麻豆淫院

PERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE:

HURST, ISLAM, SCHULTZ, SEELENFREUND, AND CAPALDO

The prologue takes place in the outer commons of Willville, and afterwards in a restaurant near Bear Creek apartments, in the year 2011听础.顿.听听Hurst and Islam are mentioned on Schultz鈥檚听Facebook听as having come from Denver to room with Seelenfreund and himself.听 Little is known about them beyond the fact that Hurst adhered to a strong version of CU鈥檚 focus, as a walk-on candidate for the football team.听 He is thus a likely person to be interested in whether his perception that he will make the team would confirm that it is true that he will make it.

听听听听听听听听听听听

听

HURST.听听听听听听听听听听 听 ISLAM.

听

听 Hu.听听 Are you back from work for long Islam, or do you have to return to handle the equipment?

听 Is.听听 I鈥檓 done.听 No more practice today.听 Coach gave the team the afternoon off.听 I was actually looking for you back at the room.听 Care to go to McDonald鈥檚?

听听Hu.听听 After all the cookies you have eaten?听 Well, I can hardly say no.听 I have most of my day free now.

听 Is.听听 I had a crazy time with the team today.听 A couple guys got kicked off after they ditched a drug test, which counts the same as a failed one.听 CU now has a converted wide receiver at corner!

Hu.听听 That is just sad.听 Those boys need to get it together.

Is.听听 It did not make clean up any easier, that is for sure.听 When are you going to try out?听 Embree could probably use you.

Hu.听听 Well, it is a question of my knee right now.听 I don鈥檛 want to mess it up any more.听 I wish I just knew whether or not I should get surgery.

Is.听听 Well, if you heard Schultz and Capaldo going at it before, you might think you could answer that question pretty easily.

Hu.听听 How so?

Is.听听 Well, when we were at McDonald鈥檚 earlier, they started bickering.听 Capaldo said something about knowledge being determined by particular people, and Schultz erupted.听

Hu.听听 Capaldo? Really? Last I heard of him, he was getting into fights over at the Center for Community.听 Is the idea that if I come to think that I can play without surgery, then that would be true?

Is.听听 Sounds nice, I must say.听 I thought that was Capaldo鈥檚 point.听 But Schultz did not seem to accept it, and they parted rather angrily.

Hu.听听 I have plenty of time on my hands.听 Can you tell me about what happened?

Is.听听 I would, but my mind is frazzled from today鈥檚 practice.听 I don鈥檛 want to misrepresent either party in the discussion.听 However, I managed to videotape the diatribe, and I put it on YouTube.听 It鈥檚 starting to get some views, want to watch it?

Hu.听听 Sure, pull it up on your iPhone while I get a McRib.听 Care for one?

Is.听听 I鈥檒l have a McDouble.听 And some fries.听

听

The scene of the dialogue itself is a low-class restaurant in Boulder and the date shortly before the 45-2 drubbing CU suffered against Oregon on October 22, 2011听A.D.听Seelenfreund is a distinguished mathematics and M.C.D.B. major from Denver.听 Capaldo, an ex-high-school football player, is a friend of Islam, who is present in the background, talking with some friends.听 Capaldo is of a lower class known as Freshmen, and is at first eager to impress.

听

SCHULTZ.听听听听 SEELENFREUND.听听听听听 CAPALDO.

听

Sch.听听 Tutoring today was fun.听 Remember that cheerleader I told you about鈥攖he one I think is cute, even though she is in a sorority?听 She is doing a paper on relativism.听 She asked me what I thought about it!

Se.听听 Really?听 Did she think relativism was true or something?

Sch.听听 She thought so for a second, and I didn鈥檛 want to give it away immediately.听 So I told her why I think people fall into such patterns of thought鈥攏amely, because it is hard to tell unintelligent people that they are just wrong about something.听 So relativists try to play knowledge off in a conciliatory manner, saying that truth is what people think it is.

Se.听听 But as a philosophy major, you seem to have no problem telling people they are wrong.

Sch.听听 Well, I just have an advantage with regards to epistemology, so to speak.听 It is my duty! Plus, I love telling relativists that they are wrong, because they always have to agree with me that I am right.

Se.听听 Funny, that.听 I am sure society thanks you.

Sch.听听 Joking aside, I did manage to get her to go along with relativism for a minute.听 Want to hear the first argument I gave her?

