Futility Closet - 057-Jules Verne's Lost Novel

Episode Date: May 11, 2015

Eight decades after Jules Verne's death, his great-grandson opened a family safe and discovered an unpublished manuscript. In this episode of the Futility Closet podcast we'll review some of Verne's remarkable predictions for the 20th century and consider why he never published the novel. We'll also discuss listeners' ideas about the mysterious deaths of nine Soviet ski hikers in 1959 and puzzle over how a man's breakfast turns deadly. Sources for our feature on Jules Verne's Paris in the Twentieth Century: Arthur B. Evans, "The 'New' Jules Verne," Science-Fiction Studies, March 1995. Brian Taves, "Jules Verne’s Paris in the Twentieth Century," Science-Fiction Studies, March 1997. Jules Verne, Paris in the Twentieth Century, 1863. Sources for listener mail: "'Partially Digested' Human Head, Leg Found Inside Shark Caught by Filipino Fishermen," Fox News Latino, Nov. 12, 2014 (accessed May 8, 2015). Donnie Eichar, Dead Mountain: The Untold True Story of the Dyatlov Pass Incident, 2013. Jason Zasky, "Return to Dead Mountain," Failure Magazine, Feb. 1, 2014. Greg's article on animal infrasound appeared in the January-February 2004 issue of American Scientist. This week's lateral thinking puzzle comes from Jed's List of Situation Puzzles, suggested to us by listener David Morgan. 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 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 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 57. I'm Greg Ross. And I'm Sharon Ross. More than 80 years after Jules Verne's death, his great-grandson opened a family safe and discovered an unpublished manuscript. In today's show, we'll review some of

Verne's remarkable predictions for the 20th century and consider why he never published the novel. We'll also discuss listeners' ideas about the mysterious deaths of nine Soviet ski hikers in 1959, and puzzle over how a man's breakfast turns deadly. This podcast is brought to you primarily by our incredible patrons. If you would like to join them and help support the show so we can keep on making it, then check out our Patreon campaign at patreon.com slash futilitycloset, or look for the link in our show notes. And thanks so much to everyone who has been supporting Futility Closet. In 1989, the great-grandson of Jules Verne wanted to sell the family home, and that meant he had to dispense with this great bronze safe that had been there forever

and was thought to be empty, but they had lost the keys. It had been around for so long. So finally, he thought, all right, I'd better check to see what's in there before I get rid of it, and they wound up opening it with a blowtorch, and inside he found a manuscript that was eventually authenticated as being written by his great-grandfather, Jules Verne. It was called Paris in the 20th Century, and it was written when Verne was 35 years old in 1863, and in, he describes the following. Cars powered by internal combustion engines, as well as the gas stations, paved asphalt roads, and other infrastructure needed to support them. Electric lights that illuminate entire cities at night. Skyscrapers. Mansions with

elevators and electric buttons that open doors. Automated security systems, copiers, and you can't quite call them fax machines, he calls them picture telegraphs, but the idea is the same, public transport by streetcars and elevated and underground trains, as well as high-speed trains powered by magnetism and compressed air, wind power,

remotely operated weapons systems, the electric chair, which wasn't around yet when he was writing, they were still using the guillotine, and most impressive, which wasn't around yet when he was writing. They were still using the guillotine. And most impressive, I think, he described what he called an electric lighthouse 500 feet high looming over a forest of flag-studded masts. This was written in 1863, and the Eiffel Tower didn't go up until 1889. And when it did go up, it was only yards from the location where he said it would be.

