What do you think?
Rate this book
Author Unknown: Tales of a Literary Detective
From the professor with an extraordinary gift for unmasking the authors of anonymous documents comes the inside story of how he solves his most challenging cases.
In Author Unknown, Don Foster reveals a starling fact: since no two people use language in precisely the same way, our identities are encoded in our own language, a kind of literary DNA. Combining traditional scholarship with modern technology, Foster has discovered how to unlock that code and, in the process, has invented an entire field of investigation--literary forensics--by which it becomes possible to catch anonymous authors as they ultimately betray their identities with their own words.
Foster's unique skills first came to light when a front-page New York Times article announced his discovery that a previously unattributed poem was written by Shakespeare. A few weeks later, Foster solved the mystery that had obsessed America for months when he identified Joe Klein as the author of Primary Colors. Foster also took on the case of an oddball California bag lady who many believed to be the elusive Thomas Pynchon. His contributions to the Unabomber case takes us inside the tangled mind of Ted Kaczynski. And, in the final chapter, Foster makes a surprising-and heartening-discovery about a beloved holiday icon.
As entertaining as it is eye opening, Author Unknown shows us how Don Foster uses his unusual methods to search out the hidden identities behind anonymous documents of all kinds. Anyone who reads this remarkable book will find it impossible to read-or write-in the same way as before.
In Author Unknown, Don Foster reveals a starling fact: since no two people use language in precisely the same way, our identities are encoded in our own language, a kind of literary DNA. Combining traditional scholarship with modern technology, Foster has discovered how to unlock that code and, in the process, has invented an entire field of investigation--literary forensics--by which it becomes possible to catch anonymous authors as they ultimately betray their identities with their own words.
Foster's unique skills first came to light when a front-page New York Times article announced his discovery that a previously unattributed poem was written by Shakespeare. A few weeks later, Foster solved the mystery that had obsessed America for months when he identified Joe Klein as the author of Primary Colors. Foster also took on the case of an oddball California bag lady who many believed to be the elusive Thomas Pynchon. His contributions to the Unabomber case takes us inside the tangled mind of Ted Kaczynski. And, in the final chapter, Foster makes a surprising-and heartening-discovery about a beloved holiday icon.
As entertaining as it is eye opening, Author Unknown shows us how Don Foster uses his unusual methods to search out the hidden identities behind anonymous documents of all kinds. Anyone who reads this remarkable book will find it impossible to read-or write-in the same way as before.
320 pages, Paperback
First published November 8, 2000
7 people are currently reading
271 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
June 18, 2024
Foster is a Vassar Shakespeare professor who came to the limelight by proving (I suppose) that an obscure poem, "A Funeral Elegy," was written by Shakespeare. Using the same textual analysis, he predicted that Primary Colors was written by Joe Klein. In this book, he talks about those feats and other, including his work on the Unabomber's writings. He also shows quite convincingly that "The Night Before Christmas" was not written by Clement Moore.
This is fairly exciting reading; Foster makes logical and psychological mincemeat out of his opponents: other Shakespeare scholars who dismissed him, and Joe Klein, who turns out to be a lying, obfuscating mass of insecurity. Foster also has some words to say about profiling including "mindhunter" John Douglas. Not only does he deny profiling's value, he shows Douglas to be an obfuscator, too; this might help explain why his book The Anatomy Of Motive doesn’t focus on how Douglas matches criminals with profiles. In contrast, Foster's success rate speaks for itself, and he writes a good dramatic account of his cases.
This is fairly exciting reading; Foster makes logical and psychological mincemeat out of his opponents: other Shakespeare scholars who dismissed him, and Joe Klein, who turns out to be a lying, obfuscating mass of insecurity. Foster also has some words to say about profiling including "mindhunter" John Douglas. Not only does he deny profiling's value, he shows Douglas to be an obfuscator, too; this might help explain why his book The Anatomy Of Motive doesn’t focus on how Douglas matches criminals with profiles. In contrast, Foster's success rate speaks for itself, and he writes a good dramatic account of his cases.
August 2, 2008
Vassar professor Don Foster's true story of being a literary detective. He outed the unibomber, discovered a lost sonnet written by Shakespeare, and exposed the guy who wrote Primary Colors. He's able to do this simply by reading, arguing that each person has their own writing style as individual as their own fingerprints. Pretty cool read.
