In the forward to the selected works of Raymond Carver, found in Ann Charter’s “The Story and its Writer”, Carver is quoted as saying “If the words are heavy with the writer’s own
unbridled emotions, or if they are imprecise and inaccurate for some other reason- if the words are in any way blurred-the reader’s eyes will slide right over them and nothing will be achieved” (Charters 167). This statement speaks volumes to the enormous impact that the entire process of editing has on writers and their artistic process. The natural editing that takes place within a writer, after receiving criticism on his work, imposes limits on his voice, limits that are based on internal fears and realized faults. Yet when an outside source directly edits and alters someone’s art, there is removal of significant information, and restructuring of intent and motivation. This paper seeks to explore the impact that Gordon Lish’s editing had on the expressive nature of Raymond Carver’s published work, discover whether or not Carver, under the opinion and direction of Lish, accepted limitations on his own writing, and argue that Lish sought to promote his own agenda in his merciless stripping of Carver’s prose.
When we consider the direct, minimalist style of acclaimed authors like Hemingway and McCarthy, it is natural to assume that few edits are imposed by others, as the writing is purposely ambiguous and sparse, requiring the reader’s participation in the rounding of the story. In tune with Hemingway’s “Iceberg Theory” of keeping the bulk of the distracting and superfluous details below the surface, their presence is felt, without dilution of the focus. Raymond Carver, by process of reduction from his editor, was labeled, and even considered himself, a minimalist writer. However, Charles McGrath, Raymond Carver’s editor at the New Yorker from 1982 until his death in 1988, supports the ideal that Lish’s heavy editorial hand reformed Carver’s true style in his work. He surmised in his piece, “I Editor Author”, “I felt that he had somehow broken through and refashioned himself as an even greater writer: no longer a minimalist but something of a maximalist” (McGrath).
While reading Carver’s edited work, it is easy for the reader to assume that he is, in fact, a minimalist writer. This is well illustrated in his story “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love”. Through the dialogue of two couples discussing love over pre-dinner drinks, a great deal of emotion and raw honesty is presented. Carver doesn’t dilute the intense scene with his own thoughts and feelings on love, nor does he cloud the conversation with extra information about the characters. Rather, it is through the discourse of the couples, mixed with the internal dialogue of the narrator, that an emotional response from the reader is garnered. However, while it can be argued that details dilute, in exploring the differences between Carver’s original work and that which was published, there is a great deal of eloquent and purposeful writing lost.
In exploration of the three separate pieces that tell the story published as “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love”, there is visible proof of the removal of key information, details that shape the individual characters and give motivation for their stances within the conversation taking place. As the story is whittled down from “Beginners” into the edited,
published version, whole paragraphs and conversations are marked through. This extreme editing transforms the focus of the story from an intense and visceral conversation about love, with the key character Mel detailing an account of its healing power through a beautiful story about an elderly couple who were patients of his, to an ambiguous, and seemingly bitter, monologue about this same couple’s affection for one another. In this edited version, Mel attempts to emphasize the fact that he and the others know nothing of love, as they can’t comprehend the love this elderly couple felt towards one another. Although the story remains interesting, and the argument can be made that it provokes more thought and input from the reader in its minimal form, the fact that the focus and motivation for the story is drastically altered, by critical ideals of Gordon Lish, cannot be ignored.
published version, whole paragraphs and conversations are marked through. This extreme editing transforms the focus of the story from an intense and visceral conversation about love, with the key character Mel detailing an account of its healing power through a beautiful story about an elderly couple who were patients of his, to an ambiguous, and seemingly bitter, monologue about this same couple’s affection for one another. In this edited version, Mel attempts to emphasize the fact that he and the others know nothing of love, as they can’t comprehend the love this elderly couple felt towards one another. Although the story remains interesting, and the argument can be made that it provokes more thought and input from the reader in its minimal form, the fact that the focus and motivation for the story is drastically altered, by critical ideals of Gordon Lish, cannot be ignored.
The alteration of Carver’s work by Lish was not limited to one or two stories, nor did it serve only to impact his work post-production, rather, his critique and suggestion eventually altered Carver’s personal perspective, thereby infusing his own ideals into Carver’s process. In Kathleen Westfall Shute’s piece “On “The Bath” and “A Small, Good Thing””, she examines how Lish’s editing reduced the emotional connection between the reader and author, a
connection found present in Carver’s original work, “A Small, Good Thing”, yet absent from the edited version, “The Bath”. She finds that as the “‘submerged population’ begins to surface” in “A Small, Good Thing”, “moving out from the preoccupations of self to become aware of and even feel kinship to the larger community”, the reader begins to connect to the story, giving them a sense of inclusion, and providing for an emotional response to the plight of the characters (Shute 1619). In contrast, Shute finds the sole act of the father taking a bath, to symbolically “wash all thought from him as though it were sin”, “the closest we come to insight, epiphany” within the stripped down version of “A Small, Good Thing”, titled “The Bath” (Shute 1618). This illuminates the loss that both the reader and writer assume in the wake of Lish’s editing. Therefore, one is left to presume that Lish’s goal in his work was to serve his own ego, by reshaping Carver’s work into something he could consider his own.
