Raymond Carver - I don't get his stories

[dmsynck]

Okay, here is my deal. I know that Raymond Carver is supposed to be one of the great short story writers of the 20th century, but I just don't get his stories. I have read several from "Where I'm Calling From", which is supposed to be his best stories in one volume, but to me, they just seem pointless and unfinished, frequently seeming to lack a resolution at the end. Maybe this is by design and I just don't get it. I know stylistically, he has been compared to Ernest Hemingway, so I figured that since I truly adore Hemingway's stories, that I would also like Carver. However, what seems to happen is, I read one of his stories, get to the end and wonder "What was that all about ?". Then I tell myself that maybe that was just an odd story and that the next one will be better. So far, I have repeated this process with every story of his that I have read so far.

Maybe he is just not for me and I should move on to something else.

[Fafnir]

From what I've gathered, Carver's stories seem to take a slice out of the life of his characters and uses it to explore some of the more negative aspects of the human condition, such as alcohol/drug abuse and failed relationships.

They mimic real life, events in our lives are never fully resolved, unless you're willing to tell the life story of a person from the day their born to the day they die, any tale you tell will be open ended. Not all of his stories are like this but most of them are, often he'll pick an unusual event to base his story around like in 'Why Don't You Dance?' or 'Collectors'.

His stories also have a strong autobiographical element to them, Carver was a troubled guy and his stories touch on the difficulties he faced. 'Where I'm Calling From', for instance, chronicles the life of an alcoholic before, during and after his alcoholism. Along with 'Chef's House' it examines the possibility of redemption and reconciliation with a family torn apart.
'What We Talk About When We Talk About Love' does exactly what it says on the tin. It's a thorough discussion about love in its many, often negative, forms, narrated by a man sitting at a table drinking Gin with his friends. I found the premise simple, yet highly effective.
It also contains a line which I adore: 'My friend Mel McGinnis was talking. Mel McGinnis is a cardiologist, and sometimes that gives him the right.'

Carver's not for everyone but I really enjoy his work.

[Heteronym]

I had a teacher at the university who considered him a great writer; since I loved that teacher I naturally allowed myself to think, against my instincts, that Carver was a great writer too. Now from a distance of several years from university, I can say Carver is a boring, uninteresting writer. The more familiar I become with the short story the more he seems pedestrian in his insight into the human dimension and his control of language. The pared down style, anyway, was the influence of his editor, Gordon Lish. There's an ongoing debate about how much of Carver's work is his own or a Carver/Lish collaboration.

Whatever the truth may be, it doesn't change the fact that Carver wrote with a narrow, opaque view of the human condition, devoid of action, thoughts, or irony. He was a mere describer of scenes, but incapable of reflecting about what he was describing, of bringing a critical voice to the text.

If reading is understanding people, reading Carver is a step backwards in your understanding.

[breathtest]

Heteronym - I dont think Carver was incapable of reflecting on what he was describing at all. What he did was allow the reader to reflect on what he was describing by the feelings they got from the words. Carver manipulated his words in order to give the reader certain feelings about a situation. He knew exactly how his characters were feeling, he just left it more open to the reader, rather than telling the reader how they should interpret everything they are reading. In that sense, I think he can be considered a cleverer writer than most, who rely on explanation to get the point across, rather than feeling.

[Heteronym]

A writer without a voice of his own, you mean. No, he wasn't more intelligent than José Saramago or Philip Roth, whose novels have unique voices that scrutinise the souls of their characters. Your argument makes no sense. If it were my interpretation that mattered, I wouldn't read books. I'd just keep a diary. I read exactly so I can contrast my interpretations with the interpretations of other people, namely the authors, so I can reach at new conclusions. Otherwise I'd just entertain a solipsistic view of the world.

Carver's neutral narrator is pointless; if he just describes a situation that I can see for myself, if he puts nothing of himself in the text, what is his purpose? If I trusted myself to be able to see everything as it truly is, I wouldn't read books. I read books because sometimes writers can give new insight into a seemingly banal situation that eludes readers. That's their power, to make us see the old in new, heightened ways. The neutral voice is very pretty but in the end the reader is back in square one.

[breathtest]

But in his descriptions he does put forward his own views and his own voice. He manipulates the readers interpretation of the text is what I am saying. He doesn't merely state how he feels about something, but shows this to the reader in his characters dialogue. You say how he only describes things, but dialogue is the more important aspect of his work I think, and if you look at the dialogue, you can see Carver's voice speaking through the character. Analyse the characters, not the description.

[Rores28]

Okay, here is my deal. I know that Raymond Carver is supposed to be one of the great short story writers of the 20th century, but I just don't get his stories. I have read several from "Where I'm Calling From", which is supposed to be his best stories in one volume, but to me, they just seem pointless and unfinished, frequently seeming to lack a resolution at the end. Maybe this is by design and I just don't get it. I know stylistically, he has been compared to Ernest Hemingway, so I figured that since I truly adore Hemingway's stories, that I would also like Carver. However, what seems to happen is, I read one of his stories, get to the end and wonder "What was that all about ?". Then I tell myself that maybe that was just an odd story and that the next one will be better. So far, I have repeated this process with every story of his that I have read so far.

