Lexicon
It seems the "done thing" to post about how one is participating in a game of Lexicon, specifically this one. I, alas, was not able to start on the very first turn of play, owing to moving-related program activities, but so much the better—for it seems that someone has cited a phantom article "Chance", which I have claimed for the greater glory of scholarship. For you see, contemplating the role of chance, in particular the role of the concept of chance, in the universe of this game, I have struck upon what is without a doubt the actual correct account of, as the official statement of topic has it, the rise of Targhandism and its relationship to the fall of the Uzdumalian Empire
. I know it. I have it right. And my eyes will be damned before I let any of those jumped-up scribblers pass off their lies and obscurantism as cold clear truth.
I have also noticed that Lexical games tend towards the fantastic, which is understandable given their origins. But I think it would be interesting to have a game of Lexicon which stripped out the element of familiarity with fantastic tropes (in particular names, I find the naming part simply terribly difficult) and made it into a contest of pure bullshitting ability. The official topic could be something like "grain". Articles could be written on, say, atavism in grain, agricultural oddities of grain, bread,, etc, with the proviso that everything be simultaneously ex recto and written with at least apparent concern for consistency across articles. (The main thing to worry about in this sort of thing would be wanton silliness, which is generally much harder to get right than people think.)
Comments
on 2007-06-17 11:49:31.0, teofilo commented:
While I appreciate the originality of your idea, it kind of sounds like a very boring Borges story.
and, further, on 2007-06-17 15:29:04.0, ben wolfson commented:
Borges yes, of course; as for boring, I dunno. It wouldn't really be for others' reading pleasure after the fact, but for the flexion and exhibition of one's powers of creative reconciliation and concept-jugglery.
and, further, on 2007-06-17 17:01:42.0, teofilo commented:
I see that, but I'd prefer to have the exercise in creativity result in something that's also interesting to read. De gustibus etc. We could try it, though, if we get through this first game successfully.