Final - Limits

It is an interesting theory, that to understand the small we must literally write smaller, communicating in shorter, more condensed ways. There seems to be a disconnect here, but perhaps an intentional and important one. Nanotext - writing that is small, or writing of the small? The literature of this class has dealt primarily with the latter, theorizing about the future of technology and where “the small” fits in, while the assignments have had much more to do with the former. In fact, Plurk assignments and blogs are a combination of both definitions of Nanotext.
Limiting our ability to communicate fully —that is, to express something in the way we find most normal, comfortable—forces a new thought process. Consider the text message: one does not consciously leave particular words or phrases out of the message, they simply leave the key components that convey a particular meaning and the less important words are lost. However, when we are asked to make art out of condensed literature, such as the Snowball poem, the elimination of words and meaning becomes a much more conscious enterprise. In limited writing, empty space can convey as much as text itself, and art becomes more than words on paper. The task now becomes to form writing in such a way that the reader can make inferences about the meaning behind it, rather than giving the reader the problem and the solution, so to speak. In the Top Ten Searches assignment, this is particularly the case. The reader’s task is to find a connection between these phrases that makes some sense. For example,

Alex Rodriguez
Boli Steroids
Dragons

may seem entirely unrelated without the reference of current events and personal interpretation. Suddenly, we have what may be a joke about some unforeseen consequences of steroid use.
Language is simply the easiest way for us to communicate today. Considering it as only a part of communication helps remind me to always look at writing as I would a work of art: from different perspectives. This is the best way to consider the small in general; size is entirely relative. So when we observe the small, it is important that we understand the power anything can hold, regardless of the way we perceive it. This is particularly true with nanotechnology, where it is not size, but quantity that creates strength.
My writing is often full of length but lacking in depth; imposing limits on this tendency forces me to remove fragments I might normally leave in my text. This creates a more cohesive, effective transposition of my thoughts. Because language is an invention of communication, it is prone to error. More language is not always equal to better understanding, as Baudrillard and Guillaume point out in Radical Alterity. Limits are something we should always impose on our writing, if the goal is to best convey our thinking. However, in certain literary situations where style is more important than understanding, it might be more practical to allow otherwise useless extensions of text. This by no means is a suggestion that elaborate writing is useless—writing is still art. But there is a misconception that somehow longer writing is more artistic than condensed writing. With these Plurk assignments in mind, I have kept a stronger focus on my own writing.
It’s worth noting that literature has become more fast-paced in stride with technology. With much of today’s entertainment being media-oriented, literature has become more action based, or immediately gratifying in an effort to keep the reader involved. So in some instances we have begun to limit our communication, simply for expedience’s sake, but what is more important is that we understand language changes as the world around it does. And this is what we are seeing in the nano age.