Technology
Poetgramming
I have been paying attention lately to the work of Adam Parrish, who teaches occasional courses on programming as it applies to creative writing at NYU. I have not taken this course, but would love to hear from anyone who has. I have been interested lately in the idea of using programming functions as aids to writing fiction and poetry. Some of my recent work has explored the aid of small scripts to randomize and change variables over constant frequencies.
Of the works I’ve found perusing the course site, one of my favorite examples is a piece called “4 Obstructions to a Mulligan” by Sofy Yuditskaya, one of Parrish’s students, along with the script used to obstruct.
1: text.generate()
The Buck Mulligan is a natural phenomenon having been explained
by competent men as pawns. Let them go and fight the Boers. Old
Whatwhat. I called about the vulnerable point too of those
sausageeating bastards on the rocks , he said calmly. An Irishman must
think like that the world they lived in Fetter lane near Gerard the
herbalist , who when dying in exile frees and endows his slaves , with
sunken eyes , rather bunged up : and held his peace. –I see , Mr
Dedalus snarled. That Mulligan is a heaven.
2: Concordance
Stately , plump Buck Mulligan came from the stairhead
and lathered cheeks and neck. Buck Mulligan ’s gay voice went on. –My name is
–My name is absurd too : Malachi Mulligan , two dactyls. But it has a Hellen,
Buck Mulligan peeped an instant under the mirror.
–to shave with care. –Tell me , Mulligan , Stephen said quietly. –Yes ,
going to stay in this tower ? Buck Mulligan showed a shaven cheek over his rig,
his guncase ? –A woful lunatic ! Mulligan said. Were you in a funk ? –I was,
if he stays on here I am off. Buck Mulligan frowned at the lather on his razor,
dirty crumpled handkerchief. Buck Mulligan wiped the razorblade neatly. Then
–Our mighty mother ! Buck Mulligan said. He turned abruptly –
your dying mother asked you , Buck Mulligan said. I ‘m hyperborean as much as
loud groaning vomiting. Buck Mulligan wiped again his razorblade. –Ah,
enough, Stephen answered. Buck Mulligan attacked the hollow beneath his
grey. –He can’t wear them , Buck Mulligan told his face in the mirror. Etiquette
in the Ship last night , said Buck Mulligan , says you have g.p.i. He ’s up in
the skivvy ’s room , Buck Mulligan said. It does her all right. The
looking-glass of a servant. Buck Mulligan suddenly linked his arm in Stephen
at night. –Then what is it ? Buck Mulligan asked impatiently. Cough it up. I
asked. –Yes , what is it ? Buck Mulligan answered. I do n’t remember anything
after my mother ’s death ? Buck Mulligan frowned quickly and said : –What
who was in your room. –Yes ? Buck Mulligan said. What did I say ? I forget. –
more engaging rose to Buck Mulligan ’s cheek. –Did I say that ? he asked,
o my mother. –Of what then ? Buck Mulligan asked. –Of the offence to me , St.
Stephen answered. Buck Mulligan swung round on his heel. –O , and
called loudly : –Are you up there , Mulligan ? –I ‘m coming , Buck Mulligan and
none .
3. Generate context
Mulligan , the same time , the same time , the same time .
4. Mu!
much mutch mutsch mud mudd mulligan mum mumm mumme musch mush mut
I have been wondering how the literary community views these techniques. (Or, for that matter, the engineering community.) Does a reader feel a bit cheated? Are you really reading the feelings/thoughts of a person? And if not, does it matter? Is the process more interesting than the result?
My answer to “Are you really reading the feelings/thoughts of a person?” would be that you are reading the feelings/thoughts of a person, but on a more holistic level than traditional literature. A writer manipulates global constraints while allowing the details to occur via the algorithm. The process of revision happens by small tweaks in the constraint.
In a way this is a clashing of fields. There is an elegance and beauty to software that engineers can see, similar to the beauty a mathematician sees in Euler’s Identity. But is there a new kind of ego involved now in attaching the script to the work in order to draw attention to the process? Is the artistic merit of a process at all relative to the merit of the art it produced?
