JSocPhys 01703 | Litarn : On ludict

§ 1.

By far our most oracular fabricator of ludict is our bosom pal and Glamporium’s, alas, now insubstantial though quondamly buxom floramorita Ouida Willoughby Johnson who, in a “symphonic conundrum involving clastic ludict” (§§ 0, 262), Divastigations (from which all our citations, in this ludict anyway, spring), posits ludict not simply as “vacant whatnot” (§ 148) or a “limp imagination’s vain acrostic” (§ 107), but as a “lucid ductility of glyph and word I construct from what among all my fair parts I lack” (§§ 0, 96, 191, 267). Ludict, thus, “constructs loving inspiration” (§ 134) just as much as it charts a “tragiplayful staging of an inability to mark with my will this blank world” (§ 61). Confirming this supposition is ludict’s “lucid flow of fact and fabulation” (§ 126), its “focal point of maximal fiction” (§ 97) implicating ludict in a “catoptromantic striving for things lost” (§§ 106, 208); that is, a “strict constraint of form which through arbitrary picturing can bring lost things back to light” (§ 124). Homologously put, ludict’s “dual matriarchs” (§ 63) promiscuously ramify into a “flyscript body of allusion molding form from form’s omission” (§ 92) and a “foolish iambic lacuna molding form from form’s intoxication” (§ 164), both of which inosculantly conjoin with, by way of a vivaciously patulous triadic circumvallation, ludict’s “patriarchal inspiration” (§ 63), which husbands forth a “form that outspills function with a frivolous construct’s lack” (§ 263). In addition, ludict is a “cryptogram of sorts for a crossword possibility” (§ 219), a “clitalysis” of which (§ 205) would “add truth to what ludict says” (§ 208). And though our author, on many a glum and forlorn occasion which not atypically follows upon an antipathic glut of agonistic bodywork — a “noxious marginal activity,” Ouida informs us, “I playfully hazard lustily” (§ 101) during a “tossing off [of ludict] as a subdominant position of skirtful troubling” (§ 148) involving “continuous or constant stooping, squatting, standing and straddling to unsnap, unhitch, unzip, unbutton, and unfurl ludict” (§ 123) — has scornfully found fault with ludict as an “imbrication of truistic monads” (§ 199), a “cynical tract of gushing lusts” (§ 208), a “circumstantial custom by which to banish any sacrificial girlchild to an obligatory dichotomy of form and function” (§ 268), this lust-inflaming lady’s habitually jaunty mood, by contrast, most unparsimoniously proclaims ludict to admit of a “natural picking and culling, [a] notional paring and cutting of combinatoric thought-blossoms” (§ 209), thus “accord[ing] fiction its cast and color” (§ 234). Functionally, ludict opts “to wish by staging an ashcan condition for what art could burn of any woman’s futurity” (§ 131) through, with, about, on, or by way of any sort of “link and spacing in which word can link [sic] hand in child’s hand a pupstroll prampush into cycling crash of rail too narrow to avoid” (§ 140) and optimally functions by “pointing a digit that is ludict” (§ 113) and by “shuttling from ludict to light and back and forth again and again” (§ 148) so as to “map this world from sight to ludict” (§ 137), thus bringing about a “clarification of so much of mankind’s vanity toward so many notions of truth and law” (§ 166). Ludict, in short, thus, is not just “an idiom highly lucid, logical, and ludict” (§ 120), but is, in Ouida’s world and word, “light” (§ 193). But it’s not our wish to clinch this ludict with an ictus so bumptious, so pompous, so pious, for Ouida, as avid patrons of Glamporium will not fail to avouch, was a charmingly sly and voluptuously playful bint for whom “laughing at ludict’s limit” (§ 215) was always an occasion for concocting a ravishingly sardonic conundrum, such as: “Ludict is to taboo as a) a dictionary is to words; b) schizomythology is to sociophysiology; c) sociophysiology is to schizomythology; or d) a word is to a dictionary” (§ 215).

§ 2.