If that's not enough, he also described the growth of suburbs, mass higher education, women in the workplace, a rise in illegitimate births, electronic music, and an industry of recorded music that sort of supplanted the performance of classical music that was going on in his day. that are kind of dazzling prophecies. He describes a calculating machine, which he says resembles a huge piano. Quote, by operating a sort of keyboard, sums were instantaneously produced, remainders, products, quotients, rules of proportion,

calculations of amortization and of interest, compounded for infinite periods and at all possible rates. And also something you couldn't really call this a prediction of the internet, but it's looking in that direction. Quote, further, photographic telegraphy, invented during the last century by Professor Giovanni Caselli of Florence, permitted transmission of the facsimile of any form of writing or illustration, whether manuscript or print, and letters of credit or contract,

could now be signed at a distance of 5,000 leagues. The telegraph network now covered the entire surface of the Earth's continents and the depths of the seas. America was not more than a second away from Europe, and in a formal experiment made in London in 1903, two agents corresponded with each other after having caused their dispatches to circumnavigate the globe. That's pretty good. That is pretty good. That's pretty good for 1863. That is pretty good. So that makes you wonder, why was it then sitting in a safe? And the answer to that is Verne's publisher, a man named Pierre Jules Hetzel, had refused to release it because he thought it was too unbelievable

and it wouldn't sell as well as Verne's earlier work, Five Weeks in a Balloon. Some background here. Verne was only 35 years old, and he'd already tried several trades. He was just getting into writing. And Five Weeks in a Balloon, which had just come out, was his sort of first big success in his entree to the big time. After that came out, Alexandre Dumas introduced him to Hetzel, who was a big deal in French publishing. He was the editor of Balzac, Victor Hugo, Baudelaire, and George Sand. And Hetzel thought that the novel, he read

the manuscript, but then thought it would be just too pessimistic and would damage Verne's career. He wrote this letter. My dear Verne, I would give almost anything not to have to write you today. You have undertaken an impossible task, and like your predecessors in such matters, you have not been able to pull it off well. It is much below the level of your five weeks in a balloon. If you were to reread it one year from now, you would surely agree with me. It is tabloid-ish, and the topic is ill-chosen.

I was not expecting perfection. To repeat, I knew that you were attempting the impossible. But I was hoping for something better. In this piece, there is not a single issue concerning the real future that is properly resolved. No critique that hasn't already been made and remade before. I'm surprised at you. It is lackluster and lifeless. I am truly sorry to have to tell you this, but I believe that publishing this would be a disaster for your reputation. You are not yet ready to write a book like this. Wait 20 years and then try it again. And while he was reading it, he left one editorial

comment in the manuscript that said, my dear Vern, even if you were a prophet, no one today would believe this prophecy. They simply would not be interested in it. The reason for this, it's easy to stop the story there and just say glibly that the editor was way off base and Verne was this visionary science fiction author. And there's a case to be made for that. But it goes deeper than that. Verne's publisher, Hetzel's main objection was that the manuscript was too dark. Verne makes a lot of sort of dazzling technological predictions, but overall the

story is one of social criticism. He describes overcrowding, pollution, and the dissolution of social institutions. That's really what he's focused on, is how this focus on science and technology is really going to have consequences if it's carried too far. And it is... I guess some would say that that's almost somewhat prophetic, too, and not completely off-base. You can get the book today. Our library had it, and it's quite a short book. You can read it in an afternoon.

And it is kind of upsetting to read today because there are some resonances. You can see today, the world of today is really heading in the direction that he was afraid it would, and that's not a good thing. The book is set in Paris in August 1960, and it's about a 16-year-old boy named Michel who graduates university with a major in literature and the classics, when all his classmates have instead studied quote-unquote useful disciplines like mathematics, economics, engineering, and the natural sciences. And he finds that studying literature is just, it's no longer valued. The world just cares only about business and technology,

and education has really sort of been standardized into vocational training, and that's all it is. That's what Verne was worried about when he wrote the book. Most art forms have just disappeared or been adapted to utilitarian uses, and citizens are just cogs in a big repressive machine. It's really a dystopian view of the whole future. When he graduates, his uncle tells him he has to start working at a bank, which he hates. He goes to bookstores trying to find literature written by great 19th century writers like Victor Hugo and Balzac and can't find them. The guys who work in the bookstores