December 20, 2023
DID CLEMENT CLARKE MOORE WRITE ‘Night Before Christmas’?; AND OTHER CONTROVERSIES
English professor Don Foster wrote in the Prologue to this 2000 book, “When asked, ‘Who wrote this document?’ I usually begin the inquiry by asking of text databases, ‘Where else can I find similar language and writing habits?’ That question … [is] usually good for information about the author’s age, religion, education, job, motivation, or ideology… I can usually narrow the field of suspects by isolating the geographic, ethnic, socioeconomic, corporate, or professional milieu to which the unknown writer belongs… Familiar words misused can be helpful indicators as well… I [also] consider the manner in which quotation marks, carets, cross-outs, dashes, and ellipses are written or typed.” (Pg. 7-8)
The case I found most interesting was about the authorship of ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas,’ usually attributed to Clement Clarke Moore. Foster states, “By dispensing with the birchen rod, and by translating Europe's crochety old Nicholas into Saint Nick, the merriest saint in Christendom, the author of that little poem caused America finally to open its heart to Old Santaclaw, and in a very big way. Widely reprinted, ‘The Night Before Christmas’ soon became the New World’s best-loved, most well-known poem, turning Christmas into a festival of good cheer and gift-giving by transforming Saint Nicholas from a thin, dour European saint into the plump and jolly American superstar we know as Santa Claus.” (Pg. 223)
He recounts, “a resident from the Boston area, Mary Van Deusen… identified herself as the great-great-great-great-great granddaughter … of Major Henry Livingston Jr. [She] cheerfully explained that it was her ancestor … and not Clement Clarke Moore, who probably wrote ‘The Night Before Christmas.’ … [She told me that] The two men … were opposites. Professor Moore was a grouchy pedant… who never had a day of fun in his whole life…. [Henry] was an artist, journalist, and poet… in her opinion, the Major’s poetry resembled ‘Christmas’ better than anything Clement Moore ever wrote… ‘The Night Before Christmas’ was first published anonymously in 1823. When it was ascribed to Clement Clarke Moore in December 1836, probably by mistake, he said nothing. ‘Christmas’ became a huge hit. Moore remained silent---because the poem ‘embarrassed’ him. ‘Christmas’ was in print for more than twenty years before Clement Moore took credit. Now, isn’t that interesting?’” (Pg. 227-228)
He asked her, “ ‘And did Major Henry take credit?’ ‘No---but I can explain that. He Was dead. Major Henry’s children knew that Clement Moore didn’t write ‘Christmas,’ that their father did, but no one would listen.’” (Pg. 228)
Foster begins investigating: “would Professor Moore let an error stand uncorrected in December 1836, when his name was first placed on [the poem]? And if ‘a Visit’ belonged to another man, another poet, would Moore have proceeded seven years after that to publish the poem himself, as his own composition? If it were a lie, and the lie were exposed in the New York press, could Moore have expected a [happy] outcome[?]” (Pg. 251)
He admits, “Moore, at least, had tradition on his side. The documentary evidence for a Livingston attribution was at best unreliable, at worst fraudulent; and in the view of many scholars laughable. I have not yet seen proof that Major Livingston wrote a single line of poetry later than 1794. The Livingston children were doubtless sincere in their recollections concerning ‘A Visit,’ but may they not have been sincerely mistaken?” (Pg. 252)
Nevertheless, he concludes, “In 1856, and again in 1862, Professor Moore copied out the text of ‘A Visit from St. Nicholas,’ signed it, and distributed these autographed copies as gifts… in fact these autographed manuscripts indicate that Clement Clarke Moore did not know the original names of his own reindeer. In the manuscript copies… Moore makes the same telltale error, writing ‘Donder and Blitzen,’ not suspecting that Saint Nick is a Dutchman who says ‘Dunder!’ and ‘Blixem!’ Moore’s corrupt ‘Blitzen’ is one more indication that he stole ‘Christmas’---Santa Claus, sleigh, reindeer and all---from a portly … Dutchman named Henry Livingston. When the evidence is laid out on the table, one cannot help but wonder how ‘A Visit from Saint Nicholas’ ever came to be associated with an old curmudgeon like Clement Clarke Moore in the first place.” (Pg. 266)
He argues, “In 1823, when ‘A Visit’ was printed anonymously, Moore felt ‘regret and chagrin’ that his trifle had come to light. In 1836, when Hoffman reprinted the poem with Moore’s name on it, the incident must have really popped his cork. But he said nothing. For the next seven years, Moore allowed the attribution to be widely reprinted… without issuing a correction. In the meantime, the ‘Christmas piece’ made him more famous than anything he had ever done, said, thought, or written, and readers of all ages loved him for it. In the Christmas season of 1843-1844, his own daughters begged him to publish his Poems for posterity, especially ‘The Night Before Christmas.’ No other claimant has surfaced, or at least none that could be taken seriously.” (Pg. 270)
He continues, “A document preserved in the New York Historical Society indicates what happened next. On February 23, 1844, Moore wrote to Norman Tuttle, former owner of the now-defunct Troy Sentinel, with a discreet inquiry: could Mr. Tuttle please account for the provenance of ‘A Visit from St. Nicholas’? … Tuttle informed the Professor that Orville Holley received his 1823 text from Mrs. Sackett, wife of … a Troy merchant. (So much for Pelletreau’s 1886 Harriet Butler story!) Tuttle further assures the Professor that it was not until much later that he and Mr. Holley learned the poem was Moore’s. The coast was clear. Twenty-one years after that first publication of ‘A Visit,’ Henry Livingston, Mrs. Sackett, and Moore’s own wife were dead. Tuttle believed the hearsay that the poem was written by Professor Moore. Having now no compelling grounds on which to exclude ‘A Visit from St. Nicholas’ from his forthcoming edition of collected Poems, and no one who was likely to contradict him, Professor Moore followed the flow.” (Pg. 270-271)
He goes on, “In his dedication Moore apologizes to the children for having included… a few poor trifles (e.g., ‘A Visit from St. Nicholas’) but ‘such things have been often found by me,’ writes Moore, ‘to afford greater pleasure than what was by myself esteemed or more worth.’ … Moore entitled his volume ‘Poems.’ Of the thirty-seven printed, only thirty-two were actually his (or thirty-three, of you count ‘Christmas’). The volume contains [two poems that] … are printed as replies to two of Moore’s own verses. Also included are two poems by … the poet’s late wife…. ‘A Visit from St. Nicholas,’ the single most famous poem in the collection, appears without fanfare or introductory note…” (Pg. 271)
Foster is very far from convincing me about Livingston’s authorship; but this book will be of great interest to anyone studying this issue.
