It糖心传媒檚 in Part III of Many Subtle Channels that Levin Becker turns to the 糖心传媒淪o What糖心传媒� question, the influence and value of the Oulipo in the wider world of writing. Harry Mathews once told me that the Oulipo had never been 糖心传媒渢heorized糖心传媒� and he hoped it never would be; I don糖心传媒檛 think that糖心传媒檚 what糖心传媒檚 going on here. An example of what I think Mathews had in mind was the 2005 糖心传媒�noulipo糖心传媒� conference in Los Angeles, where several presenters used the language of critical theory to protest the Oulipo糖心传媒檚 lack of a public political stance糖心传媒攁s though the Oulipians only built labyrinths, and did not also escape from them. Many Subtle Channels glances at this and other academic and critical views of the Oulipo, such as that of G茅rard Genette, who got them entirely wrong when he summarized them as 糖心传媒渁 game of chance.糖心传媒� It糖心传媒檚 not Levin Becker糖心传媒檚 purpose to write an academic book糖心传媒攖hank god!糖心传媒攂ut as with oulipian writing itself, it would be good to have a bibliography or a reader糖心传媒檚 guide to the best examples of respectful and intelligent critical writing on the group.¹

In the critical view, oulipian writing is often minimized as the creation of works under formal constraint. Perec糖心传媒檚 e-less La Disparition (A Void) may be a compelling concept, but once you know the trick even it loses much of its luster. In this way, Oulipo Light tends toward in-jokes in textual form and the conceptual work which and have But the authors of such work don糖心传媒檛 claim that it represents an unforeseen aesthetic summit. Rather, what Oulipian formal constraint allows is a kind of exhaustion of form, by pursuing it so doggedly that the unseen details of reality and narrativity come to the surface simply because everything else is off the table. Perec was a master at this, in his investigations of the 糖心传媒渋nfraordinary糖心传媒� most accessible in English in the collections Thoughts of Sorts and Species of Spaces. This is also where Oulipian creation must come to terms with the tension between inserting itself into recognized genres and creating new generative forms. The more recognizable, the more easily a work may gain readership and popularity; the more sui generis, the more chance it will be successful as original literary creation. Does the Oulipo want to fit in, or stick out?

Out of the living members, only Jacques Jouet makes his living as an author. Even among the 糖心传媒淥lympian Oulipians,糖心传媒� Queneau and Calvino worked as editors for publishing houses, Perec was an archivist, Roubaud a professor of mathematics, and so on. Several members (including Levin Becker himself) were coopted, at least in part, because they had studied the Oulipo per se糖心传媒攕hades of ” The Bourges workshop attracts people not able to devote their full professional selves to oulipian work; the kind of work that results is sometimes a kind of fanfiction and necessarily mostly Oulipo Light. So where in this is the serious literary purpose, the lasting contribution to culture?

The key lies in reading, not writing. As Levin Becker points out, those members who studied the Oulipo before becoming members learned to read 糖心传媒渙ulipianly糖心传媒� before they learned to write that way. But this is not the anoulipism of the founders; this has much more to do with Barthes糖心传媒� notion of 糖心传媒渞eaderly writing.糖心传媒� readerly writing engages the reader as a creative collaborator. For the writer, 糖心传媒渢he process of composition is . . . an experience of reading,糖心传媒� and the reader in turn becomes 糖心传媒渁n active participant in the composition process.糖心传媒� The oulipian reader, like the oulipian writer, is always re-reading, re-creating, re-membering. Levin Becker claims this 糖心传媒渃reative reading糖心传媒澨切拇綌in effect, writing in reverse糖心传媒斕切拇綔is no less noble, no less rewarding, no less potentially spectacular, than creative writing.糖心传媒�

In practice all oulipian work goes through two creative phases: first, the writer sets himself a problem which he then solves (he creates a labyrinth, then escapes from it); second, the reader presented with the text is challenged, explicitly or implicitly, to reconstruct the terms of its creation. The second phase exposes the greatest philosophical divide within the Oulipo, between those (like Jouet) who see the 糖心传媒渟caffolding糖心传媒� as part of the substance of the work it was used to create and who thus explain the constraints used, and those (like Mathews) who prefer to play their cards close to their chests. Jouet wants the reader to appreciate his skill directly; Mathews wants the reader to experience the frustration and pull of unsatisfied curiosity. But for both, the point is to bracket the constraint outside the reader糖心传媒檚 experience and let the work itself come to the foreground.