Maybe he is just not for me and I should move on to something else.

David Foster Wallace short stories end with similar lacks of resolution and I know this frequently annoys people, along with his long-winded and, what some would call, pretentious style. I think he's brilliant though. Check out one of his stories which stylistically will be the polar opposite of Carver (from the descriptions on this thread) and see if the lack of resolution still bothers you.

[bouquin]

As for me, I have just finished the stories in the collection Where I'm Calling From and I thoroughly enjoyed them. Raymond Carver wrote with a simple, everyday style but with an honest and accurate eye.

In the last part of Nobody Said Anything what does Dad mean when he says to mom: "What I'm telling you is the gospel truth ... What do kids know? You'll see."

In Are These Actual Miles? what's the apparent agreement (between Leo and the car salesman) to meet on Monday for?




____________________
Currently reading: The Dead Fish Museum (Charles D'Ambrosio)

[anotherusername]

Okay, here is my deal. I know that Raymond Carver is supposed to be one of the great short story writers of the 20th century, but I just don't get his stories. I have read several from "Where I'm Calling From", which is supposed to be his best stories in one volume, but to me, they just seem pointless and unfinished, frequently seeming to lack a resolution at the end. Maybe this is by design and I just don't get it. I know stylistically, he has been compared to Ernest Hemingway, so I figured that since I truly adore Hemingway's stories, that I would also like Carver. However, what seems to happen is, I read one of his stories, get to the end and wonder "What was that all about ?". Then I tell myself that maybe that was just an odd story and that the next one will be better. So far, I have repeated this process with every story of his that I have read so far.

Maybe he is just not for me and I should move on to something else.

Funny, I just Googled "Raymond Carver I don't get it" to see if anyone else was left with same "wtf?!" at the end.

[byquist]

He definitely is honest and straigtforward and thus "A Small Good Thing" will tear your heart out -- really sad. Not a lot of writers can grab you in such a piercing way. "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love" likewise is direct language and conversation, nothing fake; bold, brash, down-to-earth.

Although, somewhere by googling you can find the editing by his literary agent or publisher, and it is extensive -- maybe published in the New Yorker magazine. Seeing such extensive changes to his original wording was disappointing. Don't know if it was for just one story or many.

[Bonsai Ent]

A writer without a voice of his own, you mean. No, he wasn't more intelligent than José Saramago or Philip Roth, whose novels have unique voices that scrutinise the souls of their characters. Your argument makes no sense. If it were my interpretation that mattered, I wouldn't read books. I'd just keep a diary. I read exactly so I can contrast my interpretations with the interpretations of other people, namely the authors, so I can reach at new conclusions. Otherwise I'd just entertain a solipsistic view of the world.

Carver's neutral narrator is pointless; if he just describes a situation that I can see for myself, if he puts nothing of himself in the text, what is his purpose? If I trusted myself to be able to see everything as it truly is, I wouldn't read books. I read books because sometimes writers can give new insight into a seemingly banal situation that eludes readers. That's their power, to make us see the old in new, heightened ways. The neutral voice is very pretty but in the end the reader is back in square one.

'What We Talk About When We Talk About Love' was bursting at the seams with allegory that is far from neutral.
Carver doesn't mollycoddle or spoon feed his readers, you have to meet the prose halfway, but I really like his brutal sparsity.

[kiz_paws]

But in his descriptions he does put forward his own views and his own voice. He manipulates the readers interpretation of the text is what I am saying. He doesn't merely state how he feels about something, but shows this to the reader in his characters dialogue. You say how he only describes things, but dialogue is the more important aspect of his work I think, and if you look at the dialogue, you can see Carver's voice speaking through the character. Analyse the characters, not the description.

I think this pretty much sums up my take on Raymond Carver.

Just finished Where I'm Calling From and I enjoyed that collection of short stories immensely. Carver writes with an easy style and one falls right into the story immediately. I plan to read another collection of Carver's, What We Talk About When We Talk About Love, and look forward to it.

[desiresjab]

I remember enjoying some of Carver's poetry, especially the poem entitled Wine.

[Titan]

I have just started to read Carver. By the way I bought "Beginnings" with the original texts and not those first published. I am German and for me it's very pleasant that the language is not that difficult. It's not the English of Ambrose Bierce for example.

[ennison]

Well Carver uses modern American English and Bierce uses 19th century American English so that will make it easier. As for resolutions, those I don't need. I don't want writers telling me what to think or short circuiting my imagination. I mean do you really need a description of the child torn apart or some Solomonesque denouement?