English professor Don Foster wrote in the Prologue to this 2000 book, “When asked, ‘Who wrote this document?’ I usually begin the inquiry by asking of text databases, ‘Where else can I find similar language and writing habits?’ That question … [is] usually good for information about the author’s age, religion, education, job, motivation, or ideology… I can usually narrow the field of suspects by isolating the geographic, ethnic, socioeconomic, corporate, or professional milieu to which the unknown writer belongs… Familiar words misused can be helpful indicators as well… I [also] consider the manner in which quotation marks, carets, cross-outs, dashes, and ellipses are written or typed.” (Pg. 7-8)
The case I found most interesting was about the authorship of ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas,’ usually attributed to Clement Clarke Moore. Foster states, “By dispensing with the birchen rod, and by translating Europe's crochety old Nicholas into Saint Nick, the merriest saint in Christendom, the author of that little poem caused America finally to open its heart to Old Santaclaw, and in a very big way. Widely reprinted, ‘The Night Before Christmas’ soon became the New World’s best-loved, most well-known poem, turning Christmas into a festival of good cheer and gift-giving by transforming Saint Nicholas from a thin, dour European saint into the plump and jolly American superstar we know as Santa Claus.” (Pg. 223)
He recounts, “a resident from the Boston area, Mary Van Deusen… identified herself as the great-great-great-great-great granddaughter … of Major Henry Livingston Jr. [She] cheerfully explained that it was her ancestor … and not Clement Clarke Moore, who probably wrote ‘The Night Before Christmas.’ … [She told me that] The two men … were opposites. Professor Moore was a grouchy pedant… who never had a day of fun in his whole life…. [Henry] was an artist, journalist, and poet… in her opinion, the Major’s poetry resembled ‘Christmas’ better than anything Clement Moore ever wrote… ‘The Night Before Christmas’ was first published anonymously in 1823. When it was ascribed to Clement Clarke Moore in December 1836, probably by mistake, he said nothing. ‘Christmas’ became a huge hit. Moore remained silent---because the poem ‘embarrassed’ him. ‘Christmas’ was in print for more than twenty years before Clement Moore took credit. Now, isn’t that interesting?’” (Pg. 227-228)
He asked her, “ ‘And did Major Henry take credit?’ ‘No---but I can explain that. He Was dead. Major Henry’s children knew that Clement Moore didn’t write ‘Christmas,’ that their father did, but no one would listen.’” (Pg. 228)
Foster begins investigating: “would Professor Moore let an error stand uncorrected in December 1836, when his name was first placed on [the poem]? And if ‘a Visit’ belonged to another man, another poet, would Moore have proceeded seven years after that to publish the poem himself, as his own composition? If it were a lie, and the lie were exposed in the New York press, could Moore have expected a [happy] outcome[?]” (Pg. 251)
He admits, “Moore, at least, had tradition on his side. The documentary evidence for a Livingston attribution was at best unreliable, at worst fraudulent; and in the view of many scholars laughable. I have not yet seen proof that Major Livingston wrote a single line of poetry later than 1794. The Livingston children were doubtless sincere in their recollections concerning ‘A Visit,’ but may they not have been sincerely mistaken?” (Pg. 252)
Nevertheless, he concludes, “In 1856, and again in 1862, Professor Moore copied out the text of ‘A Visit from St. Nicholas,’ signed it, and distributed these autographed copies as gifts… in fact these autographed manuscripts indicate that Clement Clarke Moore did not know the original names of his own reindeer. In the manuscript copies… Moore makes the same telltale error, writing ‘Donder and Blitzen,’ not suspecting that Saint Nick is a Dutchman who says ‘Dunder!’ and ‘Blixem!’ Moore’s corrupt ‘Blitzen’ is one more indication that he stole ‘Christmas’---Santa Claus, sleigh, reindeer and all---from a portly … Dutchman named Henry Livingston. When the evidence is laid out on the table, one cannot help but wonder how ‘A Visit from Saint Nicholas’ ever came to be associated with an old curmudgeon like Clement Clarke Moore in the first place.” (Pg. 266)
He argues, “In 1823, when ‘A Visit’ was printed anonymously, Moore felt ‘regret and chagrin’ that his trifle had come to light. In 1836, when Hoffman reprinted the poem with Moore’s name on it, the incident must have really popped his cork. But he said nothing. For the next seven years, Moore allowed the attribution to be widely reprinted… without issuing a correction. In the meantime, the ‘Christmas piece’ made him more famous than anything he had ever done, said, thought, or written, and readers of all ages loved him for it. In the Christmas season of 1843-1844, his own daughters begged him to publish his Poems for posterity, especially ‘The Night Before Christmas.’ No other claimant has surfaced, or at least none that could be taken seriously.” (Pg. 270)