Se.听听 Of course I would. We have plenty of time, seeing as Islam takes forever to eat.

Sch.听听 I said something about different people having different experiences, and given these unique experiences, it is impossible to make claims about what their experience really is.听 Given this subjectivity, it is just as impossible to criticize their beliefs about what is and is not true鈥攂ecause, after all, their beliefs arise from their unique experiences.

Se.听听 Hilarious!听 And she bought it?

Sch.听听 Well, I am her tutor.听 It is hard for me to recognize, at times, when instructors mislead me during their lectures鈥攁fter all, they are the ones imparting new information to me, especially when I don鈥檛 do my readings.听 So I do not fault her much for finding what I said to be true.

Se.听听 Still, relativism always struck me as outlandish.听 I mean, who can think that there are no objective facts?听 I must say, my field would never allow that.听 Imagine if, as a doctor, I could not prescribe medicine before I got my patient to believe it would work!听 Absurd.

Sch.听听 Well, once I argued for the other side, she quickly changed her viewpoint.

Se.听听 What did you say?

Sch.听听 鈥淥f course, if you start believing that truth is just what people think is true, you would not be a cheerleader if you stopped thinking you were one.鈥澨� She freaked out then, muttering something about how she had worked too hard to make the squad to let it be taken away so easily.

Se.听听 That was well refuted, indeed.

听

As the two were speaking, Capaldo had tried many times to voice his own thoughts on the matter, but he had been waved off by the two Sophomores as unlearned in the terminology.听 When they paused after what had last been said, however, his eagerness to please had been replaced by anger becoming of a coiled, wild beast, and remnants of Mcnuggets seemed to fly from his mouth as he erupted.

听

Ca.听听听Are you insane?听 What nonsense you two have paraded around as argument.听 If you really want to convince someone that relativism is false, don鈥檛 just agree with one another until you reach what you apparently have already concluded.听 You know very well it is easier to agree than to actually oppose one another until you reach a valuable end.听 Why don鈥檛 you give a real refutation, and this time not to a friend who will simply accept whatever it is you seek to determine before the argument has even been tested fairly, but to me, for I won鈥檛 accept such nonsense from you.

听

Schultz was visibly startled by the outburst, and when he did reply, his words were somewhat unsure.

听

Sch.听听 Don鈥檛 be so hard on us, Capaldo, for if Seelenfreund and I seemed sloppy in our refutation, it was not because we did not take the subject seriously.听 In fact, we have discussed this before, and so we were simply reaffirming what we both determined earlier; namely, that the idea that knowledge depends on what people think about it is false.

Ca.听听 I will not fall into your trap.听 Even now, I see how you seek to convince me of this with friendly words, but your argument now is just as fraught with difficulties as the one before it.听 You tell me that you know from some earlier discussion that such an account of knowledge is false, and yet again you give no real reasons towards this view.听 It seems as though I must come to your rescue, for I know the real reason behind your lack of ability.听 It is because what you seek to say, that truth is not determined by the individual, is the weaker view, whereas the strength of the matter really lies in what you term 鈥榬elativism.鈥櫶� For it is really the case that what people think is true is true for them, and what you think is true is true for you.听 There is no objective element of truth.听 You call yourself a philosophy major; it sounds to me like you should read up on Protagoras.

Sch.听听 Well Capaldo, if you insist upon the faultiness of the conversation I just had with Seelenfreund, I feel as though I must turn to address what you now tell me.听 I find it fitting to be asked to come to the defense of the refutation of relativism I have already put forth, and will gladly examine with you my reasons for holding it.听 In the process, we will see if your own viewpoint may yet be changed; I certainly see many objections that will interfere with your desire to maintain that relativism is correct.

Ca.听听 Yes, we will see about that鈥擨 think you will find that I am well versed in the ideas of Protagoras, and you will soon be forced to hold that all you thought about how truth operated does not apply to any beyond yourself.

Sch.听听 Come then, tell me this.听 What is it specifically that Protagoras tells us about knowledge?

Ca.听听 That knowledge is perception.

Sch.听听 Ah, an interesting doctrine.听 I will personally draw on my understanding of Plato in this matter, as I believe he is well versed in arguments against these types of theories.

Ca.听听 Very well.听 What does he, or you, have against the theory put forward by Protagoras and myself?

