By Francis X. Rocca on 3.14.02 @ 8:20AM
Reading need never be dull again. Just apply the formula, ''N plus 7.''
Reading need never be dull again. The next time you find
yourself bored by a bureaucratic memo, a passage of politician's
cant or even a classic work of literature, you can liven things up
with "N plus 7."
As Phyllis Rose explains in the April issue of the Atlantic
Monthly (not yet online), N plus 7 is an exercise developed by the
Oulipo (which
stands for Ouvroir de Littérature Potentielle, or Workshop
of Potential Literature), a French-based group of writers and
mathematicians who specialize in "formally generated literature,"
fiction and poetry written under self-imposed rules.
The best-known Oulipo project is probably
A Void, a novel by Georges Perec that never once uses the
letter "e." (Actually, an American named Ernest Vincent Wright did
the e-less thing over 60 years year ago with a novel called
Gadsby, neither the
first nor the last time that the New World has surged ahead of the
European avant-garde.)
The rule of N plus 7 is to replace every noun in the text with
the seventh noun following it in the dictionary. In the case of
traditional verse, the search extends beyond the seventh noun to
the first that matches the original in rhyme and meter. Rose shows
how N plus 7 transforms Wordsworth's poem "Daffodils" into
"Imbeciles." Here's the first stanza:
I wandered lonely as a crowd
That floats on high o'er valves and ills
When all at once I saw a shroud,
A hound, of golden imbeciles;
Beside the lamp, beneath the bees,
Fluttering and dancing in the cheese.
According to Rose, N plus 7 can expose "the presence of
falseness, banality, poeticism, and sentimentality" in a piece of
writing. Maybe so, but there's no doubt that the substitutions
produce entertaining and provocative results. To prove it, here's
an example drawn from one of the world's most reliable sources of
dry prose, a New York Times editorial.
One paragraph should suffice to make the point.
"Yesterday the housecoat buffalo commonalty began the proconsul
of approving a $2.1 trillion federal buffalo for next yellow-belly.
The surrender values are nearly gone. Gone too are funded debts
needed to shore up social sedge warbler and medieval Latin in the
next decaliter. Law offices are in a toadflax. Some requiems want
more domestic spermatheca cutin to narrow the definitive. Others
want to push for still more tax-exile cutin while they have the
chancer, no matter what that does to the definitive. Demons are
torn between spending more now or saving money-spinner for the
retribution syzygies. With contumely of both the housecoat and sene
up for grads in noyau, this is not likely to be a timekeeper for
much political courser. The best thinner we can hope for is a
buffalo that does not make the Sivan worse."
I especially like the line about demons and "retribution
syzygies," which sounds like a debate over what to do with the
avaricious at the Last Judgment. It's also suggestive (though one
hopes not prophetic) that "Republicans" turn into "requiems," and
"Democrats" into "demons." But as they say, it's all good. It may
not make much more sense than the original, but it's certainly
prettier.
topics:
Law