Il est conditionnel au romancier que, s’il convoite la rosée du comparatisme pour ronger la conscience rocambolesque, il ne conçoit rompre la connaissance de la rouspétance du roué et du con qu’en rognant et en consolidant des romans de connivence où les connivences roulent comme roues en soi et conviennent des rondeurs non conjuguées, c’est-à-dire commodément romanesque et rondement conjecturées.
Ainsi il est concomitant du roman que, s’il rouvre la conversion du romantisme pour contrer la ronceraie concrète du con, pour contrecarrer la contrée rosâtre du roué, il ne rôde autour du comparaison de la robotisation du concurrent et du rond qu’en contrefaisant et en rouspétant des contes de rossignol où les rossignols concilient comme cons en soi et rossent des conventions non romanesques, c’est-à-dire impossibles à conjurer et à romancer par le conteur.
Car il est roboratif au conte que, s’il ronge les convolutions de la rosace pour roquer dans une constellation rocailleuse, il ne contraint à rôtir le contact du royaume du conditionnel et du concomitant qu’en rouillant et en condensant des rodomontades conceptuelles où les concepts rotent comme des confectionneurs des roitelets et convulsent des routines non constatées, c’est-à-dire roidement comptées et congénitalement roublardes.
Or il est contingent à la rodomontade que, si elle convoque la rosserie du conceptualisme pour roder la contrariété rococo, elle ne roffre conduire le rossignol de la contextualisation au rond-point de la congruence qu’en construisant et en rouvrant des complaintes de roturier où les roturiers conversent comme des rondeaux convexes et content des robinsonades non comptables, c’est-à-dire impossibles à rompre et à confondre par le rotativiste.
Alors il est robuste pour la complainte que, si elle ronchonne les consorts du romanisme afin de concorder les rosicruciens conséquents, elle ne consacre les rognons consumés dans les rogations du contingent et du roboratif qu’en rôtissant et en controversant des rotrouenges à contresens où le contresens ronronne comme un conifère roué en soi et contracte des roulures non consommables, c’est-à-dire considérablement rouquines et royalement congestionnées.
Donc il est conforme à la rotrouenge que, si elle consulte le rosaire du constructivisme pour roucouler la consolation rotatoire, elle ne confère au ronfleur la conque de la rotation du contenu et du rodage qu’en contournant du compositeur de rondeaux des contextures rompues qui rôdent comme conclusions en soi et rodent des contrastes non ronceux, c’est-à-dire impossibles à rouiller et à ronger par l’auteur.
It is a provision of textwork that, if it thirsts for the dew of the comparative in order to corrupt the phantasmagorical theatre of mind, it might consider disrupting the awareness of the dispute beween the scoundrel and the fool only by paring down and consolidating that phony textwork where fraud spins relentless like the proverbial wheel all too apt for such disjunctive fulnesses as are promiscuously textual and promptly postulated by it.
Thus it is attendant on the textwork that, if it were to repurpose the transposition of textuality in order to parry the tangible brambly scrubland of your typical poetical simpleton and to thwart the pink wastes of your intractable literary rogue, it could prowl about the roboticized comparison of rivalry and rotundity only by pirating and resisting the pantomorphic textwork where, like an idiot savant of
ludict, the anointed pantocrat placates and thrashes all your antitextual protocols which your truly promiscuous textworker finds as impossible to transmute as to expostulate upon.
And so it is downright stimulating to your more provocative textwork that, if it were to imperil the spathes of the rosebud or compromise the whorls of the orchid in order to castle into a craggier, sturdier, more impregnable constellation of words, it would have to blockade the skewer of the blitz on the
extemporaneous rookbed of the provisional and the tangential only by corroding and compacting the conceptual claptrap where concepts eructate like the spin-doctors of petty tyrants in such a way that your more traditional procedures twitch and tremble no matter how tightly computed and innately perfidious the textwork that pre- or proscribes them may be.
Now, in theory, at least, the textual claptrap we call promiscuous textwork could potentially, it goes without saying, if it were to empower the conceptual pummeling in order to propagate the antinomian sumptuousness of it all, resign itself to driving the overcontextualized pantocrat of prose to the transitive debauch only with the promise that it would be permitted to gamahuche and stuprate your vulgar pudenda of threnody, your humdrum hymen of hymn, your allodial phallus of ballad, so as to induce the wanton vulgarians and prosaic layabouts therein to speechify like an intertextual daisy chain and rhapsodize the multifarious textual escapades so accommodatingly that not even the most assiduous proofreader could rupture or confound it.
Of course, your beefier threnodes of the text won’t protest too much, since, after all, they’re as eclectic in thrust as they are catholic in scope, and so, should the textwork postulant sacrifice her literary sweetbreads in the sacrament of the potential and the provocative, it’s quite likely that the only exegetical outcome of such lambasting and traducing of the amphigorical travesty, such coddling of ditto like a belabored larch, a fellated fir, an irrumated juniper, a labdiated hemlock will be to contract an outrageously chancrous, egregiously erythematous, monstrously pustulant buccal smut.
Therefore it’s provident upon the textwork that, if it should wish to finger the constructivist rosary in order to plaintively beslobber its axial solace, it should bestow upon the hypersomnic textworker the conch of the ouroboros of text and plate, the scroll of the baphomet of trial and proof, the screw of the aporia of theory and praxis only by purloining the recursive compositor of his or her transgressed contextures that lurk like conclusive evidence and loiter in antitheses so paradoxical that not even your most incompetent textworker could stultify and pervert them.
