"
I was thinking of a solution such as (1) Phoínixrod says ""X"" is too circuitous and propounds nonlipogram ""Y""; (2) John bounds back with lipogram ""Z"" or similar compromising; (3) harmony springs up from continuing such a dialog. I still don't know particularly what you find so tortuous that you want to hang your hat on claiming it actually hurts this writing. But if you want to start a sub, that works, I'll just go through it bit by bit with you. At any points that you think my phrasing hurts this composition, if you sway my thinking or if not, I'll happily work toward compromising with you.
Such as this: (1) you think ""fiction"" is too fuzzy; (2a) I look up fiction and find that its only particularization in that link is by wordcount, which is not only said too much now, but also right on a cusp amidst two subcats of fiction (thus indicating against your wording, with or without ""-la""); (2b) I accordingly propound ""popular fiction"" (phrasing at that topic works favorably IMhO against such options as ""historical fiction"", and ""biographical fiction"" with two links); (3) you inform us if that is a working solution to what you had said, or not.
I just want it said upfront that (as I thought I'd shown) if it's significant, a lipogram can talk about it, fully absorbably, and without circumlocution. But it's up to you if you think this topic is still too roundabout to satisfy you (against Smith, Qaqaq, and many alii). Thank you also for maintaining paradigmatic civility!
(P.S. My nitpicking was about this topic's bottom taxonomy box (linking to C:LIP), not its top classification box. Sorry if you mistook it, but that is no fault of my using lipograms; similar miscommunications would occur in ordinary writing also anyway.)  "