A recent discussion of “The Canon” here on Goodreads prompts me to write this review of a writer who, like it or not Pynchon and McElroy fans, will probably enter the canon. “Will you please be quiet, please?” The line is Hemingway’s and, though it’s quoted by Carver in the text, is repurposed as title-story by editor/mentor Gordon Lish with, I can’t help feeling, a sly nod to all those “postmodernists” intent on outdoing Joyce or Melville. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but hell, isn’t it reassuring (more, inspiring – even frightening) that the son of a sawmill worker from Clatskanie Oregon, father at 18, alcoholic and blue-collar worker for most of his twenties, was able – with a few 5-10 page lucid blasts between drinks and changing nappies and stand-up fights with his wife – to grasp the imaginations of serious readers and writers across the world, despite that “short stories don’t sell”, despite the cult of Barthelme, despite a technical range that no-one could deny is limited. That maybe he was groomed for this role by Lish; that he wasn’t quite the working class hero he was meant to be; that he was both more ordinary and more sophisticated than journalists and copywriters might have liked him to be – none of that fazes me, because in his writing, despite Lish and his red pen and his sly nod and his gameplan, the imagination speaks so truly.
A book is great, says Nathan “N.R.” Gaddis, if when we close the cover we think, “I’m still learning to read.” Hard as it may be for the maximalists to believe, Carver does this, with minimal surface flash, pyrotechnics or lexical contortion. To the casual eye (as to my own eye on first reading) there’s, maybe, little to take away as “proof” of authorial brilliance. (Book 2 of Carver’s story-cycle, What We Talk About When We Talk About Love, being near as much Lish’s book as Carver’s, is more “chi-chi” (Carver’s descriptor), though still – if you can see past the cuteness – contains the magic.) And maybe that’s why I love Carver, because he’s pure. He’s not trying to convince you of anything. He’s no verbal athlete. He’s good with words, but uses few of them, and though he’s a stylist with his own tricks and techniques, for the most part it’s machinery of another order than linguistic that powers his unveiling aesthetic revelations.
It’s true, when I first came to love Carver I was in far from the best state for reading. Distracted by day-jobs and rock music and intoxicants, for a few years I read little of anything, but more than anyone Carver brought me back around. Should I hate him for that, cos he appealed to my “dumb” self? He led me back! And I read with a new understanding of what goes on beyond words, which helped me to grasp Tabucchi, Pessoa, Soseki, Juan Rulfo, and to believe in my own writing again.
Here’s the thing: You can point to style and learning and flash and justify your love for a writer. You can make literature a type of athletics. But sooner or later some Carver on crutches makes a mockery of your track-meet. Boo him off the field, but he knows: art isn’t who gets from A to B quickest, or jumps some pit or vaults some bar. Art – often as not – is what happens between all that. It’s the limp, the hiccup, the wobble. It’s some woman with a wrong number late at night asking, “Are you a doctor?” Cut it down for what it’s not – it won’t lose its power. Limited in scope as a craftsman though he may be, Raymond Carver is a “great American writer”, and special into the bargain, because in all the din of grand gestures and histrionics he had the balls/humility to make his quiet pleas.