient the player on which direction to kick the ball by first striking the left side of the goal post several times with a metal rod, then striking the right side in a similar way.

He may repeat this more than once. Finally, the guide will stand behind the goal directly in the center and call to the player. The player, now oriented to the left, right, and center of the goal, is ready to take his shot. Yay! That's a good puzzle. That is a good puzzle.

I did not know that there was blind soccer at all. Neither did I. So thank you, David. And if anybody else has a puzzle they'd like to send in for us to use, you can send them to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. That wraps up another episode for us. If you're looking for more Futility Closet, you can check out our books on Amazon. Follow us on Twitter or Facebook.

Or visit the website at futilitycloset.com, where you can sample over 8,000 intriguing distractions. At the website, you can see the show notes for the podcast and listen to previous episodes. Just click Podcast in the sidebar. If you'd like to support Futility Closet, please consider becoming a patron to help keep us going. You can find more information at patreon.com slash futilitycloset. You can also help us out by telling your friends about us or by clicking the donate button on the sidebar of the website. If you have any questions or comments about the show, you can reach us at email at podcast at futilitycloset.com. Our music was written and produced by Doug Ross.

Thanks for listening.