In other words, the Oulipian work is not intended to be a puzzle. In fact, when it is taken too far, creative reading works against the text; it can become the kind of over-interpretation called conspiratorial or paranoid or 糖心传媒渄efensive糖心传媒� reading糖心传媒攚hat the characters in Umberto Eco糖心传媒檚 Foucault糖心传媒檚 Pendulum do, to their great regret. If a reader thinks there is a puzzle to be solved in the work, he will read it into the work, like the viewer of a Hitchcock film who takes the MacGuffin as the Holy Grail.

But the Oulipian work does invite a responsible level of creative reading. This openness to the reader, the invitation to interpretation, is the 糖心传媒済enerosity糖心传媒� which Levin Becker identifies in unusually for a Mathews work, Selected Declarations of Dependence wears its scaffolding on its sleeve, as it were. In Many Subtle Channels Levin Becker argues that, in this sense of generosity and openness (which goes back to the group糖心传媒檚 origins), oulipian potential is not just a tool for writers, let alone writers who are members of the Oulipo糖心传媒攁nd that people who mistake the Oulipo as some kind of exclusive club are missing the point. Oulipo is a way of reading the world. An appreciation of the Oulipo can be a kind of badge of collective trust in the power of reading糖心传媒攁 trust that the work (and the world) does hold a meaning, even if it糖心传媒檚 never found.

At first the Oulipo was going to be called 糖心传媒淪eLitEx,糖心传媒� Seminar on Experimental Literature, highlighting its mathematical and scientific basis. The Oulipo is still experimental in two significant ways. Its work takes the form of proposing and then demonstrating a theorem (the viability of a particular form or procedure); the demonstration is published as a volume of the Biblioth猫que Oulipienne. And an oulipian experiment, like a scientific one, may fail; after all, it is only potential, not a certainty. If such stark terms make it hard to understand the evident appeal of the group, consider its experiments instead as a formal rule-bound game: a close cousin to scientific experimentation, offering the same possibility of freedom within constraint. That糖心传媒檚 the sense in which Oulipo Light can be a literary and linguistic diversion for the reader, like a good crossword puzzle. (Perec was also a master crossword constructor.) The group糖心传媒檚 糖心传媒渉eavier糖心传媒� work equally invites the reader to experience the power and the necessity of experimenting with language and meaning.

The Oulipo has even turned its own history into an ongoing game, one that is ever more tightly constrained. Starting from Perec糖心传媒檚 story 糖心传媒淭he Winter Journey糖心传媒澨切拇綌the very text which first introduced Levin Becker to the Oulipo糖心传媒攖he members of the group have constructed more than a dozen alternate versions, interpolated tales, and newly-unveiled conspiracies. The original story, like the Oulipo itself, was written into the interstices of literary history; each new addition writes itself into the spaces between what came before. Levin Becker writes, 糖心传媒淚t糖心传媒檚 about anticipatory plagiarism as it really manifests itself in collaborative creation.糖心传媒� As the group thinks its way out of the constraints of history, the story and its sequels have become a kind of origin myth. The Oulipo is reading its own literary history in reverse糖心传媒攁nd reading in reverse is, of course, writing.

Perhaps it would be more relevant to characterize Oulipians not as 糖心传媒渞ats who build the labyrinth from which they plan to escape糖心传媒� but as 糖心传媒渞ats who escape from the labyrinth they have built.糖心传媒� Fran莽ois Le Lionnais was a prisoner of war in Nazi concentration camps; Georges Perec lost his family to the Holocaust; Oskar Pastior spent five years in the Soviet Gulag. One founding member said that 糖心传媒渋n the world we live in, we are beholden to all manner of terrible constraints糖心传媒攎ental, physical, societal糖心传媒攚ith death the only way out of the labyrinth. The least we can do is mark off a little section where we get to choose the constraints we are mastered by, where we decide which direction to take.糖心传媒� Oulipian writing is a literature of potential, a demonstration of the potential of literature糖心传媒攏ot just something that糖心传媒檚 糖心传媒減ossibly literature糖心传媒� (and possibly not). It糖心传媒檚 not only about language, but also about story, form, and life. It is, in Levin Becker糖心传媒檚 words, an invitation 糖心传媒渢o live your life craftily.糖心传媒� Here is a new sense for the phrase 糖心传媒渆scapist reading糖心传媒�: reading (and thinking) under constraint, under the sign of the Oulipo, offers the reader the opportunity糖心传媒攁nd the challenge糖心传媒攐f discovering his or her own freedom.