Personally, I find the works produced interesting, and often kind of beautiful, in and of themselves. For me, these techniques share a likeness to musical composition. It gives writers a new kind of control over aspects in writing we don’t often think about, such as randomness, over-repetition, rates of change, dissonance (obfuscation), melody (narrative). Programming becomes useful when an artist wants to repeat patterns and/or change patterns over frequencies.
Regardless of the merit of anything produced, I think Parrish is doing some pretty interesting things and opening questions about how digital technology can interact with the creation of text.
Last thing, a video Parrish made that demonstrates the level of randomness in a constant text dump controlled by a footpedal…
***
Darby Larson’s short fiction has appeared in Caketrain, New York Tyrant and elsewhere. His first book, The Iguana Complex, was published by Mud Luscious as part of their Nephew Imprint. His second book, Irritant, will be published by Blue Square Press in 2012.
Tags: Adam Parrish, Sofy Yuditskaya
i like your pig story
i didn’t have to read the whole thing to know i like it
i din’t have to read what i read ‘in order’ in order to like it
i didn’t read the whole thing
sorry, didn’t mean ‘i didn’t read the whole thing’ as a negative
i’m in a hurry to get to work
sincerely,
mimi
Great post, Darby! I would also love to hear more about this course.
Just out of curiosity, what are some of your favorite works of literature written via these techniques and processes?
I think their is some interesting work to be done- I’ve thought of working on a novel that is never the same each time you buy it- there would be four novellas, each with different view points/etc, and then a script that would go through, cut up, rearrange, randomize it but make it so that it’s completely new in other ways.
The interesting thing, to me, is to move away from the Burroughs cutup method and do something even more interesting engineering wise. I mean, anyone can write a program that uses something like a Markov Chain algorithm to make legible nonsense sentences (spambots do it all the time), or a program that takes words and randomly moves them about, or sentences, but would be interesting is one that strove between signal/noise so that the end product was still readable, but completely bonkers.
Like a complex architecture, that spooled from several sources, that used many different methods…including one that kept track of places/themes/concepts/characters, would make the linear non-linear and back again…
One of these days, damnit, I’m going to do it.
Until then, the first issue of Coffinmouth will have three stories that were written normally by other authors, who let me (in a spirit of play) push it through a cut up engine I wrote in PHP. Each one was a different algorithm: one used a markov chain, one used one that created random scenes and then swapped those, and another used a burroughs style cut the page into four quarters and move around.
whole thing to like your pig story
i didn’t have to read what i read ‘in order to like it
i didn’t have to read what i read ‘in order’ in order’ in order’ in order to like it
i didn’t have to like it
i didn’t read the whole thingi like your pig story
i didn’t have to read what i read ‘in order to know i like it
i didn’t have to read ‘in order to like it
i din’t have to read what i read the whole thingi like it
i din’t have to read the whole thing to know i like your pig story
i didn’t read
o read what i read ‘in order’ in order’ in order’ in order to like it
i din’t have to read ‘in order’ in order to like your pig story
i din’t read what i read ‘in order’ in order’ in order’ in order to like your pig story
i didn’t read what i readpig story
i didn’t have to read what i read ‘in order’ in order’ in order’ in order to like it
i didn’t have to read what i read the whole thingi like it
i didn’t have to like your pig story
i didn’t have to read ‘in order to like it
i didn’t have to read what i read ‘in order to like it
i didn’t have to know i like it
i didn’t have to like it
i din’t have to read the whole thingi like your pig story
i din’t have to read ‘in order to like it
i didn’t have to read whole thing to read what i read the what i read ‘in order’ in order to read ‘in order’ in order to read the whole the whole to like your pig story
i didn’t have to like your pig story
i didn’t have to read what i read
i didn’t have to read thingi like it
i didn’t read ‘in order to like it
i din’t have to know i like it
i din’t have thingi like your pig story
i didn’t have thingi like it
i didn’t have thing to know i reading to read what i read ‘in order to read what i read what i read the whole thingi like your pig story
i din’t have to like it
i didn’t read ‘in order to read what i read ‘in order’ in order to read what i read what i read what i read ‘in order to read ‘in order to read the whole thing to like your pig story
