Less Is More. Again

[Brian D. McCary]

>
> Or perhaps we should put aside the less/more opposition as too simplistic. 
> To go back to Joyce, at times he seems to be a "maximalist" (including
> Bloom's budget in Ulysses), but at other times a "minimalist" (a wonderfully
> compact phrase like "Me. And me now." also in Ulysses).  Joyce uses both
> explication and implication to great effect and so, perhaps, does Pynchon.
> 
> --Noah Williams (m1nmw00 at frb.gov)
> 

Agreed.  An analogy in the painting world: most painters compose a scene
with familiar everyday objects in it in a familiar structure, while
"modern" painters might alter the structures significantly, and "abstract"
painters might abandon the use of familiar objects.  I think most writers
have a story they are telling, whereas with TP, the story (although
vital) tends to take a back seat to the creation of a living document.  In 
this sense, he might be considered a "modern" painter, along with Joyce,
Bughroughs (sp?), Stern, and perhaps some of Barth.  Of course, there is 
always a continueum, and the books of one author may spread across the
continueum.  

For me, the distinction between Pynchon and Hemmingway or Joyce is that 
Pynchon manipulates the ideas more than the language.  Joyce will invent
new words and manipulate sentance structures to create new rhythms, which
happens very little in Pynchon.  He, on the other hand, will argue three sides
of a two-sided issue simultaneously, and will weave the ideas together
while leaving the ends dangleing free for the reader to connect as they
please.  This means the books tend to change meanings on re-reading.  

In the painting analogy, I tend to think of him as I do of Magritte (and 
less so Dali) in contrast to someone like Picasso on one hand or Polack (sp?)
on the other. 

Um, no, I don't paint and I am a terrible artist, but I tend to relate to
things visually.