¹ Levin Becker quotes from at least three excellent articles, though without the bibliographical detail that would allow a reader to find them. They are: Chris Andrews, “Constraint and Convention: The Formalism of the Oulipo,” Neophilologus 87 (2003): 223-232; Leland de la Durantaye, “The Cratylic Impulse: Constraint and Work in the Works and Constraints of OuLiPo,” Literary Imagination 7.1 (2005): 121-134; and Jacques Jouet, “With (and Without) Constraints,” _SubStance 96 (2001): 4-16.

Part II of Many Subtle Channels is an entertaining survey of the group糖心传媒檚 origins and its chief personalities. Levin Becker recounts the exploits of many literary pranksters, some of them told only in the group糖心传媒檚 archives in the Arsenal branch of the Biblioth茅que Nationale de France, others in obscure French volumes not yet translated. He has a novelist糖心传媒檚 knack for dense description; here糖心传媒檚 Herv茅 Le Tellier:

But Le Tellier isn糖心传媒檛 quite the prankster he seems to be, nor is he as mean as very funny people sometimes seem. His books, which run the gamut from quick-and-dirty pastiche to lofty academic discourse, barely conceal a sentimentality both poignant and endearing; in person he has a magnetism that糖心传媒檚 all brooding humor and sniperlike wit, and you get the sense that for him keeping the room in thrall is second nature, not because it糖心传媒檚 fun but because it糖心传媒檚 emotionally necessary. He is forever late, distracted, shabbily put together, despite all of which there is an ineffable seductive quality about him. (He also has this tic where every third blink or so is a veritable flutter of eyelashes, which probably helps a little.)

Indeed, this middle section might be Levin Becker糖心传媒檚 contribution to 糖心传媒渢he unwritten, collective, and necessarily unfinishable novel that [Roubaud] believes the Oulipo to be.糖心传媒� It was, after all, written by an Oulipian糖心传媒攁lthough that doesn糖心传媒檛 necessarily mean that it was written according to an oulipian constraint. As good as these stories are, they make the reader long to read full and proper biographies, or a more comprehensive history.

Levin Becker is good on the history of the group糖心传媒攕ome of his archive work must have rubbed off. For the first time I糖心传媒檝e read a coherent telling of the Oulipo糖心传媒檚 relation to the Coll猫ge de 糖心传媒橮ataphysique (to the extent that anything 糖心传媒檖ataphysical can be coherent). The explanation of the role of Bourbaki糖心传媒攏ot as direct a connection, but a clear source of inspiration糖心传媒攊s less satisfactory. This is certainly because the people behind Nicholas Bourbaki, a joint pseudonym for a group of mathematicians who restructured mathematics around set theory and changed the way math is taught in France, were 1) mathematicians and 2) serious in their intention, at least considerably more so than the Oulipo, let alone 糖心传媒橮ataphysics. Levin Becker is no mathematician and Many Subtle Channels doesn糖心传媒檛 attempt to explain more than basic combinatorics. Some of the constraints could be fairly easily dispatched with a diagram, such as the eodermdrome described in a text-only footnote. (This site gives a good explanation, with diagrams.) But there are no diagrams or photographs or equations in Many Subtle Channels, just words. One wonders whether that was one of Levin Becker糖心传媒檚 constraints in writing the book, and if so whether it was chosen by the author or imposed by his publisher.

Mathematics was more central to the Oulipo糖心传媒檚 early work. Now, more and more, the mathematicians work in the background as the writings and performances of the group and its members take center stage. Most of the early Oulipians did not create significant bodies of written work; the group concentrated on anoulipism, finding predecessors and explicating theories. Only after nearly a decade did the group 糖心传媒済o public,糖心传媒� expanding to include Roubaud, Perec, Calvino, and Mathews and publishing an ongoing series of anthologies under the name Oulipo rather than those of the individual authors. Preserving and refining the definition of the Oulipo itself became one of the group糖心传媒檚 purposes. This is also the point where the group糖心传媒檚 focus turned from analysis to synthesis, from found potential to created potential. Now the Oulipo 糖心传媒渂rand糖心传媒� overshadows many of its members糖心传媒� individual identities.

