Craft Notes
Another way to generate text #1: “The Spell Check Technique”
[Update 26 June 2012: At my personal blog, I’ve put up another demonstration of this technique.]
When I was younger and wanted to write but was less sure of my own inspiration, I liked inventing processes that would generate text for me. The most useful technique I devised was something I called “the Spell Check Technique.” These days I don’t really use it anymore, so I thought I’d set it down here in case others would like to pick it up.
For this technique you need a text editor with spell check capacity (I’ll demonstrate it using Microsoft Word 2003), plus some text. It doesn’t really matter what the text is.
Let’s start with a good chunk of lorem ipsum (generated through this website). (Note that you can use any starting text you like; I’m using lorem ipsum just for this example.)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Maecenas eu fermentum mi. Suspendisse potenti. Pellentesque rhoncus, tellus id tincidunt tristique, nulla lectus gravida nunc, at luctus dui ipsum nec ipsum. Vivamus eu justo leo, at tincidunt metus. Integer orci leo, tempus eu rutrum id, vestibulum eu nisl. Suspendisse et neque enim, non iaculis nibh. Sed dolor nisi, lacinia eu scelerisque ut, porta ac nisl. Vestibulum eget tellus eget metus tempor placerat. Vivamus purus risus, varius nec sodales sed, ultrices a nisl. Pellentesque ac magna ultricies massa vestibulum euismod eu vel quam. Praesent ut neque sit amet mauris eleifend laoreet adipiscing eu felis. Nunc quam velit, tincidunt eget tincidunt at, auctor quis odio. Etiam vitae tortor tortor, quis mollis nisl. Integer mollis, libero tristique consectetur aliquam, leo nibh vestibulum leo, quis feugiat sapien sapien eget mauris. Donec quis neque justo. Morbi vehicula, felis sed lacinia cursus, turpis lectus molestie risus, non dignissim tortor purus a eros. Nam et purus scelerisque libero interdum fermentum. Pellentesque rutrum convallis libero et iaculis. Cras eget luctus massa. Phasellus eleifend cursus mauris sed tincidunt. Nullam dignissim pellentesque varius. Phasellus condimentum, felis sed ornare vulputate, eros sem aliquam turpis, ut scelerisque enim ante non tellus. Vivamus imperdiet, augue et lacinia blandit, leo urna facilisis neque, at imperdiet lorem nibh ut ante. Etiam mattis luctus est, at convallis tortor pulvinar eu. Integer in ligula magna. Quisque a augue convallis magna vulputate vulputate. Curabitur sollicitudin semper magna, eu ultricies quam pulvinar ac. Vestibulum sit amet nunc felis. Curabitur luctus imperdiet lorem, id accumsan mi auctor at. Nam eget nibh metus. Aenean suscipit lorem eu risus tristique a rutrum urna sagittis. Aliquam porttitor, nisi quis malesuada placerat, tortor odio elementum arcu, in varius risus purus sed felis. Suspendisse purus tellus, facilisis vitae faucibus quis, fermentum sit amet justo. Etiam et dapibus metus. Nulla luctus leo in est rutrum ornare. Curabitur at dui neque, a egestas tellus. Vestibulum quis accumsan eros. Curabitur elementum metus non mauris lobortis malesuada consequat neque posuere. Nulla aliquet aliquet odio at pretium. Nunc gravida pellentesque nulla sed bibendum. Pellentesque porttitor tempus auctor. Vivamus elementum, velit vitae fringilla tempor, enim dolor mattis nunc, et placerat sem magna vitae massa. Aliquam eu tincidunt justo. Nunc ultrices sem eget elit aliquam accumsan. Pellentesque dapibus elit id augue elementum imperdiet. Phasellus condimentum porttitor vestibulum. Vestibulum vitae pretium tellus. Integer cursus adipiscing sem, at laoreet felis sollicitudin eget. In dignissim convallis felis sed porttitor. Fusce dapibus ligula cursus massa volutpat tincidunt. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. In nunc nibh, blandit sed ornare id, mollis id nisl. Etiam at sem quis lorem ultricies pulvinar nec lacinia orci. Nunc elementum arcu porttitor orci mattis non venenatis erat fringilla. Praesent at est sed ligula volutpat tempus. Curabitur mollis dictum dolor. Proin tellus lorem, sodales vitae ornare a, porta auctor enim. Vestibulum vel mauris a erat adipiscing placerat.
