Friday, October 12, 2018

Raymond Carver Style

From Shmoop:

Hemingway-esque, Architectural

The two things you're most likely to hear about Carver's writing style are that it's very much like Ernest Hemingway's, and that it's an example of minimalism (Hemingway being a master of minimalism). The idea behind minimalism is that by giving the reader a bare minimum of information, he or she will be able to figure out what's underneath, according to his or her unique position. Jay McInerney, author of 1980s sensation Bright Lights, Big City, and a student of Carver's says "Carver's language was unmistakably like Hemingway's – the simplicity and clarity, the repetitions, the nearly conversational rhythms […]" (source). We can definitely see this. Think of the repetition of the word "comfort" at the end of Part 2, or the repletion of the words "blind man" throughout the story. Now, here's what Carver has to say about being compared to Hemingway:

I've read a lot of him. When I was 19 or 20 years old I read a lot, and Hemingway was part of what I read. […] I'm sure I learned from Hemingway, no doubt about it, and especially from his early work. I like his work. If I'm compared with him, I feel honored. For me, Hemingway's sentences are poetry. There's a rhythm, a cadence. I can reread his early stories and I find them as extraordinary as ever. They fire me up as much as ever. It's marvelous writing. (source)

Now, here's what Carver says about being called a minimalist:

Critics often use the term "minimalist" when discussing my prose. But it's a label that bothers me: it suggests the idea of a narrow vision of life, low ambitions, and limited cultural horizons. And, frankly, I don't believe that's my case. Sure, my writing is lean and tends to avoid any excess. (source)

There's really only one way for you to decide if Carver and Hemingway have similar styles: read and compare them, then be the judge.

You don't have to read Hemingway, though, to judge whether Carver's prose is architectural. Author's intentions don't always map correctly onto their work, but we know Carver intended his to be architectural, and a certain kind of architecture at that:

He [Hemingway] said prose is architecture and the Baroque age is over. That suits me. Flaubert said close to the same thing, that words are like stones with which one builds a wall. I believe that completely. I don't like careless writers whose words have no moorings, are too slippery. (source)

To greatly simplify matters, Baroque architecture is big, fancy, and ornate. There are baroque cathedrals, like St. Paul's in London, but the ones the ones in the documentary seem to be Gothic cathedrals, including Notre Dame in Paris. Carver's prose isn't elaborate or fancy. Word by word, sentence by sentence, he builds a fairly simple story. "Cathedral" doesn't depend on lots of details or extravagant touches, but rather on the ordinary details of everyday life. Here's one of our favorite examples:

We finished everything, including half of a strawberry pie. For a few moments we sat as if stunned. Sweat beaded our faces. Finally we got up from the table and left our dirty plates. We did not look back. (1.46)

A series of simple sentences build one on top of the other to express a simple yet mysterious meaning. We can all understand the excellence of sharing a big meal among friends, but we aren't exactly sure what it means in this particular case.

What kind of architecture do you think Carver's prose most closely resembles? Click here for a link to modernist architecture, and here for postmodern architecture.

Bigfoot Stole My Wife/ Carver Story

AGENDA:

Discuss Carver stories you read

READ Hemingway, Ron Carlson and Lorrie Moore stories


Bigfoot Stole My Wife
By Ron Carlson
The problem is credibility.
The problem, as I'm finding out over the last few weeks, is basic credibility. A lot of people look at me and say, sure Rick, Bigfoot stole your wife. It makes me sad to see it, the look of disbelief in each person's eye. Trudy's disappearance makes me sad, too, and I'm sick in my heart about where she may be and how he's treating her, what they do all day, if she's getting enough to eat. I believe he's beeing good to her -- I mean I feel it -- and I'm going to keep hoping to see her again, but it is my belief that I probably won't.
In the two and a half years we were married, I often had the feeling that I would come home from the track and something would be funny. Oh, she'd say things: One of these days I'm not going to be here when you get home, things like that, things like everybody says. How stupid of me not to see them as omens. When I'd get out of bed in the early afternoon, I'd stand right here at this sink and I could see her working in her garden in her cut-off Levis and bikini top, weeding, planting, watering. I mean it was obvious. I was too busy thinking about the races, weighing the odds, checking the jockey roster to see what I now know: he was watching her too. He'd probably been watching her all summer.
So, in a way it was my fault. But what could I have done? Bigfoot steals your wife. I mean: even if you're home, it's going to be a mess. He's big and not well trained.
When I came home it was about eleven-thirty. The lights were on, which really wasn't anything new, but in the ordinary mess of the place, there was a little difference, signs of a struggle. There was a spilled Dr. Pepper on the counter and the fridge was open. But there was something else, something that made me sick. The smell. The smell of Bigfoot. It was hideous. It was . . . the guy is not clean.
Half of Trudy's clothes are gone, not all of them, and there is no note. Well, I know what it is. It's just about midnight there in the kitchen which smells like some part of hell. I close the fridge door. It's the saddest thing I've ever done. There's a picture of Trudy and me leaning against her Toyota taped to the fridge door. It was taken last summer. There's Trudy in her bikini top, her belly brown as a bean. She looks like a kid. She was a kid I guess, twenty-six. The two times she went to the track with me everybody looked at me like how'd I rate her. But she didn't really care for the races. She cared about her garden and Chinese cooking and Buster, her collie, who I guess Bigfoot stole too. Or ate. Buster isn't in the picture, he was nagging my nephew Chuck who took the photo. Anyway I close the fridge door and it's like part of my life closed. Bigfoot steals your wife and you're in for some changes.
You come home from the track having missed the Daily Double by a neck, and when you enter the home you are paying for and in which you and your wife and your wife's collie live, and your wife and her collie are gone as is some of her clothing, there is nothing to believe. Bigfoot stole her. It's a fact. What should I do, ignore it? Chuck came down and said something like well if Bigfoot stole her why'd he take the Celica? Christ, what a cynic! Have you ever read anything about Bigfoot not being able to drive? He'd be cramped in there, but I'm sure he could manage.
I don't really care if people believe me or not. Would that change anything? Would that bring Trudy back here? Pull the weeds in her garden?
As I think about it, no one believes anything anymore. Give me one example of someone believing one thing. No one believes me. I myself can't believe all the suspicion and cynicism there is in today's world. Even at the races, some character next to me will poke over at my tip sheet and ask me if I believe that stuff. If I believe? What is there to believe? The horse's name? What he did the last time out? And I look back at this guy, too cheap to go two bucks on the program, and I say: its history. It is historical fact here. Believe. Huh. Here's a fact: I believe everything.
Credibility.
When I was thirteen years old, my mother's trailor was washed away in the flooding waters of the Harley River and swept thirty-one miles, ending right side up and neary dead level just outside Mercy, in fact in the old weed-eaten parking lot for the abandoned potash plant. I know this to be true because I was inside the trailor the whole time with my pal, Nuggy Reinecker, who found the experience more life-changing than I did.
Now who's going to believe this story? I mean, besides me, because I was there. People are going to say, come on, thirty-one miles? Don't you mean thirty-one feet?
We had gone in out of the rain after school to check out a magazine that belonged to my mother's boyfriend. It was a copy of Dude, and there was a fold-out page I will never forget of a girl lying on a beach on her back. It was a color photograph. The girl was a little pale, I mean, this was probably her first day out in the sun, and she had no clothing on. So it was good, but what made it great was that they had made her a little bathing suit out of sand. Somebody had spilled a little sand just right, here and there, and the sane was this incredible gold color, and it made her look so absolutly naked you wanted to put your eyes out.
Nuggy and I knew there was flood danger in Griggs; we'd had a flood every year almost and it had been raining for five days on and off, but when the trailor bucked the first time, we thought it was my mother come home to catch us in the dirty book. Nuggy shoved the magazine under his bed and I ran out to check the door. It only took me a second and I holldered back Hey no sweat, no one's here, but by the time Ireturned to see what other poses they'd had this beautiful woman commit, Nuggy already had his pants to his ankles and was involved in what we knew was a sin.
It if hadn't been the timing of the first wave with this act of his, Nuggy might have gone on to live what the rest of us call a normal life. But the Harley had crested and the head wave, which they estimated to be three feet minimum, unmoored the trailer with a push that knocked me over the sofa, and threw Nuggy, already entangled in his trousers, clear across the bedroom.
I watched the village of Griggs as we sailed through. Some of the village, the Exxon Station, part of it at least, and the carwash, which folded up right away, tried to come along with us, and I saw the front of Painters' Mercantile, the old porch and signboard, on and off all day.
You can believe this: it was not a smooth ride. We'd rip along for ten seconds, dropping and growling over rocks, and rumbling over tree stumps, and then wham! the front end of the trailer would lodge against a rock or something that could stop it, and whoa! we'd wheel around sharp as a carnival ride, worse really, because the furniture would be thrown against the far side and us with it, sometimes we'd end up in a chair and sometimes the chair would sit on us. My mother had about four thousand knickknacks in five big box shelves, and they gave us trouble for the first two or three miles, flying by like artillery, left, right, some small glass snail hits you in the face, later in the back, but that stuff all finally settled in the foot and then two feet of water which we took on.
We only slowed down once and it was the worst. In the railroad flats I thought we had stopped and I let go of the door I was hugging and tried to stand up and then swish, another rush sent us right along. We rammed along all day it seemed, but when we finally washed up in Mercy and the sheriff's cousin pulled open the door and got swept back to his car by water and quite a few of those knickknacks, just over an hour had passed. We had averaged, they figured later, about thirty-two miles an hour, reaching speeds of up to fifty at Lime Falls and the Willows. I was okay and walked out bruised and well washed, but when the sheriff's cousin pulled Nuggy out, he looked genuinely hurt.
"For godsakes," I remember the sheriff's cousin saying, "The damn flood knocked this boy's pants off!" But Nuggy wasn't talking. In fact, he never hardly talked to me again in the two years he stayed at Regional School. I heard later, and I believe it, that he joined the monastery over in Malcolm County.
My mother, because she didn't have the funds to haul our rig back to Griggs, worried for a while, but then the mayor arranged to let us stay out where we were. So after my long ride in a trailer down the flooded Harley River with my friend Nuggy Reinbecker, I grew up in a parking lot outside of Mercy, and to tell you the truth, it wasn't too bad, even though our trailer never did smell straight again.
Now you can believe all that. People are always saying: don't believe everything you read, or everything you hear. And I'm here to tell you. Believe it. Everything. Everything you read. Everything you hear. Believe your eyes. Your ears. Believe the small hairs on the back of your neck. Believe all of history, and all of the versions of history, and all the predictions for the future. Believe every weather forecast. Believe in God, the afterlife, unicorns, showers on Tuesday. Everything has happened. Everything is possible.
I came home from the track to find the cupboard bare. Trudy is not home. The place smells funny: hairy. It's a fact and I know it as a fact: Bigfoot has been in my house.
Bigfoot stole my wife.
She's gone.
Believe it.