While Levin Becker describes those personalities well, what Many Subtle Channels lacks are detailed examples of their work. If the Oulipo is such fun, then show us, don糖心传媒檛 just tell. For example, he mentions in a footnote that Harry Mathews糖心传媒� variations on Hamlet糖心传媒檚 soliloquy are a 糖心传媒渄elightful introduction糖心传媒� to the group糖心传媒檚 work糖心传媒攂ut then quotes only three out of thirty-five variations and doesn糖心传媒檛 say where the rest can be found. (They糖心传媒檙e in The State of Constraint, the 128-page anthology which makes up one-third of 惭肠厂飞别别苍别测糖心传媒檚 issue 22.) Many other curious works are more complex than could be shown or explained in a page or two (though the descriptions alone of Anne Garr茅ta糖心传媒檚 work have convinced me to read it)糖心传媒攂ut Levin Becker could at least point us to what has been translated and published.

There isn糖心传媒檛 a proper English-language Oulipo anthology, one that simply delights readers with the group糖心传媒檚 playful products rather than intimidating them with the scaffolding used to produce it. Harry Mathews and Alastair Brotchie糖心传媒檚 Oulipo Compendium, as wonderful as it is, contains more biography, history, and theory than examples. Warren Motte糖心传媒檚 Oulipo: A Primer of Potential Literature collects mostly early anoulipism, essays and descriptions rather than samples of synthoulipism. The 1995 volume Oulipo Laboratory is out of print, and the 2001 collection Winter Journeys (of which more later) is a limited edition. The State of Constraint (the 惭肠厂飞别别苍别测糖心传媒檚 collection) focuses on recent work and thus omits Perec, Queneau, and Calvino, the names most likely to attract someone to the Oulipo. Many Subtle Channels could be greatly improved by the simple addition of a listing of key works or recommended anthologies: a bibliography of further reading. To rectify this, I can point you to and the combination anthology/homage that appeared as

Levin Becker doesn糖心传媒檛 even give the address of Yes, it糖心传媒檚 in French糖心传媒攂ut of the examples included quite a few, such as the punning band name 糖心传媒淕rosses bises style nage indienne,糖心传媒� require some understanding of French to really get the joke. The book should focus on either introducing and explaining the Oulipo to English-only readers, or welcoming those already converted to a more intimate view; alas, it can糖心传媒檛 do both. There糖心传媒檚 actually a huge number of Oulipian works available in English translation, in addition to those by Mathews, Monk, and others written in English. Harry Mathews is on the board of Dalkey Archive Press, and they publish his works as well as many by Roubaud, Queneau, and Jouet. Perec, mostly translated by David Bellos, is mostly published by David R. Godine; other works by Queneau are at New Directions and NYRB Classics. These are all small, independent presses. As befits the only member with a major literary reputation before/outside of the Oulipo, translations of Calvino are published by Harcourt and Pantheon, imprints of 糖心传媒淏ig Six糖心传媒� firms. In Levin Becker says he糖心传媒檚 presently translating Perec糖心传媒檚 La Boutique obscure, a dream journal, so his omission of some basic pointers to translations is curious.

Many Subtle Channels actually does a better job of pointing out oulipian works by non-members, like Gilbert Sorrentino糖心传媒檚 novels, Christian B枚k糖心传媒檚 Eunoia, Doug Nufer糖心传媒檚 Negativeland and Never Again, Mark Z. Danielewski糖心传媒檚 Only Revolutions, and Tom La Farge糖心传媒檚 work with the Brooklyn-based There is a nice if brief section on Oulipo糖心传媒檚 most apparent 糖心传媒減lagiarist by anticipation,糖心传媒� Raymond Roussel; nearly all of Harry Mathews糖心传媒� work could be said to be in dialogue with Roussel, and Oulipo has also laid claim to him in the form of a biography by Fran莽ois Caradec, translated by Ian Monk. Lewis Carroll comes in for a nod, and J煤lio Cort谩zar was apparently almost invited to be a member several times. Several other famous writers have taken a benevolent interest in the Oulipo, including Umberto Eco, Martin Gardner, and Douglas Hofstadter糖心传媒攚hich has certainly boosted attention and readership, but their work is mostly Oulipo Light, just playing language games. But Levin Becker leaves out some para-oulipian work I would consider serious and essential, like Paul Griffiths糖心传媒� Let Me Tell You, a novella written in the voice of Hamlet糖心传媒檚 Ophelia糖心传媒攍iterally her voice, using only those words she speaks in the play. Haryette Mullens糖心传媒� Sleeping with the Dictionary was inspired by oulipian techniques. Jorge Luis Borges and Stanis艂aw Lem and Milorad Pavi膰 and Osman Lins should probably be on any list of Oulipo contemporaries who neglected to actually become members. David Mitchell糖心传媒檚 novels experiment with structure more visibly than anything since If on a winter糖心传媒檚 night a traveler, and C茅sar Aira糖心传媒檚 糖心传媒渇light forward糖心传媒� procedure has been a tremendously productive constraint for him. But, because they didn糖心传媒檛 or don糖心传媒檛 live in Paris or work in French or expect to enjoy the company of its members at monthly drunken dinners, these writers are not officially part of the Oulipo.

