This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I hope nobody minds but I took the liberty of rewriting the description of the book's plot as a lipogram on "e". I've read the book and a lot of Perec's other work and I think I've preserved the sense of the original text. But if anyone objects then feel free to restore the original. I just thought it would be in the spirit of Perec. (I tried to make it so it wouldn't be immediately noticeable that there's no e.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lexo ( talk • contribs) 20 October 2005.
Nicely done. Check out Gadsby_(novel) and it's discussion page for a similar treatment there. Stubblyhead 22:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
(On 28 March 2006, I publish my submission of this major contribution to that now-flourishing plot summary. I am adding this information at this point simply to avoid confusion such as Mtcr's, and not to fish for criticism, acclaim or rhapsodic salutations.) -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Excellent work! It took me a while to catch on, just as you intended, and it really is pretty clear. Kudos! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.180.140 ( talk • contribs) 30 March 2006.
Lol. I hope the Wiki nazis don't take this away, like they have been doing to so many other articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.111.242.64 ( talk • contribs) 25 April 2006.
Oh. So that's why no "chapter." I found "subdivision" kind of distracting, but it'd be coldhearted and anti-artistic to change it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.134.145.242 ( talk • contribs) 25 April 2006.
Great work! Just wanted to add my voice of support for the lipogram. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AshDean ( talk • contribs) 4 October 2006.
I agree with the above, this is one of the most brilliant things on Wikipedia I've ever seen. Icebrand 18:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
lexo, i thought 'subdivision' a bit clumsy and have changed it to read 'part'; if you object to my alteration, please feel free to dismiss it and revert to your original choice. Mtcr 11:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well Done, very clear and it pretty much all makes perfect sense Shaizakopf 10:54, 6 February 2007
I like the idea a lot, but I think that it should perhaps be prefaced with a disclaimer stating that the following bit was written as such to explain the somewhat awkward phrasing. Typically I'd be against that, as it sort of ruins the "punch" of it, but considering this is an encyclopedia it might want to be pointed out. --
Asriel
07:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I found reading the summary to extremely unpleasant. A lot of cringe-inducing language. Was there a summary in place before the revision? If so, I can't imagine the original is any worse than what's on the page now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.152.60 ( talk • contribs) 15 May 2007
This is silly and gimmicky. It would do in Uncyclopedia, not in wikipedia. It's supposed to be a serious article, and this kind of thing hinders the language, and strongly decreases the likelihood that anyone will actually take it seriously. These articles are intended to convey information, not make jokes, which is what this ultimately is. If you want to show what a piece of text without e's looks like, I suggest a quote from the book. I can't be bothered to care beyond adding my opinion to the talk page, so I won't change the article. risk ( talk) 20:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I enjoyed the lipogram as well. Excellent work! All the sacrifices were worthwhile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.111.174 ( talk) 01:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I just had to say how fitting I found this plot summary. Qed ( talk) 19:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Came here to say that I like this plot summary, too. It's like a Wikipeida easter egg. PBP ( talk) 16:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't like it. It's self-indulgent, it's not very encyclopaedic, and it's not even that hard to do, over a few paragraphs. It's just showing off.
Douglas Hofstadter claims in Le Ton Beau de Marot (p 121) that a single 'e' occurs in the German translation, very early on. I'd think this would be a ruinous blemish if true. Can anyone with access to the German translation confirm? I can see that possibly Hofstadter is joking, but if so, I don't see his point. 198.99.123.63 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
There WAS indeed an "e" on the first page of the german translation of "La disparition" (German title: "Anton Voyls Fortgang"), but only in the first edition in 1986 and in the following pocketbook edition in 1991. It was already in line 8 of the preface: The sentence is: "Gib uns das tägliche(!) Brot" hallts durchs Land, und "pfui auf das Patronat, auf Ordnung, Macht und Staat". This mistake was corrected and the e was removed in the new edition in 2013. 81.173.175.191 ( talk) 23:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Does the opening paragraph seem weird to anyone else? It essentially says the following:
A Void is a 300 page French lipogrammatic novel... Its translation into English by Gilbert Adair is entitled A Void.
