(no subject)
Last night I read a fascinating article in my New Yorker about Raymond Carver and his relationship with his long time friend and editor Gordon Lish. Though I am unfamiliar with Carver's short stories, the article told me that he was instrumental to bringing back the short story to the mainstream audience, even garnering front page reviews on the New York Times Review of Books, something that a short story collection very rarely did. Carver's style was one of minimal prose, of brevity, focusing on stories about the working poor and about marriage, relationships, money and alcoholism.
Carver won quick critical praise for his style, "the critic Michael Wood wrote that Carver had 'done what many of the most gifted writers fail to do: He has invented a country of his own, like no other except the very world, as Wordsworth said, which is the world of all of us.' Wood also wrote, 'In Mr. Carver’s silences, a good deal of the unsayable gets said.'" (Rudnick, 2007, p. 94) However, this minimal style was not Carver's. Lish would cut Carver's stories by large amounts; the collection "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love" was slashed by 40%, with Lish eliminating what he saw as unnecessary and periphery dialog and descriptions.
Lish's editing of Carver's collection "What We Talk About..." sparked a change in Carver. He wrote a desperate letter to Lish begging him to pull the collection from the printer, for he could not stand to have his stories published in their edited form. It would rip his heart out and send him back into depression and alcoholism. Lish had cut too much, had changed too many titles. Lish was ghost writing, not editing, and it had pushed Carver too far.
The article opened my eyes to the relationship between an editor and a writer. It must be one of intimate communication, with the author allowing his soul and sweat and tears to be slashed and rearranged with the faith that it will become so much better. I think I would enjoy the roll of editor, and I plan on pursuing it. However, it must be important to know when and where the line is that must not be crossed. In Lish's and Carver's case, the stories produced invigorated a literary artery. They helped create a new sub-genre known as "KMart Realism" (or this link, or this one). This was a big deal, not just some college freshman submitting a story to the school journal. Lish stepped over "the line", but in the process created something powerful. Would Carver's stories have been as well received if he had had a different editor? Would he have enjoyed as an esteemed place in literary history? Does not matter. What matters is that Lish cut and rearranged too much. He ceased editing at some point and crossed over to creating, using someone else's raw material.
Sources:
Rudnick, Paul. "Rough Crossings." The New Yorker 24 & 31 Dec. 2007: 92.
Carver won quick critical praise for his style, "the critic Michael Wood wrote that Carver had 'done what many of the most gifted writers fail to do: He has invented a country of his own, like no other except the very world, as Wordsworth said, which is the world of all of us.' Wood also wrote, 'In Mr. Carver’s silences, a good deal of the unsayable gets said.'" (Rudnick, 2007, p. 94) However, this minimal style was not Carver's. Lish would cut Carver's stories by large amounts; the collection "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love" was slashed by 40%, with Lish eliminating what he saw as unnecessary and periphery dialog and descriptions.
Lish's editing of Carver's collection "What We Talk About..." sparked a change in Carver. He wrote a desperate letter to Lish begging him to pull the collection from the printer, for he could not stand to have his stories published in their edited form. It would rip his heart out and send him back into depression and alcoholism. Lish had cut too much, had changed too many titles. Lish was ghost writing, not editing, and it had pushed Carver too far.
The article opened my eyes to the relationship between an editor and a writer. It must be one of intimate communication, with the author allowing his soul and sweat and tears to be slashed and rearranged with the faith that it will become so much better. I think I would enjoy the roll of editor, and I plan on pursuing it. However, it must be important to know when and where the line is that must not be crossed. In Lish's and Carver's case, the stories produced invigorated a literary artery. They helped create a new sub-genre known as "KMart Realism" (or this link, or this one). This was a big deal, not just some college freshman submitting a story to the school journal. Lish stepped over "the line", but in the process created something powerful. Would Carver's stories have been as well received if he had had a different editor? Would he have enjoyed as an esteemed place in literary history? Does not matter. What matters is that Lish cut and rearranged too much. He ceased editing at some point and crossed over to creating, using someone else's raw material.
Sources:
Rudnick, Paul. "Rough Crossings." The New Yorker 24 & 31 Dec. 2007: 92.