i didn’t read ‘in order to read what i read the whole the whole thing to like your pig story
i didn’t have to read what i read what i read what i read what i read ‘in order’ in order to know i read ‘in order to read the whole thing to like it
i didn’t have thingi like it
i didn’t have to read the whole to read ‘in order to like it
i din’t have to like your pig story
i din’t have to like your pig story
i didn’t read what i read what i read ‘in order’ in order to know i read the whole thingi like it
i didn’t have to like it
i din’t have to like your pig story
i din’t have thingi like it
i din’t have to like it
i didn’t have to like it
i didn’t have thingi like it
i didn’t have thing to know i read ‘in order to like your pig story
i didn’t have thingi like it
i didn’t have to read thing to know i like it
i didn’t have to like your pig story
i din’t have to read whole thing to read what i read what i read ‘in order to read the what i read ‘in order to like it
i didn’t read ‘in order’
i like this but i didn’t read it
[…] The spoken word : http://poethead.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/online-sounds-the-spoken-word/ UBUWEB / Homad : http://poethead.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/ubuweb-and-homad-ethnopoetics-and-translation-i/ T+LRC : http://poethead.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/translation-and-linguistic-rights-ii/ Jacket2 : http://poethead.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/jacket-2-j2-poetry-arts-collaborative-responses/ Harriet Monroe:http://poethead.wordpress.com/code-of-best-practices-in-fair-use-for-poetry-poetry-foundation HTML Giant : http://htmlgiant.com/technology/poetgramming/ […]
order like i read whole like to order’ ‘in to didn’t didn’t read i like know have read story have what it thing have it to your have didn’t ‘in what like to to didn’t ‘in read what read what to the what thing know thing i i like your read o to pig have din’t have like read read i didn’t order’ read i have in i i didn’t it the read in it to i to story have whole in have thingi to i order it i read like the i i din’t order din’t thingi order’ read have ‘in to your i didn’t to din’t ‘in didn’t i ‘in it what whole have didn’t ‘in read to to readpig have read read didn’t i to what it read like i didn’t to what read story ‘in read it have have i it story like to whole to like to story like like what to have in what read read order thingi i like like read i in din’t order like ‘in order ‘in ‘in order order read your whole your have know like to read it read have i to order’ didn’t your thing ‘in read story din’t it read read have pig whole read like pig to i like read it order to it to the like your order’ to read i read like what order’ order’ thing ‘in it thingi in story have whole to read din’t what to order know story story whole to thingi pig have pig order have ‘in what order’ i thingi in order’ din’t to din’t know what like read read to pig i i read to to i i i story order’ the what read read the i i didn’t didn’t read it i what to order’ read what read to to didn’t pig have didn’t pig read order to have have i order read didn’t read i like have order didn’t have read i order ‘in have like it what like i read i it like read it whole to to thingi like pig ‘in order’ i order to thing didn’t have like what in didn’t like to thing story i i ‘in to i ‘in it story read pig didn’t i story read read like didn’t the i i read your the it your read i i i to read order have order to story i whole have order’ didn’t didn’t ‘in i read your the to to ‘in your read your what in in din’t to din’t reading pig i din’t i have to read story to read to whole like i to in i i order’ to i know order order’ like i have thingi the to didn’t in it to the what like i like whole read i read didn’t pig to didn’t ‘in didn’t i in what what have read thingi i it i to like story read i like i i thingi to i it your what like in i like i it i what read like read the i thingi in it pig to i know ‘in ‘in order didn’t whole ‘in i pig to have thing i like order’ pig read din’t what your like your order order to the i to order have read i i
W@r and Pe@ce by T01st0y
I’m scared of creative writing robots, but I’m scared of lots of things.
This reminded me of an article I read years ago that listed computer generated haikus alongside human generated haikus, and asked if you could tell them apart. I couldn’t. Perhaps everyone on the bestseller list is a robot. Perhaps everyone on htmlgiant is a robot. Perhaps I am a robot.
I couldn’t find that article, but I found this, which is pretty cool:
http://www.hphoward.demon.co.uk/haikugen/framset1.htm
I like the Noir vocab.
thx. i think a problem is not many people are doing these kinds of things so i haven’t seen much done. i hope this post will bring more examples to light.
what is the source of your fear of robots? are you afraid they will take over creative writing like the terminator?
that anyone can do it is never a reason to not do it
In a word: Yes.
