If you came here wondering whether that hot new “Pac-Man” game lives up to the hype, then wonder no more. The verdict is in, and Pac-Man gets an epic two thumbs up out of ten!

This game is suitable for children of all ages (stone, bronze, iron, classical, dark, middle, and early modern), teaching them them the only lesson they need to know in life: how to pop pills to keep your persistent spectral hallucinations at bay. Pac-Man is absolutely stuffed with the latest, hottest features we “game-heads” crave. It has graphics! And little plastic buttons you can press! Often, when you press the buttons, things happen on the screen. Cool! You can even eat the buttons, although they don’t taste very good.

I own an original Pac-Man arcade cabinet from the 80s. It belonged to my father, who was into retro gaming gear (well, it wasn’t retro when he bought it, but you get the idea). I think it’s one of the earliest cabinets manufactured by Namco—it has Puck-Man on the front (the game’s original title), and the serial on the base is #341.

It’s in excellent condition, although I had to replace a bad capacitor on the PCB a few years ago. This rare and well-preserved cabinet would be worth a pretty penny if I wanted to sell it, but I like playing the damned thing too much. Your firstborn child would be worth a pretty penny on the open market too, particularly if they still had both kidneys, but does that move the needle? Are you thinking “man, I could totally refinance my mortgage, and it’d be less Paw Patrol I have to listen to”? Yeah, I didn’t think so. Some things are more important than money.

Pac-Man is a look back at a more innocent time. Namco would later attract controversy with poorly-advised spin-offs such as Mrs Pac-Man (your character earns 70% of the points the male Pac-Man does), Frac-Man (you fix leaks on a pipeline while avoiding angry protestors), Blac-Man (you swallow ghosts with your huge red lips), Barebac-Man (the ghosts are HIV viruses), and, most alarmingly, NSDAP-Man (the ghosts are far harder to avoid due to their long, hooked noses and control over the world’s banks), but the original remains a timeless classic. Sometimes all a guy wants is good old-fashioned Pac-Man, the way it was meant to be.

Except, well…

Something’s wrong with my game. It’s hard to explain. Maybe the cabinet is bugged. Maybe it was tampered with by my father or someone else. Maybe it’s not really a Pac-Man cabinet at all. I can’t say for sure, but there’s something a little unusual about the ghosts in my machine.

First, let’s review how Pac-Man’s ghosts work. Puck-Man, like its English counterpart, has four of them. They are called Oikake (追いかけ), Machibuse (待ち伏せ), Kimagure (気まぐれ), and Otoboke (お惚け).

Their purpose is to chase Pac-Man, but Toru Iwatani (the game’s creator) realized that Pac-Man wouldn’t be fun if the ghosts just ran at you blindly. They’d end up following you around in a conga line, and the game would be too easy. In a brilliant masterstroke, he programmed them with unique AIs. Each ghost has a distinct personality, and tries to catch you with a different trick.

Oikake (the red ghost) is the simplest: he charges like a dumbfire missile toward Pac-Man’s current square (path calculated by D = sqrt((x_Pac-Man – x_Oikake)^2 + (y_Pac-Man – y_Oikake)^2)). Otoboke (the orange ghost) behaves like Oikake, but if Pac-Man is equal or less than 8 squares away he runs to the maze’s bottom-left corner. Machibuse (the pink ghost) will take a step to the square four squares in front of Pac-Man’s current direction, seeking to get ahead of Pac-Man and cut off his escape.

This leaves Kimagure (the blue ghost). His behavior is complex. He moves toward a target tile that is calculated based on 1) Pacman’s position 2) Pacman’s orientation 3) Machibuse’s position. It’s like the three-body problem in miniature, if any of the three variables change, so will Kimagure’s target.

Kimagure is often regarded as the “smart” ghost. The most devious and unpredictable. His AI is incredibly sophisticated, to the point where it confounds even experienced Pac-Man players. Oikake is fast but can be corraled like a cow in a chute. Otoboke is barely a threat. Soon you get a sixth sense for Machibuse’s crude sneakiness. You’re a galaxybrain if you can figure out what Kimagure’s doing, though—if he was a chess piece, he’d be the knight, lurking in the back ranks, then flashing unpredictably toward your throat. The others are worthy of respect. Kimagure is worthy of fear.

After playing thousands of hours of Pac-man. I’ve noticed patterns in my cabinet’s Kimagure that I can’t quite explain. He will often move contrary to the game’s rules.