- Adjusting ( talk) 20:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be first and foremost about the original book 'La Disparition' and mention the translation, rather than the other way around? 74.178.45.158 ( talk) 22:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Good question, but I disagree. Ian Monk, who translated Perec's Les Revenentes (a short story in which the only vowel is 'e'), has strongly criticised Adair's work on the grounds that it departs too far from the tone and content of the original book. Monk did his own version, as noted in the article. For this reason, I think that there's a good reason to treat 'A Void' as a separate work from 'La Disparition'. There probably ought to be a separate page on 'La Disparition', however. The French wikipedia has a not bad one. Lexo ( talk) 12:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Apology: it was a wrong summary at my undo, it should say "Undid 399990618; this part accords with MOS and so on and without advancing any 'participatory pov' of the work. Barring a plot's own constraint, found at our first paragraph, it is not uncyclopædic as it was." cygnis insignis 07:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The article reads: “In French, the phrase "sans e" ("without e") sounds very much like "sans eux" ("without them")” Actually, "sans e" and "sans eux" are pronounced exactly the same by any competent speaker, just like "allô" and "à l'eau" (or "une voix" and "une voie") are indistinguishable without more context. "sounds very much like" should have been "sounds exactly like" Amenel ( talk) 15:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I changed the wrong fact of the "a" being the most common letter on Spanish. It is the "e" the most commonly used, "a" is second, as you can read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_frequency — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.140.69.232 ( talk) 06:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on A Void. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
As discussed above, maybe instead of having an article about La Disparition be focused on A Void, maybe it would make sense to have two separate articles--one about the original book in French, and one about the translation. This seems important due to the linguistic differences; either way, it seems important for La Disparition to have its own article (or at least be the main book in an article, with translations being secondary). Oeoi ( talk) 02:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
No source on this, can't find anything about its existence. Linkin Karp ( talk) 11:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
How brilliant is it that a plot summary would follow constraints which match constraints found in its topic book! Bravo! My hat's off to this author! 😉 Johnnybna ( talk) 09:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Even worse. One cannot use:
·une (feminine "a");
·elle(s), eux ("she", "her", feminine "they" and "them");
·me, te, se ("me", "you" as object and reflexive pronoun);
·mes, tes, ses (plurial "my", "your" and "his/her");
·mien(ne)(s), tien(ne)(s), sien(ne)(s) ("mine", "yours" and "his/hers");
·leur(s) ("their", "theirs" and "they" as indirect object);
·Adjectives or past participles in their feminine form (ending in -e(s));
·Many forms of être ("to be");
·Verbs conjugated after second-person plural (êtes ("(you) are"), faites ("(you) do"), dites ("(you) say/tell") and the others all end in -ez);
·Verbs conjugated after third-person plural other than sont ("(they)" are), ont ("(they) have"), font ("(they) do"), vont ("(they) go") and the future tense, as they all end in -ent;
·Past participles of the verbs of the first group (ending in -é(e)(s));
·Present tense of verbs of the first group conjugated after singular persons (in direct speeches, say) as they end in -e(s);
·Subjective present tense of verbs conjugated after singular persons other than sois ("(that I/you) were"), soit ("(that he/she/it) were") and ait ("(that he/she/it) had") as they end in -e(s).
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I hope nobody minds but I took the liberty of rewriting the description of the book's plot as a lipogram on "e". I've read the book and a lot of Perec's other work and I think I've preserved the sense of the original text. But if anyone objects then feel free to restore the original. I just thought it would be in the spirit of Perec. (I tried to make it so it wouldn't be immediately noticeable that there's no e.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lexo ( talk • contribs) 20 October 2005.
Nicely done. Check out Gadsby_(novel) and it's discussion page for a similar treatment there. Stubblyhead 22:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
(On 28 March 2006, I publish my submission of this major contribution to that now-flourishing plot summary. I am adding this information at this point simply to avoid confusion such as Mtcr's, and not to fish for criticism, acclaim or rhapsodic salutations.) -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Excellent work! It took me a while to catch on, just as you intended, and it really is pretty clear. Kudos! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.180.140 ( talk • contribs) 30 March 2006.
Lol. I hope the Wiki nazis don't take this away, like they have been doing to so many other articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.111.242.64 ( talk • contribs) 25 April 2006.
Oh. So that's why no "chapter." I found "subdivision" kind of distracting, but it'd be coldhearted and anti-artistic to change it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.134.145.242 ( talk • contribs) 25 April 2006.
Great work! Just wanted to add my voice of support for the lipogram. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AshDean ( talk • contribs) 4 October 2006.
I agree with the above, this is one of the most brilliant things on Wikipedia I've ever seen. Icebrand 18:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
lexo, i thought 'subdivision' a bit clumsy and have changed it to read 'part'; if you object to my alteration, please feel free to dismiss it and revert to your original choice. Mtcr 11:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well Done, very clear and it pretty much all makes perfect sense Shaizakopf 10:54, 6 February 2007
I like the idea a lot, but I think that it should perhaps be prefaced with a disclaimer stating that the following bit was written as such to explain the somewhat awkward phrasing. Typically I'd be against that, as it sort of ruins the "punch" of it, but considering this is an encyclopedia it might want to be pointed out. --
Asriel
07:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I found reading the summary to extremely unpleasant. A lot of cringe-inducing language. Was there a summary in place before the revision? If so, I can't imagine the original is any worse than what's on the page now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.152.60 ( talk • contribs) 15 May 2007
This is silly and gimmicky. It would do in Uncyclopedia, not in wikipedia. It's supposed to be a serious article, and this kind of thing hinders the language, and strongly decreases the likelihood that anyone will actually take it seriously. These articles are intended to convey information, not make jokes, which is what this ultimately is. If you want to show what a piece of text without e's looks like, I suggest a quote from the book. I can't be bothered to care beyond adding my opinion to the talk page, so I won't change the article. risk ( talk) 20:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I enjoyed the lipogram as well. Excellent work! All the sacrifices were worthwhile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.111.174 ( talk) 01:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I just had to say how fitting I found this plot summary. Qed ( talk) 19:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Came here to say that I like this plot summary, too. It's like a Wikipeida easter egg. PBP ( talk) 16:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't like it. It's self-indulgent, it's not very encyclopaedic, and it's not even that hard to do, over a few paragraphs. It's just showing off.
