Hints and Aberrations

[davebakedpotato]

So I've been giving the hints in TTOTC some thought:

We might assume that the aberrations and errors in the book are the hints. There are only three options:

- All of the aberrations are hints.
- Some of the aberrations are hints.
- None of the aberrations are hints.

If all of the aberrations are hints, is it still fair to say they are 'scattered' (inside cover) or 'sprinkled' (P133) through the book? I used to think these words refer to there not being very much of the thing being scattered/sprinkled, but this is not really true. 'Scattered' means not uniformly or eavenly distributed. It can also indicate a lot of something - 'every surface was scattered with photographs' (Collins dictionary. I hope he doesn't know I've got it). 'Sprinkled' in some dictionaries means to cover something with small drops or particles, in others they include a quantity (a small amount).

So it is not conclusive to say that scattered or sprinkled give an indication of quantity, but they do give an indication of eavenness (they indicate a random spreading). This aligns with Forrest's quote regarding whether there is one clue in each chapter in TTOTC - they are not that organised.

So how about if none of the obvious/researchable aberrations are hints? While this gives us no starting point for looking for hints, it gives Forrest something: neat rabbit holes for searchers to fall down, together with a bit of amusement along the way. Rabbit holes are certainly a feature of the hunt, what is most amusing is they're really of our own making. We make an assumption, and *bang* down we go, often for days/weeks/months at a time. Imagine TTOTC without all the aberrations talked about at length on the blogs - less of a spectacle? Sure! When thinking about how to categorise Forrest, 'mischievous' comes close to the top of my list of his qualities, so this fits pretty well.

Now the part you may not like - what if only some of the aberrations are hints? This leaves us with an obvious problem - how on Earth do we decide which are hints and which are distractions? One answer is that *we* decide, based on our pet theory. Confirmation bias kicks in. We rate anything that backs up our story, no matter how convoluted, as a hint, and downplay anything else. But this is by far the least likely of the options, isn't it? It makes no sense for only some of the aberrations to be hints.

So one challenge for you is, if you're using the aberrations as hints, all of them have to fit with your potential solution! Be honest. This is true, isn't it?

I bounce between the two all-or-nothing options, currently leaning towards the hints being nothing to do with the aberrations.

What do you think? As always, try and leave aside your current potential solution - you can't all be right!

Finally, following my thread on what your 'killer' question would be, it helped me clarify what some of the key unknowns are in the chase. So it would be great if Forrest ever gave a straight, or even slightly bent, answer to:

"Forrest, there appear to be many aberrations in The Thrill Of The Chase. Do you have any advice that would help searchers identify the hints from everything else in the book? Cheers"

D

[Jenny]

It seems as more and more time goes by, the poem and book, while together, are also separate...... I'm not sure Forrest wrote either with the other in mind. I feel that is why Forrest can easily say, 'all you need is the poem'....because when he was giving clues to the treasure chest location... the poem was all he was considering (and thinking about).

Sure there are hints....but in what way are they hints?

[Jenny]

In what way does Forrest see them 'as hints'? or in what way did they 'become hints'. Did he 'intentionally' write hints into his memoir--- or after writing it thought...'well, that could be a hint'?


I think that needs answered too.... but can it be?

[davebakedpotato]

May 27, 2020 6:46:00 GMT -5 Jenny said:

In what way does Forrest see them 'as hints'? or in what way did they 'become hints'. Did he 'intentionally' write hints into his memoir--- or after writing it thought...'well, that could be a hint'?


I think that needs answered too.... but can it be?

As with most things, I doubt we can be certain, but I think they were probably included on purpose.

First, they are sprinkled or scattered, both of which are conscious acts.

Second, Forrest has actively advised us to go looking for them. Rather than say 'oh, it turns out I accidentally dropped a few hints in the book'.

If they were accidental, he's certainly 'styled it out' and made them look purposeful

[Jenny]

I know searchers take the following quote from Forrest for many possibilities and interpret it multiple ways..... but one of which is straightforward, and the 'hints' (which are very subtle?)... 'do just appear in his writing'.... that they are not actively placed.



