Minimalism and
Maximalism: A Discussion
TRANSCRIPT OF
DISCUSSION FOR APRIL, 1, 2004:
CYANNE: This is
Cyanne Topaum, proprietor of the Sam Rayburn Literary Pages, with my
friend of seven years and fellow reader, Marc Gonzalez. Glad you could
spare some time for a discussion, Marc. I know you've been pretty busy
these past few days.
MARC: No problem,
Cyanne. Anything for a good friend of mine.
CYANNE: What have
they been making you read at that school you attend this semester?
Anything of worth?
MARC: Well, this
semester was mainly poetry but now we've had to read Perelandra by C.S.
Lewis and Frankenstein by Mary Shelley.
CYANNE: Did you
enjoy either novel?
MARC: Perelandra and
Frankenstein were both equally good and rich in plot, but with story lines
that great I felt it was a let down, almost like they could've done more.
I enjoyed Perelandra more, though.
CYANNE: I read the
Chronicles of Narnia by Lewis myself when I was in the eighth grade.
Haven’t had the times to read much else by Lewis, but I hear his books on
Christianity are excellent... Anyway, let's get down to business.
MARC: Right.
CYANNE: First of
all, are you familiar with minimalism and maximalism?
MARC: Yes, I think I
am. Doesn't that have to do with excess imagery and wording?
CYANNE: In a way.
That actually defines the literary doctrine of maximalism more than it
does minimalism. Care for me to explain minimalism in a bit more detail?
MARC: I think
minimalism is using little words to set up scenes, while maximalism is
using great details to set up scenes.
CYANNE: That is the
gist of it. You're correct in saying minimalism is generally defined as
using the smallest amount of words to get a point across. It is most
prevalent in the art world, but is beginning to rear its ugly head on the
literary scene, as well. Let it be known right here and now that I do not
appreciate minimalists. Whereas they are regarded as modern-day poets by
their fans, I prefer thinking of them as the mutant spawn of the writings
of Ernest Hemingway. When this writer began making waves with his literary
motif that basically consisted of short and secretive sentences with a
massive amount of symbolism behind their shroud of simplicity, it was the
beginning of a new era of hack-writers... I don't mean to be pompous, but
after Hemingway, there have been literally hundreds of people who
see how simple his novels look and think, "Hey, I could do that!" They see
something short and immediately see it as something they could do. Now I
know that I have no right to really dig into these would-be writers, but
it has always been my personal opinion that brevity is banal. I'm not an
overly big fan of poetry or any novel too short to not read through in one
or two sittings consisting of an hour a piece. When I read a good novel, I
like there to be some meat in the book. I want it to take me in and only
let me out once it has thoroughly told a tale to please. That is just my
personal view, and naturally I don't consider myself a maximalist, the
polar opposite of a minimalist... Instead I think of myself only as a
reader who actually likes reading. Why read if you aren't prepared
to get through one thousand pages? Every day that a novel is published
today with over six-hundred pages, immediately the book reviewer who lays
their hands upon the tome is quick to intone, "Gawd, that is a big ol'
book!" in a truly humbled voice. Please. Writers of the Victorian age such
as Thomas Hardy, Charles Dickens, and Herman Melville (followed up by D.H.
Lawrence and E.M. Forster, survivors of the 19th century maximalist bunch)
wrote extremely long novels, but did their critics ever complain about
length? No, instead they usually just clamored about the immorality of
certain portions of the novels, but that was typical of a Victorian
reviewer... Morality aside, neither the readers nor the critics had many
problems reading elephantine novels back in the 1800s, so why are so many
readers afraid of them now? Have we come so far that our fast-paced lives
do not permit long reads? Is the patient reader truly an atypicality in
this day and age, or am I merely not looking past such best-selling
authors as John Grisham, Michael Crichton, Chuck Palahniuk, and Nick
Hornby? Do the incredible sales of Tom Clancy and Stephen King, both
writers well known for their longevity, point out that I am missing the
point?