Sch.听听 Well, my first problem is that it seems to require that no person is wiser than another in any matter.听 It seems intuitive to say that a football player is wiser when it comes to the rules of the game than somebody here who flips burgers.听 Yet if we are to hold, as you say, that knowledge is perception, then no man could judge another鈥檚 experience better than they could their own.听 In such a situation, the only person able to determine the knowledge of a particular matter, and here we have football rules, would be each person for their own case.听 Generalizing on this principle, it seems that in all matters, the judgments of all persons are correct鈥攁nd so there is not one who is wiser than any other.听 We are all just correct.听 Is this really what you are seeking to hold?

Ca.听听 Why, you have supplied me with yet more ammunition to back up my theory, and it seems as though you have done so unwittingly.听 Yes, Schultz, this is what I am seeking to hold; I want to say that what people think to be true is indeed true for them.听 You say that a football player is wiser than a burger-flipper when it comes to the rules of football.听 I say not wiser in the sense that you mean, but better.听 These two come from vastly different experiences, experiences that are unique from all others.听 All the burger-flipper knows of the rules and understands to be true is all that will affect his experience of his life at that moment.听 Thus, his conception of the rules is true for him, because that truth holds throughout his own life and his own experiences.听 Nobody else can know what his own experiences are; they can only come to affect them.听 They cannot change the fact that it is his life that creates his own truth, but they can change the truths that are in his life.听 The fact that the truths change matters not; for if he comes to a new, comprehensive understanding of the rules, then that is the truth of his world at this new moment, but it does not change the truth of his past.听 For his truth is whatever is affecting his experience at that time, in his own world-view, and so it is impossible for any to say that his perceptions are wrong for him, just as much as it is impossible for us to say that we know what it is like to be him.

听听听听听听听听听听听 As for your wisdom objection, I would say that there is still a sense in which the football player is still wiser, simply because wisdom is not as closed a word as you may have thought it to be.听 You might think wisdom relates to more accurate and correct knowledge about a subject.听 However, I would say that wisdom really means the ability to change appearances to a state that is听better, which would lead a man to think things that are good.听 I think it is uncontroversial to say that some things are better to think than others, but that is not to say, as you seem to think, that they are听truer.听 Take our football player, for he is wiser in the sense that he will be better able to follow the rules, and more likely to foster agreement in his explanation of them.听 But I hold that our burger-flipper is in no way compromised in his听truth听when he thinks a touchdown is worth five points, because in his mind there is nothing jumping out at him and saying 鈥榃RONG鈥� when he holds this view; in the same sense it is impossible for someone to sincerely say 鈥淚 believe P, but P is false.鈥澨� As such, his perception here cohabitates with his current experience, and it is still true for him that a touchdown is worth five.听 However, this view might be bad in the sense that there are others that might threaten him about his truth, lambasting him as stupid or unversed in the importance of football, and so it is still within the power of a relativist to call his truth bad, and the football player wiser on the matter.听

Sch.听听 It seems that the only way for something to be false under relativism would be if someone were able to have a perception and, in that moment, use it to falsify that very same perception they are having.听

Ca.听听 Exactly.听 But that is impossible, which makes perfect sense, given that truth depends on the individual鈥檚 experience.听

Sch.听听 So could one frame your argument as one with premises and a conclusion?听 Tell me if this gets to what you are saying, namely, that a) nobody knows what another鈥檚 experience is like, b) we use our experience to form perceptions, which are necessary and sufficient for knowledge, c) knowledge is sufficient for truth, and finally d) thus, truth depends only on the individual, because others cannot say what a truth may be because we do not know what other individuals鈥� experience is like.听

Ca.听听 That is a good view of part of the argument, to be sure.

Sch.听听 Well, if I were to give you an example of a perception that would, in the same instance of having it, serve to falsify that perception, would you then retract your theory of relativism?

Ca.听听 Honestly, I do not see why I would have to.

Sch.听听 Let me explain myself then.听 Would you say that you could know something that is false?

Ca.听听 In the sense that I would know that a particular thing is false, or in the sense that there is something I know, thing X, and thing X is false?

Sch.听听 The latter.

Ca.听听 I would say no, considering the views of Protagoras and myself.听 For if I have come to perceive it, and thereby know it, then it must be true for me.

Sch.听听 Good.听 So, in such a sense, could you have a false perception?

Ca.听听 It would seem as though I could not.

Sch.听听 And by the same line of thinking, could you have a perception that, by being true, makes itself false?

