Pallas slaps a Lapp: what?! Lapp's brat pal, Sam, mans a tank, starts war, attacks Pallas. Pallas bats at tank-clad Sam; adamant hatch-hat has all bat's attack and brat stays at war, lacks harm. Rats! Sam calls Lapp barracks: attack Pallas! Lapp armadas amass arms. Sam's tank and small handgats blast at Pallas; Pallas calmly yaws, balls fly past. Sam gawks at map, has plan: flank Pallas! Plan lags, flags, has a flaw: Pallas calls gallant Mars and Mars hacks and saws Lapps. Can Sam crack Pallas/Mars phalanx? Sam can't, calls a talk. Pallas that slaps Lapps stands, stamps and balks: an Sam starts war, Sam shall stay at war.
« In the end a dog walks about as startling and undecipherable as Leviathan or Croquemitaine | Main | Pie is the new cupcake »
January 23, 2007
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.
Recent Posts
- Their words, for you
- My pettiest post ever
- Are we Aristotle's enemies?
- Wingtip Dot Club
- Ford contra O'Shaugnessy
- The fire in me now
- The credulity of the recappers, or, what does Rick & Morty have in common with "Who Was Nietzsche's Genealogist?"
- Bad faith, briefly expounded
- Verse roundup!!!!
- Sculptural realism, or, Michelangelo on knowing one's mind
Recent Comments
- Daniel Lindquist on Their words, for you
- Mr. F on My pettiest post ever
- Daniel on Are we Aristotle's enemies?
- ben w on This be close reading
- k-sky on Wingtip Dot Club
- Frances Kirby on Literary expose of the century!
- Daniel Lindquist on The fire in me now
- gurpreet kaur on A solution finder for Language, Proof and Logic problems
- haste makes waste on On a popular misconception concerning "literally"
- Idioms.in on This common idiom has an odd feature! Core dumped.
You are the most ridiculous man I have ever known.
I crack up.
Posted by: A White Bear | January 23, 2007 at 03:39 PM
Nice use of "an" in the last sentence.
Posted by: teofilo | January 23, 2007 at 04:52 PM
Thanks. That use of "an" is one of my favorite antique usages.
Posted by: ben wolfson | January 23, 2007 at 05:30 PM
Eh?
Posted by: bitchphd | January 23, 2007 at 07:21 PM
Sorry, this is an American blog. No Canadians.
Posted by: teofilo | January 23, 2007 at 07:56 PM
Thank god someone understands my lame jokes.
Posted by: bitchphd | January 23, 2007 at 08:01 PM
Georges Perec would be proud. (But the "the the" in the title might give him pause.)
Posted by: My Alter Ego | January 24, 2007 at 07:28 AM
Several people have told me that they thought some constraint other than using no other vowel than "a" was at play in the above text (actually some of them thought some other constraint was at play without having identified the one that is at play). Usually this misapprehension was based on the economy of letters used in "Pallas slaps a Lapp" and the generally high proportion of certain consonants in the following (mostly "l" and "p"). That high concentration is actually there because I was having a hard time thinking of words that I could actually use and tended to use those already present in what was written as the basis for finding more; that is, I employed no such other constraint. Can this count, I wonder, as an instance of Canada Dry? I didn't set out to write something that gives the appearance of conforming to a rule to which it doesn't in fact conform, but—must I so have set out?
Posted by: ben wolfson | February 07, 2007 at 10:06 PM
(One reason to disallow unintentional seemings of conformity to a constraint might be that doubtless all texts produced do unintentionally conform to some constraint, though perhaps not an Oulipian one.)—actually that won't work, because conformity to some arbitrary constraint isn't the same thing as having "the taste and color" of such a conformity.
Posted by: ben wolfson | February 07, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Proffer rule, reduced: Oulipo spoof.
Posted by: standpipe b | February 08, 2007 at 05:14 AM