MARC: Well, I
understand completely what you're saying Cyanne and I agree. But I prefer
minimalism to a certain degree more than I do maximalism. For one, some of
the novels with very descriptive authors take away some joy of the
imagination of a book. I have to disagree with an author using four pages
to describe the shade of red of someone's coat. I think that creates a
strict visual code that's hard to break out of, where as when I read a
book, I look to read a loose description. It lets me create my own image.
Maximalism to me is like seeing the movie then reading the book, where
from there on I'm bound to what I've seen in the movie. However,
minimalism has gotten a bit out of hand. Some novels now have shrunk to 40
pages, which I think is shameful... But, this does not mean that all short
novels are minimalistic. This also could mean that not all long novels are
maximalistic. Some stories are just longer than others. The Count of Monte
Cristo, my favorite, does not overly describe any one moment or scene that
much but it is just a long story from start to finish. In my opinion it is
minimalistic because it seems like the story is too long to be described
in great detail used in other books. Stephen King is a great writer and
his novels are all considerably long. He's got a big story to tell, but
even though he describes some things with great detail, he leaves enough
to be left open for the human mind which is why I think he is great...
Shorter stories with a lot of detail that leave nothing to the imagination
but tell a short story are bad to me... Those are shameful of any author.
CYANNE: You make an
interesting point, Marc. You're right that often times a book with a lot
of pages can be really minimalist in nature, while even a novella can be
maximalist. But what about length, though? From what you said, it
seems as if you see little correlation between the size of a book and the
literary doctrines that it may or may not subscribe to.
MARC: Length is
dependant on the story to me. Sometimes the shortest stories are the best
ones to read while on the other hand some longer stories are boring,
almost like listening to one person gloat about themselves. Sometimes all
length is to me is trying to get a point in the reader's head over and
over again. I'll read any good story just as long as it's not brainwash or
a broken record player playing the same notes over and over again.
CYANNE: So length
has never been a problem with you personally, right?
MARC: Length is
never a problem, repetition is.
CYANNE: Perhaps
actual length of the novel is not always related with its minimalism and
maximalism. In my opinion, though, maximalism allows a writer to get every
point they want to get across, experiment with as many different themes,
symbols, and literary motifs as they wish, and elaborate more on
characters. I am especially fond of maximalism attached to a first-person
narrative. What about you, Marc? Do you believe one form allows more
freedom for a writer than the other?
MARC: To me,
maximalism isn't so much concerned with the nostalgia of the story, it's
more of a standing or belief; it's more of an exact detailed narration
which leaves the reader to answer, "What do you think?" Minimalism to me
is more of a child's story, leaving ends opens for filling with whatever;
these to me are the books that get the reader thinking.
CYANNE: I understand
what you're saying, but I have to disagree with the first point you made.
I believe maximalism allows the author space to better detail a past and
literally create feelings of nostalgia inherent within the very book
itself. Minimalism has always seemed to me like a monologue with three
sentence descriptions... Basically a play with a few "helpful
descriptions" dropped in between dialogue to better aid the actors who are
performing it. The style is just way too simplistic for me. It isn't
entirely longevity, either. I have gripes serious with stories that are so
bare of vivid description and drama that they read as if the author picked
them clean during revisions... Like the writer went back to revise chapter
one the very second after he finished it, which, in turn, led him to write
the rest of the novel with the superficiality that generally comes with
authors who have lost their way in a story... Never a good sign, in my
opinion, of the worth of any writer.
MARC: Hmm... Ack, I
gotta cut this conversation short, Cyanne. Need to prepare some things for
tomorrow.
CYANNE: Oh, no
problem. We'll continue this discussion tomorrow night.
MARC: Okay. Later.
CYANNE: Night, Marc.
END OF TRANSCRIPT
FOR 4-1-04.