After Ouida, probably the next most profligate exponent of ludict is D. I. Swopes, an associative redashter of the Owlstain SCAT who is perhaps also not uncoincidentally co-autochtone of our former floramorita’s New Lexican bailiwick of origin, Agua Prieta, and one of our resident lectuers at ISOCPHYS. Swopes, inspired, no doubt, by the fulsome image of Ouida’s dual matriarchs equivocally straddling a gallant patriarch (Divastigations, § 63, supra), rigs up a double entente of proximal and distal modes gleefully sandwiching and rampantly pivoting about a fulcral felly such that proximally, a “laconically lucid ludicrous lyric” (Words to Make a Story Out) acting out Ouida’s dominant hub of “lucid ductility of glyph and word I construct from what among all my fair parts I lack” (Divastigations, §§ 0, 96, 191, 267, supra), positions said “fair parts” precisely upon the muffled rostrum of Ouida’s “cynical tract of gushing lusts” (Divastigations, § 208, supra), which Swopes dubs “Lydian edict” (op. cit.) in deference to that country’s voluptuous luxury and wanton womaninity, whilst distally, a “perverse playtext composed under the pretext of playverse” (ibid.) splays Ouida’s subdominant sash — “Nothing so shallow as common instruction, nail biting quill clipping, lack of clarity, bad punctuation, awkward, typographical insults, tragiplayful staging of my inability to mark with my will this blank world” (Divastigations, § 61, supra) — upon the pivotally pulsating caudum of said fulcrally copular felly. In support of this ambitiously heterobatic acrolexical scenario, Swopes claims that its inherent docile ductility finds promiscuously textual expression in such passages as: “L’attente de métamorphoses successives dont la ductilité, la docilité au travail du langage, à l’aventure verbale, reste sans limites” (J. Gracq, En lisant, en écrivant, p. 139), “Dans un lieu unique, une scène continue, sans contraction, sans rupture, sans coupure aucune” (ibid., p. 142), and so on. Furthermore, who could argue against a clitalysis claiming that ludict “derives” (those familiar with our organization’s sine qua non will no doubt understand our reluctance to let this word escape from our fingertips sans the restraining vinculi of quotation marks) from a roussellian anastomosis involving the Gallofrankish for place name, lieu-dit, and the Flouzianian for the read and the said, lu-dict — especially when a detached fraught fragment of Ouida’s own impeccable ludict reads “Mais par quoi qu’un mot faict d’un mot tu, vaut plus qu’un mot lu d’un mot dict”? The Sanskrit for what’s written and read, moreover, is, as U Readers know, likhitapaṭhita (लिखितपठित). It is on the basis of such tribadic logic as outlined above that Swopes puts out for a triply-strung postulate that, in terms of lexical ecology, ludict augurs an eventual equilibrium between the set of all possible readers and the set of all possible writers, a situation of biune dialexicality initially presaged by S. E. Spitmarkx, especially in his Airy Arrowscript Portraits of 1848, and restated almost a century later by Herbert Quain, who “solía argumentar que los lectores eran una especie ya extinta. No hay europeo (razonaba) que no sea un escritor, en potencia o en acto. Afirmaba también que de las diversas felicidades que puede ministrar la literatura, la más alta era la invención. Ya que no todos son capaces de esa felicidad, muchos habrán de contentarse con simulacros” (J. L. Borges, Examen de la obra de Herbert Quain). Apropos of which, Dado Udidi (Hamiltonian), dysgonic native of Iagip, Wyo., who, as evidenced by his convulsive illuminations in The Compass of That Sea, was also intimately acquainted with our author and currently remains one of our associative faculty, says, in reference to “la muchacha sombrada, losada, posada,” that his “garganta pasó cinco u ocho años sin tomarla,” and that Ouida’s ludict, in addition to opening “la chorra sincopada por un tojino cudrío, podría ludir multiplicando la válvula buscada, gozando sus dos hojas anchos como frotan lo oído y lo visto cuando follamos los libros.”

THE JOURNAL OF SOCIOPHYSIOLOGY

On ludict

M. S. Litarn