In many more words: my robophobia is an irrational fear, and like most of my phobias, it has been reinforced by the media, such as the Terminator franchise. I’m not batshit crazy insane afraid of robots, or technology in general (I use the word “robot” very loosely; I call my TV and my cellphone robots). I don’t live in a shack in the woods in a cave with no electricity. But just because something can be built doesn’t mean it’s good for people. Inventors are not ethicists.
I’m scared of smartbombs. I’m scared of robot machine guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UzBqB-iIQw
If it were up to me, I’d much rather robots be writing poems than killing people.
I realize I’m off on a killer robot tangent.
But yeah, something about computer programs writing poems or stories or novels creeps me out a little. Call it the uncanny valley or whatever. I think I’d feel gross if I found out I unknowingly had sex with a robot, and similarly I’d feel gross if I found out some 500 page novel I read was actually written by the J0nathan FranZen T-1000.
I’m not criticizing your piece, although I’ll admit I didn’t read it word for word either, but that’s just because of its form. It kind of feels like it’s meant to be eyescanned while fingerscrolling down the page. Maybe that’s just how I’ve been programmed by my computer.
Anyway, your post raises interesting questions about art and technology. I’m probably just being a reactionary, resisting change and progress. I can’t imagine how writers wrote books on typewriters. Cutting and pasting in Word makes writing so much easier. Maybe a year from now I’ll just press F7 and my computer will crap out a short story for me to submit to The Singularity Review. And then it will be read by an editorbot, who will automatically send me a form email saying “Thanks, but this one’s just not right for us. Please consider submitting again in the future. Sincerely, 01010010110101111”
HAH! Dueling cut up engines!
Good point. I guess I’m just obsessed with the new.
In this episode Clarissa is chosen to represent her school at a poetry banquet after her computer helps her write a strange but well-loved poem.
i think one constant purpose of art is to convey something human to humans. if algorithms get to the point where they are pumping out fully fleshed poems and fiction without any user input, i think it would only be seen as novelty, or meta, as in a statement “about” technology and not necessarily whatever its writing about.
i’m really more interested in using simple functions that already exist in programming languages as simple tools to be called on when something you’re writing would benefit from it. if you think about it, the cut/paste function is really just a simple in/out script. copy/paste allows you to instantly concatenate a piece of writing with itself. replace functions exist in msword already. you can replace every instance of the word “the” with “eht” if you wanted. once you step into unix and access other programming languages, the options explode.
also, i feel like this is all really the beginning in a way. right now, Pigs and other pieces for me serve more as primers for certain functions, and not necessarily showing what these functions can do to enhance a work of writing without overwhelming it. i don’t feel like i’ve really used functions in such a way where it is meaningful w/r/t what i’m writing yet, though i am working on some things.
I think you have a good point there- it’s not about having machines be creative, but machines being a tool towards creativity. It’s not AI as writer, but AI as scissors and glue. A lot of the automated stuff I’ve done is always done to my own work, with an idea of how I want to do it- so that from the ground up the work was made directly to be computer dissected/etc and it has been prepared for it
That episode is also awesome because she quotes a Ferlinghetti poem. I remember watching that when I was about 12 and laughing because I knew that poem, I’d stolen that book of poems from my local library just a month ago.
It’s hard – for most of us – to write well, whether poetry, or instructions, or a witness report. Someone programs a machine to sequence ‘words’ (or letters or any other kind of printable image); calling that programmer a “poet” who collaborated with a machine “to write” “poems” seems – to some of us – careless or lazy.
It’s interesting to ask ‘in what way is machine-chopped (or aleatorily chopped) Ulysses made out of “words”?’ –If I hold a frame up to a painting, is whatever one can see through the frame a painting that I “collaborated on”? Having joined a frame together, have I “collaborated on” whatever you can see through it? –Well, okay for me!
It’s not a matter of a possessive or fearful fencing off of ‘machine’ from ‘human’. It’s a matter of valuing artistry in the domain of linguistic mediation.
how much does valuing artistry matter though. valuing artistry is different from valuing art. i’m very aware that it can be seen as careless or lazy and its why i’m treading lightly as i move forward with it in my own experiments. it’s a fair claim. but to what extent is the merit of an art related to the effort of its artistry?