There are any number of offshoots of the Oulipo idea糖心传媒攆rom OuMuPo for music and OuPeinPo for painting to OuWiPo for Wikipedia and OuTyPo for typography. Most are more closely associated with the Coll猫ge de 糖心传媒橮ataphysique than with Oulipo itself, and in any case they have little of the cultural traction of the mothership. An exception may be OuBaPo, which works with comics (bandes d茅sin茅es); its founder 脡tienne L茅croart was coopted into the Oulipo proper after Many Subtle Channels went to press. But OuBaPo-America and its founder Matt Madden, whose 99 Ways to Tell A Story brilliantly adapts the structure of Queneau糖心传媒檚 Exercises in Style to the comic form, gets only a side note.

The Oulipo is French; there糖心传媒檚 almost no mention of its thriving Italian counterpart, the OpLePo. In critical and academic circles, no matter how respected Calvino糖心传媒檚 earlier work, his oulipian 糖心传媒淧aris period糖心传媒� is seen as 糖心传媒渘ot the real Calvino.糖心传媒� The Oplepo was founded in 1990, after Calvino糖心传媒檚 death, and while it cannot counteract the general Italian critical disdain, it does vindicate oulipian techniques in the work of writers such as Ermanno Cavazzoni and Paolo Albani while gaining respectability through the (willing) cooptation of established names like Eduardo Sanguineti and Piergiorgio Odifreddi. I糖心传媒檓 particularly sensitive to the slighting of Calvino and Oplepo because I糖心传媒檓 an Italian translator, and Calvino糖心传媒檚 oulipian masterpiece If on a winter糖心传媒檚 night a traveler (as translated by William Weaver) was my introduction to both Italian literature and Oulipo. Slighting the Italian coverage in Many Subtle Channels, Levin Becker seems to repeat the insult, though that certainly can糖心传媒檛 have been his intention. It糖心传媒檚 more likely that he just doesn糖心传媒檛 read Italian.

Levin Becker gets closest to including some fully-worked-out examples of oulipian procedure in his chapter on attending the Oulipo糖心传媒檚 summer workshop at Bourges. Still, they糖心传媒檙e mostly described糖心传媒攖old, not shown糖心传媒攁nd they糖心传媒檙e examples of writing exercises, not published work. The Bourges workshop and much of 糖心传媒淥ulipo Light糖心传媒� are primarily concerned with poetry. Poetry can be short, quick to write, and it provides an unintimidating frame for the display of metrical, rhyme, or other sound-related constraints. But while poetry draws fans to readings and performances, the big market for book publishers is in prose. Oulipian prose constraints typically work on a much larger scale, one that is harder to excerpt, explain, and anthologize. For instance, Jouet糖心传媒檚 Fins offers 216 different endings (that糖心传媒檚 6^3, which should put you in mind of the six-centric sestina). Roubaud糖心传媒檚 huge 糖心传媒�the great fire of London糖心传媒� is a seven-book project which Levin Becker describes as being 糖心传媒渋n a pseudo-autobiographical style filled with digressions and interpolations and bifurcations糖心传媒澨切拇綌but he doesn糖心传媒檛 explain the procedural constraint, similar to Aira糖心传媒檚 糖心传媒渇light forward,糖心传媒� which forces the writing into these fractal contortions. It糖心传媒檚 as though he doubts that what he calls 糖心传媒渢he absence of legerdemain, the transparency of thought糖心传媒� in Roubaud could possibly itself be his primary constraint.