He continues, “A document preserved in the New York Historical Society indicates what happened next. On February 23, 1844, Moore wrote to Norman Tuttle, former owner of the now-defunct Troy Sentinel, with a discreet inquiry: could Mr. Tuttle please account for the provenance of ‘A Visit from St. Nicholas’? … Tuttle informed the Professor that Orville Holley received his 1823 text from Mrs. Sackett, wife of … a Troy merchant. (So much for Pelletreau’s 1886 Harriet Butler story!) Tuttle further assures the Professor that it was not until much later that he and Mr. Holley learned the poem was Moore’s. The coast was clear. Twenty-one years after that first publication of ‘A Visit,’ Henry Livingston, Mrs. Sackett, and Moore’s own wife were dead. Tuttle believed the hearsay that the poem was written by Professor Moore. Having now no compelling grounds on which to exclude ‘A Visit from St. Nicholas’ from his forthcoming edition of collected Poems, and no one who was likely to contradict him, Professor Moore followed the flow.” (Pg. 270-271)
He goes on, “In his dedication Moore apologizes to the children for having included… a few poor trifles (e.g., ‘A Visit from St. Nicholas’) but ‘such things have been often found by me,’ writes Moore, ‘to afford greater pleasure than what was by myself esteemed or more worth.’ … Moore entitled his volume ‘Poems.’ Of the thirty-seven printed, only thirty-two were actually his (or thirty-three, of you count ‘Christmas’). The volume contains [two poems that] … are printed as replies to two of Moore’s own verses. Also included are two poems by … the poet’s late wife…. ‘A Visit from St. Nicholas,’ the single most famous poem in the collection, appears without fanfare or introductory note…” (Pg. 271)
Foster is very far from convincing me about Livingston’s authorship; but this book will be of great interest to anyone studying this issue.
May 22, 2020
I started this book thinking there would be some really juicy crime stories that were resolved by authorship attribution. What I got was uninteresting scandals, melodrama and "he said, she said" epics.
There was far too much story, and far too little explanation of authorship attribution. If not the bland and lengthy background to a scandal, then soap operas and novellas about academics and their egos. I know that forensic linguistics and attribution has faced, since its creeping conception, a battle to be accepted by linguists, let alone in courts as evidence. And I know that it still does. I know this because I have a masters in forensic linguistics. And even I found these diva-esque academic quibbles and rivalries tiresome to read about.
I was curious to find out how the author came to the conclusions he did. How things were "solved". I imagine that is why most people's attention would be drawn to such a book. But aside from a brief list of tip-offs, if I was lucky, all I got was meaningless prose. I'll be honest: I didn't finish any of the chapters. After giving up on one, I would skip to the next, hopeful that it would actually offer some linguistic or forensic insight. Then I realised there was far too much chaff to sort through and that life just isn't long enough to do it.
Basically, I wanted juice and I got sawdust.
There was far too much story, and far too little explanation of authorship attribution. If not the bland and lengthy background to a scandal, then soap operas and novellas about academics and their egos. I know that forensic linguistics and attribution has faced, since its creeping conception, a battle to be accepted by linguists, let alone in courts as evidence. And I know that it still does. I know this because I have a masters in forensic linguistics. And even I found these diva-esque academic quibbles and rivalries tiresome to read about.
I was curious to find out how the author came to the conclusions he did. How things were "solved". I imagine that is why most people's attention would be drawn to such a book. But aside from a brief list of tip-offs, if I was lucky, all I got was meaningless prose. I'll be honest: I didn't finish any of the chapters. After giving up on one, I would skip to the next, hopeful that it would actually offer some linguistic or forensic insight. Then I realised there was far too much chaff to sort through and that life just isn't long enough to do it.
Basically, I wanted juice and I got sawdust.
August 7, 2013
I was pleasantly surprised by this book. I checked it out to read only one of the featured stories -- that of the identity of Wanda Tinasky the self-proclaimed Fort Bragg Bag Lady whose impressive letters to the editor of northern California newspapers led many to believe it was a pseudonym for Thomas Pynchon.
That particular story hooked me, so I ended up reading the entire thing. Foster's work seems very difficult, but the payoff must seem glorious.
His literary analysis, a Sherlock Holmes of words, was used to discover a new Shakespeare poem, unmask the identity of the Primary Colors author, as well as offer attributional evidence for high-profile cases such as the Unabomber and the Talking Points memo in the Tripp/Lewinsky/Clinton hullabaloo.
I also feel that I will pay closer attention to the way I write from now on. The cues that we think aren't obvious in our writing are as present as fingerprints at a crime scene.
That particular story hooked me, so I ended up reading the entire thing. Foster's work seems very difficult, but the payoff must seem glorious.
His literary analysis, a Sherlock Holmes of words, was used to discover a new Shakespeare poem, unmask the identity of the Primary Colors author, as well as offer attributional evidence for high-profile cases such as the Unabomber and the Talking Points memo in the Tripp/Lewinsky/Clinton hullabaloo.
I also feel that I will pay closer attention to the way I write from now on. The cues that we think aren't obvious in our writing are as present as fingerprints at a crime scene.
