[This is a preliminary definition.]
0. I will attempt to define my conception of a constraint as used in relation to artistic works, focusing on the literary, though there are certainly applications for film, music, painting, etc. Contrary to what much literary criticism and theory has tried to assert, I don’t believe literature or the study of it is a science, therefore these provisonal guidelines are not exact or exacting.
1. A constraint is voluntary.
2. A constraint is outside the norm. The rules of grammar are not a constraint (well, they are in a broader sense of the term, but, again, we are discussing constraint as a literary/artistic term). Conventions (such as dividing a novel into chapters or the conventions of genre) are not a constraint unless they have been systematized. Obviously, “outside the norm” is problematic on many levels, let it suffice for what is conventional.
3. A constraint is systematic. The deliberate violation of the system may occur (this is what the Oulipo call the “clinamen”).
4. A constraint is before the text. It is part of the process of the creation.
5. A constraint can be syntactic, semantic, or formal. Syntactic constraints are by nature easier to define strictly than semantic constraints. Syntax is already a limited systematic field, while the semantic field is much broader. Because of this there has tended towards more syntactic constraints (lipograms, anagrams, and such). Formal constraints are often more obvious and less rigorous. None of these three categories are necessarily mutually exclusive.
Undoubtably, these 3 divisions are problematic.
Ex.: Perec’s La disparition is a lipogram in ‘e’ (there are no ‘e’s in the text). This is a syntactic constraint (it affects what words may be used based on the letters they contain) which also affects the semantic aspect of the text (there are things that cannot be written).
Ex: Roussel’s “Method” is based on homophony and polysemy, a combination of semantic and syntactic constraint, which in the final product only affects the semantic aspect of his works (the homophonic/polysemic sentences he used for the basis of things/events in his novel do not affect how he writes, only what he writes about; he doesn’t even use the sentences themselves in the works).
Ex.: Barth’s LETTERS is made with a formal constraint based on the letters of “letters” spelled out over 7 months of calendars (it’s too much to explain here) which decides the order and frequency in which characters’ letters (it’s an epistolary novel) occur. This crosses over with the semantic aspect of the text a bit but not greatly or explicitly.
[Updated: July 7, 2004.]
—
You can read Bernardo Schiavetta’s “Toward a General Theory of Constraint” online. Motte’s Oulipo: A Primer of Potential Literature contains Marcel Benabou’s “Rule and Constraint” in translation, worth the time to search it out as well as various other essays in that book. Formules No. 4 has a few articles (in French) on defining constraint, which I’ll get to some other time when I have digested them better.
Tags: Constraint