September 28th reading response

In Raymound Roussel’s “How I wrote certain of my books,” he explains the method behind much of his early work. I found his methods interesting. He Builds sentences or ideas for his pieces through taking words that sound alike and adding similar words with capabilities of two meanings. And that’s just the beginning stages. As he continued to elaborate on these other stages, I began to lose interest. I appreciated that he expressed that many of his ideas were from observations in other things such as art. Roussel lists many of the places he’s been to and says that these places never had an influence on his books. Personally, no one is to really know if that is true, and mentioning it just seemed haughty to me. However, his theories and methods on manipulating language were pretty interesting.
While reading part I of Locus Solus, I was initial enticed by the set up of the story. However, as it carried on I lost interest a bit. I started to feel it was getting a little muddled. It started off as a very intelligent man dedicated to his work, giving his closest friends a tour of his amazing villa and work laboratories. He starts describing his guest and begins telling a story of one of his guests’ studies on an Arab theologian. I guess, I felt much of it was random, however still understandable as far as plot goes. The language was entertaining and different to read.
Hazel Smith shows a similar idea in “Playing with Language, running with referents.” Through multiple exercises, she explores the possibility of word manipulation through techniques such as association by sounds or meaning, dissociation, leapfrogging, and mixing those strategies. I can see how much of this is useful to any writer, constantly encouraging new thought for language and new spins on words and their meaning.