Raymond Carver

Came across a fascinating article in the Observer magazine last weekend [27-09-09]. Tess Gallagher, the widowed wife of the great American writer Raymond Carver- to whom we as a collective are slavishly devoted to- is publishing 'uncut' manuscripts of her late husband's in a volume called 'Beginners'.

She describes it herself as an 'item of interest rather than a finished piece of work-a bootleg if you will.' In fact she is doing so as some controversy has emerged recently over the level of input Carver's editor, Gordon Lish had over his manuscripts. Indeed if some of Carver's own thoughts [often anguished] over the matter are taken into account, it seems as if it may have been considerable.

So how much of Carver's work, and in particular the term 'Carveresque' which has entered literary verbal currency,can be truly attributed to that one man?

Well this throws up some interesting issues. Carver and Lish were certainly a formidable partnership; Lish was an influential literary figure and championed amongst others, writers such as Don DeLillo and Richard Ford. Lish took Carver under his wing and published some of his first stories in Esquire.

He had a strong editorial influence over Carver's work and it is argued had a direct hand in shaping Carver's 'minimalist' style. He also heavily influence the story titles, and the collection titles. Carver's collection initially called 'Beginners,' was changed by Lish to 'What We Talk About When We Talk About Love,' and of course, the rest is history.

One is however inclined to ask- so just what is the fuss about? Lish's influence over the final versions of Carver's stories is highlighted in the magazine with an example; Lish edits a lot of the sentence structures and changes many names of the characters, but did he alter the overall theme and the structure of the stories too? Some of Carver's diary entries outline his annoyance that he may at times have done just that. But, the fact remains depite Carver's initial annoyance at this, he still allowed the stories to be published in their altered [Lish would no doubt argue improved] form.

This does however throw up some fascinating fundamental issues over the nature and perception of 'writers' in modern, western literature. Literature, of all the arts- perhaps along with fine art- is defined by sole practioners. A piece of literary art- say a book- is presented to the public and 99% of the time, is seen as entirely the product of that one name on the dust cover.

Of course this is equally, 99% of the time, untrue. A book that goes from original manuscript to final product with no changes at all is a very rare thing indeed, although of course the degree of its 'adaption' through the editing process does of course vary.

In the case of Carver, from the evidence, we don't really believe his value is diminished by Lish's input as an editor. In fact it appears that is what he clearly did- EDIT, although he obviously had more control over the shape of Carver's work than some others.

But at the end of the day, so what? The stories were Carver's, the themes and atmosphere were his, the heart in them most certainly is. Music in particular is full of great partnerships- Lennon and McCartney, Leib and Stoller, Lloyd Webber and Rice. No eyebrows are raised about artistic partnerships in that field. Maybe literature too should be more accepting of the reality of artistic partnerships and not throw up it hands in [mock] surprise when it is revealed that editors and others 'behind the scenes' can have a profound effect on a writers final output.

Maybe what we now know as 'Carveresque' was a product of a writing partnership more accurately described as Carver and Lish. The essense of Carver's genius is still there though for all to see and although Lish may have given him focus and edited him with great skill [after all isn't that what editors are paid for?] it's clear the world would not have Carver's wonderful body of work [and poetry- don't forget the poetry] without Raymond Carver himself.