ThursdayNext : www.jasperfforde.com
A discussion of all things Thursday !
Escaping a bookless room
Posted by: Shadow (---.214.81.119.Dial1.Boston1.Level3.net)
Date: January 27, 2003 03:21AM
<HTML>Apologies if this has been previously discussed, but between two exploding computers, a spot of Bad Time and some rather unusual coincidences, I haven't been able to lurk here for a long while, nevermind actually posting.
Anyway, I was wondering if one needed an actual pen and piece of paper in order to write down text for a book jump (assuming a real book isn't available). If I recall the description correctly, the room Thursday was locked in in LIAGB included a sink and a mirror. Wouldn't it be possible to steam up the mirror with hot water and then use your finger to write something jump-able? Or a tube of lipstick has, historically, come in handy for writing messages. Granted, that's usually more along the lines of "you're all going to die" but it doesn't HAVE to be that way. :)
Then, of course, there's always blood. But I imagine that ANYTHING written in blood would lead into some grim and thoroughly unpleasant places...
Shadow
(struggling to catch up)</HTML>
Anyway, I was wondering if one needed an actual pen and piece of paper in order to write down text for a book jump (assuming a real book isn't available). If I recall the description correctly, the room Thursday was locked in in LIAGB included a sink and a mirror. Wouldn't it be possible to steam up the mirror with hot water and then use your finger to write something jump-able? Or a tube of lipstick has, historically, come in handy for writing messages. Granted, that's usually more along the lines of "you're all going to die" but it doesn't HAVE to be that way. :)
Then, of course, there's always blood. But I imagine that ANYTHING written in blood would lead into some grim and thoroughly unpleasant places...
Shadow
(struggling to catch up)</HTML>
Re: Escaping a bookless room
Posted by: All-American-Cutie (---.dalect01.va.comcast.net)
Date: January 27, 2003 06:14AM
<HTML>good query....</HTML>
Re: Escaping a bookless room
Posted by: jon (---.abel.net.uk)
Date: January 27, 2003 12:24PM
<HTML>As I understand it, the text needed has to a) exist elsewhere in a format accessible by book-jumpers (a metatext) and b) be of sufficient length as to recognisable as a quote from such a text. In other words (pun) 'and' would not be enough, and 'it was a dark and stormy night' wouldn't be specific enough, because it could apply to many texts, not just one. The washing label used by Miss Havisham is short, but is presumably a text unique to washing labels, and therefore leads to a specific destination.
Condition b) is easy enough to define, and therefore if one had a text that you knew could be jumped into, writing it on a steamed up mirror would work; perhaps Jurisfiction agents should be issued with an emergency parachute text for just such occasions - even one word would do, if that one word only existed within a given metatext.
Condition a) is harder. At what point does a text become jumpable? Does the metatext have to be published, printed, both or neither? TEA and LIAGB tell us that neither is required, since manuscripts are not printed and Lost Plots are not published. In which case, if I write 'Jasper Fforde stood casually on the rooftop of Waterstones Piccadilly, checking his pockets for his busfare home' on a piece of paper, does that constitute a text into which a jumper could jump, or does it have to form part of a longer work? This question is in fact a rehash of the ancient argument 'what is art?', and the only sensible answer is 'whatever people think it is'. So if a text is generally regarded as metatext, it is one, regardless of length or format. So, who decides what is and is not a metatext, or is there a specific number of people who have to recoginise a text as one until it is one?
Who set up Jurisfiction? and who is in charge of it now? Do not attempt to answer these questions - they stray into the forbidden realm of Speculation, and if you wish to enter therein, do it where Jasper can't see you.</HTML>
Condition b) is easy enough to define, and therefore if one had a text that you knew could be jumped into, writing it on a steamed up mirror would work; perhaps Jurisfiction agents should be issued with an emergency parachute text for just such occasions - even one word would do, if that one word only existed within a given metatext.