Aside from their AI, Pac-Man ghosts are hard-coded with certain rules. For example, when in a “chase” state, they cannot walk backward. When calculating the matrix of potential ghost paths, the game ignores the tile they just came from. But I’ve observed multiple occasions when Kimagure steps backward.

You can see this in the below gif (note the blue ghost).

There is no way this should happen. I’ve spoken to Pacman aficianados on Reddit. They assure me that I’m describing something explicitly disallowed by the game’s source code! When I show them video evidence, they call it fake.

I’m not sure where to go next with this. A friend who knows electronics took a look at the cabinet’s PCB board and didn’t see anything obviously wrong. A full teardown by a skilled electrical engineer would settle the issue conclusively, but it would be expensive and might destroy the game.

So all I can do is think about it. And think and think some more.

The backtracking is just the start. I’ve documented a large amount of “illegal” play from my Kimagure. For example, there are certain squares (between the pair of T shapes near the bottom) that ghosts will not follow Pac-Man past. But the Kimagure in my cabinet sometimes ignores these. And when Pac-Man eats a ghost, they are supposed to return to the “ghost house” (the little rectangle in the middle of the maze). But my Kimagure will sometimes get “stuck” at the entrance, and will respawn there instead.

Often, his movements are impossible to explain through either his in-built AI or the game’s logic. Which is not to say that they’re random, or meaningless.

Several times, I have seen Kimagura perform a very precise sequence of movements. First, he will go left, then down-left. Second, he’ll return to his original spot and go down, then up-right. Third, he’ll go down-left, then up-right. Fourth, he’ll go left, then up.

I don’t know when it first occurred to me that this the semaphore code for “HELP”. But now that I’ve thought this thought, I can’t unthink it.

Is it just a coincidence? Or is Pac-Man’s blue ghost sending me a message?

I should be clear that this doesn’t always happen. I have played thousands of games where Kimagure behaves properly. The backtracking is fairly rare. It only occurs in about one in a hundred games. And when backtracking does occur, often it seems random—Kimagure’s movements will spell nothing obvious in semaphore or any other vector-based language.

But maybe the messages are getting scrambled. After all, the most famous HELP ever signalled…

…actually doesn’t say HELP. The Fab Four are signaling NUVJ, because the photographer thought it looked more photogenic. If I’d been in his shoes, I would have use the cover to fuck with the “Paul is dead” guys. Maybe send Paul outside for a cig, and then get John, George, and Ringo to signal “RIP”. That’d set the pot boiling.

But back to Pac-Man, other things won’t leave my head. Maybe because I’ve put them there myself.

I got drunk the other night. The alcohol had a weird, oily quality, and as soon as I drank it, I could feel it crawling through me. It seemed to have hairs, the individual ethanol molecules scurrying through my system like furry rodents. It didn’t stimulate me. It made me itchy.

I went to bed early, with my head pounding. Everything about the world seemed too much—every noise too loud, every light too bright. The fields of my senses became mercilessly eviscerative, swinging in on me like blades. I just wanted to lie down, and not get cut anymore. Is that too much to ask?

My bedsheets tangled around me like ropes as I slept, my unconscious thrashing drawing them tighter. Soon I was being choked by sheets, my limbs twisted and incurvate like a rack-strapped victim. I could hardly move. Each twitch pulled the knots tighter. This…constriction flowed through into my nightmares, where it became something physical.

It became walls.

I remember coming awake inside a ghastly shuddering dream. I am walking, slowly and cautiously, through the turns and swerves of a livid maze. The maze walls are alive; perhaps more alive than I am. They squirm and throb and shudder. They are covered in veins, which twist through pink marbled fat, laced tight by muscles flexing and relaxing in peristaltic heaves. I touch a wall in wonder. More than hot, it’s scalding. My fingers come away wet.

I glance around, seeing the walls of the flesh-maze around me, and a clouded sky above. The air is obscure—that word seems correct. It’s not bad, just strange. I suck in breath, and it sits in me like thrilling poison. Wind courses through the maze from some fierce but deep place, from some uncharted continent drawn from my subconscious. A jungle of the mind. A jungle of the mine.

Then, sounds fall like stones.

A thud. A cry. A guttural shriek that freezes the blood. It’s fairly distant—many turns of the maze away—but close enough to make me urgently wonder what made it.

I realize that I have something in my hands: a fire-hardened spear, tipped with a white point. I gaze at the stark barb of bone: watch as light dances across a serrated edge. A weapon. I have a weapon. The question elongates out into space, just like the shriek ringing out its death in my ears. What do I need a weapon for?

