Actually this brings to mind an interesting software application. A word processor designed for composing really long anagrams. You read in the text to be anagrammed initially, and the word processor calculates the number of each letter, then lists the numbers of uses in a table in a status bar somewhere. Then you can type in text, just like in a regular word processor, but every time you hit a letter, the number next to the letter decreases -- deleted it, and it goes back up. Type too many, and the number turns negative. The object, of course, is to get all the numbers down to zero, and then you've got an anagram.

With really long text, it probably wouldn't be *terribly* hard to make an anagram of, say, the entire text of Hamlet, because by the time you got to the end of what you're writing, where you have to start thinking about tweaking the letter frequencies so it all comes out right, there's so much text already written that you can tweak as necessary. In this manner, you could theoretically write a commentary on Hamlet that is an anagram itself of Hamlet. Before computers, this would have been extremely tedious and impractical. I can see it all now. The commentary would end: "And if the wording of this document seems awkward at times, please excuse me; for this commentary to be an anagram of the play itself, which it most assuredly is, small wording sacrifices had to be made." Think of how cool it would be to finish reading a Hamlet commentary that ended like that? That would RULE.

Right here, I was tempted to say something like, "Either that or I'm way too tired," but NO! I refuse to cheapen my cool idea with a half-hearted attempt at humor designed solely to protect my ego from potential peer rejection! It *IS* a ruling idea!