The short stories of Raymond Carver have been the inspiration for many creative works . The minimalist style of Carver ’ s writing seemingly encouraging others to build upon what the author started .
Raymond Carver was the author of popular short stories during the 1970 ’ s and 80 ’ s . His writing captured the American lower-middle class , at moments in life when his characters faced harsh realities and disappointing realisations . His achievements as a writer have however have been tainted by two significant biases in literary criticism . Firstly the idea that the short story is inferior to the novel , and an immature form of writing . And secondly , the stigma that is attached to a minimalist style . As a consequence there has seemingly been a desire amongst some Creatives to develop what is perceived as Carver ’ s unfinished work , or unfulfilled potential . Though seemingly to do so is to misunderstand and undervalue Carver ’ s writing , and more so to distort his aesthetic .
Minimalism is a problematic term when applied to literature . Originally the word was used in a political context to describe a less extreme sector of the Russian Social Revolutionary Party . In the 1960 ’ s minimalism was applied to the art world to works with , “ an emphasis placed upon purity of colour , form , space and materials .” In modern vocabulary the adjective is used in general reference where ever there is evidence of simplicity or starkness . The broadened scope of this meaning has meant that , in literature , minimalism has become interchangeable with a number of other terms which together serve to unify a great diversity of writing . Carver himself found the term to be an unsatisfactory description of his work . Michael Truster writes , “ carver believed it was ( a ) form of critical jargon , often serving to conflate dissimilar writers .” Though there is undeniably brevity to Carver ’ s writing evocative of a minimalist description . The author ’ s style recognised Ernest Hemingway ’ s ‘ iceberg ’ aesthetic , where by seven eights of a narrative can effectively take place beneath the surface of a text without being explicitly referred to .
Carver ’ s writing is at its most stark in his 1981 collection of shorts , ‘ What We Talk about When We Talk About Love .’ The minimalist quality of this writing is blamed - if it is in fact wrong - on the heavy handed editing of Gordon Lish . A . O Scott describes , “ Lish cut , rearranged , and rewrote freely , without regard for Craver ’ s wishes or feelings .” The work was poorly received by critics who denounced the minimalist style as banal and mundane . Carver ’ s later writing is often referred to as the ‘ real Carver ,’ seen as a shift or maturing , from minimalism to an effective realism . Evidencing this point , critics often refer to the rewriting of ‘ So Much Water So Close to Home ’ from , ‘ What We Talk About When We Talk About Love ’ to ‘ A Small Good Thing ,’ which was republished in the 1983 collection ‘ Cathedral .’ The second version of the story is more expansive , though Gunter Leypoldt suggests Carver still oscillates between reference and silence , as is minimalist tradition . Leypoldt argues that the popularity of ‘ A Small Good Thing ’ causes critics to exaggerate its significance in terms of Craver ’ s ‘ growth ’ as a writer .
36writer ’ s block