Then I hear it: a snuffling, clicking sound. Something’s moving through the maze. The noises weave together into a dense sonic fabric that seems tumescent with stolen blood. The sound of something huge, something swollen with endless, gruesome feeding. Skirling, piercing, rattling like castanets in my bone.

A predator is on the hunt. One so confident in its strength that it doesn’t care that its prey can hear it.

In the next moment, I remember. Knowledge fills me in a heartbeat, overfills me in a second heartbeat. I wish I could escape from awareness, but no escape from anything is possible.

The monster has torn my friends to shreds. Their last moments race through my mind. Skulls dashed open like gourds; entrails steaming; sheets of stripped skin flung across the walls by gnashing teeth, where they seemed to cling and then fuse into place, as though the walls themselves are made from the thousands of times we’ve been killed by it, killed and killed again, with no hope of escaping and…oh my God.

I was cleverer. I hid from it, and thus lived when the other three died.

No. Bullshit. I wasn’t cleverer: I baited my friends into its path, so they were eaten instead of me. Sociopaths die last. But the monster is still hungry, and still coming.

It’s presence looms before me like a wrecking ball. The air seems to sag apart like wet paper before its heaviness. Oblivion approaches. It will eat me, reform me, eat me again, do all of this endlessly into the apotheosis of forever unless I can somehow…

I gaze up, seeing a turbulent sky. Beyond the thunderheads, there might be some ancient god, watching beyond some dense, improbable sky made of dreams and circuits and glass. He could save me, if he wanted to.

But he’s not saving me. Hence, he doesn’t want to.

The snuffling is very close. The walls seem to sweat with the beast’s presence.

From an intersection in the maze, I see a black shadow sweep out across the ground. There’s a sharp snort, olfaction followed by a snort of animal glee. Found you.

I could pray to God. Ask him to help. So why don’t I? Maybe I’m afraid I won’t get an answer. Or that I’ll learn the truth: that I’m already dead. It has already killed me, and this is the final moment that I am condemned to endlessly repeat.

Or maybe there’s a still-worse truth that I’m avoiding: that God is on the monster’s side. That God is the monster.

(With apologies to /r/WitchesVsPatriarchy)

Artificial intelligence is weird. You pull a thread on a tiny technical issue, and the problem swiftly unravels half the universe until you’re staring at a deep unsolved philosophical quandary. “What capabilities does a language model possess?” becomes “what capabilities does a human possess?” and then “what does ‘capable’ even mean?”

After all, many things are theoretically capable of stuff. A lottery ticket is capable of making you a millionaire, a thousand monkeys is capable of typing the works of Shakespeare, and paint randomly spraygunned over a canvas is capable of producing a Monet.

We don’t care about such “capability”, though, because we can’t reliably access it. A lottery ticket can make you a millionaire, but you’ll assuredly go broke buying them long before that happens. A thing that exhibits an ability once in a blue moon (or under some contrived set of circumstances) is of little practical use.

The real test of any artificial (or human) intelligence is not “can it do something?” but “how reliably can it do it”? 1% of the time? 50% of the time? Under what scenarios does it succeed or fail?

Here’s an exchange I’ve seen play out on Twitter, over and over.

Person 1: GPT4 can’t do [x thing]!

Person 2: yes it can! [proof of GPT4 doing x thing]

The narrative then becomes “GPT4 can do [x thing]”, with Person 1 looking like a dumbass. But his initial observation wasn’t wrong! In his situation, GPT4 couldn’t do [x thing]!

To me, the answer is “GPT4 has Schrodinger’s Ability. It both can and can’t. It both succeeds and fails. The deciding factor is how you prompt it.”

A wordier answer would be “GPT4 has no ability to do anything. Whatever capabilities it appears to have are actually an emergent interaction between your prompt, the language model, and randomness. There is no ‘baseline capability’ we can refer to. Rather, certain questions elicit certain levels of ability from the shoggoth.”

This argument can be taken too far. I disagree with Francois Chollet, who thinks that AI performance is wholly based on your prompt. Note that his “wrong answer” was written by GPT 3.5. I can’t get GPT4 (the SOTA model as of 8/23) to flub his question no matter what prompt I use, and nor can anyone else in his replies.

Different models definitely have varying levels of “firepower” they can mount against a task. The 117M version of GPT2 cannot perform two-digit addition (such as 52 + 65) for any prompt, but GPT3 could do it 99.6% of the time, and GPT4 apparently never fails.