Condition a) is harder. At what point does a text become jumpable? Does the metatext have to be published, printed, both or neither? TEA and LIAGB tell us that neither is required, since manuscripts are not printed and Lost Plots are not published. In which case, if I write 'Jasper Fforde stood casually on the rooftop of Waterstones Piccadilly, checking his pockets for his busfare home' on a piece of paper, does that constitute a text into which a jumper could jump, or does it have to form part of a longer work? This question is in fact a rehash of the ancient argument 'what is art?', and the only sensible answer is 'whatever people think it is'. So if a text is generally regarded as metatext, it is one, regardless of length or format. So, who decides what is and is not a metatext, or is there a specific number of people who have to recoginise a text as one until it is one?
Who set up Jurisfiction? and who is in charge of it now? Do not attempt to answer these questions - they stray into the forbidden realm of Speculation, and if you wish to enter therein, do it where Jasper can't see you.</HTML>
Re: Escaping a bookless room
Posted by: fuzz (---.cableinet.co.uk)
Date: January 27, 2003 04:47PM
<HTML>To give my thoughts on a:
maybe a sensible limit would be to say the text has to appear in a volume in the Jurisfiction Library. There is already hints that the library is both a place and a 'mechanisim' for want of a better word. Mind you, this is suspiciously on topic for this fforum. I predict there'll be a family squabble or a collection of strange links from psd within 5 posts</HTML>
maybe a sensible limit would be to say the text has to appear in a volume in the Jurisfiction Library. There is already hints that the library is both a place and a 'mechanisim' for want of a better word. Mind you, this is suspiciously on topic for this fforum. I predict there'll be a family squabble or a collection of strange links from psd within 5 posts</HTML>
Re: Escaping a bookless room
Posted by: poetscientistdrinker (---.cache.pol.co.uk)
Date: January 27, 2003 06:58PM
<HTML>Erm, as I understand it (and this is only the working theory I formed whilst reading the books) the navigation through books is reliant upon the ability of the jumper/reader to locate the, er, location (in a book) for themselves from the source text - hence the vast difference in ability between operatives Next and Havisham. Therefore single word jumps would be theoretically possible, given a reader with sufficient imagination and ability to form a fixed idea of their intended destination. This also explains why Thursday struggled to get into the pre
.-book back-story: she was unable to imagine what that location would look like.
As i understand it, this is different to Jon's theory - in which the text itself is responsible for determining the end-point of a jump. As a thought experiment - and the risk of becoming boojummed rules out practical experimentation - a word strongly linked to one text should be used (and a bookjumper with reasonably low ability and little knowledge of the intended destination) if the jump is possible, then the text is the determinant, if the jump is impossible then the reader is the key. Having read Mr Ff's comments on the reader being the most important part of a book in one of his interviews, I'm inclined to the latter.
It's topics like this that make me glad there's a Contents page in my reference copy...
And Fuzz - look - no link!</HTML>
.-book back-story: she was unable to imagine what that location would look like.
As i understand it, this is different to Jon's theory - in which the text itself is responsible for determining the end-point of a jump. As a thought experiment - and the risk of becoming boojummed rules out practical experimentation - a word strongly linked to one text should be used (and a bookjumper with reasonably low ability and little knowledge of the intended destination) if the jump is possible, then the text is the determinant, if the jump is impossible then the reader is the key. Having read Mr Ff's comments on the reader being the most important part of a book in one of his interviews, I'm inclined to the latter.
It's topics like this that make me glad there's a Contents page in my reference copy...
And Fuzz - look - no link!</HTML>
Re: Escaping a bookless room
Posted by: Jon (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date: January 27, 2003 08:54PM
<HTML>Fuzz's theory sounds good, but is undermined by the washing label incident; surely the Library doesn't have copies of labels, sleeve notes, lists of E-numbers on cans etc? I like PSD's theory of the primacy of the reader (worryingly deconstructionist though it is); I had overlooked JFf's thoughts on this topic (e.g. the dedication to LIAGB) but that still leaves open the question of what constitutes a jumpable source text.
