William Faulkner once said of Hemingway: "He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary." Of course Hemingway's response to that was, "Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?"
The amusing nature of that exchange aside, Hemingway does have a point. I will admit that I have quite the appreciation for Hemingway because of his approach to writing. His minimalist approach is arguably just as strong or stronger than the more descriptive approach as done by Faulkner or Steinbeck (I like Steinbeck, but hate Faulkner). From one angle, the minimalist approach does not bog the readers down with overly inflated language whose only purpose is to aggressively convince the reader that the author in question possesses a vast lexicon and can whimsically extract exquisitely worded phrases. Instead of all that, the minimalist leaves the description to the reader. Arguably, this causes the reader to become much more actively involved in the story as everything is not laid out.
A Farewell to Arms benefits greatly from this approach as it adds a visceral level to all the proceedings. For example, when Henry and his friends are shelled, Hemingway's description of the violence is very direct. When Hemingway describes Henry's kneecap as halfway down his calf, the reader can immediately visualize that and almost unconsciously adds all the graphic details.
In scenes with Henry and Catherine, this minimalist style causes the reader to actively contemplate what each character feels. It is up to the reader to read in between the lines and fill in the emotions as it were. If Hemingway explored all the minutia of their relationship, it may not have been bad, but it would have deprived the reader of some character speculation.
All of this hearkens back to the imagist poets from earlier in the semester. Take a poem like Wallace Steven's "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird". The poem arguably has more of an impact because of its cryptic nature. Hemingway takes that same idea and applies it to his novel. The result of both is the same: the reader is more actively involved and can potentially get more out of the material than if the authors had spelled everything out in excruciating detail.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nice point here at the end; I love that anecdote; it's so much fun.
ReplyDelete