(I like to use at least a page’s worth of text, preferably two or three.) The next step is to get rid of everything that isn’t a letter. So we’ll use the find/replace command (control + h) to strip out all of the punctuation and spaces (and numbers, if there happen to be any). Get rid of paragraph breaks, too (^p); just replace each one of those things with nothing. The result should be a single string of letters:
loremipsumdolorsitametconsecteturadipiscingelitmaecenaseufermentummi […]
Note that I’ve also converted the text to all lowercase. This will produce better results.
Next, we have to break it up into chunks. I write and use a macro to do this, like so:
- Click on Tools > Macro > Record New Macro.
- Assign it a name, and a keyboard combination. (I use “control + 0”.) Then close that window.
- You’re now recording. The macro is very simple: using the right arrow key, move the cursor 5 or 6 letters to the right, then press the space bar. (I’m going to use 6 letters for now.)
- And that’s it! Stop recording the macro.
- You can now use the macro (hold down “control + 0”) to break the block of text up into 5- or 6- letter chunks.
(I used to work as a technical writer. Can you tell?)
By now, the text should look like this:
loremi psumdo lorsit ametco nsecte turadi piscin gelitm aecena seufer mentum misusp endiss epoten tipell entesq uerhon custel lusidt incidu nttris tiquen ullale ctusgr avidan uncatl uctusd uiipsu mnecip sumviv amuseu justol eoatti ncidun tmetus intege rorcil eotemp useuru trumid vestib ulumeu nislsu spendi sseetn equeen imnoni aculis nibhse ddolor nisila ciniae uscele risque utport aacnis lvesti bulume gettel lusege tmetus tempor placer atviva muspur usrisu svariu snecso daless edultr icesan islpel lentes queacm agnaul tricie smassa vestib ulumeu ismode uvelqu amprae sentut neques itamet mauris eleife ndlaor eetadi piscin geufel isnunc quamve littin cidunt egetti ncidun tatauc torqui sodioe tiamvi taetor tortor torqui smolli snisli nteger mollis libero tristi quecon sectet uraliq uamleo nibhve stibul umleoq uisfeu giatsa piensa pieneg etmaur isdone cquisn equeju stomor bivehi culafe lissed lacini acursu sturpi slectu smoles tieris usnond igniss imtort orpuru saeros nametp urussc eleris quelib eroint erdumf erment umpell entesq uerutr umconv allisl iberoe tiacul iscras egetlu ctusma ssapha sellus eleife ndcurs usmaur issedt incidu ntnull amdign issimp ellent esquev ariusp hasell uscond imentu mfelis sedorn arevul putate erosse maliqu amturp isutsc eleris queeni manten ontell usviva musimp erdiet auguee tlacin iablan ditleo urnafa cilisi sneque atimpe rdietl oremni bhutan teetia mmatti sluctu sestat conval listor torpul vinare uinteg erinli gulama gnaqui squeaa ugueco nvalli smagna vulput atevul putate curabi tursol licitu dinsem permag naeuul tricie squamp ulvina racves tibulu msitam etnunc felisc urabit urluct usimpe rdietl oremid accums anmiau ctorat namege tnibhm etusae neansu scipit loreme urisus tristi quearu trumur nasagi ttisal iquamp orttit ornisi quisma lesuad aplace rattor torodi oeleme ntumar cuinva riusri suspur ussedf elissu spendi ssepur ustell usfaci lisisv itaefa ucibus quisfe rmentu msitam etjust oetiam etdapi busmet usnull aluctu sleoin estrut rumorn arecur abitur atduin equeae gestas tellus vestib ulumqu isaccu msaner oscura biture lement ummetu snonma urislo bortis malesu adacon sequat nequep osuere nullaa liquet alique todioa tpreti umnunc gravid apelle ntesqu enulla sedbib endump ellent esquep orttit ortemp usauct orviva musele mentum velitv itaefr ingill atempo renimd olorma ttisnu ncetpl acerat semmag navita emassa aliqua meutin cidunt juston uncult ricess emeget elital iquama ccumsa npelle ntesqu edapib uselit idaugu eeleme ntumim perdie tphase llusco ndimen tumpor ttitor vestib ulumve stibul umvita epreti umtell usinte gercur susadi piscin gsemat laoree tfelis sollic itudin egetin dignis simcon vallis feliss edport titorf usceda pibusl igulac ursusm assavo lutpat tincid untinh achabi tassep latead ictums tinnun cnibhb landit sedorn areidm ollisi dnisle tiamat semqui slorem ultric iespul vinarn eclaci niaorc inunce lement umarcu portti tororc imatti snonve nenati seratf ringil laprae sentat estsed ligula volutp attemp uscura biturm ollisd ictumd olorpr ointel luslor emsoda lesvit aeorna reapor taauct orenim vestib ulumve lmauri saerat adipis cingpl acerat
…which means we’re finally ready to run spell check (Tools > Spelling and Grammar—or just press F7).