I suspect the truth (for a given value etc) lies somewhere between all three theories, and perhaps one of our more scientifically minded members might like to construct an equation expressing a jumpability formula, where T is the source text, factored for degree of difficulty, L is the status of a text in the Library and R is the reader's knowledge and skill in book-jumping.</HTML>
I suspect the truth (for a given value etc) lies somewhere between all three theories, and perhaps one of our more scientifically minded members might like to construct an equation expressing a jumpability formula, where T is the source text, factored for degree of difficulty, L is the status of a text in the Library and R is the reader's knowledge and skill in book-jumping.</HTML>
Re: Escaping a bookless room
Posted by: poetscientistdrinker (---.cache.pol.co.uk)
Date: January 27, 2003 10:14PM
<HTML>Damn, this Fforum doen't cope with formulae too well.
I reckon we can work on a basis of
J<sub>e</sub> = WF<sub>t</sub>F<sub>r</sub>R<sup>rn</sup>/B<sub>a</sub> + 1
Where -
J<sub>e</sub> is the Jumpability of an extract of text 'e', expressed as a psuedo-probability of completing the jump safely. It is not a true probability as a score of 0.5 does not equal a 50% chance of completing the jump.
W is the number of words in the extract (more words = easier jumpability) as a proportion of the text (between 1 and zero)
F<sub>t</sub> is the 'familiarity' of the text to other texts in the library - and may loosely be viewed as the 'influence' the text has had on other literature (again, on a scale from 1 - 0)
F<sub>r</sub> I the familiarity to the jumper/reader - it should be easier to jump to a book one knows (you guessed it, 1 - 0)
R = the ability of the reader - we already know this measured on a percentage scale so is effectively a ratio, and should be enetered as a value betwixt 1 and zero. Hence a lower score here will tend to push the jumpability towards zero.
rn is a number reflecting the importance of the skill of the reader to the probability of the jump.
B<sub>a</sub> is the liklihood of a boojum for the entire works of the author in question, and is a measure of the dangerousness. AS yet no measure has been agreed by Jurisfiction, but the higher this number, the lower the probability of a given jump.
The +1 ensures an entirely safe book cannot give an infinite jumpability
As an example, 'The tale of the flopsie bunnies' is relatively safe, and the boojum score will be zero (in all probability not zero, due to the effects of grammarsites, pagerunners etc). The familiarity, as a common childhood book, will be high for the reader, and it may be reasonably expected to have influenced authors, so both familiarity scores will be high (we'll take 1 to keep it easy). Miss Havisham's score for jumping was in the high 90's if I remember correctly, so we'll take R to be 0.97. I'm guessing that the influence of a reader is at least twice as important, so we'll take rn = 2. Finally the chance of a boojum is rather low, so we'll work to zero.
In this example we end up with 0.94 as a jumpability, which isn't too bad, I'd reckon. Fpor Thursday, with an R value of mid-30's, we might expect a jumpability of 0.1225 - which explains how she failed to notice entering the boook when reading it to Granny Next.
I think this might need a log transform to better reflect probabilities. What do the math's types reckon?</HTML>
I reckon we can work on a basis of
J<sub>e</sub> = WF<sub>t</sub>F<sub>r</sub>R<sup>rn</sup>/B<sub>a</sub> + 1
Where -
J<sub>e</sub> is the Jumpability of an extract of text 'e', expressed as a psuedo-probability of completing the jump safely. It is not a true probability as a score of 0.5 does not equal a 50% chance of completing the jump.
W is the number of words in the extract (more words = easier jumpability) as a proportion of the text (between 1 and zero)
F<sub>t</sub> is the 'familiarity' of the text to other texts in the library - and may loosely be viewed as the 'influence' the text has had on other literature (again, on a scale from 1 - 0)
F<sub>r</sub> I the familiarity to the jumper/reader - it should be easier to jump to a book one knows (you guessed it, 1 - 0)
R = the ability of the reader - we already know this measured on a percentage scale so is effectively a ratio, and should be enetered as a value betwixt 1 and zero. Hence a lower score here will tend to push the jumpability towards zero.
rn is a number reflecting the importance of the skill of the reader to the probability of the jump.