Douglas Hofstadter claims in Le Ton Beau de Marot (p 121) that a single 'e' occurs in the German translation, very early on. I'd think this would be a ruinous blemish if true. Can anyone with access to the German translation confirm? I can see that possibly Hofstadter is joking, but if so, I don't see his point. 198.99.123.63 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
There WAS indeed an "e" on the first page of the german translation of "La disparition" (German title: "Anton Voyls Fortgang"), but only in the first edition in 1986 and in the following pocketbook edition in 1991. It was already in line 8 of the preface: The sentence is: "Gib uns das tägliche(!) Brot" hallts durchs Land, und "pfui auf das Patronat, auf Ordnung, Macht und Staat". This mistake was corrected and the e was removed in the new edition in 2013. 81.173.175.191 ( talk) 23:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Does the opening paragraph seem weird to anyone else? It essentially says the following:
A Void is a 300 page French lipogrammatic novel... Its translation into English by Gilbert Adair is entitled A Void.
- Adjusting ( talk) 20:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be first and foremost about the original book 'La Disparition' and mention the translation, rather than the other way around? 74.178.45.158 ( talk) 22:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Good question, but I disagree. Ian Monk, who translated Perec's Les Revenentes (a short story in which the only vowel is 'e'), has strongly criticised Adair's work on the grounds that it departs too far from the tone and content of the original book. Monk did his own version, as noted in the article. For this reason, I think that there's a good reason to treat 'A Void' as a separate work from 'La Disparition'. There probably ought to be a separate page on 'La Disparition', however. The French wikipedia has a not bad one. Lexo ( talk) 12:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Apology: it was a wrong summary at my undo, it should say "Undid 399990618; this part accords with MOS and so on and without advancing any 'participatory pov' of the work. Barring a plot's own constraint, found at our first paragraph, it is not uncyclopædic as it was." cygnis insignis 07:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The article reads: “In French, the phrase "sans e" ("without e") sounds very much like "sans eux" ("without them")” Actually, "sans e" and "sans eux" are pronounced exactly the same by any competent speaker, just like "allô" and "à l'eau" (or "une voix" and "une voie") are indistinguishable without more context. "sounds very much like" should have been "sounds exactly like" Amenel ( talk) 15:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I changed the wrong fact of the "a" being the most common letter on Spanish. It is the "e" the most commonly used, "a" is second, as you can read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_frequency — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.140.69.232 ( talk) 06:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on A Void. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
As discussed above, maybe instead of having an article about La Disparition be focused on A Void, maybe it would make sense to have two separate articles--one about the original book in French, and one about the translation. This seems important due to the linguistic differences; either way, it seems important for La Disparition to have its own article (or at least be the main book in an article, with translations being secondary). Oeoi ( talk) 02:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
No source on this, can't find anything about its existence. Linkin Karp ( talk) 11:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
How brilliant is it that a plot summary would follow constraints which match constraints found in its topic book! Bravo! My hat's off to this author! 😉 Johnnybna ( talk) 09:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Even worse. One cannot use:
·une (feminine "a");
·elle(s), eux ("she", "her", feminine "they" and "them");
·me, te, se ("me", "you" as object and reflexive pronoun);
·mes, tes, ses (plurial "my", "your" and "his/her");
·mien(ne)(s), tien(ne)(s), sien(ne)(s) ("mine", "yours" and "his/hers");
·leur(s) ("their", "theirs" and "they" as indirect object);
·Adjectives or past participles in their feminine form (ending in -e(s));
·Many forms of être ("to be");
·Verbs conjugated after second-person plural (êtes ("(you) are"), faites ("(you) do"), dites ("(you) say/tell") and the others all end in -ez);
·Verbs conjugated after third-person plural other than sont ("(they)" are), ont ("(they) have"), font ("(they) do"), vont ("(they) go") and the future tense, as they all end in -ent;
·Past participles of the verbs of the first group (ending in -é(e)(s));
·Present tense of verbs of the first group conjugated after singular persons (in direct speeches, say) as they end in -e(s);
·Subjective present tense of verbs conjugated after singular persons other than sois ("(that I/you) were"), soit ("(that he/she/it) were") and ait ("(that he/she/it) had") as they end in -e(s).