Grammar is a constraint. (More so for some of us than others! ) Word count. Audience. Vocabulary. Voice. etc. There are plenty to go around. Writing is artiface. It has inherent constraints built in. What I object to is self-consciously constrained writing. Writing that crows its constraints to the world and says, "Ain't I clever?". I'm dubious, too. When I first heard of Gadsby (the e-less story) I was fairly appalled. Still am. I simply don't see the point. And yes, this, too: Now back to the originally-scheduled question: I think it can be ok for exercises. Back when I wrote mostly poetry, some of my best results came from constraints (form, especially, comes to mind, but also constraints imposed by my teachers... include these words, repeat this one twice, etc). I came up with things I wouldn't have without the constraints (sometimes good, sometime crap) and also freed my mind from other anxieties (truth, beauty, sense), allowing me to find new approaches to craft. I've recently gotten into writing flash fiction and am finding the constraint of length challenging and interesting. But if I start a story intended as flash but it refuses and asks to be longer, I listen to it. In other words, I won't force a story into a low word count just for its own sake. But when it does work, it's a great feeling. Finding a single little gem.
I think poetry is a bit of a different animal, too. (I'm not a poet, so perhaps this is off-base.) But to me, poetry is a bit more 'art-like' than prose. I remember writing poems in high school English class that, when looked at from a distance, formed hearts, or flowers, or whatever. So the 'form' actually can be part of the message of the poem, and constraints that would seem artificial in prose can work well in poetry. Prose is all about the story, and should be written to keep the reader in that world, not popping in and out of it with things that have nothing to do with the story.
Depends on your definition of 'art-like' I suppose. No poet I knows thinks poems in the shapes of the subject of a poem is artistic. It's kinda of, as you explain, high-school level poetry (not really a compliment, heh). Joyce Carol Oates had a story Landfill that has increasingly narrow margins. It was kind of silly, completely superfluous, and I was honestly a little embarrassed. Because meanwhile, her ability with language alone served the same function, creating an unstoppable motion and a FEELING the walls were caving in. To literally have concrete representations of what you're writing about, in any 'art' form, is generally seen as amateurish and silly even if you got away with writing Christmas poems in the shapes of Christmas trees as a kid or are Joyce Carol Oates and anything you do, no matter how bad, people applaud you. As mentioned previously, there are technically a million constraints. Constrained writing, where the writer is openly and actively seeking to provide additional constraints of the 'look what I did, teehee' variety is usually not very well received or respected. And, while a constraint, I don't really consider specific word-length limitations constrained writing. Just like I don't consider the fact I don't know Lithuanian, so have to write in English, a form of constrained writing.
I don't know why you're so hostile but I didn't shoo anybody away or try to showcase my ideas to inflate my ego. I'm asking a genuine question about what people think of it and wanted to use the definition provided by wikipedia, since I'm more concerned with what people think of the specific idea rather than this be a "what is this to you?" type of conversation. As far as the discussion goes, it seemed people knew what I meant since they're discussing what I expected. But to make it clear, I mean constrained writing to be the existence of additional rules or limitations beyond freer, conventional grammar. In my personal case I wish the constraint to be a logical function, so to speak, that controls the story as it goes. I'm surprised by the resistance, though - stuff like this is very much praised in the music community. I agree that it's only a gimmick when used in a context completely unrelated to the rule, but when the rule is pretty much tangent to the main theme of a work, it should be considered as something much more. I'd think of it as conceptual art where the concept is more important - albeit this might make the short story or poem form a better choice, I want to try and bring it to the "bigger event" in a way that's both affecting and intellectually interesting.
I don't see much use for most of the examples I'm seeing of "formal" types of constrained writing: using anagrams, or alliteration, or writing without using a certain letter. They deal with the craft of specific words, so they tend to be focused more for poetry than prose. Prose deals with paragraphs and scenes, character and description and plot, so any constrained writing that would be useful for a prose writer should focus on aspects of the prose writer's craft. That being said, I do find useful writing exercises with more broad constraints: Write a scene linking three different objects (pogo stick, field of corn, and a dog) Write a scene using just dialogue and its descriptors. No paragraphs without dialogue. Write a scene using only one and two-syllable words (this is a pacing exercise) Write a scene with no adverbs Write a scene without compound sentences (another pacing thing) Write a "purple prose" description. Make it as awful and cliched as you can. Write a scene using only active voice (or passive) Write a scene using second person POV Write a Dickensian scene (or Lovecraftian, or a bodice-ripper, or hard-boiled detective story). These sorts of exercises allow a writer to play within certain constraints, and stretch their imagination and craft. I wouldn't spend a LOT of time on them (I'd rather be crafting my WIP), but they are good exercises for breaks or to get your writing engine revved up if you're stuck. Giving yourself permission to stretch and try silly ideas that no one will ever see, to have fun with it, takes some of the pressure off. So if you think of these constraints as "Constrained Writing", then yes I can see some value in them.
Constrained writing is another way of saying "'imitations". Limitation in art is a great way to exercise thought process and helps expand what is possible with a single idea. Even though my main principle is music, it still follows the same rules, guides and exceptions as any art form does, including writing. In music, you'll be surprised how many different sounds you could get from a simple hit-hat; everything from pressing the pedal to hitting a cymbal side-on, on top near the edge, on top neat the centre, underneath the lower cymbal, use of dynamics, use of rhythms, use of stick/brushes/mallets - whatever you can think of, it's possible. And that's just from one single part of a drum kit! In my opinion, writing should be no different. For example, trying to write a sentence without using the letter "e": It's a hard thing to do, but approach it with caution and think about it right, and you will always find you can do a thing or two that you didn't know about. Probably wasn't the best example, but my message stands clear. I usually wouldn't use this for something major, like a novel or other big project (unless the project is about limitations, in which case, go ahead), but exercises, short stories and poetry would work fine.