Ca.听听 Well, if my perception were to make itself false, then it would again be false for me, and so again I say that such a perception is impossible.

Sch.听听 So it seems as though relativism requires you to say that there are no such perceptions.

Ca.听听 And indeed I would hold that there听补谤别苍鈥檛听any.

Sch.听听 Let us see about that then.听 Would you say that there are some people, like myself, that think you and Protagoras are wrong?

Ca.听听 Evidently.听 Furthermore, I would say that such a belief is true for you, although I wish you would come to see my side, for it is certainly the better one.听 It allows us to engage in a search, not for the truth, but for the best possible state of affairs鈥攐ne that eliminates the judgments of others, but allows for the possibility of the betterment of their viewpoints.

Sch.听听 That is an interesting idea, Capaldo, but right now I am concerned more with whether or not it is right.听 I would gladly search for this best possible state with you, but first I must come to believe for myself that such states can be found without appeal to objective truth.听 So it seems as though you must continue to convince me, through refutation of the arguments I present to you, if we are to come to that.

Ca.听听 Very well. Please continue.

Sch.听听 So relativism is wrong, by my standards.

Ca.听听 That鈥檚 what you think.

Sch.听听听Well put.听 Now, you believe in relativism, do you not?

Ca.听听 Yes, I think that relativism is right.

Sch.听听 So, in your head, you have a perception of both relativism being right, and that I think it is wrong, correct?

Ca.听听 I fail to see how twisting language into complicated locutions is going to help you, but yes.

Sch.听听 Just wait.听 Doesn鈥檛 your perception then require that a) I am correct in my perception that relativism is wrong, b) relativism is right by your perception, and so I am correct in thinking that, for me, relativism is wrong and thereby c) I am correct because relativism is wrong and I am correct because relativism is right?听 Is this not a demonstration of a perception that makes itself false by being true?

Ca.听听 Ah, I see what you are trying to do yet again!听 Through trickery and wordplay, you seek to turn my theory against me.听 But you have again failed your own directive, because your reasons have failed you for yet another time.听 You were right in saying that if there were a perception that, by my having it, were to make itself false, then relativism would not stand.听 But you have not done this鈥攜ou have just shown me a perception that leads itself to contradictions.听 And there is nothing wrong with that.

Sch.听听 Do you not know, though, that everything follows from a contradiction?

Ca.听听 That may well be true for you, but certainly not for me.听 You have given me a contradiction, but I see no purple dinosaurs stealing my Big Mac.听 The laws of physics have not broken and no French Fries float tantalizingly by, suspended in midair.听 I think your demonstration has just shown, if anything, that your viewpoint of relativism being false is worse than my viewpoint of it being true, because yours falls into contradictions but mine does not.

Sch.听听 You are ridiculous.听 Have you not heard of the law of noncontradiction?

Ca.听听 There you go again, trying to use听ad hominem听strategies to vouch for your theory.听 No, I have not, but I doubt it will save you either.

Sch.听听 It simply states that contradictions cannot exist in the world.听 Do you believe something can have both property A and not A?

Ca.听听 No, I do not.

Sch.听听 Well, no pun intended, but you just contradicted yourself.听 Earlier, you said the perception was a contradiction, but you saw no problem with its existence.听 Yet now you say that nothing can be both A and not A.

Ca.听听 Again, you are trying to surgically manipulate my words with a wrecking ball, and it does not lead to success in building a refutation.听 I do not believe that something can be A or not A, but that is my truth.听 The contradiction you gave me was your truth.听 For me, relativism is right, and by it I would say that your perception is restricted to yourself.听 So your claim that I believe in a contradiction is not true for me.

Sch.听听 Perhaps I must try another track to get to you.

Ca.听听 How many tracks must you try until you accept that my position is better?听 I am growing weary of this, and my body yearns for harsh physical contact in which a small ball is involved.

Sch.听听 Allow me one further attempt, and if your reply convinces me that it does not hold, then I will come to your view.听 However, you must accept that relativism is wrong if I can show you that my refutation does survive.听 If neither of us finds agreement, then we will part and end this discussion.

Ca.听听 Well, what is it?听 What fallacy of logic do you seek to employ now?

Sch.听听听Merely this.听 I am going to accept that relativism is true.

Ca.听听 A fine decision!

Sch.听听 Now let us look at whether claims we can make underneath this theory are compatible with it.听 I can certainly say that McDonald鈥檚 French fries smell good, can I not?