B<sub>a</sub> is the liklihood of a boojum for the entire works of the author in question, and is a measure of the dangerousness. AS yet no measure has been agreed by Jurisfiction, but the higher this number, the lower the probability of a given jump.
The +1 ensures an entirely safe book cannot give an infinite jumpability
As an example, 'The tale of the flopsie bunnies' is relatively safe, and the boojum score will be zero (in all probability not zero, due to the effects of grammarsites, pagerunners etc). The familiarity, as a common childhood book, will be high for the reader, and it may be reasonably expected to have influenced authors, so both familiarity scores will be high (we'll take 1 to keep it easy). Miss Havisham's score for jumping was in the high 90's if I remember correctly, so we'll take R to be 0.97. I'm guessing that the influence of a reader is at least twice as important, so we'll take rn = 2. Finally the chance of a boojum is rather low, so we'll work to zero.
In this example we end up with 0.94 as a jumpability, which isn't too bad, I'd reckon. Fpor Thursday, with an R value of mid-30's, we might expect a jumpability of 0.1225 - which explains how she failed to notice entering the boook when reading it to Granny Next.
I think this might need a log transform to better reflect probabilities. What do the math's types reckon?</HTML>
Re: Escaping a bookless room
Posted by: Sarah B (---.cableinet.co.uk)
Date: January 27, 2003 10:17PM
<HTML>Hehe... lol. Very good.
You're all way above my head!</HTML>
You're all way above my head!</HTML>
Re: Escaping a bookless room
Posted by: Jon (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date: January 27, 2003 10:33PM
<HTML>Good fomula, but perhaps a little over-estimating the influence of 'The Tale of the Flopsy Bunnies' on subsequent literature. I mean, the Beatrix Potter influence on Joyce is very small (though note opening paras of Portrait of the Artist) and almost non-existent on Lawrence or Hemingway (the one would have used bunnies as a sex metaphor and the other would have shot them).
"I've got a theory - it could be bunnies" - Anya, Buffy TVS</HTML>
"I've got a theory - it could be bunnies" - Anya, Buffy TVS</HTML>
Re: Escaping a bookless room
Posted by: poetscientistdrinker (---.cache.pol.co.uk)
Date: January 27, 2003 10:50PM
<HTML>Granted - you'd be hard pressed to find a direct lift from one to the other, but it's widely accepted that reading to your child increases the probability of them turning into a right little smart-arse later, and a literate one at that. Therefore there is an influence...</HTML>
Re: Escaping a bookless room
Posted by: poetscientistdrinker (---.cache.pol.co.uk)
Date: January 27, 2003 11:23PM
<HTML>Ha! we beat the five post prediction. I'm almost tempted to put a stupid link here to celebrate.
Fuzz's idea of the library describing a limit to jumps is appealing, as it gives a nice definition and allows the speculation that boojumming means straying over the boundary from text to something else outside the library. It raises questions as to the nature of that boundary though.
The other thing about that formula is it would be easy to calculate, given enough data, the lower J score for a jump to be possible, which would be the same for all readers. If the equation exceeds this value the jump is possible.
It may even be postulated that there may be a range of values where boojumming is highly likely. This was partly why i included the risk as a term. However the events of LIAGB suggests that there are several aspects to boojumming, and indeed there may be several ways to get boojummed - some of whcih are independent of an agents skill. For example, Thursday manages to leave the Raven, despite the high risk of Poe and her own (relative) lack of experience and bookjumping ability.
But what do you reckon?</HTML>
Fuzz's idea of the library describing a limit to jumps is appealing, as it gives a nice definition and allows the speculation that boojumming means straying over the boundary from text to something else outside the library. It raises questions as to the nature of that boundary though.