If you like, you can spell check each 6-letter-chunk individually, picking whatever replacement word you prefer. But because I’m lazy, I just accept the first option spell check suggests. And since I’m doing that, I choose to change all, which saves a bit more time. (Note that you can run through the text very quickly by holding down “alt + l,” the shortcut for “change all.”)
Doing all this produces a list of actual words:
lore pseudo florist amerce insect tirade piscine gelid aecia suffer centum misuse ends epode tip ell enters heron castle lucid inside nitric toque allele causer avian uncut ictus quips kneecap survive amuse justly coati incident thetas integer racial totem user tumid vestal lumen nisus spend seen equine minion caulis niches dolor nosily canine upscale risqué tort acnes lest blame getter liege thetas temper placer Aviva museum sunrise sari specs dales adult iceman isle lentos quack agnail trice smash vestal lumen is mode velum amperage setout nexus itemed manures alewife nodular etude piscine refuel insane quaver letting cadent emetic incident attic torque sodium triumvir teeter torpor torque smelly snails integer mollies libber trusty quaking sestet Uralic cameo niche stipule umlaut useful gaits pinesap pine teamer is done cousin equijoin stoma Divehi carafe lisped lacing accurse strip select smiles tiers unsound bigness import ordure sears nametape prussic elemis quail eroding eardrum ferment ump ell enters aerator icon Allis Iberia teacup scars gentle cuts sashay sells alewife incurs USAir issued inside annul adding is imp relent sequel arias hazel ascend pimento mêlées sedan arrival puttee erase milieu mature ictus elemis queen marten on tell survive museum erudite ague talking Alban title unsafe cilice sequel time riel remind Bhutan tetra matte slot sestet coeval list or torpor venire unite eerily Glama gangue squeal uGu co novella magma volute fateful puttee crab torso licit dines permit maul trice sump olivine races tubule smite tenancy folic rabbit eruct simper riel roamed accuse anima cottar name thigh tease means script lore me arises trusty queer tremor massage tidal equip rotted cornice quasar loused palace ratter trod elemi tumor china riser suspire used pelisse spend sweeper us tell surface lisps idea cubes quiche rent smite adjust optima escape busmen us null lacto slain strut rumor recur arbiter attain equate gusts tells vestal Urumqi sack meaner obscure biter lament unmet snowman arils borates males deacon squat equip osier Nula piquet aliquot tedious trait unman gravid paella nets Enola seedbed end ump relent equip rotted mortem saucy revive muscle centum veldt eater infill tempo remind flora tins incept ace rat stemma naïveté amass aliquot meeting cadent just on uncut recess emerged elite iguana comas Noelle nets elapid use lit Ida uGu elemi nutmeg per die phase loco dime tumor titter vestal flume stipule amrita egret umbel suite mercury subsidy piscine great laree trellis solid it din egesting dings simony valise felids deport tutor used piously ligulas ruses cassava output timid uniting Achebe tassel late ad ictus tin nun cinch land it sedan arid ollas dingle teammate sequin sore ultras dispel vinery éclair nark inane lament march potty torpor matte shone neonate serrate ringgit laree sent at sensed ligulas volute attempt usurer biter ollas dictum loop lintel lisle embody levity adorn reaper taut uranium vestal flume laurel seat adipose kingly ace rat
Success! You now have a vocabulary list that you can use for whatever evil purpose you desire. You can stop right there and call the text “finished” and “yours” (which isn’t to my own liking, but who’s to stop you?). Or you can keep the words in this order but “write through them”—
Lore matters not to pseudo-florists who, due to a bureaucratic hiccup in this city’s statutes, cannot be amerced. Each has her own dubious means for warding off root-rot and insects, and equally dubious tirades defending them. My sister’s fave uses piscine molds to shape a curry-molasses mixture into gelids, which she then buries around the base of each acacia; she claims it discourages the onset of aecia. I, watching silently, see only how the plants suffer. Each of those noble trees can live a centum, and such cruel misuse soon ends any pleasure of those one hundred years.