In all, this middle historical and biographical section is excellent. Its chief frustration, other than the lack of recommendations for further reading, is that it makes us feel the lack of proper biographies of all these fascinating individuals, readable histories of 糖心传媒橮ataphysics and Bourbaki, and translations of all the Oulipo treasures still inaccessible to those who don糖心传媒檛 read French糖心传媒攏ot to mention republication in French for those who don糖心传媒檛 have a generous budget for hunting down the obscure original printings.

Daniel Levin Becker, Many Subtle Channels: In Praise of Potential Literature (Harvard University Press, 2012)

Many Subtle Channels is the first book in English for a popular audience on the Paris-based group of writers known as the Oulipo. For a few of you, that description will be enough for you to know you need to read it; for others, it糖心传媒檚 all you need to know to dismiss it out of hand. But to dismiss the Oulipo would be to miss one of the most original and powerful of recent approaches to thinking about literature, creativity, and thinking itself. Certainly the members of the Oulipo and the works they create are fascinating in themselves, but properly understanding the Oulipo could also change the way you think about your own writing and reading. If Daniel Levin Becker糖心传媒檚 book doesn糖心传媒檛 fully explore every one of the Oulipo糖心传媒檚 糖心传媒渕any subtle channels糖心传媒澨切拇綌an impossible task for a single book糖心传媒攊t糖心传媒檚 nonetheless an excellent place to start.

What is the Oulipo? Spelling out the acronym 糖心传媒�Ouvroir de Li迟迟茅谤补迟耻谤别 Potentielle糖心传媒� and translating it doesn糖心传媒檛 help much: What is a 糖心传媒渨orkshop for potential literature糖心传媒�? 糖心传媒淧otential literature,糖心传媒� Levin Becker explains, 糖心传媒渋s both the things that literature could be and the things that could be literature.糖心传媒� That potential is expressed in the form of rules or constraints for writing. The Oulipo is thus usually described as a group of writers who follow formal or procedural constraints糖心传媒攐ften, but not always, mathematical in origin糖心传媒攖o create their work. The most notorious examples are George Perec糖心传媒檚 novel without the letter e, translated by Gilbert Adair as A Void, and Raymond Queneau糖心传媒檚 slim book of One Hundred Thousand Billion Poems. The group糖心传媒檚 only official definition is 糖心传媒渞ats who build the labyrinth from which they plan to escape,糖心传媒� though Levin Becker also describes it as 糖心传媒渁 sort of literary supper club,糖心传媒� because for more than fifty years the Oulipo has met monthly in Paris to eat, drink, and talk about writing.

The bulk of Many Subtle Channels answers the What question, though sometimes in a bare informational sense, with a survey of the Oulipo糖心传媒檚 history and present practice. The Oulipo was founded in 1960 by writer/editor Raymond Queneau (Pr茅sident-Fondateur) and mathematician/polymath Fran莽ois Le Lionnais (Fr茅sident-Pondateur). It now counts thirty-nine members, of whom seventeen are dead and thus excused from attendance at meetings, and one imaginary. Many of its most famous members are excused: Queneau himself, Italo Calvino, Georges Perec, Oskar Pastior, and糖心传媒攃ertainly famous, though not as an Oulipian糖心传媒擬arcel Duchamp. But Harry Mathews, Jacques Roubaud, Jacques Jouet, Marcel B茅nabou, and Herv茅 Le Tellier are alive and working.

Daniel Levin Becker is himself the youngest member, having been coopted in 2009. The first third of Many Subtle Channels recounts his experience of discovering, meeting, and finally joining this strange group. Levin Becker first encountered the Oulipo as a Yale student, when George Perec糖心传媒檚 story 糖心传媒淭he Winter Journey糖心传媒� was assigned in his French class. After college, he was awarded a Fulbright fellowship to go to France with a (he admits) ill-defined project to study the Oulipo. He soon found himself put to work as the group糖心传媒檚 糖心传媒渟lave,糖心传媒� organizing its archives; only after he had left France did he learn that he had been elected to membership himself. He invites us to 糖心传媒渢hink of the Oulipo . . . as a search party for those of us who don糖心传媒檛 know what we糖心传媒檙e looking for.糖心传媒� You can糖心传媒檛 call in that kind of search party: if you ask to be a member of the Oulipo, you are permanently ineligible. When I met Levin Becker in April 2009, he was still a little shell-shocked by his recent election. He糖心传媒檚 since become the reviews editor of The Believer, but cannot regularly participate in Oulipo meetings for the practical reason that he lives in San Francisco, not Paris. This personal story is interesting primarily as a frame for the rest of the text; as Levin Becker accumulates a more substantial body of work, presumably much of it oulipian in nature, his story may take on greater resonance.

