Alan Turing's Gay Short Story 'Pryce's Buoy' Made Public at King's College, Cambridge

Archivists at King's College, Cambridge, and Professor Sarah Dillon of Cambridge's English faculty have made public a previously little-examined short story by Alan Turing titled "Pryce's Buoy," a six-page handwritten fragment described as an autofictional gay short story. The story and its transcription were released on or around July 24, 2026, alongside an academic paper analyzing the work in The Review of English Studies, titled "Pryce's Buoy: Alan Turing's Autofictional Short Story" (Cambridge University; Phys.org).
Turing wrote "Pryce's Buoy" in the year following his 1952 arrest for gross indecency — the conviction that led to his chemical castration and, by the account of most historians, contributed to his death by cyanide poisoning in 1954 (The Guardian). The manuscript is held among the Turing papers at King's College, where it has remained available to researchers though largely unstudied in literary terms until now (Cambridge University; Phys.org).
Professor Dillon transcribed and studied the fragment, identifying it as autofiction — a mode in which the author draws heavily on autobiographical material while fictionalizing elements of setting, character, and plot. The story's central character is inspired by a fellow Bletchley Park veteran, though the individual's identity has not been disclosed in the public materials released this week (Cambridge University). The Cambridge announcement describes the story as revealing a "fun, cheeky" side of Turing, a quality largely absent from the public record, which tends to emphasize either his mathematical and cryptographic achievements or the circumstances of his persecution (Cambridge University).
The convergence of a creative text, a scholarly transcription, and a peer-reviewed literary analysis marks an unusual moment for Turing studies. The field has long operated along two relatively separate tracks: the technical legacy — computability, the Turing test, Bletchley Park cryptanalysis — and the biographical and legal history centered on his prosecution under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885. "Pryce's Buoy" sits at the intersection of both. It is a creative work produced under the direct shadow of that prosecution, and it draws its characters from Turing's wartime and postwar social circle.
The autofictional designation matters here. Turing was not writing a confession or a polemic. The fragment fictionalizes, which means the text cannot be read as straightforward autobiography. Dillon's analysis in The Review of English Studies provides the scholarly framework for distinguishing what the story draws from lived experience and what it transforms. For researchers working on Turing's biography, the text offers a potential counterweight to the predominantly external record — court documents, government files, professional correspondence — that has shaped public understanding of his interior life. For literary scholars, it adds a primary text to the small body of creative writing by major twentieth-century scientists.
The timing of the work's composition is its most consequential contextual fact. Written in the aftermath of a criminal conviction that stripped Turing of his security clearance and imposed a regime of estrogen injections, "Pryce's Buoy" is a creative act undertaken under conditions of state persecution. The description of the story as "fun" and "cheeky" sits in productive tension with that context. Whether the tone represents defiance, compartmentalization, or something more complicated is a question the fragment raises but cannot, on its own, resolve.
What the publication does make available is the text itself, the transcription, and Dillon's scholarly apparatus. Researchers can now engage directly with the manuscript rather than relying on its existence as a footnote in Turing biographies. The story's connection to a named — if not publicly identified — Bletchley Park colleague also opens a line of inquiry into Turing's postwar relationships, a period less thoroughly documented than his wartime and pre-war work (Cambridge University).


