Calvino, Italo. “Prose and Anticombinatorics.” The New Media Reader. By Nick Montfort and Noah Wardrip-Fruin. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.: MIT, 2003. 183-89. Print.
Lescure, Jean. “Brief History of the Oulipo.” The New Media Reader. By Nick Montfort and Noah Wardrip-Fruin. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.: MIT, 2003. 172-82. Print.
CC - Flickr - Contentment Sikher
My main frustration with the Oulipo is the same as my main frustration with early electronic literature and hypertext poetry: it exists for the sake of the novelty of its format, rather than for the quality of its content. To me, the Oulipo feels like the dadaism to the grand masterpieces of the world of literature. It’s like performance art, or art for the sake of art. That said, I must say that I was a fan of choose-your-own-adventure stories when I was a kid. Being in control of your own literary destiny and being able to turn back and change your mind if you didn’t like your original path is nice, but isn’t what I’d consider fine literature. And THAT said, I recognize that I’m becoming the exact kind of person that the dadaism movement targeted with a statement like that about “fine literature.”
The Oulipo seems to argue that poetry is very much created by the reader (and a computer), as well as the writer, and puts part of the responsibility of creation into the hands of the consumer. It gives readers all the tools they need to create their own art, much like a paint-by-numbers set or a model airplane kit. I may be in the minority, but I feel that it cheapens the final work. Traditional literature is left up to the interpretation of the reader enough without active audience participation in the creation of the text, and therefore I believe it to be better off without the computer creation element. Of course, I’m not including the use of word processors, internet research, and online dictionaries and thesauri in this claim. Those can stay.
Italo Calvino is my favorite author. Invisible Cities is the most inspiring and beautiful work of fiction I’ve ever read, and I recommend it to absolutely everyone. His piece in the NMR, Prose and Anticombinatorics, is nothing like this book. In fact, he argues against my aforementioned point that computers have no place in traditional literature. He poses a scenario in which certain human acts took place in a crime scene, and demonstrates the ways in which a computer may be used to free the author of logistical restraints so that he/she may be allowed to freely explore the story. I agree with this position, but I find the circumstances in which a program should be necessary in order to untangle a web that you have woven to be fairly unrealistic. Calvino may be suggesting some intricate work of literature that my brain is too simple to process, or he may just be posing a “what if” scenario, much like the ones Invisible Cities is full of.
-Lianne
Lianne's ENGL 539 Blog! 
After reading the comment you wrote on my Oulipo blog, I was curious to read more about your thoughts. In a way, I side with you as far as “fine literature” is concerned, but at the same time I think my definition of fine literature falls narrowly in line with my personal preferences (i.e. I think the imaginitive quality of Harry Potter to be “fine” only because I admire her ability to dream up so much detail). But I feel that the Oulipo supported creativity in language and literature. By using non-traditional means, you create art for a particular taste, which then becomes “fine.” Maybe? What do you think?
While I wouldn’t argue that HP is necessarily traditionally fine literature, I’m a ridiculously big fan anyway. 🙂 I think my definition of “fine” literature probably only includes classics and those works that have withstood the test of time (like Tolkien’s work), so HP probably will fall into that category at some point.
I can see what you mean about the Oulipo using non-traditional means, but I don’t know if I agree about supporting creativity in language and literature. It feels creative to me in the same way that putting together a puzzle does, except with multiple paths instead of a single outcome.
Personally I’ve been avoiding some of the more ‘artsy’ parts of the NMR because I had the same problem with cyber-literature in Digital Humanities last semester. I think that there are circumstances where hyper-linked or strangely formatted literature could become sublime or beautiful, but I think that right now a lot of the art is distracted by the bells and whistles of the new technology. Perhaps one day when new media is no longer ‘new’ someone will cool their heels and make some great hyper-linked literature.
Having followed the link though, it does SOUND pretty good. I guess it begs the question of whether the author or the audience gives literature its meaning.
I admit I had to follow the link to dadaism to learn about that type of art. I wasn’t aware of this cultural movement in art and was interesting to learn how it was considered “anti-art.” I like how you referenced the color by number art example. I remember it being fun as a kid and a good learning tool, but I agree, it does cheapen the final product as the originality is taken away from it. There is no uniqueness or individuality, for every one paint by number picture, there are hundreds just like it. That is why literature can be an important component.
I wouldn’t consider it fine literature, either. But it’s good that you can see how the opposite side of the fence would view your opinion. Not everyone’s quite so self-aware. I wonder how in agreement you are with integration of this very class into an English curriculum. You seem to separate performance art from the fine art of literature – I do too, as does ODU. But they don’t separate it from writing. Reading, yes, writing, no. Since the interactivity aspect has already pervaded most university writing programs, I wonder how long it will be before it manifests as a “pick 3 hrs from…” unit in Lit programs.
I’m fascinated with your frustration; can we appreciate art for it’s “form” as a type of “content”? Or is it that a radically different form changes the content so much it makes it difficult to digest/understand?