Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

elstokez t1_ixzrm8n wrote

Reply to comment by Mister_Nancy in What makes Raymond Carver so good in just two pages? by Valuable-Elevator511

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