Ca.听听 Of course, with the implicit understanding that such a claim is only true for you.

Sch.听听 So now, can I claim that it is true for me that McDonald鈥檚 French fries smell good?

Ca.听听 Certainly, again there is no problem.听 I am glad that you have accepted relativism, as you said.

Sch.听 It is an assumption.听 Can I say that it is not true for you that it is true for me that McDonald鈥檚 French fries smell good, if that it is what you perceive?

Ca.听听 Your wordplay has about gotten me to the point of spitting my Dr. Pepper in your face.

Sch.听听 Your mouth already forced the future doctor out of the conversation. 听My last problem with relativism is that it restricts us to our own worlds of truth.听 My world cannot influence yours in manners of truth, but merely 鈥渕ake it better.鈥澨� However, if we are going to look at relativism through such an absolute lens, then these judgments that are supposed to be true for only us cannot be relativized into others鈥� worlds of truth.听 This is going to cause a problem.听 It seems that it is not relative that it is true for me that McDonald鈥檚 French Fries smell good.听 No matter who thinks such a thing, no perception can make it false that it is true for me that the Fries smell good, because such a perception, while it may be held by them, does not depend on them鈥攊t depends only on me.听 But your theory also wants to say that even that kind of knowledge is relative, because all knowledge is perception, and so relative to the perceiver.听 But these claims are inconsistent with each other, and there you have your contradiction that does not depend on 鈥渢ruth for.鈥� Now, either tell me that things have properties they do not have, or tell me relativism is wrong.

Ca.听听听I鈥檒l tell you that your method, Schultz, is one of theoretical wordplay that does not get to the heart of what I am saying.听 You seem to just not get it.听 And like we agreed to earlier, since you have not convinced me, I am going to leave you to rot within your bad viewpoint.听 I tried my best to convince you to switch to the better one, but it seems not everyone is willing to see the light.

Sch.听听 You say you are not convinced by me, yet you will not give me one reason as to why?

Ca.听听 No.听 You do not deserve it.听 Ask your doctor friend, I鈥檓 sure he will continue to agree with you.

听

Capaldo storms out of the restaurant, not even bothering to bring his McDonald鈥檚 Monopoly庐 game pieces with him.听 Schultz and Seelenfreund turn to each other.

听

Se.听听 That guy was outlandish.

Sch.听听 Honestly, I cannot wait to run into him again.听 My arguments were more than convincing.听 Next time I鈥檓 taking notes.

Se.听 I think Islam has it on video.

Sch.听 Really? I didn鈥檛 think he could eat and pay attention to other people at the same time.

听

Appendix I:

听

1.听听听Brand Type: bicycle

听听听听听听Attribute: faster

a.听听 /tit蓹n/

b.听听 /tut蓹n/

c.听听 /t蓱t蓹n/

d.听听听听 /t忙t蓹n/

听

2.听听听Brand type: Cell phone

听听听听听听Attribute: smaller

a.听听 /k蓱t蓺/

b.听听 /k忙t蓺/

c.听听 /kit蓺/

d.听听 /kut蓺/

听

3.听听Brand type: blanket

听听听听听听Attribute: warmer

a.听听 /pit蓹m/

b.听听 /p蓱t蓹m/

c.听听 /p忙t蓹m/

d.听听 /put蓹m/

听

4.听听听Brand type: Ketchup

听听听听听听Attribute: thicker

a.听听 /puk蓹b/

b.听听 /p蓱k蓹b/

c.听听 /p忙k蓹b/

d.听听 /pik蓹b/

听

5.听听听Brand Type: Paper towel

听听听听听听Attribute: stronger

a.听听 /t忙k蓹d/

b.听听 /tik蓹d/

c.听听 /tuk蓹d/

d.听听听听 /t蓱k蓹d/

听

6.听听听Brand type:听jewelry

听听听听听听Attribute:听prettier

a.听听 /kup蓹l/

b.听听 /k蓱p蓹l/

c.听听 /kip蓹l/听

d.听听听听 /k忙p蓹l/

听

Stimuli

听

7.听听听Brand Type: teddy bear

听听听听听听Attribute: friendlier

a.听听 /t忙p蓹n/

b.听听 /tup蓹n/

c.听听 /tip蓹n/

d.听听 /t蓱p蓹n/

In 1984, free-lance writer William Chamberlain and program analyst Thomas Etter developed Racter, short for raconteur, a computer program that developed poetry (Ledbetter 39). In the same year, Racter鈥檚 creations were compiled into the first book of computer poetry entitled听The Policeman鈥檚 Beard is Half Constructed.听This book includes poetry, prose, dialogue, and even conversations with its programmers. Though novel for its time, the beginnings of computer-generated poetry actually took form several decades earlier in 1950鈥檚 and 60鈥檚 France when the literary method of Oulipo was born. Begun by Raymond Queneau and Francois Le Lionnais, Oulipo, short for 鈥淥uvroir de Litterature Potentielle,鈥� stands counter to a traditional and romanticized view of literature that emphasizes personal inspiration and authorial genius; instead Oulipo embodies a systematic, mechanical, and algorithmic approach to writing, creating interesting works by highlighting the tension between structure and aberration. 听Oulipo, with its use of formal constraints, focus on literature in its potential state, and playful nature, parallels many aspects of Racter鈥檚 poetry, and as such becomes a useful tool to help us read and analyze Racter鈥檚 and other computer generated poetry. Readers of Oulipo also face similar frustrations as readers of Racter in that Oulipian works de-emphasize the importance of authorial intent. Reading Racter in the light of Oulipo helps us redefine the author not as one solely responsible for the work, but as one who assembles and sets the work in motion, freeing readers from the idea that an author ultimately controls a work鈥檚 meaning.

Oulipo and Racter鈥檚 poetry pose similar problems for readers because the works are separated from an author and the human mind. When readers confront a conventional work, they expect the text to make sense because they assume an educated and thinking author deliberately crafted the language. If the work does not immediately make sense, as in the case of much figurative and poetic language, the reader will work to understand it based on this same assumption of authorial intent. This need for an intending author is so strong that readers鈥� first instinct upon reading Racter鈥檚 work is to assume that the computer must somehow be thinking. In听The Policeman鈥檚 Beard is Half Constructed,听readers will come across lines like, 鈥淢ore than iron, more than lead, more than gold I need electricity. / I need it more than I need lamb or pork or lettuce or cucumber. / I need it for my dreams鈥� (Racter). Such lines are troubling because the computer refers to itself as 鈥淚鈥�, and the work as a whole is self-reflexive. The computer seems to be aware that, unlike humans who need food to live, it needs electricity in order to function and to feed its 鈥渄reams,鈥� which could be interpreted as these very lines or Racter鈥檚 poetic ability in general. When readers learn that Racter is merely a computer program and cannot think at all, the value of Racter鈥檚 poetry comes into question. They feel duped into believing the lines have meaning, when no meaning was consciously intended by a human author.

Similarly, Oulipian writings trouble readers鈥� expectations about the role of the author in relation to their work. Consider a key Oulipian work by Raymond Queneau titled 鈥淐ent Mille Milliards de Poemes鈥� or 鈥淥ne Hundred Million Poems.鈥� For this work, Queneau wrote ten sonnets in which the reader can substitute any line of the same number for any other line. The final result is 1014听possible sonnets (Motte 3). According to Queneau鈥檚 own calculations, it would take the average reader over one million centuries to read the entire work (Motte 3). If no one reader (or even several readers) could discover all possible sonnets, obviously Queneau himself could not have either. So while the poem begins with intention, it quickly degenerates into random combinations of lines. Critics of both Oulipo and computer-generated poetry cite this apparent lack of thought as problematic: 鈥渨here certain individuals see an example of original, conscious, and lucid poetic innovation, others will see only empty acrobatics, pretension, and literary madness鈥� (Motte 3). Skeptics argue that Racter and Queneau are only literary magicians, manipulating symbols to simulate writing that has no literary value. 听