have never heard of these authors. He does meet a few people who are sort of kindred souls, people who want to be writers or musicians, but they're forced just to do this on their own time instead of work day jobs because society doesn't want to support what they're doing or encourage it. It doesn't value artistic or creative expression. So this gets worse and worse. Eventually, he loses his job at the bank and winds up living in a friend's empty apartment, writing poetry that no one will publish. That's all very sad. And at the end, the end of 1961 brings this bitterly cold winter, which kills the crops and brings on a famine in Paris. And he spends, he's met a girl, but, and he spends the last of his meager savings on buying

violets for her, but he can't find her because her father had been the last of his meager savings on buying violets for her, but he can't find her because her father had been the last teacher of rhetoric at the university and been fired because that just wasn't valuable anymore. He wanders around Paris looking for her and can't find her. With his violets? Yes. With his violets? Oh, this is very sad.

And becomes just incoherent, convinced that he's being pursued by a demon of electricity, and finally he collapses in the snow. A lot of this, sad to say, was inspired by Verne's own struggles. He had just made it big as a novelist with Five Weeks in a Balloon, but before that he'd been an aspiring poet and dramatist, just like Michel, the hero of the book, and he had been raised by a father who had

his own law practice and hoped to hand it down to him and that he would fulfill a career in law he didn't want to do that instead he wanted to become a writer uh and while writing this book in order to support his family he had been forced to write in the mornings and then spend his days working a day job in the par stock market, which he hated. So there's a lot of parallels, autobiography in here. But even beyond his own story, he was seeing things in Parisian society under Napoleon III that were really concerning him. If there was a lot of, just as there is today, a lot of focus on science and technology and progress, quote unquote. And he was worried this would bring on overpopulation, pollution, struggles for housing, and a lot of things, consequences that

actually did come to pass. And he saw, too, that the French were abandoning the classics and other so-called useless knowledge in favor of applied science. So it was really a novel of social criticism describing the consequences of science and technology rather than praising it. And it must be said that his editor was sort of right in reigning him back from that. sort of a confused picture of Jules Verne, largely because a lot of his stuff has been sort of brutally adapted into children's books or made into sensationalistic movies and things. So it's in France in particular, he's regarded as a literary author and quite a successful one. So we have kind of a confused picture of him. But if you look at what he's actually written, about half of his total output is really questioning the value of progress in science and technology instead of just unreservedly praising

it the way we tend to think he does. He's often called the father of science fiction. Most of this sort of more worried literature comes at the end of his career. And so the real significance of this book is that it came at the beginning. It wasn't published, but it shows that he was already thinking along those lines in the beginning when he first met this editor, Hetzel. And that's the really significant thing here. Hetzel could see that he wanted to write about that, but that he just wasn't good

at it. The structure and the story aren't very good. I mean, I've read it. It's fine, and the prophecies are interesting, but as a novel or as social criticism, it just doesn't work. He's just not nearly as good at this as he was at the stories that he's really famous for. Which is kind of what his publisher was saying in his letter to him. Yeah, but it's, so it's easy to blame the publisher for missing

the boat in recognizing the value of all these dazzling prophecies that turned out to be true, but it's the underlying story, the heart of the message. Really, he wasn't really good at writing that sort of thing. So after Hetzel rejected him, Verne just locked the story away in the safe and went after writing the stories now that he's world famous for. And an interesting sort of detail there is that he's often called the father of science fiction with a lot of justice, but we tend to think of science fiction authors as writing in the future, about events in the

future. And that's not really what Jules Verne was doing. The books he's famous for are collaborations with Hetzel, 64 volumes called The Extraordinary Voyages, including most of the titles that he's most famous for. And those aren't set in Verne's future. They're mostly set in the same period when he was writing, or even slightly earlier than that, which is interesting. Journey to the Center of the Earth was published in 1864 and set in 1863. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea was published in 1870 and set in 1866. From the Earth to the Moon was published in 1865 and was set right after the American Civil War. And The Mysterious Island was published in 1874 and set near the end of the Civil War as well. And in fact, most of his novels fall into that category. They were written in