Please add a response in the comment box to Lorrie Moore's and Carlson's.

HMWK:  Finish reading Carver stories

9 comments:

  1. I feel that Carlson and his Bigfoot wife stealer are not as minimalist or minimalist at all. The story itself is from a different narrator viewpoint than that of Carver or Lorrie Moore's. I also feel that Lorrie Moore is the midway point between these Carlson and Carver. Moore constructs more clean cut sentences and, just like Carver, readers are able to follow the story until their eyes fall upon the bitter end. All in all, these stories are thorough examples.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I feel like bigfoot the wife stealer and Carlson aren't minimalistic because yes his sentences are crisp and short but the short sentences have a lot of deep meaning and back story to it behind them even though they usually end up badly. - LeSana

    ReplyDelete
  3. Personally, I did not think that the Bigfoot stealing thingy was good story and I was confused. Also, I think that it is kind of minimalist but not really because it is bland but has too many details that aren't necessary. The other story about writing is more minimalist because the sentence structure is simple and direct. However, I think that Carver is more minimalist in his sentences even if he doesn't like that title.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that Carlson's writing resembles Carvers in that his storytelling is very detached. It is all about the facts and actions and lets the reader fill in the meaning and connect the characters actions to emotions we are familiar with. Moore's writing is also like Carver's in that the sentences are short and choppy. They seem to be stripped down to their bare minimum.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I felt that "Bigfoot Stole My Wife" by Ron Carlson was frankly nothing like the book we are reading by Carver. Carver's short sentences and mysterious ending often leave me with many curiosities by the end of the short story. But Carlson does not have that in his writing to me. His writing is very descriptive. One thing both authors do have in common was that there theme or what's really going in the short story isn't so obvious it need to be uncovered and takes deep thought.

    ReplyDelete
  6. My thoughts on "Bigfoot stole my wife" were that Carlson and carver both have a likewise format of not spending much of there time on detail(which isn't bad). Instead they seem to get straight to the point, and let the reader know what is going on directly through various verbal ad physical actions that the narrator may tell you or the character will.So they both ironically have a form of letting you know whats happening but keeping the "big picture" under wraps for the reader to assume the conclusion

    ReplyDelete
  7. After reading both of the stories by Carver and Carlson, I have come to the conclusion that both of their styles of writing are in ways that go from one character action to another and that Carlson stories, while both were difficult to read "Bigfoot Stole my Wife" was more confusing than any of the Carver stories.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think both stories strongly resemble Carver's style yet are different. Carlson sticks to that minimalist style that Carver does, but unlike Carver, his story is much more difficult to follow. I can easily understand what's going in Carver's story but Carlson has so much going on at once, I don't even understand what's happening.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Both stories used the same type of writing but not about the same thing. I think that Carver's style was more detailed. Carlson's story was less detailed but focused more on the big idea and less on the smaller details. They both confused me and were hard to understand because of how they were written.

    ReplyDelete