In order to appreciate computer-generated poetry and Oulipo; however, it is necessary to understand method and algorithm as a type of thought, an intention in itself. This symbol manipulation is not 鈥渆mpty acrobatics鈥�, but a conscious creative choice, (perhaps the only creative choice that authors are free to make.) One hallmark of Oulipo is its use of formal constraints. Oulipian writers work within strict boundaries, relying on devices like lipograms, palindromes, or in Queneau鈥檚 case, the sonnet (Motte 11). The belief is that strict adherence to a constraint allows a greater freedom for aberrations or problems in the structure to surface and add interest to the work. In this way, highly structured Oulipian works anticipate formulaic computer poems. Like a dedicated Oulipian writer, Racter can only create poems according to the rules of its design. As journalist James Ledbetter explains, Racter is programmed to 鈥渃onjugate regular and irregular verbs, provide the correct antecedents for nouns and pronouns, and determine the form of its own output鈥� (Ledbetter 39). By generating and regenerating phrases of text, Racter creates poems with coherent subjects and themes (Ledbetter 39). The explicit use of rigid constraints in both Oulipo and computer generated poetry takes the emphasis off the author鈥檚 personal inspiration. As Queneau explains, 鈥淭he classical playwright who writes his tragedies observing a certain number of familiar rules is freer than the poet who writes that which comes into his head and is a slave of other rules of which he is ignorant鈥� (qtd. in Motte 18). The point is that all authors write under some type of constraint whether they realize it or not. Personal genius is an illusion. The real skill comes in mastering the use of a constraint to create interesting works, as both Queneau and Racter have succeeded in doing.

A second characteristic of Oulipo and Racter鈥檚 poetry is potentiality, a concept which positions the author as one who does not have ultimate control over the text. 听Oulipo as 鈥減otential literature鈥� is interested in writing that could be, in the echoes of unwritten words that written words cause.听 Queneau鈥檚 鈥淐ent Mille Milliards de Poemes鈥� is a prime example of this concept. This poem consists of only ten written poems but of 1014poems that could be. Queneau himself does not control the poems that听can听exist. He only controls the poems that听do听exist, the original ten. However, his writing of ten poems in a strict formula allows almost infinite other works to be available, should one go to the trouble of arranging them. It is important to emphasize that potentiality is not the same as arbitrariness. Oulipian Claude Berge put it nicely: 鈥淧otentiality is uncertain, but not a matter of chance. We know perfectly well everything that can happen, but we don鈥檛 know whether it will happen鈥� (qtd. in Motte 17). On one hand, the author is fully in control of the fact that potentials can exist. On the other hand, the author is not in control of those potentials. This holds true for Racter鈥檚 poems as well. By programming Racter, Chamberlain and Etter have set up a system in which potential works can exist. Though the way Racter writes is controlled, it is impossible to predict whether a certain phrase will occur or what text will be generated at all. So while Racter鈥檚 poems may appear to be random, they are rather the result of consciously intended potentials coming into existence.

Oulipo and computer-generated poetry also share distinct qualities of playfulness in which the relationship of the writer and reader to the work is fluid. As Warren Motte points out in his introduction to Oulipian tenants, 鈥淭he Oulipian text is quite explicitly offered as a game, as a system of ludic exchange between author and reader鈥� (20). Queneau鈥檚 poem becomes rather like a giant puzzle, daring the reader to take on the challenge of reading. Computer-generated poetry also includes play in the form of blazon confrontations from the text and semantic twists. On the back cover of听The Policeman鈥檚 Beard is Half Constructed, Racter states clearly, 鈥淭his book is about delight and satisfaction and joy鈥�This is because champagne, seltzer, happiness, commitment, conflict, and tragedy are all in this volume鈥� (Racter). In these lines, the challenge is not to construct poems out of potentials, as it is with Queneau鈥檚 work, but to face the assembled potentials, to face words greatly disconnected from human agency. In both Oulipo and Racter鈥檚 poetry, the challenge is simply, 鈥淩ead.鈥� Meaning from the text is not one-sided. That is, it demands participation from the reader in order to have full meaning. Motte titles his section about Oulipian play 鈥淪criptor Ludens, Lector Ludens,鈥� an apt title for a fluid relationship between writer and reader (20). The parallelism in the phrase, 鈥渢he writer playing, the reader playing鈥� makes it evident that it is the duty of both writer and reader to explore the puzzle of the text. Once readers acknowledge that they too are responsible for creating meaning, the anxiety of the issue of authorial intent lessens. The writer only assembles the work. It is the reader鈥檚 job to interpret it.

