Raymond Carver

[Anonymous No.20228826]

So I just heard about him here, recently.
Apparently he's a short story master.
What should I know about him ?
Which books should I read ?

[Anonymous No.20228874]

>>20228826
Most of his short stories were boring as fuck. I only remember the one where two boomers fuck some underage thots and then murder them for the fuck of it.

[Anonymous No.20228889]

>>20228874
I’d be surprised if this is Carver. Maybe your thinking of the story where the wife is suspicious that her husband killed a high school girl bc him and his friends found the body on a fishing trip and didn’t report it right away. Amazing story.

[Anonymous No.20228927]

>>20228826
Will You Please Be Quiet, Please?

I'm not going to hype it up but I will say that he produces some very very powerful, emotionally, snapshots of middle class American life. Or you can trust the dipshit fp who is evidently a complete moron.

[Anonymous No.20228931]

>>20228927
I won't trust the moron, don't worry !

[Anonymous No.20228964]

>>20228889
Nah that was definitely Carver. One of the boomers gets his nut and then instantly smashes the girls head in with a rock.

[Anonymous No.20228996]

>>20228826
>short story master
He's unironically not. If you read the originals of his short stories...they're awful. His editor, Gordon Lish, made SIGNIFICANT changes to all his stories. Overall, even with Lish's masterful editing, Carver does not live up to the hype. I prefer John Cheever and John O'Hara over Carver in terms of being an ASS writer ("America's Short Story" writer).

[Anonymous No.20229037]

>>20228996
Sounds like jewish propaganda

[Anonymous No.20229040]

>>20228996
If I remember correctly Carver was butthurt that Lish improved all his stories with his overbearing editing.

[Anonymous No.20229068]

>>20228996
>His editor, Gordon Lish, made SIGNIFICANT changes to all his stories
No, Carver made the changes, you do not know how the writer/editor relationship works and have reduced it too the pop culture meme of a journalist blaming the editor for gutting their story. Outside of the lowest paid copy writing and pulp type shit, editors make no changes, they just give an in depth critique and kick it back to the writer to rewrite/revise as they see fit. Editors literally just do the same thing as a literature teacher does, circle a bit and write something like "how does this apply."
>>20229040
You are not "remembering" anything, just bullshitting.

[Anonymous No.20229075]

>>20228826

Read a couple of his stories and I found them very tedious because they're too down-to-earth and devoid of any artistic flair. It's just descriptions of plain people doing plain things in a plain manner.

[Anonymous No.20229099]

>>20229068
>No, Carver made the changes
No. Gordon Lish actually made edits. Lish's edits are the final cuts.

[Anonymous No.20229101]

i like the one when the guy gets laid off and becomes a neet and his wife is bothered by it. made me want to become a neet again.

[Anonymous No.20229110]

>>20229068
https://blog.pshares.org/raymond-carver-gordon-lish-and-the-editor-as-enabler/
Suck my thick dick you pea brained idiot. You don't know shit.

[Anonymous No.20229139]

Carver Chads...
>In August 1998, three years after Carol Polsgrove described Lish's heavy editing of Raymond Carver's Neighbors and published a facsimile page showing the editing,[19] The New York Times Magazine published an article by D. T. Max[20] about the extent of Lish's editing of Carver's short stories which was visible in manuscripts held at the Lilly Library. Before his death, Carver had written to Lish: “If I have any standing or reputation or credibility in the world, I owe it to you.”[21] In December 2007, The New Yorker published an earlier and much longer draft of Carver's story "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love" under Carver's title, "Beginners." The magazine published Lish's extensive edits of the story on its web site for comparison. In May 2010 Giles Harvey wrote an article in the New York Review of Books reviewing Carver's work, and made the observation, "The publication of 'Beginners' has not done Carver any favors. Rather, it has inadvertently pointed up the editorial genius of Gordon Lish."

[Anonymous No.20229142]

>>20229110
Kek you read feminist lit blogs? Discarded.

[Anonymous No.20229150]

>>20228826
I like the fishing/pollution one. I especially like the part where the kid either jerks off or thinks about fucking the lady giving him a ride.

[Anonymous No.20229157]

>>20229139
This all reeks of industry revisionism to anally stimulate an (((industry))) editor

[Anonymous No.20229168]

>>20229139
this is not that uncommon between writers and editors. at the end of the day, his name is on the books so their his, thats the way it goes. Lish is a bit of a dick for exposing this, especially after carvers death, the job of editor is supposed to be relatively thankless.

[Anonymous No.20229169]

>>20229110
There is nothing in that which proves anything and the quote from Carver strongly suggests it was the traditional editor/writer relationship.

[Anonymous No.20229186]

>>20229169
You are delusional if you think hacking away almost half your writing is normal.

[Anonymous No.20229199]

>>20229186
You have poor reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.20229207]

>>20229169
>Lish changes Herb's name to Mel because...
JUST BECAUSE OK.
Let's be honest. That's a really fucking weird editorial move.

[Anonymous No.20229226]

>>20229207
because he didnt want the reader to think he was a herb ass nigga

[Anonymous No.20229307]

>>20229068
The editing of the stories was driven by Lish, even if Carver acquiesced to them. Compare the original versions of the stories from What We Talk About When We Talk About Love that were published in Beginners. They are dramatically different, and without Lish, the final book would have been more like Beginners.

[Anonymous No.20229323]

>>20228826
Start with Cathedral or After the Denim. Probably his best. Other than that I personally really like Sacks.
>>20229075
ngmi

[Anonymous No.20229359]

>>20229207
The thing is that Carver accepted/approved of the edits and the quote from carver in that linked blog shows that. A quick bit of research
>While Carver accepted Lish's editorial changes, other writers (including close friends such as DeLillo, who pulled a planned excerpt from the forthcoming Great Jones Street in September 1972 because of Lish's expurgations) resisted. Wrote Paul Bowles, "I fail completely to understand the meaning of the suggestions, or of the story as it incorporates them."[11]
Lish spent years in the industry and served as editor for a great number of writers, but there is only one example of such controversy. For what ever reason Carver accepted the edits, many did not. If the Lish myth of him unilaterally hacking up everyones work was true than we would have dozens of examples, not just Carver.
>>20229307
I know they are different. This is fairly common and authors drafts are often very different before editing but the editor does not get to make edits without approval of the writer and generally the author makes revisions based on the edits, not just accept the edits. For what ever reason Carver just accepted them and kept Lish as his editor.

[Anonymous No.20229620]

reminder that Lish's original fiction is incredi8ly interesting and unique. you can look him up in the archives. he is a clinically insane man who just 8ack in 2017 pu8lished his wierdest 8ook yet. and as wierd as it is, its the tightest most polished prose youre ever going to get. its going to 8e really sad if all he is remem8ered 8y is some relatively unremarka8le work he did for carver

[Anonymous No.20229699]

>>20229620
Get a new keyboard or fix your b key already. I don't like that I can recognize you.

[Anonymous No.20229941]

>>20228826
Cathedral was fun

[Anonymous No.20229950]

>>20228826
I only read Cathedral (meh) and that one where the guy and his wife visit some work friends and they have a pet peacock and a really ugly baby