Or you can do what I used to do, which is to use only those words that appeal to you, discarding the rest. More specifically, I used to print out the list (this is why I liked having a few pages’ worth), then keep the sheets close at hand when writing. Whenever I’d get stuck, I’d quickly scan my eyes over the lists, looking for intriguing words and word pairs—
- enters the heron castle
- survive a museum sunrise
- arid sedans
- hazel arias
- crab torso
- smelly snails
- deacons squat
- potty torpor
- unmet snowman
- trusty quaking
- teasing thighs
- elite iguana
- kingly ace rat
—crossing them out as I used them. (I used different colored pens, because I liked the way it made the page look. Sensuality is everything!) (I should mention that when doing this, I often found it more helpful to scan the list vertically, rather than horizontally.) I’d also free associate while doing this, letting the words suggest phrases and ideas—”Broke, he used a quiche to pay the rent.” (It’s basically a form of assisted daydreaming.)
A few more things to consider:
- This technique is a great way to learn new words! (It’s akin to randomly flipping through a dictionary—something else I’m fond of doing—but it generates more text more quickly.)
- It’s also a great way to learn how to better use text-editing software. For those reasons and more, I think that it should be taught in schools.
- Obviously the technique’s “real” value is that it suggests words other than what you’d normally use, thereby suggesting many new directions for your work.
- That said, the problem with this technique is that it suggests many new directions for your work! I used this technique when I wrote the first few drafts of my first novel, Giant Slugs (c. 2003), and found that I had to employ many other formal techniques to keep reining things back in. (You can still see evidence of the technique in the the finished novel—for instance, see here, here, and here. I didn’t actually use this technique to write those particular passages, but its use elsewhere, and early on, did help establish the novel’s hyber-verbose style.)
- Changing the size of the chunks will change what spell check results you get. From my own experiences, I’ve found that chunks of 5 and 6 letters return the best results. If you use very short chunks (1–3 letters), you’ll get the same few words over and over again. If you use longer ones (over 7 letters), you’ll often confound the spell check, which won’t suggest any results.
- This technique is limited to whatever words spell check knows. (You can add words to it, though.)
- No doubt there exists now some random word generator online that you could use instead, but I think this technique is still fun and has its own merits.
- For instance, it’s recursive: you can take the word list that you generate, or the text that you write using it, and resubmit it to the procedure. And if you choose a different letter-chunk-length, you’ll get pretty different results. For instance, here’s my florist sentence from above, redone (stripped, lowercased, broken into 5-letter chunks this time, and spell checked):
lore attar snotty poseur dolor rests who’d entomb urea crate chic pint hissy tryst astute scan obeah mercer detach hashes round dubious smear sow ardent gofer outré tandem insect sander quall dub oust rides defend ding hammy sister refax eases piscine memo dittos happen curry moles semi true into elides which sheath ember year found heaps elodea Chaka cash éclair misted viscous rages then setoff aecia watch hinges inlet lyses only other plant scuff erect haft oxen blear escape naive accent summand such realm issue sooner dean plea sure ethos one under dears
This leads to some overlap, but mostly you’re once again off to the races. (And the overlap can be useful: the way the technique sometimes produces variations on recurring letter chunks can result in a certain unity.)