March 29, 2008
The premise of this book is interesting. The author analyses text to ascertain who wrote the text under analysis. His contention is that each individual writer leaves his or her imprint on what they write as distinctively as a fingerprint.
In other words, ones style gives one away. Using this method he has decided that a previously unattributed funeral elegy was written by Shakespeare, that the Unabomber's writings matched those of Ted Kaczinsky and various other pieces of literary sleuthing.
The problem is the Professor's own style of writing was not all that interesting and due to that this became one of only four books I have ever started that I failed to finish. The material is interesting, sadly the style is less than. Hence the one star. Not really recommended unless you want to learn how to disguise your writing style in order to commit crimes, which I would never advise.
In other words, ones style gives one away. Using this method he has decided that a previously unattributed funeral elegy was written by Shakespeare, that the Unabomber's writings matched those of Ted Kaczinsky and various other pieces of literary sleuthing.
The problem is the Professor's own style of writing was not all that interesting and due to that this became one of only four books I have ever started that I failed to finish. The material is interesting, sadly the style is less than. Hence the one star. Not really recommended unless you want to learn how to disguise your writing style in order to commit crimes, which I would never advise.
September 13, 2019
Don Foster is a "literary detective," using textual evidence to help figure out whether a certain person possibly wrote certain documents. As he says at the end, "It is never my job, not even in literary studies, to assume ther esponsibility of judge and jury. All evidence, including words, must be tried." Rather than saying "Yes! This person wrote this! By gosh, they did it!" he looks at Questioned Documents and compares them to writing samples of potential authors to help deduce whether said potential authors MIGHT HAVE written the Questioned Documents. His first example is an unsigned poem written in memory of someone during Shakespeare's time. Did Shakespeare write it? Let's examine the evidence. Shakespeare knew so-and-so, Shakespeare did such-and-such, Shakespeare wrote in such-a-way... Now, putting all of those together, there's a good chance that Shakespeare wrote that unsigned elegy. Similarly, the Unabomber wrote this manifesto. People think it might have been written by Ted Kaczynski. Let's compare the Unabomber's manifesto with things we know Ted Kaczynski wrote. Let's also examine things we know -- or have reason to believe -- Kaczynski read and was influenced by.
But my FAVORITE part of the book was the examination of "'Twas the Night Before Christmas," a.k.a. "Account of a Visit from St. Nicholas," etc. Clement Clark Moore wrote that, right? I mean, isn't that what we've all heard? Maybe not. Foster explains how he was approached by the family of Major Henry Livingston Jr., who claimed that their ancestor actually wrote the poem, not Moore. Foster then goes into SO MUCH DETAIL about Livingston wrote like this, Moore wrote like that; Livingston read this, Moore read that; Livingston lived like this, Moore lived like that. (Of course, there are some who have rebuttals to Foster's examination; a summary can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Visit... .)
Foster's tales are fascinating, whether you're a lit/textual studies geek, a pop culture nut, interested in whodunnits, or just like good stories of real life.
But my FAVORITE part of the book was the examination of "'Twas the Night Before Christmas," a.k.a. "Account of a Visit from St. Nicholas," etc. Clement Clark Moore wrote that, right? I mean, isn't that what we've all heard? Maybe not. Foster explains how he was approached by the family of Major Henry Livingston Jr., who claimed that their ancestor actually wrote the poem, not Moore. Foster then goes into SO MUCH DETAIL about Livingston wrote like this, Moore wrote like that; Livingston read this, Moore read that; Livingston lived like this, Moore lived like that. (Of course, there are some who have rebuttals to Foster's examination; a summary can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Visit... .)
Foster's tales are fascinating, whether you're a lit/textual studies geek, a pop culture nut, interested in whodunnits, or just like good stories of real life.
March 29, 2024
When I was a teacher I used to stress the importance of knowing who wrote something. It helps us interpret what we’re reading. It gives us context. I found Don Foster’s book because of the poem “’Twas the Night before Christmas.” I always thought it was written by Clement Clarke Moore. It wasn’t. Foster is the guy who proved that, more or less definitively. And wittily. That’s the last chapter of this remarkable book.
Foster is a Shakespeare scholar and in his younger days he discovered an unrecognized piece by Shakespeare himself. His knowledge of literary detective work gained attention and others asked him to identify anonymous or pseudonymous sources. He outed the author of Primary Colors. The FBI asked for his help deciphering the Unabomber. The talking points of Bill Clinton’s impeachment brought him into the case of Monica Lewinsky. The searing poems of Wendy Tinasky called him to the defense of Thomas Pynchon. This is an amazing book.
While unfamiliar with most of the literature he discusses, his story remains compelling. The first chapter, introducing his methods, is impossibly good. Those of us who write mark ourselves by our style in ways that we don’t even consider. I took a different angle of looking at this book in my blog post on it (Sects and Violence in the Ancient World) but I conclude the same as I do here: this is well worth reading.
Foster is a Shakespeare scholar and in his younger days he discovered an unrecognized piece by Shakespeare himself. His knowledge of literary detective work gained attention and others asked him to identify anonymous or pseudonymous sources. He outed the author of Primary Colors. The FBI asked for his help deciphering the Unabomber. The talking points of Bill Clinton’s impeachment brought him into the case of Monica Lewinsky. The searing poems of Wendy Tinasky called him to the defense of Thomas Pynchon. This is an amazing book.
