When we talk about the confirmed solutions in this book, we for some reason neglect to mention the solutions that are confirmed even more directly than the contest solutions: the ones listed on the back of the book.

Now, we have traditionally ignored these because we know they’re wrong. Finding the word “story” in the text in Room 1 does NOT mean that that’s the right way. The arrow in Room 20 does NOT point the right way. So we know that stuff’s wrong, and we’ve ignored it.

But ignoring this stuff doesn’t make sense with our current understanding of the book. Red herrings are just as much “real” puzzles in the book as anything else. Think of the same example I raised in a nearby comment–F HOUR TREE. This is a real puzzle, as good an example as we’ve found of one, and it’s just a red herring. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t inform how we approach other puzzles in the book, or what kinds of things we should be looking for.

Similarly, it doesn’t really matter that the “solutions” Manson gives us on the back cover are wrong–at least, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be using that information. It gives us insight into what Manson viewed as red herrings and how he used them.

Specifically, what we learn from the back cover is:

1) Mentioning a word associated with a door is meant to be a clue to take that door.
2) Something pointing at a door is, alone, a clue to take that door.

“Well, no kidding,” everyone says.

WELL, but just keep this in mind when looking to explain things in other rooms.

ALSO, taking Manson’s identified red herrings seriously should help to counter the worldview that every room points you toward the best door in it, either by indicating only that door or by indicating every door except that door. The way that the above types of clues are used does not conform to that view–certainly off of the solution path, at least, but maybe not on the path either.

The guide on the other hand is harder to work out meta intentions with, because like… the warnings take the maze room expectations from HARD PUZZLE –> ANSWER to HARD PUZZLE –> HARD LOGIC –> ANSWER. But the guide? It’s hard to know if he was even written with derivable “answers” in mind. Suggesting to Manson to add the warning to both of them is something I would see early readers doing, but it’s hard for him because if the guide really does just say purely unhelpful things, he can’t tell readers to simply ignore him. And he doesn’t just mislead! Sometimes the things he says genuinely help, like the silences are as eloquent as sounds line. I agree it’s a big possibility it was added to make the readers start interpreting him abstractly earlier on, it’s just hard for me to make concrete theories about he operates or is intended to. The puzzles I would say for sure need the warning. The guide needs it too, but it’s just harder to come to a conclusion about what that says about him.

I really wish I knew more about how the book came to be and like, the creative process. Not the specific logic employed but the general techniques used to give the puzzles their mazey feel. That’s probably what I would ask Manson if I ever met him- while writing, did you have to make them harder, or easier? Did you expect it to be as difficult as you did? When did you decide to add in overarching statements like the warnings and directions? What effects did you hope to achieve with different aspects of the book? There’s so much we don’t know

That’s what makes me hypothesize that early feedback requested a stronger hint that nothing can be trusted. We take that for granted, but if you don’t, it seems downright infuriating.

The guide doesn’t act predictably either, so things that make him seem distrustful vary wildly from each room.
I guess the guide is just so hard to interpret that interpreting how we interpret him is also hard. Getting a warning certainly does make the book feel malicious, though most readers probably wouldn’t have trouble figuring out that malice anyway. Malice =/= misleading? Maybe the guide isn’t even that misleading and the part was added in the directions and back cover to ADD difficulty? It’s so hard to say.

Maybe we should think about this. The parts of the book that give the most explicit warning that clues might be untrustworthy are the back cover and the directions–both of which were likely among the last bits of text written. I wonder–did Manson always intend to make it so clear that the Guide was untrustworthy, or was this a late concession based on feedback? It really flavors the book differently, right from the outset, to have these clear warnings, and not have to derive from experience just *how* untrustworthy the Guide and the clues are.

And that makes wonder whether any parts of the book work differently, were intended to work differently, for a reader that wasn’t immediately handed those warnings. Maybe something that seems to do nothing more than hint at the Guide’s evil nature *really does* do nothing more, because it was created before the decision to give the reader a free heads up.