Anywho, back to what we discussed last class: Newspeak, an "ambiguous euphemistic language used chiefly in political propaganda." Newspeak reduces the not only the amount of words spoken/written, but it cuts adjectives, synonyms, and antonyms all together. It reduces the ambiguity and rhetoric of language down to a simple concept rooted in control and the need for thought, well, lack of really. If you don't have the words to question an idea, then how can you even question it?
This current process I'm working with does just that with the novel- it not only reduces, but erases the adjectives altogether. The current rule I'm implementing is that Chapter A effects Chapter B, in a sense that the adjectives- their synonyms and antonyms, accounted for Chapter A, will be the "erased" or "blacked out" words in Chapter B.
In this example, I'm listing the adjectives accounted for in chapter 1, grouping synonymous words together, and showing how often the word itself was used in this chapter. Chapter 2 will then be analyzed and the corresponding pairs of adjectives, synonyms, and antonyms of these words will be erased from the text (and accounted for in this process book). THIS ISN'T FINAL OR CLEANED UP. I just kept listing words as I came upon them in the book, so there are quite a lot of repeats here. I'm also thinking about turning the words most used from each chapter into "Newspeak" words, or at least showing what their new phrasing would be in this process book. For example, small would become "unbig." Ideally, I'd like to create a two part interaction- the physical copy of the original book with genuine ink on paper blackouts and selection of words, as well as this process book which explains the process, explains what's happening in the original copy of the novel.