their own time and meticulously researched to show the value of technology and how it might be used, but they weren't set in the future. One critic said this pattern gives his writing today the unique quality of science fiction set in the past, which is an interesting way to look at it. So this book, after it was found in the bronze safe, was published in France in 1994, and there's an English translation that came out in 1996. It was a bestseller in France,

where Verne, as I said, is considered a literary author. And he's still enormously widely read. In fact, he's the second most translated author today in the world behind Agatha Christie, which is amazing. I think it's kind of sad for him. Like, you know, if he locked it away and he never tried again, I mean, his publisher in the letter had said, try writing this again in 20 years. You know, like when you have a little more maturity, basically. Yeah. And he apparently, I mean, that publisher in the letter had said, try writing this again in 20 years, you know, like when you have a little more maturity, basically. And he apparently, I mean, that was kind of a critical letter. He maybe felt it kind of keenly and locked it away and never showed it to anybody again.

And it's, I always think it's sad when then, you know, the artist dies and never knows that people really did appreciate what they did. Yeah, that's true. appreciate what they did. Yeah, that's true. But it must be said, he did try his hand at this sort of not dystopian, but but sort of warnings against over reliance on science and technology later in his career. And those weren't nearly as successful as the books with Hetzel. It's funny, because that seemed to be where his heart was. But Hetzel was able to see that he was just much, much better at writing the sort of things that he's now famous for. It must be frustrating to be better suited to something that's not

really what you want to be writing. Not where your passion is. I guess that happens to a lot of people. Anyway, he's world famous now, Jules Verne, and I think you'd have to say, even the reception of this, quote unquote, lost novel, it got such a huge reception because of Verne's reputation, and he got the

reputation because of the sort of insight of this one publisher, Pierre-Julius Hetzel. This week's episode is brought to you by our patrons and by The Great Courses, a series of engaging audio and video lectures taught by top professors and experts. They're available on CDs or DVDs through downloading or through their app, so you can have all the enjoyment of learning something new however it works best for you, at home, on your commute, or while you're working out. We've been watching their lecture series, The World Was Never the Same, Events That Changed History. Each episode focuses on a landmark event in human civilization, what led up to it, how it unfolded, and what the consequences were.

So, for example, I knew that the Spanish Armada was a big defeat for Spain by England, but I didn't know many details about it. Like that Spanish King Philip II's autocratic overconfidence led him to ignore advice from his experienced commanders and make some terrible decisions, such as appointing his admiral of his supposedly invincible armada, a man with little naval experience who got terribly seasick, or that the English employed more sophisticated strategies than the Spanish, such as creating highly combustible fire ships that they towed into the Spanish fleet. But now I do.

The Great Courses offers more than 500 courses on many topics, including history, science, and philosophy, as well as self-improvement subjects like cooking, photography, and meditation. They're celebrating their 25th anniversary, and they have a special offer for Futility Closet listeners. You can order from eight of their best-selling courses, including The World Was Never the Same, at up to 80% off the original price. This is a limited-time offer, so check it out today. Go to thegreatcourses.com slash closet

to check out the special introductory offer for our listeners. That's thegreatcourses.com slash closet, or see the link in our show notes. We have some interesting updates from listeners to share this week. In episode 48, we learned about a shark that had eaten a human arm and later vomited it up, which led to a murder investigation. Brian Drake wrote in to tell us about what he called another enigmatic human limb found inside a shark. a shark. Brian said, I stumbled across this article from about a year ago, which describes some Filipino fishermen who caught a shark and discovered a human leg and head inside the shark's stomach. The fishermen were so freaked out and afraid that they'd be haunted by the shark's victim that they threw it and the body parts overboard rather than turning them over to the

