In what could be called a manifesto on exactitude, Italo Calvino’s lecture articulates what he sees as an ideal attribute of writing: exactitude. It was difficult for me to reconcile Calvino’s obsession with exactitude and his general critique of language as not being truly able to accomplish its goals. Not only does language take many forms, but literature also serves many functions across societies and caters to a wide array of readers. Raymond Williams’ Culture supports the idea of readers being as important, if not more important, than the writing. “Culture” has had different meanings in different time periods, proving that it is important to cater to the socio-historical context specific to your readers.  I was not convinced that Calvino’s main points are as universalizing as he presents them.

Juxtaposed with the other readings of the week, the exactitude lecture made me think a lot about length. Calvino made a claim something along lines of him wishing to speak as little as possible such that his words are always precise. This intentional form of language is a cure to what Calvino identifies as the “language plague.” Length, though not always, is a quite intentional and an immediately noticeable aspect of writing. The poem by William Carlos Williams is several pages long, which adds rhythm, repetition, and a cyclical effect. This is an instance where, depending on the intentions of the author, the length of the poem could have been prioritized over the exactitude of the language.