OK, I hope you find this fun/useful/interesting. Enjoy & good luck!
Update: See also:
Other related posts:
- Another example of the Spell Check Technique
- Another way to generate text #2: “backmasking”
- Another way to generate text #3: “dictionary expansions”
- Another example of dictionary expansions
- Another way to generate text #4: “dictionary clusters”
- Another way to generate text #5: “synonym clusters”
- Another way to generate text #6: “word splitting”
- Another way to generate text #7: “Gysin & Burroughs vs. Tristan Tzara”
- Another way to generate text #8: “Writing through a foreign language dictionary”
- Writing Game #1: “25, Strange as You Can”
Tags: Giant Slugs, lorem ipsum, Microsoft Word, spell check, the spell check technique, vocabulary
Oh, this is a fun technique! Thank you for sharing!
Sure thing! Thanks!
I could be totally mistaken, but I thought I’d heard someone refer to this as “homographic” translation, when using a source text that was actual text in another language rather than generated filler text. Very interesting possibilities, in any case, for translators!
Hi Erica,
There is indeed a form of writing called “homophonic translation,” where you replace the words of one language with similar-sounding words from another. (And while I don’t think I’ve heard of homographic translation, it’s easy to imagine that could also exist.) But, as charming as that technique is, this is something different. Homophonic translation doesn’t require any machine processing, for one thing. It also tries to preserve (adhere to) the original text.
In this case, though, the “chunking” tends to significantly disrupt (break up) the original morphemes in the source text, leading to entirely different words being introduced. For example:
1. My mother, god rest her soul, was an executive.
2. mymothergodresthersoulwasanexecutive
3. mymot hergo drest herso ulwas anexe cutiv e
4. memo hero direst hers ulnas annexed cutie e
And if we repeat the process (after doing something with the text in step 4), it will most likely stray even further from the original.
The value of this procedure is essentially its potential to introduce surprising new words into one’s writing.
Cheers!
Adam
Because I see the principles of prose editing to have two primary goals: , 1) efficiency and 2) clarity of language, I tend to favor the Germanic over the Latinate. The exception is when the Latinate has the advantage of exactitude, but the reduced syllable count of the Germanic should always be considered.
This technique, which begins with Latin, may very likely encourage the verbose and obscure, a kind of prose I’m often working to whittle down and clarify. But I can see you are coming from a different school of thought.
NB that can use any starting text you like. I used lorem ipsum just as an example.
… But is the Germanic aspect of English necessarily “more efficient” and “clearer” than the Latinate? I’m not sure I agree. For one thing, most irregular verbs in English are of Germanic origin. Also, the Latinate vocabulary is extremely predictable in terms of how it affixes (adds prefixes and suffixes), while the Germanic vocabulary is rather unpredictable. Finally, the orthography/pronunciation is the Germanic vocab is similarly unpredictable (cough vs. through; tomb vs. womb vs. bomb).
I used to teach ESL, and my foreign students definitely always struggled much more with the Germanic than with the Latinate side of things.
It seems to me that skillful English use requires the entirety of the language.
Oh and:
I used to have my ESL students “translate” between the Germanic and the Latinate. For instance:
Also, for anyone interested, Robert D. Sutherland once wrote a novel in which all the vocabulary is non-Latinate:
http://www.robertdsutherland.com/writings/sticklewort_and_feverfew.html
Thanks for the comment! Cheers, Adam
I think we are in agreement w/ respect to the entirety of the language and probably the goal of any writing prompt is to unblock the writer by focusing on minutiae.
I think the irregularities of the Germanic are an argument in favor of their use.
And the ambulating dog is a good example of why the Latinate should be avoided. I’m not arguing for Germanic universally across the board, but in general I would favor it. Doesn’t allow for as many verbal acrobatics, but I believe in the prosaic nature of the prose, with the charge in the image and the meaning.