BEGINNING OF
TRANSCRIPT FOR 4-2-04:
CYANNE: Once again,
this is Cyanne Topaum, webmaster of the Sam Rayburn Literary pages, here
with Marc Gonzalez. Have a productive Friday, Marc?
MARC: Not really,
Cyanne, the clouds always get to me, I prefer a sunny day. Nevertheless,
it shouldn't affect my thoughts too much. Slow day, but there's always
tomorrow.
CYANNE: I know what
you mean... Today dragged by at Rayburn. Being in a lethargic state
throughout the duration of the school day doesn't help matters, either.
You have any plans for this weekend?
MARC: Well, I've got
my usual plans to relax and catch up with friends.
CYANNE: Ah.. Can't
wait till your Easter break, huh?
MARC: I'm counting
the seconds.
CYANNE: Same here...
At least I had Spring Break already. You haven't had a decent break since
Christmas... Anyway, back to the discussion on minimalism and maximalism.
MARC: Right. Where
were we?
CYANNE: I believe I
just got through stating my belief that minimalism tends to decrease the
actual content of the novel containing description and even drama, to an
extent... Have any comments?
MARC: You just
nailed it. Minimalism does take away drama and description. I also believe
that without some excess description characters like Captain Ahab in Moby
Dick would just seem normal and that is certainly cheating the reader out
of a good story. However, sometimes maximalism just seems to be like
constant nagging in my head to make a foundation for a plot, even though
it is too much. Like all things, I believe a good book comes in balance in
words, enough to dramatize it but not too much as to over emphasize.
CYANNE: What do you
feel is a decent amount of pages needed in order for a novel to fully
flesh out characters?
MARC: Well, that's
all dependant on the story. I should expect books like Catcher in the Rye
to spend some time and thus more pages to let the reader inside the psyche
of the main character. But I don't think any of the Baby Sitter's Clubs
series would ever spend 50 pages on the psyche of one of their mindless
teenage characters.
CYANNE: Nor would it
be expected from John Grisham and Michael Crichton, two of today's
best-selling writers. And although I only found the The Catcher in the Rye
decent when I read it, I nevertheless understood why so many young people
my age were able to relate with Holden Caulfield. Salinger created him
with a startling realism that appears to translate well from the forties
into the 21st Century. I do agree that sometimes maximalism can feel like
fluff in a novel, but when written well, it only seems like an extension
of thought. When done right, maximalist literature creates a world in and
of itself... I don't believe the same can be said of minimalism. Nor do I
think that maximalism in a novel really detracts from the overall
imaginative experience. Of course, sometimes it can be excessive to the
point of the reader wanting to skip ahead to the actual drama in between
the contemplations of the characters... Some authors, Stephen King being
one of them, occasionally overuse maximalism to the point of slowing down
the action within the story.
MARC: Yes,
maximalism is great because it can create so much psychology to a story,
but it can also do the worse thing (in my opinion) an author can do. It
can cause the reader to lose interest. I know when I was reading some of
William Faulkner, I thought to myself 'wow, this guy went off topic, who
could've thought a murder mystery turn into a recollection of childhood
thoughts.' And usually when I got to thinking, I lost interest and began
to merely skim over the words rather than actually read them.
CYANNE: Which works
of Faulkner did you read?
MARC: I could only
bear to read Intruder in the Dust.
CYANNE: I've neither
read nor heard much about Intruder in the Dust. The only Faulkner I've
read were the novels, As I Lay Dying, The Sound and the Fury, and
Sanctuary, as well as a short story entitled "The Bear." I understand what
you mean... Faulkner tends to overwrite in his novels to the point of
making some of his work incomprehensible like Joyce's Finnegans Wake. The
novels of his that I read, however, managed to keep mostly to the plot, as
well as make clever use of different literary techniques... Faulkner
always was an experimenter, so it stands to reason that his fiction
baffles a number of people who read his works. Another novelist of the
early Twentieth Century who enjoyed writing experimental prose besides
Joyce and Faulkner was Thomas Wolfe. Although I have only read his first
novel, it has become plain to see that the man often would overwrite
simply to relish the beauty of his prose, which, in turn, makes reading
him at certain points more of a chore than anything else. Have you
encountered any writers like this beside Faulkner, Marc?