Levin Becker really hits his stride in the final two chapters of Many Subtle Channels, where he turns from the What question to So What. The key to understanding the Oulipo is the distinction dating back to the group糖心传媒檚 earliest days between anoulipism, or oulipian reading/discovery, and synthoulipism, or oulipian writing/invention. They are closely related, and as Fran莽ois Le Lionnais wrote in the group糖心传媒檚 First Manifesto, there are 糖心传媒渕any subtle channels糖心传媒� between them.

Anoulipism is where the group applies its idea of 糖心传媒減lagiarism by anticipation,糖心传媒� the Oulipo糖心传媒檚 way of claiming the allegiance of its literary forbears. It is by no means a serious accusation of intellectual theft, rather just a playful claim of affinity. Constrained writing has a long history, from medieval acrostics, sonnets, and sestinas, through the puzzles of Edgar Allan Poe and Lewis Carroll, to Raymond Roussel糖心传媒檚 espionage-worthy writing procedures. The Oulipo identifies its precursors both to promote the further exploration of their techniques and to promote itself by association.

Synthoulipism is the development of new constraints and the production of works which follow them. Oulipian writing has expanded from its earlier focus on formal constraints on the finished product to now include procedural constraints on the act of writing itself; it also encompasses both transformative constraints and procedures (which build on existing works) and generative ones. Here there is a tension between the original goal of contributing to posterity by expanding the repertoire of writing in general and crowd-pleasing linguistic acrobatics which call for public performance (糖心传媒淥ulipo Light糖心传媒� according to some within the group). In France and to a growing extent elsewhere, Oulipo has become a brand name.

The Oulipo糖心传媒檚 work is now pervaded by a tension between performance and permanence. Officially the group糖心传媒檚 work is all about the potential, about discovering and documenting the constraints, not the work they may be used to generate, 糖心传媒渂ut at the end of the day the people who invent or find or resurrect them are the ones who get to use them first, and thus the ones most likely to reap their rewards.糖心传媒� Between the reach of anticipatory plagiarism and the power of the Oulipo brand, it starts to sound like a game that糖心传媒檚 amusing chiefly to those playing it, while everyone else gets taken for suckers糖心传媒攁nd in that light it糖心传媒檚 easy to understand why someone might misunderstand and dismiss the group. Many Subtle Channels is an attempt to explain the Oulipo糖心传媒檚 legitimate importance, though its narrative structure foregrounds the attempt rather than the answer, however provisional, that it finally achieves.

[Part II Coming Soon]

This week’s podcast features a special discussion with Daniel Levin Becker, author of a history of of the Oulipo, past, present, and future. For the uninitiated, the Oulipo is a 50-year-old group of writers and mathematicians and others interested in the idea of “potential” literature. At times highly technical and esoteric in their thinking about literature, the group also has a sort of prankster streak, which comes out in the liveliness of many of their writings. Some of the most famous works produced by Oulipian writers include Georges Perec’s Life A User’s Manual, Italo Calvino’s If on a winter’s night a traveler . . ., and Harry Mathews’s Cigarettes. (Also see: all of Raymond Queneau and Jacques Roubaud, the works of Jacques Jouet, and those of Paul Fournel.)

Of our thirty-six podcasts so far, this is one of the more serious, thoughtful, and PG-13 rated. To help provide a bit more context for the Oulipo and the discussion, check out my GoodReads review of Many Subtle Channels before listening.

To slightly amend that GoodReads review, I pulled down my copy of Zazie in the Metro today to see what it was that was written on the opening page that so intrigued me and kicked off my lifelong addiction to this sort of linguistic puzzle-making:

In case you can’t read it, that says: “I don’t see why such language must be used in a book. It destroys the good in it. If authors can’t write books without all this unenjoyable language, then they shouldn’t write at all,” with “oh, shut up!” added by a third reader.

As always you can subscribe to the podcast in iTunes by clicking . To subscribe with other podcast downloading software, such as Google’s , copy the following link.