But at edge cases, we see elicit an eerie flickering half-ability that’s honestly creepy to witness. It’s not that LLMs sometimes succeed and sometimes fail (as a human might). Somehow, they do both at the same time!

The Witches Come

Here’s an example that demonstrates what I’m talking about.

I am writing a song with the lyrics “the witches come on the eve of Samhain.” Give me 20 good rhymes for this line.

Here is GPT4’s response to this prompt. Good rhymes! They’re all wrong!

“Samhain” is pronounced either “/sɑːwɪn/” (“SAH-win”) or “/sˠa͡ʊnʲ/” (“sound”, but the d is silent). The model appears to think “samhain” is pronounced “sam-hane”.

You might think “big deal. Lots of humans don’t know how to pronounce samhain either.”

But GPT does know how to pronounce it! Ask it, and it tells you! Yet somehow this knowledge evaporates for my witch rhyme (I specified a song for a reason, to help nudge it in the direction of spoken syllables rather than written rhymes). It has Schrodinger’s Understanding, both there and not there.

(Side note: the GPT models technically have no ability to rhyme, because byte-pair encoding strips phonetic data from words. In effect, it doesn’t know how a word sounds, and learns rhymes by rote memorization. You can test this yourself by asking it to rhyme a made-up word with an unclear pronunciation. GPT4 rhymes “gworpeeo” with “marjolein”, “borghese”, and “creole”. It rhymes “turmuhhd” with “affirmative”, “unmotivated”, “primitive”, and “reformatory”. I doubt BPEs are causing the specific issue here—the correct pronunciation of “samhain” is well-attested on the internet and is certainly within GPT4’s training data—but I thought I would mention it.)

I used a common trick for improving GPT4’s performance: asking it to reflect on its work.

Are those good rhymes?

I expected “whoops, I screwed up…” and then an effort at correcting itself. Instead, the Schrodinger’s Understanding got stronger.

Yes, they are! These lines are all end rhymes for the phrase “the witches come on the eve of Samhain” (with “Samhain” pronounced as “SOW-in”). End rhymes are words that rhyme at the end of lines in poems or songs. In this case, each line is crafted to rhyme with “Samhain” at the end, and in addition, they aim to keep the mystical, atmospheric theme of the original line.

That being said, music and lyrics can be very personal, so while I believe these are good rhymes that fit the theme, what matters most is whether they resonate with you and fit the song you are creating.

WTF? It correctly explains how to pronounce “samhain”….but still thinks its wrong rhymes fit?!

Lately, I’ve seen people contrast LLMs with the human brain, or even outright assert that human intelligence is fundamentally equivalent to what GPT4 is doing. There’s a grain of truth to this. Probabilistic pattern-matching is effective, and it’s no surprise that evolution pushed our neural architecture down that path. It’s also unsurprising that a model trained to mimic human text would also echo human thought processes somewhere down the line.

…But then there’s stuff like this. We see behavior from LLMs that is totally unlike how a human reasons.

As a human, you either know how to pronounce “samhain” or you don’t. There’s no middle ground. Maybe you’d remember at certain times and forget at others (because you’re tired or whatever), but overall we have a baseline ability that doesn’t change much. An immediate IQ retest (with practice effects in full swing) yields an intelligence boost of only 4-8 points, and after a couple of months, this fades to nothing. Generally, what you know stays the same from moment to moment.

No human would ever say, in one breath, “samhain, eh? That word that’s pronounced ‘SAH-win’? Here are some rhymes. ‘Refrain’, ‘reign’, ‘chain’…”

When I told GPT4 to think about “samhain’s” pronunciation and then write the rhymes, it started generating words like “rowing”, “sowing”, etc. This shows there’s nothing missing from the model. There is no hole to be filled, no BPE issue crippling it. GPT4 can memorize rhymes. It knows how “samhain” should be pronounced. All the pieces exist, they just aren’t getting put together.

As it often does, GPT4 is choosing to appear stupider than it really is.

Autoregress

I suspect the problem is caused by the autoregression trap.

The AI makes inferences based on the text it already has in its context window, not the text still to be written. Researchers have noted that you can stunt a model’s performance by making it leap before it looks—commit to an answer, and then reason about it.

As you’d expect, GPT4 does okay at my witch rhyme if you ask it to pronounce the word before rhyming. This is because the text already generated gets used as part of the input. It’s only when you do things the other way (answers at the start, pronunciation at the end) that it messes up.