The reason I brought it up did have to do with starting from the Latin, but also because it’s something you outgrew, and I think one of the common developments of younger writers is to move toward Latin as more educated / literary, and that a (possibly better) development is to let go of the Latin when possible, and to come down a notch or two in diction.
This assumes literary prose, and theory or technical writing or other kinds of prose may be more necessarily Latinate, and that (projected) educated stance may have a lot to do with where the power of that kind of writing comes from. A confusion of that power and the power of Latinate literary writing is, I believe, common and unfortunate.
Oh yes, I’ve taught homophonic translation for years. And in recent years have introduced the idea of homographic translations using spell check, but I’m at a loss for where I came across it. Oh, just found it! Urayóan Noel’s computer-assisted homophonic translation is what I was thinking of, from http://exchanges.uiowa.edu/diepalic-orchestration/#computer
And I think I got the term from Christian Hawkey when he was talking about a process he used in creating versions for his book Ventrakl; in the introduction he describes the process of typing a foreign poem into Word and using spell check to produce an initial draft (and says he got it from David Cameron).
Anyways, I think it’s all very interesting and exciting, and the chunking does add a wonderful possibility to the whole process. Thanks for sharing!!
Fuck I think you just broke poetry
now do one with this:
Bacon ipsum dolor sit amet sirloin capicola short ribs ham tempor. Proident ground round sed t-bone fugiat pig esse. Exercitation flank id jowl incididunt et. Officia ball tip in quis, pork loin id venison ex commodo adipisicing nisi do deserunt beef ribs. Cupidatat turkey frankfurter, occaecat drumstick sirloin salami velit ut nisi capicola leberkas. Brisket jerky turkey, kielbasa ground round speck minim ex non nisi ham hock aute flank. Incididunt t-bone ham, non kielbasa velit pariatur in meatball commodo meatloaf flank reprehenderit biltong proident.Corned beef quis pork belly, short loin ullamco chuck laborum. Fatback labore leberkas, non frankfurter shank id cow excepteur ea. Pork belly ex beef turducken, pastrami jerky flank speck in et consectetur irure ut occaecat. Aliqua ribeye ham hock in tongue. Short loin kielbasa quis, id frankfurter tri-tip aliquip cupidatat ullamco salami sausage beef ribs pancetta sunt. Proident tongue jerky, boudin eiusmod tri-tip exercitation aliqua swine andouille pork belly.Ball tip in ham hock, cow nostrud exercitation pancetta dolor pork belly tail consequat meatloaf veniam esse. Tail id ut, filet mignon esse spare ribs elit ribeye. Dolor et irure drumstick prosciutto, duis sausage boudin dolore ham. Flank pig irure qui. Deserunt reprehenderit eu proident, nulla fatback dolore in beef. Elit meatball deserunt anim enim tongue dolore. Flank sirloin pork, capicola officia tenderloin ribeye incididunt.
http://designmodo.com/lorem-ipsum-generators/
I ran it using 6-letter chunks, and this is what I came up with:
bacon pseudo florist aments loin apical assort ribs tempo proud
entire undo nosed baneful gape gessoes xeric action lanced jowl in caddie netted
facial all tip inquest pork endive noisome common do dip silicon gnosis douser untie
frisk update attar eyras forte rockier cadre stick sirloin salaam violet units calico
allege razor islet recite reek melbas ground rounds packmen Niemen ones hammock
Kautex lancing caddie nation eHarmony kneel save impair maturing meatball locum
doomed loaf lanker preen drib biltong provide torn edged quips rebel short Lionel
limo hackle brume aback labored leer anon rank raters antic wince pleura pork alley
bereft reduce pastry aimer kiln kopeck into insect torero retouch caveat aliquot
rib eye hammock kin ton gush trillion kielbasa sequins defray forte rarity plaque
incubi data limo salami sausage beef aspen cottas untrue indent tongue jerky Udine
utmost retype xeric atone liquids wine an dull pork bellyband letup nacho cocoon
obtrude exercise station lancet tadpole pork elytra icons equate etalon venial messed
ailed toilet mignon eases are rib slit obeyed floret inured rusty cuprous cite disuse
usage outdid lore am flan cigar require desert strep evened rite up ridden tulle
fatback dolor evince flit eatable lesser untamed minim tongued lore links loin orca
coal official tender loner been caddie not
“nation eHarmony kneel save impair maturing meatball,” that’s not bad…
I think more that the Germanic vocabulary and the Latinate vocabulary have different uses. Sometimes you want to say sight, sometimes you want to say vision. It’s nice have the range, and context determines which vocab is better, rather than any absolute statement (I think).