MARC: I can't think
of any right now.
CYANNE: I know what
you mean. Today felt so incredibly long... Anyway, do you consider
yourself a slow reader or a fast reader?
MARC: Me? Slow. It's
a problem I have to deal with. Not too slow, but compared to most speed
readers nowadays, it's a bit slow.
CYANNE: Do you think
the velocity you read at attributes to your particular preference for
minimalist literature, to an extent? Or does it not really factor in?
MARC: Well, I'd have
to say yes and no. I know a lot of the times, I am too busy to read
through a lot of text, but I think even if I had time I might lose
interest and feel like I was wasting time. It's hard to say. But for most
Americans on the go, a quick and good story is better.
CYANNE: Which
collaborates with the fact that the majority of number one best-sellers
are novels that are set at a quickened pace with minimal intelligent
content attached to a thrilling plot line. In my opinion, it sometimes
seems as if the erudite side of today's best-sellers is often just a
gimmick to lure in readers... To give them the feeling that they are truly
bettering themselves through reading something that is both easy to read
and entertaining. Not that I have been adverse to reading Koontz, Grisham,
Crichton, or any other best-selling author. In the past, this sort of book
was the only kind I ever read. For many Americans, these types of novels
are the only kind they will ever read for the rest of their life... Marc,
do you see this as acceptable, or do you believe there is a higher form of
literature that better enables of self-actualization in a reader?
MARC: I have to
respect it no matter what as literature. But if one tries to say that he
has read a wide variety of different styles through these novels only, he
is very wrong.
CYANNE:
I don't think anyone really does. It seems as
if most of today's current writers write by-the-book as prescribed by
yesterday's authors. Although there are a few outsiders, including one of
my favorite contemporary authors, Michael Chabon, who is more akin to
Vladimir Nabokov than any other recent author, the majority favor taking
advantage of the tools at hand. To me, this sees a little bit like
opportunism in writing fiction. Why experiment and better the field when
you already have everything you need set out for you? Of course, I don't
fault the writers of today for adjusting to literary disciplines instead
of writing with reckless abandon, but it seems as if it has been too many
years since the face of literature has been completely changed for the
better.
MARC: Well said,
Cyanne.
CYANNE: Thanks...
Marc, do you have a view on the state of literature today and the
so-called, by myself anyway, "rut" it is stuck in?
MARC: Yes, that's
what life is made up of, many constant cycles we know as ruts. It happens
in fashion trends, music, and even literature. But I am a bit optimistic.
I think something has to give sometime.
CYANNE: Something
will give hopefully before literature becomes tame... Some kind of
modern-day renaissance will rescue us from these literary dark ages.
Something always has. When the Victorian styles began to grow outdated, in
came Hemingway redefining literature. When his minimalist style became a
little to short for some writers, what came along was a
stream-of-consciousness narrative during the progressive Beat Generation.
And although the sixties certainly interfered with the way literature
might have gone by inducting a number of authors into the world of drugs,
and thereby lessening their chances of ever producing a large body of
work, American literature will most likely overcome. A number of today's
popular writers do not stick to the preset mold already laid out for every
young writer to cast their story in, and this can only be a good sign. All
that the literary world needs now is a visionary. All I hope is that we
sight him/her in our lifetimes.
MARC: Well, like the
ending words from The Count of Monte Cristo, "wait and hope." Thanks for
having me Cyanne.
CYANNE: No problem,
Marc. Glad to have your input. Enjoy your weekend incase I don't see you
again before Monday.
MARC: Night, Cyanne
CYANNE: Later, Marc.
END OF TRANSCRIPT
FOR 4-2-04.
Written by Cyanne Topaum with commentary by Marc
Gonzalez
Back to Literary
Essays