Thank you for this, Roseanne. I definitely hear what you’re saying and understand your “rebellion.”Minimalism is simply one strategy in the attempt to depict the predicament of the modern self. Other strategies involve a much more reflective protagonist or narrator as they attempt to depict the wildness of the psychological life of the modern self--such that we find, at the other end of the spectrum, the “maximalizing” technique of a David Foster Wallace. What is interesting is that all these strategies can lend themselves to either comedy or tragedy. My novel The Good Death of Kate Montclair is not actually a minimalist work, though the technique is employed in spots throughout. It’s much closer in tone to the more maximalizing narration of Walker Percy’s The Moviegoer. But I’m drawn to minimalism, especially in short fiction, because of its comic potential and “cinematic” feel--a topic which I will be writing further about this week. Thanks so much for your thoughts!
It seems a bit of an overstatement to say we don't get the characters' motivations and desires from this sort of style, but I do appreciate the contrast made to more overt ways of doing that. And it certainly does require punchier dialogue to really work!
Also appreciated the examination of Waugh's purpose in employing minimalism, as he's hardly alone there, but I think it can easily reflect other intentions as well? I mean, it does seem to be more and more the default for modern writing...
An attitude that also presumes the need for a most scientific approach to history, for example, seems another angle for using minimalism; seeking to reconstruct past events and people with the most objective, observed/recorded facts available, it proposes to 3rd-party observers (removed by time) the opportunity to consider themselves impartial judges of the situation. But even such an allegedly impartial report has an angle at which it presents "facts," so likewise the slant and depiction of deeper things like motivation and such is still present in minimalism, though simply more subtle? But underlying it, again, an assertion that the author isn't going to tell the reader what to think, just show things 'the way they are.'
Anyhow, fun things to ponder (certainly will keep mulling over this)-- thank you for this study and reflection!
Fascinating! I love Waugh's writing. That also Hemingway-esque minimalist technique you're writing about was taught in writing classes when I was studying fiction writing in the 1970s. And I recognized it in Flannery O'Connor's writings too. Show don't tell. Reveal character and background through dialogue. I have rebelled. I want literature to return to its old discursive ways. If I was to write a novel, I would want it to be like War and Peace or Moby Dick, to convey everything about an era by crafting a fascinating plot played out between compellingly rendered characters while the author sneaks in long essays about whatever suits her fancy. Think of it, both those books would be much much shorter if they ever got accepted for publication today. :-)
Thank you for this, Roseanne. I definitely hear what you’re saying and understand your “rebellion.”Minimalism is simply one strategy in the attempt to depict the predicament of the modern self. Other strategies involve a much more reflective protagonist or narrator as they attempt to depict the wildness of the psychological life of the modern self--such that we find, at the other end of the spectrum, the “maximalizing” technique of a David Foster Wallace. What is interesting is that all these strategies can lend themselves to either comedy or tragedy. My novel The Good Death of Kate Montclair is not actually a minimalist work, though the technique is employed in spots throughout. It’s much closer in tone to the more maximalizing narration of Walker Percy’s The Moviegoer. But I’m drawn to minimalism, especially in short fiction, because of its comic potential and “cinematic” feel--a topic which I will be writing further about this week. Thanks so much for your thoughts!
Fascinating study!
It seems a bit of an overstatement to say we don't get the characters' motivations and desires from this sort of style, but I do appreciate the contrast made to more overt ways of doing that. And it certainly does require punchier dialogue to really work!
Also appreciated the examination of Waugh's purpose in employing minimalism, as he's hardly alone there, but I think it can easily reflect other intentions as well? I mean, it does seem to be more and more the default for modern writing...
An attitude that also presumes the need for a most scientific approach to history, for example, seems another angle for using minimalism; seeking to reconstruct past events and people with the most objective, observed/recorded facts available, it proposes to 3rd-party observers (removed by time) the opportunity to consider themselves impartial judges of the situation. But even such an allegedly impartial report has an angle at which it presents "facts," so likewise the slant and depiction of deeper things like motivation and such is still present in minimalism, though simply more subtle? But underlying it, again, an assertion that the author isn't going to tell the reader what to think, just show things 'the way they are.'
Anyhow, fun things to ponder (certainly will keep mulling over this)-- thank you for this study and reflection!
Fascinating! I love Waugh's writing. That also Hemingway-esque minimalist technique you're writing about was taught in writing classes when I was studying fiction writing in the 1970s. And I recognized it in Flannery O'Connor's writings too. Show don't tell. Reveal character and background through dialogue. I have rebelled. I want literature to return to its old discursive ways. If I was to write a novel, I would want it to be like War and Peace or Moby Dick, to convey everything about an era by crafting a fascinating plot played out between compellingly rendered characters while the author sneaks in long essays about whatever suits her fancy. Think of it, both those books would be much much shorter if they ever got accepted for publication today. :-)