While some may think the Latin may sound more erudite, I don’t think it has to be that way. The Germanic vocab can be just as obfuscating and “pretentious sounding.” Syntax plays a large role in all of that.
But understanding the difference between the two is an important part of writing, I think. Overall, I would say that I agree with Strunk and White, who advocated clarity above all else—even when being opaque.
Also, I should clarify that while I don’t use this particular technique much these days, but
this post is the first time I used lorem ipsum for the technique. I never really cared much which text I started with, honestly—I’d just grab something, anything.
Cheers, Adam
I hope so!
Thanks, Erika! It makes sense that someone would do homophonic translation using spell check. I just tried it myself, with a Cesar Vallejo poem:
My result:
I can see a few problems with this technique, however. Primarily, it keeps one rooted on the word level, whereas the skill in homophonic translation often involves breaking apart words (or reading “across words”) to create closer analogs to the original language.
BUT. This seems a fun way to get started! Or a potentially promising & valid technique in its own right. Thanks!
Adam
Kenner makes the argument, in The Pound Era, that Pound’s translation of The Seafarer is – in the teeth of what Kenner (no mean pedant) contemptuously calls “pedantry” – somewhat a homophonic translation from Anglo-Saxon into American-English (pp. 484-486).
Thanks! And, tangentially, do you know this book?
Modernism’s Other Work: The Art Object’s Political Life
by Lisa Siraganian
2011, Oxford UP
“Lisa Siraganian’s brilliant book makes a huge contribution to our
understanding of 20th-century literary and artistic modernism, in large
measure by focusing on the issue of breath as it plays out in the
theory and practice of a host of major figures from Stein to Baraka.”
–Michael Fried, author of Art and Objecthood
dear deaders,
i have decided to give up on trying to amuse/engage you, yank your chain, get your goat, be dopey, parrot and mock; my efforts have hopeless-ly failed; instead i will simply read, enjoy, try to understand, and learn from your always-interesting comments; because, yes, i am always “very impressed by [your] murkily resonant tones but [do] not quite “get” [you]” because, yes, you are a favorite of mine on the internets (you and steve ronggenbeck) mimi
Really nice, A D.
Retranslating the same text with Google Translator is a ridiculous way to generate dadaist text and sometimes deep poetry. It takes the word “transcreation” to its limit.
You can even make beats with it:
Have google trans vocalize this in German as target language:
pv zk bschk pv kkkk bschk bschk bschk pv zk bschk pv zk pv bschk zk pv
zk bschk pv zk pv bschk zk bschk pv bschk bschk pv kkkkkkkkkk bschk
bschk bschk pv zk bschk pv zk pv bschk zk pv zk bschk pv zk pv bschk zk
bschk pv bschk bschk pv bschk bschk bschk pv zk bschk pv zk
pv bschk zk pv zk bschk pv zk pv bschk zk bschk pv bschk bschk pv
kkkkkkkkkk bschk bschk bschk pv zk bschk pv zk pv bschk zk pv zk bschk
pv zk pv bschk zk bschk pv bschk bschk pv bschk bschk bschk
It surprises me that no one has yet made a track entirely with GoogleTrans. If only I had the time.
I’ve also used various translation software packages to do tremendous mash-ups of whole novels. I have to refine my technique, though. But I highly recommend it. It kind of renders text ductile like clay. So you can basically sculpt the text.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tl24l4FEB0
not exactly what I had in mind, but there you have it.
And the net provides more crappy wonders!