While unfamiliar with most of the literature he discusses, his story remains compelling. The first chapter, introducing his methods, is impossibly good. Those of us who write mark ourselves by our style in ways that we don’t even consider. I took a different angle of looking at this book in my blog post on it (Sects and Violence in the Ancient World) but I conclude the same as I do here: this is well worth reading.
October 16, 2023
Wildly entertaining. Good-natured, conscientious, very funny in his understated "I told you so." The author's personality makes every page a pleasure. One of the best books I've read for expressing just what I find most relatable about other humans and how joyous it is to be human amongst them. It's less joyous, naturally, in the chapters dealing with tragic crimes. But because of the passages on literary sleuthing and human foibles and vanities, especially around Primary Colors and around "anonymous" reviewers who dismissed Foster's techniques (but whom he identified through those techniques), this might turn out to be one of my favorite books I've ever read.
March 31, 2024
The author describes varied times in his career where he took on the project to discover and prove who an anonymous author was (or wasn’t). Fascinating. He not only did this in literature (with Shakespeare and ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas), but was used by prosecutors and defenders. “The scientific analysis of a text--how mind and hand conspire to commit acts of writing—can reveal features as sharp and telling as anything this side of fingerprints and DNA. Although we disguise our writing voice, it can never be fully masked.”
"You are what you read. When you write, your reading leaves its imprint on the page. "
"You are what you read. When you write, your reading leaves its imprint on the page. "
November 17, 2021
An excellent book. I would not have expected discussions of obscure Shakespeare poetry or California Beat writers to be intriguing, but I found myself pulled in nonetheless. Foster's engaging writing style certainly helps.
My only critique (and this isn't so much Foster's fault) - it's probably best to familiarize oneself with major figures and events in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal before reading the chapter on the "Talking Points."
My only critique (and this isn't so much Foster's fault) - it's probably best to familiarize oneself with major figures and events in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal before reading the chapter on the "Talking Points."
July 7, 2017
I actually stopped reading this. Loved it at first, but it got kind of repetitive after the middle chapter, so I stopped reading. Still would recommend it.
September 22, 2013
This book is deserving of 3 1/2 stars instead of 3, but I decided not to round it up. There are several cases in which the author goes in-depth in this book: 1) his discovering a Shakespeare poem while in the upper echelons of college, 2) discovering the politico who wrote a fictional book based on the Clinton Whitehouse, 3) working on the Unabomber case, 4) trying to figure out who wrote the Talking Points memo during the Clinton administration, 5) the bag lady whom many claimed was world-renowned author Thomas Pynchon, and 6) who really wrote a famous Santa Clause poem.
My favorite case from the book is the author's discovery of a lost Shakespeare poem.
After the first two cases, the book got less exciting. The unabomber case was my least favorite and seemed to drag on with a lot of fluff and superfluous information that could have been left out. There's no doubt that the author is a very detailed person; he needs to be when presenting his evidence for one way or another on each case he takes on. But, all those details don't belong in a book. I know credibility is at issue, and I'm not dismissing any of his evidence presented in the book, but I am questioning whether he needed to go into as much detail about some of the cases. For example, the unabomber, which is probably the longest chapter in the book, went into details about a bomber from the earlier part of the twentieth century who had inspired the unabomber. That kind of detail was unnecessary and slowed the pace of the book. There was a lot of unnecessary detail that, if left out, could have still let the author make a good case without boring the reader and bogging the story down. These kinds of details is what made me give it a 3 star rating instead of a 4.
I skipped over the Santa Clause story, which was the last case, because I wasn't interested and just wanted to be done with the book. Perhaps had it been included earlier in the book then I would have read it, but after read through a lot of boring writing and extreme detail on some of those cases, I just wanted to be through with the book.
The author is clearly talented and skilled at what he does and I don't doubt that. I do wish he would have talked about the Jonbene Ramsey case in this book, but he explains why he can't.
My favorite case from the book is the author's discovery of a lost Shakespeare poem.
After the first two cases, the book got less exciting. The unabomber case was my least favorite and seemed to drag on with a lot of fluff and superfluous information that could have been left out. There's no doubt that the author is a very detailed person; he needs to be when presenting his evidence for one way or another on each case he takes on. But, all those details don't belong in a book. I know credibility is at issue, and I'm not dismissing any of his evidence presented in the book, but I am questioning whether he needed to go into as much detail about some of the cases. For example, the unabomber, which is probably the longest chapter in the book, went into details about a bomber from the earlier part of the twentieth century who had inspired the unabomber. That kind of detail was unnecessary and slowed the pace of the book. There was a lot of unnecessary detail that, if left out, could have still let the author make a good case without boring the reader and bogging the story down. These kinds of details is what made me give it a 3 star rating instead of a 4.
I skipped over the Santa Clause story, which was the last case, because I wasn't interested and just wanted to be done with the book. Perhaps had it been included earlier in the book then I would have read it, but after read through a lot of boring writing and extreme detail on some of those cases, I just wanted to be through with the book.
The author is clearly talented and skilled at what he does and I don't doubt that. I do wish he would have talked about the Jonbene Ramsey case in this book, but he explains why he can't.
