You have to love Will: No one more multi-syllabic is gutsier, and no one gutsier is more multi-syllabic.
I thought that was extremely clever wordplay … for about a minute, then realized there was less there than met the eye. Precisely half as much, in fact.
Suppose we have a graph expressing multisyllabosity versus gutsiness. (Or should that be "multisyllabaciousness"? Never mind.) We'll arbitrarily rate both quantities on a zero-to-twenty scale, because 20 is the first number I thought of:
Let's, again arbitrarily, give George a score of 10 on both quantities:
We could put other columnists on there, but that would be invidious.
That allows us to divide Punditdom into four regions, which we will pretentiously label with roman numerals:
So in region I are the pundits who are more multi-syllabic but less gutsy than Will; inhabitants of region II are more multi-syllabic and more gutsy; region III holds the less-gutsy short-worded wimps, and region IV contains monosyllabic gutsier-than-George knuckle-draggers.
Now when Joel says
No one more multi-syllabic is gutsier …
that's the same as saying there's no pundit in region II of the graph. And when he says:
… and no one gutsier is more multi-syllabic.
that's, well, also saying there's nobody in region II. Hence, redundant, and unworthy of a professional writer.
Thank you, I'll be here all week.