Abstract

Reviews in Common Knowledge generally seek to be more cool and edgy than their subjects, an impossibility in this case. Ording takes a mathematical statement and reaches it in ninety-nine different ways. This book is quite literally a page-turner: most of the arguments take the recto page, with comments on their verso. One keeps cycling back and forth between the mathematical inventiveness of the recto and the philosophical elegance of the verso. The ambition is huge—to construct a mathematical counterpart to Queneau's masterpiece Exercises de Style—and, remarkably, this ambition is fulfilled.It is interesting that Queneau's variations are much closer to each other than Ording's are. Queneau often feels free to provide, as a variation, the very same text with a fundamentally grammatical transformation (switching the order of the descriptions, changing their tenses, and so forth). Most of the time, Ording feels obliged to come up with a significantly different argument. Indeed, his fixed core is less constraining: instead of following the same narrative arc in different forms, he merely has to reach the same endpoint. Ording's book is rather like ninety-nine different jokes leading to the same punch line. To be clear: it is perfectly possible to produce the precise same narrative arc, in mathematics, via different forms. Switching the order is a normal way in which such exercises in mathematical style are actually produced (mathematicians do have to decide whether to write “P, therefore Q” or to write “Q, since P”). Evidently, Ording felt that producing many such purely grammatical and formal transformations would feel tedious, which is fair enough but is not precisely a contrast between mathematics and literature. Queneau's variations are, indeed, tedious; delightfully tedious; delightful in their tediousness. Joyce as a tasting menu. Some readers of modernist literature can take delight in a certain tediousness, but Ording has no illusions concerning the audience for mathematics, and, to make his own variations appealing, he had to make them much more interesting than Queneau's. The result is brilliant and should be read by anyone interested in mathematics, literature, and their many parallels and variations.