Looks interesting; “the art object’s immunity from the world’s interpretations” is a useful thesis to defend (a bit) and to attack (a lot). Some of the writers mentioned in those blurbs are the opposite of intending to be a- or anti-political, which makes a hash of the blurbists’ takes on Siraganian, but the blurb has to be the most qualification-laden kind of literature there is.
Much as I love Kenner’s writing, he’s occasionally easy to argue against. What he’s saying in the ‘pet I’ve snipped is way exaggerated on the side of physiological acoustics ‘against’ semantic meaning. The Seafarer poet was not “least” concerned with developing his sense, which does not fit in “somehow”, and nor was Pound either in translating it. That – semantic meaning is an incidental “vessel” for emotion – is a simplistic way of understanding ‘meaning’ that Kenner adopts almost nowhere else that’s struck me.
But Kenner’s argument about the Seafarer in particular and for a kind of translation – ‘just make it sound “right” and you’re somewhat of the way to getting it to mean accurately’ – is the great challenge to literalist fanaticism (disagreeably, my own mode of translating). With Pound’s Seafarer translation – eg. the “blaed”/’blade’ *mis*translation – , we’re maybe 75% of the way to homophonic translation–with the other ~25% taken by literal fidelity.
I’m amused! I’m engaged! I’m not indifferent, paring my fingernails. (Play often stands just fine unremarked… ?)
I’ve not read the whole book, just excerpts, but I liked what I saw. Her arguments re: Stein’s politics are most intriguing.
I played around with some online translators for a while, but never found a way to use the results to my satisfaction. But that play definitely led to me investigating using other tools, such as spell check.
I also tried using voice transcription software some, babbling into it, speaking too quickly for it, making random noises, etc. It was fun!
[…] “The Spell Check Technique” (a way to generate text) […]
[…] I mentioned in my last post (“The Spell Check Technique”), I’ve played around with more than a few means for generating text. Another one that I used […]
[…] I mentioned in my last post (“The Spell Check Technique”), I’ve played around with more than a few means for generating text. Another one that I used […]
[…] I mentioned in my last post (“The Spell Check Technique”), I’ve played around with more than a few means for generating text. Another one that I used […]
[…] I mentioned in my last post (“The Spell Check Technique”), I’ve played around with more than a few means for generating text. Another one that I used […]
[…] I mentioned in my last post (“The Spell Check Technique”), I’ve played around with more than a few means for generating text. Another one that I used […]
i am not technical enough to do this but want to. I tried it in word and got nothing out of it. In fact the entire thing disappeared. I will barter (something) if any of you can take me through these steps. I love this prompt, and wish I were not so technically retarded.
Making the text disappear strikes me as more impressive than running the procedure correctly! How far did you get and where did you run into trouble?
[…] “The Spell Check Technique” (a way to generate text) […]
[…] with the Spell Check Technique, at this point I usually print out the list, and keep it close at hand so I can scan through it, […]
[…] had no idea what to wear to dinner” was produced by an amalgam of his first three exercises: the spell check technique; backmasking; and dictionary expansions. granted, i had to take a lot of liberties with the […]
[…] but instead I presented two of my recent HTMLGIANT “generating text” posts: “The Spell Check Technique” and “Dictionary Expansions.” You can see photos from the event […]
[…] my lecture last week at the Co-Prosperity Sphere, I created another example of the Spell Check Technique. I started with this text: By the end of my fourteenth year, when I should have been playing the […]
[…] mentioned yesterday, for my lecture at the Co-Prosperity Sphere, I created new examples of both the Spell Check Technique and Dictionary Expansions. Here’s the DE […]
[…] Another way to generate text #1: “The Spell Check Technique” […]
[…] Another way to generate text #1: “The Spell Check Technique” | Another example of the Spell Check Technique […]
[…] Another way to generate text #1: “The Spell Check Technique” […]
[…] Another way to generate text #1: “The Spell Check Technique” […]
[…] Another way to generate text #1: “The Spell Check Technique” […]
[…] Another way to generate text #1: “The Spell Check Technique” […]
[…] while back, I ran a little series, “Another way to generate text.” The first one proved fairly popular, and I’ve been meaning to make more of them, but generative techniques […]