June 13, 2010
Author Unknown: Tales of a Literary Detective by Don Foster is the account of the first literary attribution expert: how he came into the field, and some of the literary who-wrote-its he has unveiled. It is a little plodding through the preface and the first chapter, but really takes off when discussing modern day mysteries. This man has worked in every possible genre of literature: poetic (Shakespearean, no less), political, terrorist, down-right weird, and of course Clausian (Santa, that is).
One of the most interesting aspects of this book is the how of the process. He discusses, with specificity, the methods of discovering the author of a Questioned Document (i.e. one that is "anonymous"). The author's use of diction, structure, punctuation, and literary allusion are the main tricks of his trade. While he described this process, I considered my own use of these elements of style. I will most likely never write under anonymity, but if I do, I can only imagine I would be considerably easy to figure out. The way a writer writes is indeed a sort of fingerprint. No two authors are alike. Foster, of course, is also able to spot forgeries, so don't go trying to change just for the purpose of not being found out. Joe Klein of Newsweek found out the hard way when Foster outed him as the author of Primary Colors.
In the trenches of literary detective work, Foster has outed a long-dead eulogizer, a transgender-impersonating murderer, a reclusive author, skillful liars, and smarmy lawyers. It seems no one is safe from the detective's tools. Thankfully, he has used his talent for good, helping police investigators and FBI analysts determine the authors of various writing samples. This book is a great read for those who love thinking about the written word.
One of the most interesting aspects of this book is the how of the process. He discusses, with specificity, the methods of discovering the author of a Questioned Document (i.e. one that is "anonymous"). The author's use of diction, structure, punctuation, and literary allusion are the main tricks of his trade. While he described this process, I considered my own use of these elements of style. I will most likely never write under anonymity, but if I do, I can only imagine I would be considerably easy to figure out. The way a writer writes is indeed a sort of fingerprint. No two authors are alike. Foster, of course, is also able to spot forgeries, so don't go trying to change just for the purpose of not being found out. Joe Klein of Newsweek found out the hard way when Foster outed him as the author of Primary Colors.
In the trenches of literary detective work, Foster has outed a long-dead eulogizer, a transgender-impersonating murderer, a reclusive author, skillful liars, and smarmy lawyers. It seems no one is safe from the detective's tools. Thankfully, he has used his talent for good, helping police investigators and FBI analysts determine the authors of various writing samples. This book is a great read for those who love thinking about the written word.
April 18, 2014
I picked this one up because I saw a reference to Foster's work suggesting (he would say "proving") that Clement Clarke Moore didn't write "A Visit from St. Nicholas." I was interested in seeing his evidence, and while not conclusive, it seemed pretty convincing to me. The rest of the book, though, was less interesting. He describes in some detail his efforts to get a book published in which he provided a solution to the identity of "Mr. W.H." on the title page of Shakespeare's sonnets. His work was repeatedly rejected by publishers after the criticisms of "anonymous reviewers"--but then he applied the same techniques of detection and textual analysis he had used in the book to the reviews themselves, correctly identified the scholars who had written them, and confronted them. Needless to say, they were apparently offended and unimpressed by his diligence. Unfortunately for me he tells the story but doesn't really detail what characteristics enabled him to identify the scholars. He finally did get the Shakespeare book published, but his evidence, while somewhat convincing, is circumstantial; so it hasn't turned scholarship on its head.
July 12, 2019
This is a really good book that was fun, engaging, and surprising through every single chapter. I picked this book up thinking it was strictly about a professor attempting to prove an old unknown poem actually belonged to Shakespeare. Actually that is only the first 2 chapters or so. The book is really about this English Professor that has been used by the FBI, New York Times, and more to identify writers of everything from the Unabomber Manifesto, Ramsey Kidnapping, Primary Colors, OJ Simpson’s suicide note, and the Madeline McCann case.
As a person with a degree in English it was really interesting to see how an English professor in New England became involved in some of the biggest criminal cases in the country.
If you like Criminal Minds as a television show you will love this book, even if your last English class was in 10th grade. Anyone that is a student of Composition and Rhetoric will salivate over some of these chapters. Truly a fantastic read.
As a person with a degree in English it was really interesting to see how an English professor in New England became involved in some of the biggest criminal cases in the country.
If you like Criminal Minds as a television show you will love this book, even if your last English class was in 10th grade. Anyone that is a student of Composition and Rhetoric will salivate over some of these chapters. Truly a fantastic read.
August 30, 2012
The back cover of the book promises some terrific literary forensics, "In Author Unknown, Don Foster reveals a startling fact: since no two people use language in precisely the same way, our identities are encoded in our own language, in a kind of literary DNA." Sweet! And truly, the parts of the book detailing this process were great. I imagine most who choose to read this book are already impressed by the idea that our language can be traced (back to where we were exposed to the vocabulary and phrases) and mapped (because each of us has a different style). Language nerds will be pleased by these parts.
But the book also contains extended sections that don't mention literary or linguistic elements whatsoever. I understand getting a basic historical context on the document in question but meh, my attention started to wane in the Monica Lewinsky chapter, for example. Perhaps the reader would have benefited from less of this kind of exposition.