connection found present in Carver’s original work, “A Small, Good Thing”, yet absent from the edited version, “The Bath”. She finds that as the “‘submerged population’ begins to surface” in “A Small, Good Thing”, “moving out from the preoccupations of self to become aware of and even feel kinship to the larger community”, the reader begins to connect to the story, giving them a sense of inclusion, and providing for an emotional response to the plight of the characters (Shute 1619). In contrast, Shute finds the sole act of the father taking a bath, to symbolically “wash all thought from him as though it were sin”, “the closest we come to insight, epiphany” within the stripped down version of “A Small, Good Thing”, titled “The Bath” (Shute 1618). This illuminates the loss that both the reader and writer assume in the wake of Lish’s editing. Therefore, one is left to presume that Lish’s goal in his work was to serve his own ego, by reshaping Carver’s work into something he could consider his own.
In exploring the dynamic within Raymond Carver and Gordon Lish’s professional
relationship, it is imperative that their friendship also be considered. The amity between Carver and Lish heavily impacted the timing and nature of Carver’s response to Lish’s edited version of his collection of stories “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love”. In an article called “Rough Crossings”, published in The New Yorker in 2007, Simon Armitage tells of a letter Carver sent Lish, regarding the halt of release of the edited collection, while exploring the concept that prior to the letter, “Carver seemed only to encourage and accept Lish’s ministrations” (Armitage). He states that Carver felt that “if the book went forward…he feared he might never write again, if he stopped it, he feared losing Lish’s love and friendship”
(Armitage). It can be ascertained from this information that Carver was aware of the detriment
Lish’s editing had on his work, yet allowed for it due to his fear of loss of friendship. Because he had experienced such a difficult past, one filled with alcoholism, poverty, and abuse, he feared that losing his editor, his friend, his ticket to the comforts and freedoms that writing afforded him, would render a return to that previous life.
relationship, it is imperative that their friendship also be considered. The amity between Carver and Lish heavily impacted the timing and nature of Carver’s response to Lish’s edited version of his collection of stories “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love”. In an article called “Rough Crossings”, published in The New Yorker in 2007, Simon Armitage tells of a letter Carver sent Lish, regarding the halt of release of the edited collection, while exploring the concept that prior to the letter, “Carver seemed only to encourage and accept Lish’s ministrations” (Armitage). He states that Carver felt that “if the book went forward…he feared he might never write again, if he stopped it, he feared losing Lish’s love and friendship”
(Armitage). It can be ascertained from this information that Carver was aware of the detriment
Lish’s editing had on his work, yet allowed for it due to his fear of loss of friendship. Because he had experienced such a difficult past, one filled with alcoholism, poverty, and abuse, he feared that losing his editor, his friend, his ticket to the comforts and freedoms that writing afforded him, would render a return to that previous life.
To write is to let the mind breathe, eliminating it of the stifling conditions and pressures placed upon it by others. When the voice is used, it provides a gift, an offering of thought and observation. When that thought or observation is altered or filtered by others, there is loss in translation. When this alteration effectively warps the expression of the writer or when it serves to benefit the editor, rather than shape the writing to enhance the experience of the reader, then the argument that editing is disadvantageous to the production of Literature, from both the perspective of the writer and reader, is founded. With consideration to the specific relationship between Raymond Carver and his editor and friend Gordon Lish, it is easily deduced that Carver’s genius expression was greatly reduced and effectively altered by this relationship, and that Lish sought only to benefit himself in his editorial process.
Works Cited
Armitage, Simon. “Rough Crossings.” The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com. 2007
Carver, Raymond. “Beginners”. 1981 Collected Stories. New York: Library of America. 2009.
Carver, Raymond, and Gordon Lish. ““Beginners,” Edited.” The New Yorker.
www.newyorker.com. 2007.
Charters, Ann. “The Story and Its Writer.” 7th Edition. Bedford/St. Martin’s: Boston. 2007
McGrath, Charles. “I, Editor Author”. New York Times. 2007.
Shute, Kathleen Westfall. “On “The Bath” and “A Small, Good Thing.” The Story and Its Writer. Ann Charters Edition. St. Martin’s: Boston. 2003.
Beth Jacobs 