In conjunction with Oulipo鈥檚 formal constraints, potentiality, and playfulness arises the notion of the author as crafter, not creator, a distinction that is key for reading computer-generated poetry. 鈥淥uvroir de Litterature Potentielle,鈥� from which the abbreviation Oulipo is formed, translates to 鈥渢he workroom of potential literature鈥� (Motte 9). 鈥淥uvroir鈥� carries connotations of craftsmanship and hobby. Indeed, the word is used in French to describe a room where nuns work or where well-to-do women hold their sewing circles (Motte 9). The choice of 鈥渙uvroir鈥� over a loftier term is a deliberate attempt by Oulipians to define their literature as the work of the artisan, separate from artistic genius. Canadian poet and critic Christian Bok explains Oulipian writing as 鈥渁utomatic, insofar as it results not from an aleatory impulse鈥�but from a mandatory purpose. Writing is itself a machine to be studied methodically and guided systematically, as if by science鈥� (Bok 64). In the case of computer-generated poetry, it is easy to understand writing as the 鈥渕andatory purpose鈥� of the computer program. To understand the role of the author of these works, we can substitute the word 鈥減rogrammer鈥� for 鈥渁rtisan.鈥� A programmer assembles pieces of code, and forms the framework of the text, while the computer fills in the words. The programmer guides the shape of the work but is distanced from it; thus the work can take on meanings independent of an author. Though traditional authors work much closer to their texts, envisioning them too as programmers helps rid us of the notion that the meaning of a text is fixed in its author. In Ledbetter鈥檚 words, the author of any work 鈥渋s no more responsible for the meaning of the message he produces than he is for the rules, or the fact that he is a coder鈥�his existence is dependent upon the manipulation of symbols over which he has no control鈥� (41). By making the role of the author as coder explicit, Oulipo and Racter鈥檚 poetry deconstruct traditional ideas about the source of meaning in a text. 听

Thinking of an author as an artisan or programmer allows us to read any work of literature, computer-generated or otherwise, with more sensitivity to the many layers of meaning available. When we critique a work based on the intent of the author who wrote it, we assume that all meaning in the work is tied to the author, and that the author is responsible for all meaning produced. We also create a persona for the author that does not necessarily reflect their actual self. We can create an idea of Queneau by reading his body of work and learning about his life and philosophies, but even with this researched picture we can鈥檛 be sure of what he 鈥渋ntended鈥� when he wrote his ten sonnets. In the case of the 1014听potential sonnets, we are less able to tie Queneau鈥檚 intention to the work. When we consider Racter, the 鈥渁uthor鈥� is even more removed, existing only as a programmer who set the computer in motion. There is no human mind to directly connect to the words; therefore, there is no authorial persona to construct. As Ledbetter points out, 鈥渂y continuing to point to authorial intention as the origin of meaning, we conceal the fact that production of meaning is the project of the task of reading鈥� (41). In fact, the very creation of an author-persona points to the fact that the meaning of a text is centered in the reader, not the writer. This persona does not exist except in the imagination of the reader. To elaborate on Motte鈥檚 Latin, we can think of making meaning in this way: scribat scriptor, legat lector鈥攍et the writer write and the reader read. 听The reader must recognize that to tie all responsibility for meaning to the author is to shirk their own responsibility. They must engage with the text, they must play the game, arrange the puzzle. This parallel responsibility between writer and reader exists for all works, but Oulipo and computer-generated poetry make this relationship extreme and explicit. By distancing the role of the author, Racter鈥檚 poems force the reader 鈥渢o confront the processes by which they derive meaning鈥� (Ledbetter 40). The reader recognizes Racter鈥檚 poems as literature not because they are filled with authorial inspiration, but because the poems hold the potential for meaning through formulaic structure and semantic playfulness. Once we become comfortable with the idea that the author as a programmer simply creates a space for meaning to exist, we can read all works of literature with more verve. When we encounter the lines, 鈥淎 tree or shrub can grow and bloom. I am always the same. But I am clever,鈥� we need not be afraid to throw ourselves into the puzzle and the challenge. We will say, 鈥淪o you are, Racter.鈥� And we will keep reading.

听

听

Works Cited

Bok, Christian. "French Oulipianism: A 'Pataphysics of Mathetic Expression."听'Pataphysics: The Poetics of an Imaginary Science. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2002. 64-80. Print.

Ledbetter, James.听 (1986,听August). Racter, the poetic computer: The case of the disappearing author.听The New Republic (pre-1988),听195(006),听39.听 Retrieved November 3, 2011, from ProQuest Central. (Document ID:听45745321).

Motte, Warren F.听Oulipo: A Primer of Potential Literature. Normal: Dalkey Archive听 Press, 1998. Print.

Racter.听The Policeman's Beard is Half Constructed. New York: Warner Books, 1984. Print.

(Back to top)