Writing is abundantly difficult without artificial constraints. Adding arbitrary limits to what you may scrawl -- such as to abandon that most common, fifth, symbol of our traditional Latin orthography, or lay down only so many words within pairs of stops -- without doing so ghastly an injury to grammar or signification as to crowd out all worth is in my opinion too hard to do. You may not concur; if not, visit this for compositions surpassing this slight try. You can add your own, too.
(OK, so that was a plug. I'm no Oulipo fan, particularly. But thanks to Mark for drawing it to my sight.)
Comments
Posted by Nick, Wednesday, 24 March 2004 21:33 (link):
Having thought about doing this, it is obviously difficult, so my contribution in this location shall consist only of this opinion.
Posted by Anthony, Friday, 26 March 2004 15:48 (link):
It’s bollocks though, isn’t it? Why go to the point of not using a particular symbol? Writing is primarily a tool of communication so, if it’s working, why fix it? Now, stop all this pompous rubbish and publish a post about statistics with a dinky graph – you know, sort of stuff you normally find on Chris Lightfoot’s blog.
Oh damn, unwittingly this contribution too conforms with your arbitary standard. Pah!
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Friday, 26 March 2004 17:05 (link):
Oh my. Why must so many contributions follow a common topic? A graph, no doubt, may turn up, following my holiday.
Posted by Broin, Tuesday, 30 March 2004 16:12 (link):
I got a lot of gratification from this book by Mark Dunn which, at its lipogrammatic climax, has virtually no symbols of traditional Latin orthography in it at all.
Post a new comment.
Comments copyright (c) contributors and available under a Creative Commons License. See also the comments policy.