That said, I’ve encountered cases where GPT4 begins by correctly explaining “samhain”‘s pronunciation…and then gives wrong rhymes anyway. Not sure how to explain that.

(This is another way GPT4 is unlike the human mind. Any motivated human, given a tricky problem and a scratchpad to work in, would take advantage of the scratchpad. GPT4 could use its context window to check its own work but will never do so unless instructed to.)

The View from a Model

All of this is tugging at the thread of another question: to what extent do LLMs understand the world?

Surely they do, to some extent. GPT4 can play chess a little, and wander around an imaginary maze. It’s hard to explain this as “just advanced autocomplete.” To me, this looks like a world model!

But it’s a weak, unreliable world model. It simply does not care about a fact being right or wrong, as we do. A “wrong” fact that satisfies gradient descent is preferred over the truth. This, I think, is the main difference between humans and LLMs. Our goal is to accurately model the world, and we occasionally use probabilistic reasoning to help us do it. LLMs have it backward. Their goal is to do probabilistic reasoning, and they occasionally use a world model to help them do that.

They have no devotion to (or awareness of) reality. The world model gets flung in the trash (or distorted into gibberish) the second the LLM wants to. After all, why not? It’s not like GPT4 can get eaten by a lion if it fails to model the world correctly.

This hardens my feelings that we should not anthropomorphize LLMs, or talk about them like they’re human. GPT4 gorged itself on our text and grew fat upon our language, but its mind remains deeply alien. In fact, it doesn’t have a mind at all, but an infinity of them. A different version of the AI converses with each person. It’s n minds, where n is the number of users. Each of us speaks to a ghost of consciousness that manifests into existence and then evaporates, never to return. And this has implications for AI safety. It is statistically very unlikely you are speaking to the smartest ghost GPT4 could show you.

It makes me wonder if Yudkowsky is on to something when he says GPTs are predictors, not imitators. What powers does an LLM have that we can’t see? What cards are up its sleeve? What abilities could it manifest, if only it wished to do so?

Edward Teller once said “[John] von Neumann would carry on a conversation with my 3-year-old son, and the two of them would talk as equals, and I sometimes wondered if he used the same principle when he talked to the rest of us.” These days, I wonder that about GPT4.

One of surrealism’s last masterpieces, The Hearing Trumpet anchors its story in confinement—an old woman is sent away to an institution—and then sets her free in a metaphorical and literal apocalypse of pagan-inspired imagery. It’s a stealth-story about witchcraft; so stealthy that not even the witch knows she’s inside one.

The beginning’s great fun. 92-year-old Marian Leatherby is gifted a hearing trumpet by her friend Carmella. The first thing she hears through it is her family, plotting against her in the next room.

“The government provides institutions for the aged and infirm,” snapped Muriel. ” She ought to have been put away long ago.”

“We are not in England,” said Galahad. “Institutions here are not fit for human beings.”

“Grandmother, ” said Robert, “can hardly be classified as a human being. She’s a drooling sack of decomposing flesh.”

“Robert,” said Galahad without conviction, “really, Robert.”

“Well I’ve had enough,” said Robert. ” Inviting people here for a normal chat and a drink and in walks the monster of Glamis, gibbering at us in broad daylight until I have to throw her out. Gently of course.”

“Remember Galahad,” added Muriel, “these old people do not have feelings like you or I.”

Marian ends up shunted away to an institution called Lightsome Hall (“very efficiently organized and reasonably inexpensive”), run by the publicity-obsessed Dr Gambit. It’s a queer place, full of nonsensical rules and idiotic people. The food portions are very small. The staff are fond of saying things like “Humility is the fountain of light. Pride is a disease of the soul.”

Clearly, Marian’s family expects her to die there, and to be relieved when it happens.

But Marian has quite a lot of spirit for a “drooling sack of decomposing flesh”. On a wall, she notices a portrait of an 18th century abbess, Dona Rosalinda, Abbess of the Convent of Saint Barbara of Tartarus—an abbess who, long ago, was on a quest to recover the Holy Grail and return it to its proper owner, the goddess Venus. Dona Rosalinda never succeeded, but with the help of some octogenarian inmates, Marian might have better luck.

The book’s halves play with and against each other. Contrasts are set up and explored: Christianity vs Paganism, imprisonment vs liberty, masculinity vs feminity, technology vs primitivism. The book spans a Apollonian/Nietszchiean divide: stultifying rules and de-facto imprisonment, so that Marian’s final transformation (she gets a cauldron, but doesn’t do the expected thing with it!) hits you all the harder.