In reading this charming book, I tried to recall how I first fell in love with the Oulipo. It must’ve been through Dalkey Archive, and probably had to do with one of the wild-eyed booksellers at Schuler Books & Music, but I just couldn’t remember . . . At first I assumed it was through Harry Mathews, whose books were being reissued by Dalkey at the time; it jus as easily could’ve been through Perec’s A Void, since that’s the most patently Oulipian work available in English and I remember pushing it on customers all the time. (And now do the same with my students.)

Then it suddenly came to me: When I was living in Grand Rapids, I went to a used bookstore just to look around, and found a mass market, old-school version of Raymond Queneau’s Zazie in the Metro. For those who don’t know, this part of Michigan is loaded with Calvinists and their moral baggage, so it isn’t all that surprising that someone had scrawled across the title page of this book, condemning it as “erotic trash.”¹ SOLD!

But even then, I didn’t really know what the Oulipo was. I mean, I got the concept—use constraints to write “potential” literature—and read almost everything I could get my hands on, but without the Wikipedia of today or knowledge of the French language, figuring out what this group of strange writers was all about was like solving a puzzle without any sort of picture to work off of.

Eventually, the Oulipo Compendium came out as did Oulipo: A Primer, and all the pieces/techniques—lipograms, S+7, complicated algorithms, x mistakes y for z—started to come together. That said, until reading “Many Subtle Channels,” I don’t think I had a sense of how the Oulipo as a group has functioned for the past 50-plus years.

As a member of the Oulipo, and the “slave” who organized its archives, Daniel Levin Becker is in the unique position that he can create a context for this group of writers who, as diverse as their are personality-wise, are connected by their love of puzzles, of new ways to generate texts, of learning, of seeking out puzzles, of creating the linguistic labyrinth from which they try to escape.

For anyone who isn’t already steeped in Oulipian lore, I highly suggest you read this book, then pick up Queneau’s Exercises in Style, Perec’s Life A User’s Manual, Calvino’s If on a winter’s night a traveler, and Mathews’s Cigarettes. After you read all of those—and possibly some of the info you can find online—you’re likely to be hooked on this way of writing and reading for life.

What’s interesting about this book to readers already familiar with the Oulipo and its crazy fun literary stylings is the way in which Levin Becker builds a context around the development of the Workshop while bringing up some really interesting questions about the nature of Oulipian writing: Is it better to reveal the constraints or make the reader figure them out? If the reader knows the constraint, is that the end of their interpretation/enjoyment of the book? How has the group’s dynamics and goals shifted from the post-WWII years to 2012? What’s the point of all this madness?

There’s a lot of great stuff in here worth quoting, both in terms of examples and explanations, but I’ll just end this here with one short paragraph that reminded me of why Lost was so damn good, and why only some people were cool with the eventual ending (I think this proves that I can pull Lost into just about every book discussion):

A good solid search, especially for something you’ll probably never find, drives the plot forward both on and off the page. The less you know, the more you want to know. Hitchcock knew it as well as Homer did: get the audience invested in the pursuit of a puzzle piece, be it the key or the antidote or the identity of the dead man, and they’ll follow you for as long as it remains missing. That’s why it’s so hard to write a satisfying ending: “solutions,” Mathews says, “are nearly always disappointing.”

¹ Not exactly true. See this for the correct insult that somebody laid on Queneau’s novel.

What sort of society could bind together Jacques Roubaud, Italo Calvino, Marcel Duchamp, and Raymond Queneau糖心传媒攁nd Daniel Levin Becker, a young American obsessed with language play? Only the Oulipo, the Paris-based experimental collective founded in 1960 and fated to become one of literature糖心传媒檚 quirkiest movements.

An international organization of writers, artists, and scientists who embrace formal and procedural constraints to achieve literature糖心传媒檚 possibilities, the Oulipo (the French acronym stands for 糖心传媒渨orkshop for potential literature糖心传媒�) is perhaps best known as the cradle of Georges Perec糖心传媒檚 novel A Void, which does not contain the letter e. Drawn to the Oulipo糖心传媒檚 mystique, Levin Becker secured a Fulbright grant to study the organization and traveled to Paris. He was eventually offered membership, becoming only the second American to be admitted to the group. From the perspective of a young initiate, the Oulipians and their projects are at once bizarre and utterly compelling. Levin Becker糖心传媒檚 love for games, puzzles, and language play is infectious, calling to mind Elif Batuman糖心传媒檚 delight in Russian literature in The Possessed.

And with coming out from Dalkey Archive coming out this spring as well, it’s as good a time as any to go on an Oulipian bender. . . .