The other thing about that formula is it would be easy to calculate, given enough data, the lower J score for a jump to be possible, which would be the same for all readers. If the equation exceeds this value the jump is possible.
It may even be postulated that there may be a range of values where boojumming is highly likely. This was partly why i included the risk as a term. However the events of LIAGB suggests that there are several aspects to boojumming, and indeed there may be several ways to get boojummed - some of whcih are independent of an agents skill. For example, Thursday manages to leave the Raven, despite the high risk of Poe and her own (relative) lack of experience and bookjumping ability.
But what do you reckon?</HTML>
Re: books
Posted by: Shadow (---.214.96.185.Dial1.Boston1.Level3.net)
Date: January 28, 2003 05:10AM
<HTML>Well, the washing label was a jump-point to the instruction manual, sort of like being in... stasis? A transitional field? Can't quite lock on the word for it, but mostly it's an un-place of potential. Anyway they didn't linger very long before getting into a proper book.
But if Thursday can write a description of the lab as a means of getting back, couldn't she write a bit of description about her room (or Satis House, or wherever) on the foggy mirror and use that to jump? Or would a mirror be a dangerous surface to write on, what with it reflecting and possibly distorting things? Would Thursday have ended up in some Looking Glass world? :)
You're right about the increased chances of being boojumed, but if it comes down to a choice between being boojumed or being Goliath's prisoner forever (potentially), then which is worse?
"Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes..."</HTML>
But if Thursday can write a description of the lab as a means of getting back, couldn't she write a bit of description about her room (or Satis House, or wherever) on the foggy mirror and use that to jump? Or would a mirror be a dangerous surface to write on, what with it reflecting and possibly distorting things? Would Thursday have ended up in some Looking Glass world? :)
You're right about the increased chances of being boojumed, but if it comes down to a choice between being boojumed or being Goliath's prisoner forever (potentially), then which is worse?
"Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes..."</HTML>
Re: books
Posted by: jon (---.abel.net.uk)
Date: January 28, 2003 08:50AM
<HTML>Seems to me that for book-jumping to work properly it needs either more explication than we have had so far in the TN series, or the Nextian universe has a very high narrativium content. The Raven episode is a case in point; the chief reason Thursday can enter and leave Poe relatively easily is that the plot demands it.
"They've got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses!"</HTML>
"They've got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses!"</HTML>
Re: books
Posted by: Rob (---.leeds.ac.uk)
Date: January 28, 2003 10:03AM
<HTML>I've just realised you mean
J<sub>e</sub> = WF<sub>t</sub>F<sub>r</sub>R<sup>rn</sup>/(B<sub>a</sub>+1)
suddenly it makes much more sense...
I think we really need W<sup>k</sup>
where k indicates the uniqueness of the extract. A short extract which is
key to the text would have a low k (ie increase J<sub>e</sub>) whereas an
insignficant piece of text would have high k (it would need to be longer to make
a successful jump).</HTML>
J<sub>e</sub> = WF<sub>t</sub>F<sub>r</sub>R<sup>rn</sup>/(B<sub>a</sub>+1)
suddenly it makes much more sense...
I think we really need W<sup>k</sup>
where k indicates the uniqueness of the extract. A short extract which is
key to the text would have a low k (ie increase J<sub>e</sub>) whereas an
insignficant piece of text would have high k (it would need to be longer to make
a successful jump).</HTML>
Re: books
Posted by: Rob (---.leeds.ac.uk)
Date: January 28, 2003 10:09AM
<HTML>Jon are you suggesting there's also a
Ff<sub>ff</sub> - 'Fforde fiddle factor' which Jasper employs to ensure
narrative continuity.
I don't believe it. Thursday can jump into Poe easily because she's an
all-round superheroine.</HTML>
Ff<sub>ff</sub> - 'Fforde fiddle factor' which Jasper employs to ensure
narrative continuity.