But the book also contains extended sections that don't mention literary or linguistic elements whatsoever. I understand getting a basic historical context on the document in question but meh, my attention started to wane in the Monica Lewinsky chapter, for example. Perhaps the reader would have benefited from less of this kind of exposition.
dnf
May 12, 2014I'm over a hundred pages into the book and I don't know if I'm going to be able to finish this one. It's so tedious and the author's own style of writng.. well it's just boring. So far I think he's spent way too much time talking about the Unibomber case - it just seems to be going on and on. He seems to be making the same points more than once.
I think this book could be fascinating if it had a different writer - perhaps Bill Bryson for instance.
It reads like a technical manual trying to be a novel and not quite making it. Sad because I love the whole idea and the concept of our writing styles being unique and identifiable.
I hate not finishing books.. but I don't know if I can take the boredom anymore. I'm hoping once the Unabomber bit is FINALLY over the book will pick up the pace a little bit.
I think this book could be fascinating if it had a different writer - perhaps Bill Bryson for instance.
It reads like a technical manual trying to be a novel and not quite making it. Sad because I love the whole idea and the concept of our writing styles being unique and identifiable.
I hate not finishing books.. but I don't know if I can take the boredom anymore. I'm hoping once the Unabomber bit is FINALLY over the book will pick up the pace a little bit.
May 15, 2012
This is Donald Foster’s hubristic autobiography about how he became an expert witness in identifying anonymous authors based on their writing style. His reputation crumbled shortly after publication when the key identification that led to all the latter opportunities was disproved. Foster does not cover this latter development, which came after publication of this book.
It is fun to read, entirely entertaining, and the latter identifications are not invalidated by the invalidation of the first, but given later events Foster comes across as far too full of himself and entirely over rated as a literary sleuth.
It is fun to read, entirely entertaining, and the latter identifications are not invalidated by the invalidation of the first, but given later events Foster comes across as far too full of himself and entirely over rated as a literary sleuth.
November 12, 2013
In this book the author explains how he became from being a university Shakespearian professor to a forensic authorship attributor, going through some of his major cases.
Except the chapter on the Clinton Affair, the rest of the book is a very interesting account of how idiolect gets constructed and how what people read influence what they write. Even though a basic knowledge of linguistics and some interest in the field is required to read this book, its style is a familiar and easy-going one which would get the reader hooked and interested from the Shakespearian attribution to the epilogue's last words.
Except the chapter on the Clinton Affair, the rest of the book is a very interesting account of how idiolect gets constructed and how what people read influence what they write. Even though a basic knowledge of linguistics and some interest in the field is required to read this book, its style is a familiar and easy-going one which would get the reader hooked and interested from the Shakespearian attribution to the epilogue's last words.
July 30, 2007
A good read for lovers of our language or would-be-terrorists. Foster answers some questions and raises others. I wish he could have access to the truly important documents of our time since I don't doubt his analytical method and skills. Should he publish another book I'd want less Shakespeare and T'was the Night Before Christmas and more Unibomber, Ramsey randsom note, Lewinsky talking points and the anthrax letters.
January 6, 2008
An interesting read that helped make clear that a person's writing style is as unique as their fingerprint. I enjoyed most of the book, except the part about Lewinski/Clinton and the talking points. That one seemed pretty obvious and it just drug on and on without being interesting. The poetry and mystery bits were great, but I don't think a second book is in order unless we have some great new cases that come along for Foster to help uncover.
March 24, 2008
Truly an amazing book--I've wanted to read this since it came out, and finally remembered to order it. I read the whole thing in one day and promptly loaned it to an acquaintance who teaches Freshman Comp. The cases Foster discussed were fascinating, the insider info was intriguing, the description of his own bewilderment at the sudden changes in his life were both poignant and funny, and the saga of "The Night Before Christmas" cheered my anti-Puritan little heart.
July 29, 2019
Great book on the relatively new science of literary forensics. College professor Don Foster got his start with his doctoral thesis on Shakespeare by discovering a hitherto unknown poem by the bard and then having to use internal evidence from the text to prove authorship, as no external evidence could be found to link the poem to the bard.
Foster went on to help solve the Unabomber case, as well as the authorship of Primary Colors and the Wanda Tinasky letters.
Foster went on to help solve the Unabomber case, as well as the authorship of Primary Colors and the Wanda Tinasky letters.
January 1, 2013
Foster does a superb job of describing his detective work in uncovering the authorship of several texts, including a new revelation about Clement C. Moore, the attributed author of "A Visit from St. Nicholas". An entertaining and page-turning romp through a literary detective's arsenal and methodology.
October 3, 2011
Fascinating as this is, I thought the chapters lasted just a little longer than my interest in each case. Even so, this an interesting book. Particularly if one is interested in what makes each writer's voice unique.
June 12, 2011
How does a professor of English invent the field of literary forensics? By analyzing a writer’s use of language, of course. Thus, Foster helped the FBI catch the infamous Unabomber, among many adventures. And you thought textual analysis and commentaries were useless!
June 28, 2011
Support for my theory that literary analysis is the highest form of thinking there is. Once you can analyze a passage of literature and write about it, you are ready for the world. Until then, stay in school, read another book. While you are at it, read Medical Detectives by Berton Roueche.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews