What makes Raymond Carver so good in just two pages?

Submitted by Valuable-Elevator511 t3_z5xoxl in books

I'm not particularly intelligent so I was wondering if anybody could explain to me what is so brilliant about Raymond Carver. The last few years I just have stopped reading altogether so my brain just isn't wired right. but I was just reading some short stories from Raymond Carver (specifically one called 'viewfinder' in the collection called 'what we talk about when we talk about love') and I was just amazed at how compelling it was in so few pages. They're very short, fairly innocuous stories of the gentle, sometimes hinted eccentricity of American suburbia but I just couldn't explain to myself what exactly it was or why it affected me so much. Maybe somebody with a better understanding or literacy depth can explain to me why it works so well

96

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

JoyousDiversion t1_ixyg6nl wrote

I absolutely love Carver. I know exactly what you mean. He seems to have this skill where every description, every conversation is distilled to its essence. At the same time, the things that aren’t said are just as important. Obviously he has a minimalist kind of style and tends to focus on blue collar subjects but I think how you describe him is perfect. He just gets an awful lot of out brevity.

22

Valuable-Elevator511 OP t1_iy0wa28 wrote

Having finished the book of stories now, I feel as though each one took place simultaneously on the same day and I could only see a tiny part of their lives as I flew over and it reminded me that people are complex & fascinating even in their most mundane or ordinary environments. He really does get a lot out of very little.

P.s thanks for the great reply. Sorry about the late response. I'm just taking them all in now.

3

jaymickef t1_ixyqn8o wrote

There’s just enough information to trigger your own imagination. Carver really understood that writing is a dialogue between writer and reader, not a monologue from the writer. Everyone brings their own experiences to reading and Carver allows you to be a big part of the process as you fill in the blanks, so to speak.

14

Valuable-Elevator511 OP t1_iy1279g wrote

"writing is a dialogue between the writer and the reader" is an absolutely beautiful expression. I love that. It actually has exposed a major flaw in a lot of my creative endeavours because I love a monologue so I'm very guilty of it. I'm wondering to myself now if it's actually something you can learn because it seems to me that understanding is what made him so special and that's not something everybody can just do or understand. I'm gonna be thinking about this for a while. It's a great answer. Sorry about the late response

1

jaymickef t1_iy16wg7 wrote

That’s a good question, if you can learn it or not. I used to think it was too bad that learning to write couldn’t be more like learning a musical instrument, before you write your own songs you learn to play someone else’s. Then I read an interview with Elmore Leonard (one of my favourite writers) who said to learn to write he would start by typing the beginning of Hemingway story, maybe half a page, and then then continue in his own direction trying to see if he could capture Hemingway’s voice. This was long before fanfic which I now think is a good way to learn, much like playing other people’s music is for learning an instrument. I have worked in two writers’ rooms on TV shows and in some ways it’s kind of like writing fanfic, you need to be able to capture the voice of the show runner.

Anyway, I think you can learn to write the way you want to but you do have to trust the readers a lot. And you have to write a lot.

As for Carver, there is a lot of discussion about how much he was edited by Gordon Lish. That’s the other thing, every book we read was also edited by someone other than the author.

https://blog.pshares.org/raymond-carver-gordon-lish-and-the-editor-as-enabler/

3

kafkafirefly t1_ixyj3cf wrote

I think his stories shine a light on very real and gritty human moments. There’s no idealisation or grandeur, he speaks about small moments which are not usually wrote about and that makes you think about life in a slightly different way.

13

Valuable-Elevator511 OP t1_iy0wpfn wrote

I think you're absolutely right and sometimes it seems like those gritty moments are so small or common that you wouldn't think to write about them but he does and it really makes you think about the meaning of a bottle clink or a brief conversation with a stranger.

Thanks for getting back to me. Sorry it took me so long to reply. I was out but I have been reading the comments and appreciating the wisdom imparted

2

KnowHowIKnowYoureGay t1_ixyrg5a wrote

>I'm not particularly intelligent so I was wondering if anybody could explain to me what is so brilliant about Raymond Carver.

Also

>They're very short, fairly innocuous stories of the gentle, sometimes hinted eccentricity of American suburbia

Pretty sure you answered your own question.

13

TekhEtc t1_iy0l9lu wrote

Which also shows OP probably is quite intelligent

3

Valuable-Elevator511 OP t1_iy0xp9l wrote

Ha thanks both! But not as intelligent as those I admire most! I knew what I loved about the story but I was just surprised by how impactful it was in such a short amount of time and I knew there would be a lot more people on Reddit that could say "well the doorbell represents his self worth at the time" or something that I would have never picked up on and then it would all make sense.

I've really enjoyed it though and I think I'll start reading again. Thanks for replying. The responses have been pretty enlightening

2

ClarkFable t1_ixz79ya wrote

Because if he goes more than a few pages, he knows he’ll bore you to death?

5

Valuable-Elevator511 OP t1_iy0xzd9 wrote

Ha. I liked it. It made me feel like life just by itself can be pretty interesting. Happy to have both sides of the coin here though

1

Mister_Nancy t1_ixzaa4m wrote

A good editor.

4

elstokez t1_ixzrm8n wrote

Yes, the stories were basically by Gordon Lish, not Raymond Carver.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/24/rough-crossings

2

speedheart t1_iy0zhjo wrote

yes, i support a good editor as absolutely vital in prose/short story writing. but saying that his editor basically wrote these stories really undersells it all, especially the work of an editor. a good writer / editor combo usually lasts for years (if not decades) across works. i’m not going to choose between johnny marr and morrissey here.

as for OP, i love carver, and i think what makes him so effective is that his stories are small modern american parables. at the end of all his stories you feel like you’ve learned and understood something serious about the pain of modern existence.

3

Valuable-Elevator511 OP t1_iy118fv wrote

This is a great counter point. I think you're right about the American parables. Sometimes I wasn't even sure what I'd learnt or gained but instead i just sat with the empathy and I think that's what I've learnt about Carver in all the responses. It's the way he describes the little things like how an old man sits down like he's never going to get back up again or how somebody introduces themselves but doesn't leave a name. There is something existential in the ordinary things we can imagine or feel every day

1

elstokez t1_iy4y6di wrote

But read the article, though. The editor wrote the stories.

1

shinu5791 t1_ixz4x2d wrote

I read “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” story collection few years back..and to this day it remains one of my favourites! Having read the collection, I believe Carver was either a great tease or just stopped when he felt like it..either way, the collection is like a quilt patched with scraps from ordinary lives where each story catches a glimpse of the nature of humans! So satisfying to read :)

3

Valuable-Elevator511 OP t1_iy12soo wrote

The quilted blanket was a lovely analogy. I was just saying above that for me, it was like flying over a town where all these stories were happening in one day and I could only pick up bits of it as I flew over realising these seemingly ordinary lives, seen from above, were much more complex and interesting than I had remembered was possible

2

14751_SEIJI t1_ixynk6r wrote

Great writer indeed! I don't know exactly why and what Carver does, wanted to share some love for him.

What I think works for me, writers paint pictures in your head. To know what words to pick and to describe, and what to leave out and let the mind fill in is an art by itself. For me Carver does this really well.

Also the short 'slice of life' stories add to this effect for me. My mind starts wondering about the parts of the stories before and after.

2

TheChocolateMelted t1_ixyrsjv wrote

>but I just couldn't explain to myself what exactly it was or why it affected me so much.

This is exactly how his characters feel. This is why it works.

Favourite Carver story - and one I'll recommend - is called 'Fat'. He just gets so much so right. He sees his world way more clearly than anyone else. Just beautiful stuff.

2

Valuable-Elevator511 OP t1_iy0yjob wrote

Will definitely get it. Feel like reading again. And I think you're absolutely right about his characters, especially in these stories - there is a feeling of slight dissociation or something but maybe I'm projecting that because most of them start in the middle and have no conclusion so they feel ever so slightly out of time

1

incredibleinkpen t1_ixz4co9 wrote

One of my favourite writers. Masterclass in brevity

2

bUrNtKoOlAiD t1_ixzz8zl wrote

Exactly. "Why use many words when few do trick."

1

Valuable-Elevator511 OP t1_iy137sc wrote

I wonder if anybody ever successfully sold books writing few words as possible. The closest I can think of is Hubert Selby Jnr not using any punctuation in requiem for a dream. That book tough. Me struggled.

1

filmguerilla t1_ixzwi71 wrote

It's a combination of cutting straight to the story and his word choice. Sublime. Another writer who does this is Andre Dubus (senior, not junior). Both of them do real world stories that strike a nerve in just the right way.

2

Valuable-Elevator511 OP t1_iy0yvyw wrote

I will check them out. If you have any recommendations on which stories to start with let me know. Thanks for that. Sorry about the late reply. I have been checking the comments but I was out and my mind was affixed on carrot cake

2

filmguerilla t1_iy11e1b wrote

I would start with the "Selected Stories" book by him. You will get the major short stories that get referenced the most. If you like it/his style, his older collections sell for cheap on EBay and there's some gems.

2

Valuable-Elevator511 OP t1_iy13cx7 wrote

Thank you. I have to read a book about learning to read again (see comment below) but I've got a lot to catch up on so thanks for the recommendations.

1

boxer_dogs_dance t1_ixz7ncc wrote

If you are having problems with attention I suggest reading the book Stolen Focus by Johan Hari. Thank you for highlighting Carver. I will look into him.

1

Valuable-Elevator511 OP t1_iy0z8pl wrote

I looked into this because it has been bothering me for years as I used to read quite a lot. It's a little ironic that I have to read a book that will help me read books. Let's hope I can get through it. If you don't mind, one day I might message you about it just to mention if it worked for me or not.

Thanks for this. Hope you enjoy Raymond Carver.

1

NoRegrets-518 t1_iy00q0w wrote

This is such an interesting question and I've thought about this a lot with good writers. What I see in Carver and Chekhov, and others, is that there is a lot of information packed into a small amount of space. There is also a lot happening. It might not be a car chase, but it is thoughts, emotional or mental movement, changes inside and out. These good writers also know a lot about people. It is like looking inside and seeing secrets.

In contrast, look at your typical potboiler. In chapter one there is the hero. S/he might have a flaw, its the same flaw. It's a stereotype. They are trying to do something. 10 chapters later, they are trying to do the same thing. If you put the book down in the middle, two days later you can barely remember what it was about.

In contrast, a great book can be picked up years later and restarted. You can remember the outlines after skimming a few pages here and there. At the end, you have something to think about.

1

HeadlessHavoc t1_iy04bgn wrote

Good writing can't be explained. Or at least, explaining it doesn't do the text justice.

A 5,000 word short story is a 5,000 word name, for an emotion that had no name before the story was written.

1

Outrageous_Fold5909 t1_iy0bmc0 wrote

Carver and Hemingway are so great in my mind because they say so much with what isn’t said. The lulls in conversation. Talking around the thing they want to say. What we talk about when we talk about love reminds me a ton of hills like white elephants - both are incredible.

1

thunderthighdontlie t1_iy1kbl2 wrote

It works because his writing is real. We don't go about our days enjoying every colour, scent etc. We don't live our lives noting every extraneous detail, and his writing leaves them out too.

1

removed_bymoderator t1_iy1kxkv wrote

Towards the end of my Sunday, I decided to look at the r/books subreddit. Somebody commented on a thread about Raymond Carver's writing. I have never read any Raymond Carver. In summation, they said his writing was real because he left out things that normal people usually do not comment on during their day to day lives. I enjoyed reding this comment. I must remember to write this in my diary.

1

BacklogBeast t1_iy2w9nb wrote

Have you read the collection where Carver’s stories are without Gordon Lish’s edits? Look in to it.

I love Carver, but I worry Lish has an outsized influence on how his style is perceived.

1

febvreblochbraudel t1_iy3a5u0 wrote

“That has ever been the ground inspiration, moral-philosophical in character, of minimalism and its kissing cousin realism in their many avatars over the centuries, in the fine arts and elsewhere: the feeling that the language (or whatever) has for whatever reasons become excessive, cluttered, corrupted, fancy, false. It is the Puritans’ reaction against baroque Catholicism; it is Thoreau’s putting behind him even the meager comforts of the village of Concord….The reaction against the all but inescapable hyperbole of American advertising, both commercial and political, with its high-tech manipulativeness and glamorous lies, as ubiquitous as and more polluted than the air we breathe. How understandable that such an ambience, together with whatever other items in this catalogue, might inspire a fiction dedicated to homely, understated, programmatically unglamorous, even minimalistic Telling It Like It Is.” - John Barth

1

namdor t1_iy0n2k8 wrote

The answer is Gordon Lish. He was Carver's editor. Of course Carver was a very good writer on his own, but Lish made the stories sing and helped Carver find his voice.

​

https://biblioklept.org/2011/03/02/read-gordon-lishs-edit-of-raymond-carvers-what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-love/

−1

Valuable-Elevator511 OP t1_iy13lna wrote

This is amazing. Thanks for going out of your way to get the link. It really makes writers a lot less intimidating. I kind of expect them to turn in perfect manuscripts but like people are saying, a good relationship with a good editor is key. Like Elton John and Bernie Taupin

−1

namdor t1_iy2zsvl wrote

Yea! Carver and Lish are especially interesting. Most editorial relationships aren't this drastic, but this is an interesting case. I think Carver was the real deal but Lish helped pushed the writing up past the last hurdle of brilliance.

1