police. Brian sent in a link to the article on the story, which explained that a 660-pound shark, that's a pretty big shark, I know, was caught by some fishermen off the coast of the Philippines. And the fishermen were at first pretty excited about, I mean, this is an excellent catch, going to fetch them some good money, until they opened up the shark and found a partially digested human head

and parts of a leg. And as Brian said, they so feared that the human remains would bring them bad luck or perhaps draw the victim's spirit to them that they ended up dumping the shark and the remains overboard, giving up the good price that shark meat would fetch in the local market. So we just have the report then there's no actual... Yeah, there was no actual body. There was some speculation that the remains were that of one of two missing passengers from a nearby ferry wreck from two months earlier,

but unfortunately the authorities couldn't tell for sure without the actual body parts. Yeesh. Wow. Yeah, kind of gruesome. In episode 55, we talked about the Dyatlov Pass incident in which nine ski hikers died in very mysterious circumstances. Several listeners wrote in with their thoughts on the events. Matt wrote to say that as an experienced backpacker who has spent a lot of time in the backcountry, to him it's pretty obvious that the hikers were likely

threatened by a bear. Matt points out that the fact that the hikers had cut their way out of the tent is good evidence to him that there was a wild animal at the entrance to the tent. He says that bears can occasionally emerge from hibernation in late winter and that they'll be particularly aggressive as they're pretty desperate for food. So Matt sees the events unfolding like this. The two probably left the tent to go to the bathroom and went back to report that a bear was in the area. Attracted by the smell of cooking food, it probably sauntered over to investigate, sniffing the tent door and scaring the hikers into a panic. They scattered down the hill to wait for the bear to leave. In the darkness, they would have a tough time telling

from afar where the bear was. As they waited, shoeless and cold, one of the more chivalrous gents offered his sweater to bind the now frozen foot of his companion. They grow colder and tried to build a fire, sending the more capable hikers to approach the camp to check if the bear was gone. The three in the ravine either fell in during the initial scare or while trying to circumnavigate the campsite to see if the bear had finally left. Matt even addresses the fact that one of the bodies was missing a tongue by saying, scavengers almost always go first for the tongue and eyes of found carrion. Matt does note that his theory does leave the question of why the bear didn't ravage the tent for food. He suggests that perhaps the bear followed the hikers, pushing them even further from their camp, or was scared away by the commotion

that they might have made. When we first got Matt's email, this theory makes so much sense to me. I don't know anything about bears, but it just seems to explain so much so simply that I went back and tried to find out why it had been considered more serious, and I don't know why. I can't tell. It's very hard to research this whole story if you live in the West. I can't tell whether the Soviet investigators in in 1959 considered that seriously i don't know whether bears live in that area or not and yeah that's a good point like they would obviously

need to be bears normally in that area and it makes sense it's it seems pretty clear that the the site of whatever happened was was pretty badly respected when they were doing the investigation so i don't know whether there was enough commotion to have hidden any bear prints if they were there. Yeah, I mean, the biggest weakness seems to be maybe the one that Matt pointed out, which is that there was food in the tent, and the investigators found everything in the tent. And a bear, you would imagine, would have not only eaten the food, but sort of torn everything up looking for more or trying to get it more food. Yeah, there was at least some ham that was left out.

That kind of surprised me when I was researching it, that four weeks passed between when the event happened and then the tent was finally discovered. Four weeks is an awful long time. For ham to sit there? For all the stuff. And I mean, I don't know how much wildlife is up there, but there must be some, and that's a terribly long time. I guess that maybe implies that there isn't a lot.