I don't believe it. Thursday can jump into Poe easily because she's an
all-round superheroine.</HTML>
Re: books
Posted by: jon (---.abel.net.uk)
Date: January 28, 2003 10:38AM
<HTML>Yup, Fforde ffiddle ffactor about describes it. Actually one of Thursday's chief attractions is that she isn't a superheroine; she's good at her job, but not super-intelligent or super-attractive, and while her book-jumping skill might be classed as a super-power (and one more obviously useful than doing anything a spider can, at that) her proficiency at it is (as yet) no more than three on a ten scale in Jurisfiction terms. If she gets into a fight, she'll likely lose. She's .... real. (FAGVOR).
In short, she is not Buffy. But then it is a commonplace that everybody except the marketing department prefers Willow. (Determined attempt to take thread off topic, cos being on topic just isn't the way we do things).
"And what's with all the carrots?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway?"</HTML>
In short, she is not Buffy. But then it is a commonplace that everybody except the marketing department prefers Willow. (Determined attempt to take thread off topic, cos being on topic just isn't the way we do things).
"And what's with all the carrots?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway?"</HTML>
Re: books
Posted by: poetscientistdrinker (---.rdg.ac.uk)
Date: January 28, 2003 11:25AM
<HTML>Rob: Oh, yeah - I haven't done any maths for years, and it was debatable even then. Fiddle Factor also sounds highly likely. However would it be a constant or a variable dependent upon Ff<sub>n</sub> - the liklihood of a boojum buggering up Mr Ff's narrative?</HTML>
Re: books
Posted by: fuzz (---.cableinet.co.uk)
Date: January 28, 2003 12:16PM
<HTML>hmmm, I wouldn't be suprised if the library did have all sorts of bit's of text, perhaps it is possible to jump into a non catalouged piece, (cf Miss Havisham's jump into the washing label) but once the book is in the library it becomes easier. Neatly dovetailing with my theroy that the library somehow facilitates bookjumping. In fact, now I reread the description i find the UAW Cat's description of it's size:
'Two hundred miles in every direction <i>{assume circular then}</i>,' said the cat offhandedly, begining to purr, 'twenty-six floors above ground <i>{ground? I wonder whats outside}</i>, twenty six below.'
Making some assumptions about the hieght of a shelf, and the average size of a book, the bored mathmatician could make a guess as to how many books were in the library and whether there was space for any, washing labels etc. (it's kind of implied that the washing machine manual is in the library). Although I'd be inclined towards the idea that it resembled the library at Unseen University, ie Borges wrote the brief and Escher drew up the plans.
And girls from Buffy? My vote goes to Fred.</HTML>
'Two hundred miles in every direction <i>{assume circular then}</i>,' said the cat offhandedly, begining to purr, 'twenty-six floors above ground <i>{ground? I wonder whats outside}</i>, twenty six below.'
Making some assumptions about the hieght of a shelf, and the average size of a book, the bored mathmatician could make a guess as to how many books were in the library and whether there was space for any, washing labels etc. (it's kind of implied that the washing machine manual is in the library). Although I'd be inclined towards the idea that it resembled the library at Unseen University, ie Borges wrote the brief and Escher drew up the plans.
And girls from Buffy? My vote goes to Fred.</HTML>
Re: books
Posted by: poetscientistdrinker (---.rdg.ac.uk)
Date: January 28, 2003 12:21PM
<HTML>Escer must've practised in Reading - I swear I've never walked out of the library down the same set of stairs twice...
(befor I get a cynical response, yes I have actually been in more than once...)</HTML>
(befor I get a cynical response, yes I have actually been in more than once...)</HTML>
Re: books
Posted by: fuzz (---.cableinet.co.uk)
Date: January 28, 2003 12:28PM
<HTML>You ought to try the Old Library down here in Exeter, Ball of string is mandatory, also useful would be emergency rations, torch, dust mask, tranqualiser gun.....</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.