"The chapters in my book have very subtle hints but are not deliberately placed to aid the seeker"





I think it is at least a possibility that Forrest looked back on his writing and thought, 'there are also subtle clues sprinkled in the stories'.......



Another thing to consider is what was not so much 'deliberately placed', but 'deliberately taken out' from his stories he had previously written......

[van]

I don't think the hints are solely based on aberrations, if that helps. I don't think talking about brown gravy in a kettle is an aberration. But, it is still possible that FF used an aberration as a hint. I don't think you can identify the hints before solving a clue (i.e. there is no logical pattern to the hints in the book), the hints provide a little confirmation bias which is good.

[davebakedpotato]

May 27, 2020 8:23:07 GMT -5 van said:

I don't think the hints are solely based on aberrations, if that helps. I don't think talking about brown gravy in a kettle is an aberration. But, it is still possible that FF used an aberration as a hint. I don't think you can identify the hints before solving a clue (i.e. there is no logical pattern to the hints in the book), the hints provide a little confirmation bias which is good.

...but then you're free to pick and choose anything that fits your ideas. Confirmation bias city.

[van]

FF said the hints help identify the clues, but don't lead searchers the chest (paraphrasing). IMO, this means the hints are more associated with the methodology, than narrowing down locations. For example, removing all spaces and RH justifying the poem shows the word Kettle below the HOB line. This does not lead me to the chest, however, provides some bias/confirmation that the methodology is correct.

[Jenny]

May 27, 2020 9:04:22 GMT -5 davebakedpotato said:

May 27, 2020 8:23:07 GMT -5 van said:

I don't think the hints are solely based on aberrations, if that helps. I don't think talking about brown gravy in a kettle is an aberration. But, it is still possible that FF used an aberration as a hint. I don't think you can identify the hints before solving a clue (i.e. there is no logical pattern to the hints in the book), the hints provide a little confirmation bias which is good.

...but then you're free to pick and choose anything that fits your ideas. Confirmation bias city.

Exactly..... and that is why there are so many searchers who 'know' where it is.....

[davebakedpotato]

May 27, 2020 9:52:30 GMT -5 van said:

FF said the hints help identify the clues, but don't lead searchers the chest (paraphrasing). IMO, this means the hints are more associated with the methodology, than narrowing down locations. For example, removing all spaces and RH justifying the poem shows the word Kettle below the HOB line. This does not lead me to the chest, however, provides some bias/confirmation that the methodology is correct.

Is there a hint in TTOTC that leads to the idea of RH justifying and removing spaces?

[davebakedpotato]

May 27, 2020 10:33:33 GMT -5 Jenny said:

May 27, 2020 9:04:22 GMT -5 davebakedpotato said:

...but then you're free to pick and choose anything that fits your ideas. Confirmation bias city.

Exactly..... and that is why there are so many searchers who 'know' where it is.....

If intentional, then it's a method of adding complexity, and that is a method of getting the chase to last longer than it may have otherwise done. Interesting.

No wonder poem purists exist!

[goldilocks]

DBP and Van you both make good points. Van - I agree, perhaps the hints tell us what methodology we need to use to "read" the poem. To DBP's point, there must be instructions in TTOTC if there is a methodology like the one Van suggests. If there aren't any instructions, well then that means the poem is straight forward and the words should be enough to lead us to the treasure. Unfortunately, using just the poem doesn't make the task any easier.

[van]

Yes. There are a couple. I believe 4 versions of the poem, both RH and LH, are required. The associated hint is in the chapter about the ball of string. The best method is to tie the ends together in a square knot (again paraphrasing).

[davebakedpotato]

May 27, 2020 11:50:43 GMT -5 van said:

Yes. There are a couple. I believe 4 versions of the poem, both RH and LH, are required. The associated hint is in the chapter about the ball of string. The best method is to tie the ends together in a square knot (again paraphrasing).

To be fair, I always wondered why he explained how to tie string together. Aberration.

[Jenny]

We have IDEA in the corners of the poem too.....


But what if someone interprets that to hint to Box Canyon?