I guess. And that would have been four weeks for the bear to have never made it back to the tent to get the ham. Yeah. Otherwise, it sounds like a great theory. Maybe the bear fell in the ravine after the hikers, but otherwise, it's a great theory. It's a lot simpler than a lot of other theories that have been put forward. Shaq wrote in with the suggestion that we don't know for sure that the cut in the tent

was made at the same time that the hikers all abandoned their camp that last night. He was basically saying a lot of the theories hinge on that they cut their way out of the tent and that that implies certain things about what might have happened. But he's saying, well, what if something had happened earlier in the camping trip and they cut through the tent, uh, there was a problem with the entrance. They couldn't get out for some other reason on a different time. And so it's not necessarily connected with the events of the last night. That's possible. I went back looking at this too. Uh, there, there's a, one of the Soviet investigators is named Vasily Tempelov, and I have his notes about the description of the tent,

just for the record for everyone who's listening. The tent was pitched on the eastern shoulder of this mountain, and the entrance of the tent was facing south. When the tent was dug out, it was buried under snow mostly when it was found. A tear in the tent on the slope-facing side, that is the side facing uphill, close to the entrance, was found with a fur jacket sticking out of the hole. The side facing downhill was torn to pieces, and three gashes were found in the back. So the entrance was partly open, and there were cuts on all three of the other sides. Oh, that is even stranger. Also, there was evidence that the tent had been patched variously by the hikers themselves,

because apparently tents take a lot of abuse during these trips. So it is, I guess he's right, there is no guarantee that the damage was done on the night of the incident, but we do know that they were patching it as they went along, at least some of the holes. Well, if the tent was partially buried in snow, I mean, could it be that, like, the bear or whatever made some of the gashes trying to get in after, say, the ham or whatever? Apparently, you can tell. This is quite an interesting part. I'm getting a lot of this from Donnie Icar's book, Dead Mountain.

And apparently, with the forensics, you can tell, and you could even in 1959, the difference between a cut, someone cutting his way out of a tent, and someone cutting their way in by examining the fabric. And it looks like all these cuts were made from the inside out. So they were all cutting the tent in various places to try to get out, possibly. That's what it looks like, mostly trying to get downhill quickly. Okay. Brian Arnold wrote in to say, In your laundry list of hypotheses, you briefly mentioned snow tornado, which on the face of it sounds ridiculous.

I recently read a deeper explanation about this theory that is at least interesting and possible, if not exactly probable. The nearby Hola Chal Mountain is apparently very symmetrical, which means that when prevailing winds blow around it, it sets up a Karman vortex street, which is a series of vortices in the wind's wake that alternate on the left and the right. A vortex like a tornado can produce infrasound, or sound that is lower than 20 hertz in frequency. Infrasound cannot always be picked up by the human ear, but has produced feelings of nervousness, fear, awe, chills, and anxiety in people during some lab experiments. So the hypothesis says that strong

winds blowing around Holachal Mountain produced vortices, which in turn produced infrasound, which in essence drove the hikers mad. And I really like this. Brian says, this explanation has the benefit in that once you say you've driven a group of people insane, you can then accept the rest of these seemingly improbable behaviors and clues, which is true. I mean, that works really well for movies. If you just say, well, they're just crazy now, so they might do anything at all. Yeah. This is actually, I guess I should say, this is Donnie Icar's theory at the end of Dead

Mountain. He suspects that this is exactly what happened, that a Kármán vortex streak was set up because this Hóla Chá mountain has a sort of symmetrical summit of a certain shape, and the wind coming across it comes across it at a certain speed, and his theory is that it sets up these vortexes portices that that produce sound at lower than uh 20 hertz which is the limit of normal human hearing um i'm not aware that anyone has actually demonstrated that that is the case of the mountain i think this is all just a theory and i do i mean there is infrasound is definitely a thing and that is the threshold of human hearing and there is some evidence i understand that it can be disquieting psychologically to at least some people.

I actually did a story about this for American Scientist 10 years ago about animals, some animals communicate using infrasound. In fact, back then, I went back and read my own story. Elizabeth von Mugenthaler of North Carolina's Fauna Communications Research Institute says that a tiger's roar contains an 18 hertz component that induces feelings of terror in humans and can paralyze prey for up to 10 seconds. Interesting. That's what she was saying. Oh.

