Christian Bök’s String Variables is one of those
initially deceptive projects in that you begin to read the two minuscule
chapbooks On and Off that are gathered together (with a band of paper, not string,
alas) in this micropress project, a press run of 60 copies issued jointly as openpalmseries 2.5 & 2.6 and umlaut machine nos. 6 & 7, & it is only when, starting the
second volume – I read On before I
did Off, although I would wager that
this effect will work just as well if the little volumes are read in the
opposite order – you begin to recognize the uncanny similarities. Here is the
first page of On:
errata
tattoo
no tone
sombrero
semantic or epic
to graphic
I clemecy sty
esperanto
nympho nemesis
terrible
pro systematic
on icing
lot
talisman
i fester
rat
i corridor
chest
ration
so famous
tattoo
no tone
sombrero
semantic or epic
to graphic
I clemecy sty
esperanto
nympho nemesis
terrible
pro systematic
on icing
lot
talisman
i fester
rat
i corridor
chest
ration
so famous
And here is roughly the same
amount of tex t from the first page of Off:
err at
at at
too not
one
somber
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>
too not
one
somber
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>
rose manticore
pictograph
icicle
man cyst
yes per
antonym
phoneme
sister
rib
leprosy stem
at iconic
in glottal
in glottal
is
manifest
erratic or rid
orchestrations
of a mouse
erratic or rid
orchestrations
of a mouse
Letter by letter, these two
texts are all but identical, so much so that I will wager (this seems to be a
betting blog) that “clemecy” in On is in fact a typo and should
read “clemancy,” even though the latter is itself a
misspelling. Reading the two works together – I put a couple of hours
between each volume – is an almost eerie experience. There’s certainly no way
that I can tell whether On was the
“master” text & Off the “slave,”
the one forced to fit the primary draft of the other, or the other way ‘round.
Nor can I see any simple way for the imagination to derive systematic out of leprosy
stem / at iconic even though, looking closely, I can see that it’s there.
Like Eunoia,
Bök’s book of aggressive vowel constraints, String Variables is both a written work that is fun to read aloud
& the result of an almost unimaginably rigorous formal process – he is
clearly the master of post-Oulipo
poetics. Technically speaking, String
Variables is a misnomer for the process by which this work must have been
composed. In programming, the little I understand of it, you have both
variables & constants – no great theoretical problem there – either of
which might be composed of numeric data or of “strings,” in which numeric data
can be joined with alphabetic and other symbols. So we have strings here
alright, but it is only the spaces & linebreaks that vary. (Thus the
paradigm On/Off refers to the states
of electrical current that are then translated into a binary system to generate
all such information.)
Works like Eunoia and String Variables envision a model of language that no
traditionally-educated linguist would recognize – they wouldn’t recognize Finnegans Wake either – a model in which letters,
not phonemes, organize language. String
Variables almost looks as if one could simply take a great block of type
and divide it into clusters and – Voila! –
words & phrases would just “naturally” appear. The
reality of course is infinitely more complex & part of Bök’s genius lies
precisely in making it look so deceptively easy. While Bök’s work fits into the
larger context of Toronto ’s grammatologically-inflected post-avant poetry
scene, the broader framework of Oulipo and its international heritage, &
relates at some level to the work of Americans such as Jackson Mac Low, Bök
brings a unique flavor to it all – exactly that combination of inconceivable
rigor & utter simplicity. I’ve never read a substantial work of his that I
didn’t wis h I’d written myself.