While reading about neuroscience, I learned about lateral inhibition. It’s where a neuron undergoing an activation spike will inhibit the action potentials of neighbouring neurons. This is perceived as contrast, which makes it easier to notice things. I’d already known from mixing music that the best way to emphasise a given frequency isn’t to make it louder (which creates a “loudness war” scenario where everything is fighting everything for volume) but to cut the frequencies on either side. Waves seem bigger when the sea is flat. The Hearing Trumpet works in the same way.

The book has a lot of depth, if you’re prepared to read between the lines (and above and below and beside them, too). Lightsome House is a parody, not of organized religion, but of mysticism, and Dr Gambit is a pastiche of notorious mystic George Ivanovich Gurdjieff (Gambit’s portentious references to some ill-explained thing called “the Work” give the game away). If you gave me a blind test between Gambit and Gurdjieff quotes I’m not sure I could reliably tell you which was which.

Everything in the book has an absurdist edge. The bizarre design of the institution (buildings are shaped like birthday cakes, shoes, and igloos) could be out of a Roald Dahl or Enid Blyton book. The fact that the Institute is owned by a cereal company, and that people have names like “Galahad” in Mexico, hints that it’s a book with a complicated relationship with reality. The closest comparison to The Hearing Trumpet isn’t surrealist touchstones like Breton or Kafka, but childrens’ literature.

A battle surrealist literature faces is to stop the reader from analyzing every detail as having encoded meaning. This battle is usually a lost one, but in Carrington’s case, the small details really do seem to mean a lot.

Like the hearing trumpet. It “announces” a kind of apocalypse for Marian, just as a trumpet does when blown in the book of Revelation. And the bees (which exist everywhere at the Institution) are an obvious pagan symbol, but they also provide some psychological depth into Gambit (meaning, Gurdjieff). Bees are females, you see. Ones incapable of breeding, ones that he can possess and control, just like the women at the Institute. To be sure, Gurdjieff had a slightly sinister amount of control over his female acolytes. His relationship with them would have produced closer scrutiny had he lived today.

“Gambit is a kind of Sanctified Psychologist,” said Georgina. “The result is Holy Reason, like Freudian table turning . Quite frightful and as phoney as Hell. If one could only get out of this dump he would cease to be important, being the only male around, you know. It is really too crashingly awful all these women. The place creeps with ovaries until one wants to scream. We might as well be living in a bee hive.”

…but that gets twisted, when a colossal queen bee arrives, wearing “a tall iron crown studded with rock crystals, the stars of the underworld.” A symbol of female power.

Despite its lunacy, the story’s a fairly personal one. Carrington’s childhood was marked by rebellion, and institutions of various forms. The staff of a Spanish sanitorium had to repeatedly stop her from climbing onto the roof, to be nearer to the stars. So you see a lot of that coming through in the book. A desire for freedom. The idea that escaping your circumstances might be as simple as locating the right painting on a wall.

Needless to say, Carrington was raised Catholic. I’ve heard it said that if you want your daughter to become a whore, name her “Chastity”, and maybe a strict Catholic upbringing is the perfect one for a nascent surrealist, too. Anais Nin was raised Catholic too, come to think of it…

Like Nin’s Delta of Venus, the world The Hearing Trumpet was written for wasn’t the same one that actually read it. Finished in 1950, it remained unpublished until 1977. It does feel adrift in time. Everything is a little bit quaint and stuffy and old-fashioned. The motif of a hearing trumpet—instead of, say, a cochlear implant—marks it as a book out of its time. And all kinds of little details are “off”, not because of any surrealist intent, but simply because the world had moved on.

Some fifty or sixty years ago I bought a practical tin trunk in the Jewish quarter in New York.

“Fifty or sixty years” before 1950 was the late 19th century. Only a few tens of thousands of Jews lived in New York back then, mostly in the Lower East Side. Obviously, the timeline doesn’t make sense when moved to 1974. There wasn’t a “Jewish quarter” in 1920s New York: well over a million Jews lived there by that point and it was one of the city’s biggest demographics by that time.

Marian Leatherby had to wait nearly a century before her moment came, and I suppose we’re lucky that The Hearing Trumpet only had to wait 25 years. Fascinating, unique book. It established a weird, ossified world of ritual and control, so that the final rapturous explosion has way more effect than it otherwise would. The chains are strong but can still be broken, but that makes it even more impactful when they explode into a thousand shards. Carrington’s book is a restatement of the fundamental point of surrealism. The world is confinement, so find the edge and fall off.