Looking for a novel written with limited vocabulary

[Dr. Freaksworth]

Hi,

A couple of years ago I read something about a novel (or some kind of book, at least) intentionally written with a limited vocabulary. Does anyone, by chance, know more about this?

[Nikolai Fomich]

I know Three to See the King, by Magnus Mills, an English author. It's a book which starts with a relatively simple vocabulary, but evolves with the ideas with the book (not that I'm saying the vocabulary becomes more advanced, it just changes). It's a short book, less than 200 pages, and he has written a few more short books.

[stlukesguild]

Limited in what way. Hemingway uses quite a terse vocabulary... although perhaps you're looking for something like Georges Perec's A Void in which he composed an entire novel without using the letter "E".

[Kafka's Crow]

I read Cormac McCarthy's The Road recently. Very, very sparse at times almost thrifty. It does break into flourishes but as the narrative progresses, the language becomes more and more thin and repetition becomes more and more frequent.

[johann cruyff]

Limited in what way. Hemingway uses quite a terse vocabulary... although perhaps you're looking for something like Georges Perec's A Void in which he composed an entire novel without using the letter "E".

I believe that is called lipogrammatic literature?An interesting concept,I've heard of it,but never got a chance to read anything of any literary merit written in such way...

[SleepyWitch]

was it written in Basic English perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_english

[Dr. Freaksworth]

Thanks for your suggestions; I'll definitely check out Basic English and lipogrammatic literature some more.

I guess I should have been more specific in my original post: I'm looking for a book that was intentionally written using only words from a specific list, not regular books that happen to use a simplistic vocabulary. I don't remember the exact number of words, but I do remember hearing something about this kind of book a couple of years ago.

Again, I'll look into what you've suggested so far, but additional suggestions are welcome and appreciated!

[superunknown]

Well Green Eggs and Ham by Dr Seuss was written after he made a bet with a friend that he could write a story wih no more than 50 words, but that's neither a book nor serious literature, although it does evoke childhood nostalgia in many.

[Morten]

Hi,

A couple of years ago I read something about a novel (or some kind of book, at least) intentionally written with a limited vocabulary. Does anyone, by chance, know more about this?

Most popular best-selling novels would aptly fit your description.

[Dr. Freaksworth]

Well Green Eggs and Ham by Dr Seuss was written after he made a bet with a friend that he could write a story wih no more than 50 words, but that's neither a book nor serious literature, although it does evoke childhood nostalgia in many.

That's the one!

I'm pretty sure that's the book I heard about a couple of years ago, however—the title rings a bell. You're right, though: It's not really an actual book.

Oh, well, even though that may not be the type of work I'm looking for, I'll definitely take a closer look at Basic English.

Thanks for the help, everyone!

[moose gurl]

Most popular best-selling novels would aptly fit your description.

What is up with the "trash modern fiction" trend? I don't get it. I mean, can you honestly say you've read every single popular best-seller? Some of those are really good! Some don't really compare to the greats like Faulkner and Joyce, just to name a few, but that doesn't mean they are vocabulary-limited trash. I'm not saying all of them are good, but I think to lump "most popular best-selling novels" into a category labeled "BAD" is just as stupid as lumping most books written by a dead famous guy into a category labeled "GOOD." Some books considered classics I thought were just awful, and some popular best-selling novels I think will one day be classics. Someone has to stick up for modern literature--the medium isn't dead!

And, I strongly believe that literature doesn't ALWAYS have to be "good" to be enjoyable. Why not just read something for pure pleasure? I'm not calling you specifically out on this, but I don't understand why some people take issue with reading something strictly for entertainment or pleasure, even if the writing is shoddy. There's a difference between "classic" and "good," and "good" and "fun." It doesn't always have to be all three, or even a combination. Stretch your horizons!

[Morten]

What is up with the "trash modern fiction" trend? I don't get it.

There's a "trash modern fiction" trend?

I'm not saying all of them are good, but I think to lump "most popular best-selling novels" into a category labeled "BAD" is just as stupid as lumping most books written by a dead famous guy into a category labeled "GOOD."
Some books considered classics I thought were just awful, and some popular best-selling novels I think will one day be classics.

Right. Because I came up with categories. Quote me. And isn't that wonderful that you're a critical reader. Good for you, good for you.

Someone has to stick up for modern literature--the medium isn't dead!

How noble. However, you seem to be very confused. Nowhere did I lash out at modern fiction. I'm fond of a lot of modern literature, including that of McEwan, Amis, Banville, Ford, Høeg, Rushdie, Kundera, Hemon, etc, all of whom I'm sure will one day be considered "classic authors". I simple targetted the average, best-selling, airport novel. That is, to a greater or lesser extent, trash.

And, I strongly believe that literature doesn't ALWAYS have to be "good" to be enjoyable. Why not just read something for pure pleasure?

So good literature and enjoyable literature are mutually exclusive? I do read for pleasure! Faulkner, Woolf, Joyce, Dostoevsky and Proust all give me immense pleasure. Much more than John Grisham or Jodi Picoult or Dan Brown.

Stretch your horizons!

Indeed, and what better way to do that than to read good, complex, challenging and infinitely rewarding literature. But you're contradicting yourself; one one hand you argue against categorization. But then it seems you're implying that writers in the calibre of a Joyce or a Faulkner do fall into a category, and only by reading worse writers will I "stretch my horizon". I'm quite confused.