But that thing, two reasons I sort of posit this. One, as I say, I'm not sure there's any actual hard evidence that this phenomenon occurs in that location. And two, I'm not aware of any evidence that says that infrasound can make you this terrified. Again, these are Category 2 hikers trying for a Category 3 rating. Everything they've done up to that moment was just showing responsible, forward-thinking, careful planning. So you'd have to be really terrified to cut open your only shelter in Sub-Zero weather and go running down the hall without any clothing. Which doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's just there's some room for skepticism. Yeah. to cut open your only shelter in Sub-Zero weather and go running out without any clothing. Without appropriate clothing, yeah. Which doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's just there's some room for skepticism.

Yeah. Well, this was all interesting anyway. Thanks so much to everyone who wrote in to us. And if you have any questions or comments, you can send them to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. Greg's going to be solving a lateral thinking puzzle. I'm going to present him with a situation, and by asking yes or no questions, he's going to see if he can understand it or make some sense out of it.

Okay? Yes, ma'am. This one came from listener David Morgan, sent in a link to a site entitled Jed's List of Situation Puzzles. And I was reading down through them and saw this one and thought, oh, we have to do this one. Are you ready? Yep. He was killed by breakfast. That's the whole puzzle. He was killed by breakfast. Okay. Does that mean he was killed before breakfast time? No. Oh,

that's clever. I hadn't even thought of that. Oh, it didn't go anywhere. No, but that's clever. Extra points to you. So he was literally killed by breakfast. By his own breakfast? Yes. Okay, so he is a guy, a male human being? Yes. Who starts out alive and is killed by something he'd intended to eat for breakfast.

No. Somewhat. I mean... Okay. Are there other people involved? No. There's just this guy. There's just this guy and his breakfast. Whowhat. I mean... Okay. Are there other people involved? No. There's just this guy. There's just this guy and his breakfast.

Who dies. Yes. And by dies, you mean doesn't live anymore. Doesn't live anymore. He's no longer living. Okay. You hesitated a bit, though. So breakfast means what I think it means, like the first meal of the day?

Yes. So he's planning to eat breakfast, this guy? Yes. And wound up dead as a result. Yes. Can you say that? Yes. And wound up dead as a result. Yes. Can you say that? Yes. Why were you hesitating?

Just on exact meanings of what did the sentence mean. Okay, all right. Did this really happen? Not that I'm aware of. Is the guy's occupation important? No. And you say there aren't other people involved? No other people involved.

Is the time period important? No. Is the location important? Yes. Oh. Okay. That's something. Loc the location important? Yes. Oh. Okay. That's something. Location, but not the occupation.

Correct. Okay, when we say occupation, do you mean the setting, like mountains or the ocean or the plains, or do you mean the actual geographic location? The first one. Okay. Okay, so is this near a body of water? No. Is it in the mountains?

Yes. The guy eats breakfast. The guy plans to eat breakfast in the mountains and winds up dead. Yes. Does he fall to his death? No. No. Can I figure out his cause of death?

Would you be able to help me do that? Yes. Is that something I ought to do? I'm not sure. I'm not sure what the best way to attack this would be, but you're doing great so far. All right, but you have in mind some specific way that he died. I do. All right, let's work on what he was going to eat for breakfast.

Okay. This guy's alone in the mountains. Yes. And planning to eat something for breakfast. Yes. One thing? Could you call it one thing? Is it like a whole meal with different pieces to it?

I don't know what pieces there were to it, but there was one thing in particular. Okay, good. Did he choke on it? No. Is it... Okay, one thing. Is it a common breakfast food? Yes.

It is. An egg? Yes. An egg. A guy chokes to death on an egg. No, he does not choke to death. A guy is allergic to eggs and dies to the egg. No.

Yes, and it had to be in the mountains. Because he's allergic to mountain eggs. Okay. Alright. Well, I'm making steady progress. A guy dies... A guy plans to eat an egg for breakfast in the mountains and dies. As a result. Yes. That's all true. That's all true.

Are there other creatures involved? Non-human? No. No, so it's just a guy and an egg. I suppose at some point there there other creatures involved, non-human? No. No, so just a guy and an egg. I suppose at some point there was a hen involved, but we'll say that's irrelevant for the puzzle. Touche. Okay. All right. Do I need to know, so was he preparing the egg when he died?

Yes. Exactly. Is it one egg? It doesn't matter. All right. Some eggs. And was it a hen's egg? I assume so. Just an ordinary egg? Yes.'t matter. All right, some eggs. And was it a hen's egg? I assume so.

Just an ordinary egg? Yes. Okay, starts out raw. Yes. And he's planning to cook it. Yes. In some way. Yes.

Do I need to know how? No. Apply heat to it. Yes. With a fire? Presumably. Okay, but I don't even need to know that. Correct.

An egg. So he's heating an egg in some way. Yes. Planning to eat it. Yes. An egg. So he's heating an egg in some way. Yes. Planning to eat it. Yes. Does he get as far as eating it? Possibly. I'm not sure.

I'm not sure exactly how far he gets. Okay. All right. What's the mountains have to do with it if he doesn't fall? And he doesn't choke, you said. He does not choke. Eggs. Could this have happened with some other food besides an egg?

Maybe, maybe not uh all right um it's not just the egg it's something more yeah well you said okay so is there are there you mean another kind another piece of food not exactly no a utensil no something you plan to eat no yes yes Another thing that he planned to eat along with the egg? Sort of, yeah. Sort of. Okay. And that, is that what killed him? Sort of. You're not able to say quite. All right. So he was, he was preparing these things, some food for breakfast by applying heat to them with something that may or may not have been a fire in the mountains alone. Yes. And this led to his death. Yes.

Exactly. So I'm making progress, even though it feels like I'm making no progress at all. All right, do I need to know what he's doing? Like, he's camping? You say I don't need to know his occupation. Correct. Correct, he's camping, or? Correct, he's camping, and correct, you don't need to know his occupation.

Oh. Correct for both. This is going very well. He's camping. This is in the morning. Do we need to know what time it is it doesn't matter presumably it's in the morning um is he is he allergic is there some reaction uh that's two questions ask one question at a time is he allergic no to something no but he has some some reaction to what he's eating? Yes. Okay. Is he... Okay, but it's not an allergy.

He reacts to eggs in some other way. Not the eggs. To this other thing. Yes. That's a food. Yes. Is it bacon? No.

Is it... It's not. You said I don't quite need to know quite what that is? Yeah. No, it is. It's in the preparing of the eggs. Yes. It's some other food, and he's preparing to eat it with the eggs.

Sort of. That's not exactly right. Okay. I mean, picture making eggs. Right. Especially you. How do you like your eggs? Scrambled.

With? Usually, I just scramble them. Oh, pepper. Really? Is that an actual clue? Yes. Wow. I knew pepper was a good thing to be eaten with eggs.

Pepper. So he's putting pepper on his eggs? Yes. And sneezes? Yes. And? I'm getting all of that. I want credit for how fast I've gone through this one.

You're doing wonderfully. But I don't see how sneezing will kill you. In the mountains? Oh, there's an avalanche. Yes! Oh, good for me. Good for you. He's making breakfast, and like you, he likes a lot of pepper on his eggs.

So I should stop doing that. Which causes him to sneeze violently, which starts an avalanche and kills him. I hadn't even thought about that. So, good for you. And if anybody else has a puzzle they'd like to send in for us to use, you can send it to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. That's another episode for us. If you're looking for more Futility Closet,

you can check out our books on Amazon or follow us on Twitter or Facebook or visit the website at futilitycloset.com, where you can sample over 8,000 captivating tidbits. At the website, you can also find the show notes for the podcast and listen to previous episodes. Just click podcast in the sidebar. If you would 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. And if you have any questions or comments about the show, you can always reach us by email 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.