[islandclimber]

I definitely agree with "Morten" here.. Cheap modern bestseller fiction is not literature in my books and it is debatable whether or not it is ever enjoyable, to me that is... I mean sure I could pick up something on a rare occasion that is very poorly written, but a good story, and maybe enjoy it for a few pages, maybe even finish it if I get caught up in finding out hat happens next, but it is usually far from enjoyable, and quite useless to read...

and there are a lot of great modern writers... Morten has a good list, I would name many of the same, and then also writer's such as Saramago, I think Marquez could be deemed modern, Mistry, etc... But how many of these writers do you see with books with cheap shiny covers adorning the book rack at a newspaper stand, with #1 Bestseller splayed acrossed the cover in bright obnoxious red... not many... Most bestsellers are bestsellers because they can be read by the average joe who does not want to delve into real literature... And there is a place for these bestsellers, but it is not called literature,... I'm pretty sure there was a debate on here somewhere about this kind of thing, maybe focused on Stephen King, I can't remember but it was of a similar nature...

anyways as I said most of the bestsellers are bestsellers for a reason...

[moose gurl]

Ha ha ha...hostile much?

First of all, I was merely using your post as an example of a larger trend I have noticed. Therefore, I don't need to quote you. I was not saying that YOU SPECIFICALLY were making categories, but that categorization can be dangerous if not done carefully. I said "I'm not calling you specifically out on this, but..." implying that it was not you who I attacked directly.
And thanks...I think being a critical reader is a good thing.

If I equated "most popular best-selling novels" with "modern literature," and that wasn't what you intended to imply, than I am the one confused. Working in a bookstore, I deal with "best-sellers" daily, and a few of the people you listed are on the best-sellers quite often. Perhaps a little clarity would suffice in avoiding conflict, no?

Contrary to how you interpreted my post, I was not implying that good literature and enjoyable literature are mutually exclusive, but that literature does not have to be good to be enjoyable. Most "good" literature IS enjoyable, but not all enjoyable literature is good. If I did not make that clear in my post, then I take responsibility for the misunderstanding. I thought the "doesn't ALWAYS have to" would clarify that I meant occasionally, one can read for pleasure alone instead of context. Personally speaking, I like to read a combination of good, classic, complex literature FOR PLEASURE, and I like to read fun, "mindless," entertaining literature FOR PLEASURE. Perhaps it was my use of "pleasure" that caused a misunderstanding. I was not arguing against categorizing, but merely stating that not all books fall into one category or another. Of course books have categories. But those categories DO NOT have to be mutually exclusive. You misinterpreted me.

Secondly, you are entitled to make any judgments that you desire about literature. If you choose to only read literature of a specific caliber, as islandclimber has, that is perfectly fine. That is a personal choice. But attacking other people for making a different choice and referring to "most popular best-selling novels" as trash doesn't seem quite...fair. Reading best-sellers is, as well, a personal preference.

I just believe that variety is a good thing, and that you shouldn't have to read ONLY books of a specific caliber all the time, because books of a lesser caliber can be just as enjoyable.

Hope that clarifies things.

[Morten]

Ha ha ha...hostile much?

First of all, I was merely using your post as an example of a larger trend I have noticed. Therefore, I don't need to quote you. I was not saying that YOU SPECIFICALLY were making categories, but that categorization can be dangerous if not done carefully. I said "I'm not calling you specifically out on this, but..." implying that it was not you who I attacked directly.
And thanks...I think being a critical reader is a good thing.

If I equated "most popular best-selling novels" with "modern literature," and that wasn't what you intended to imply, than I am the one confused. Working in a bookstore, I deal with "best-sellers" daily, and a few of the people you listed are on the best-sellers quite often. Perhaps a little clarity would suffice in avoiding conflict, no?

Contrary to how you interpreted my post, I was not implying that good literature and enjoyable literature are mutually exclusive, but that literature does not have to be good to be enjoyable. Most "good" literature IS enjoyable, but not all enjoyable literature is good. If I did not make that clear in my post, then I take responsibility for the misunderstanding. I thought the "doesn't ALWAYS have to" would clarify that I meant occasionally, one can read for pleasure alone instead of context. Personally speaking, I like to read a combination of good, classic, complex literature FOR PLEASURE, and I like to read fun, "mindless," entertaining literature FOR PLEASURE. Perhaps it was my use of "pleasure" that caused a misunderstanding. I was not arguing against categorizing, but merely stating that not all books fall into one category or another. Of course books have categories. But those categories DO NOT have to be mutually exclusive. You misinterpreted me.

Secondly, you are entitled to make any judgments that you desire about literature. If you choose to only read literature of a specific caliber, as islandclimber has, that is perfectly fine. That is a personal choice. But attacking other people for making a different choice and referring to "most popular best-selling novels" as trash doesn't seem quite...fair. Reading best-sellers is, as well, a personal preference.

Yawn.

I just believe that variety is a good thing, and that you shouldn't have to read ONLY books of a specific caliber all the time, because books of a lesser caliber can be just as enjoyable.

No, you still don't seem to get it. Variety is good, you say, and I agree. That is why I read a Turgenev novel one week and then, let's say, a Flannery O'Connor story collection the next. If that's not variety then I don't know what is. Why, then, should I read a Dan Brown novel? Because it's good once in a while to read something "light"? I don't buy it. There are mind-numbing distractions a-plenty out there, all I need to do is turn on the TV and drone along in unfettered attention to the latest breaking news about a celebrity Who's-its baby mama drama or some lurid mockery of human emotions in the form of a competition between a myriad of not-so-clever blondes speaking in an upward inflexion and then drowning themselves (and whatever inch of self-respect that still teeters on the edge of that tempting abyss) in the hope of winning some has-been male celebrity's unworthy and corrupted heart.

Hostile much? Of course I am. The world offends me.