Author Spotlight
Carve
Here is an interview with Carver biographer Carol Sklenicka at The Economic Times, India’s leading business newspaper. This website is quite the thing, especially for the epileptic. It is cluttered and jangly and tries to sell you every square inch of someone’s soul or something. Just focus on the interview.
Noted: a dip in sales of Carver’s books. Why? Why, person who wrote “…a masterful biography rated by the New York Times as one of the best 10 books of 2009”?
For one thing, he was too much imitated and for another, it is usually more important for younger writers to look at living writers.
The imitation thing is one persistent myth, I’ll say that. Is it really more important for younger writers to look at living writers? I absolutely disagree, and my MFA program disagreed, and I am thankful.
This biographer then addresses Carver in comparison to Jonathan Franzen, Michael Chabon, TC Boyle, and Joshua Ferris.
Even if Carver were still alive and writing, I doubt if he’d be writing novels with the kind of social range that some of these writers have attempted.
Maybe, but the novel thing is too easy–the genre was not his focus. Does anyone seriously believe TC Boyle has more range than Raymond Carver? I’m not sure any of these writers place high on a list of range, but she phrases her answer to place Carver as a lesser light.
His reading?
I never came across any indication that Carver read the Latin Americans seriously. A reading list he drew up for students at Syracuse includes both Borges and Garcia Marquez, but no volume titles are listed for either one.
What does that imply? I could just as easily surmise he wanted his students to read ALL of their work.
She handles the Lish question well. Thank gods. At least we avoid yet another interview devoted to the Lish question. Overall, I am just wondering why you want to write 578 pages about someone you appear to dismiss? I felt an undercurrent in this interview that made my spleen shudder. Maybe it was me, or a fault in the interview editing, but I just felt sour.
Tags: Carol Sklenicka, Economic Times, gordon lish, raymond carver
I think you might have read it a bit hyper-critical. I see your point to a degree; she does seem a bit blaise considering, but for instance, your excerpted bit about comparing him to Frazen, etc. missed the second part of her response which was:
“It would make more sense to me to compare Carver with Richard Ford, Tobias Wolff, John Updike, Joyce Carol Oates, Ann Beattie, Jayne Anne Phillips — his own generation, in other words. Of course, I think he stands up well with all of them, that’s why I worked long and hard to write his biography.”
Which I think is Sklenicka trying to bring the question more back to point than being dismissive. I do agree with you though, that to say Carver doesn’t have the same “range” as the others in question seems short sighted.
And yes, she did handle the Lish question well. Koods to her and all that. I’m getting a bit tired of all that rot.
I think you might have read it a bit hyper-critical. I see your point to a degree; she does seem a bit blaise considering, but for instance, your excerpted bit about comparing him to Frazen, etc. missed the second part of her response which was:
“It would make more sense to me to compare Carver with Richard Ford, Tobias Wolff, John Updike, Joyce Carol Oates, Ann Beattie, Jayne Anne Phillips — his own generation, in other words. Of course, I think he stands up well with all of them, that’s why I worked long and hard to write his biography.”
Which I think is Sklenicka trying to bring the question more back to point than being dismissive. I do agree with you though, that to say Carver doesn’t have the same “range” as the others in question seems short sighted.
And yes, she did handle the Lish question well. Koods to her and all that. I’m getting a bit tired of all that rot.
Does range matter? Many very fine writers seem to have certain obsessions that they explore again and again.
Does range matter? Many very fine writers seem to have certain obsessions that they explore again and again.
Sean, do you know what the word “range” means? It astounds me that you would read the most basic descriptive details of a writer’s body of work. Carver was a master short story writer with a great eye for the lives and trials of a particular subset of the 20th century working class. He was an erratic poet, a middling critic, and so far as we know, he never attempted a novel. So yeah, his “range” was fairly narrow.
TC Boyle–a writer you couldn’t pay me enough to pretend to care about–writes both novels and short stories, in modes as diverse as contemporary realism, historical fiction, sci-fi, and humor. So yeah, he’s got “range.”
Maybe this woman didn’t feel inclined to constantly re-iterate Carver’s “bestness” because she figured this position was in the fact of her 500-page biography, and so the conversation could focus on more compelling concerns, such as those of placing the writer in his historical moment, speculating on what his unwritten work might have looked like, etc. Designating the limits of a writer’s talent and scope is part of any critic or biographer’s job–especially one who admires the subject. I don’t see anything “insulting” to be hot and bothered about here.
Sean, do you know what the word “range” means? It astounds me that you would read the most basic descriptive details of a writer’s body of work. Carver was a master short story writer with a great eye for the lives and trials of a particular subset of the 20th century working class. He was an erratic poet, a middling critic, and so far as we know, he never attempted a novel. So yeah, his “range” was fairly narrow.
TC Boyle–a writer you couldn’t pay me enough to pretend to care about–writes both novels and short stories, in modes as diverse as contemporary realism, historical fiction, sci-fi, and humor. So yeah, he’s got “range.”
Maybe this woman didn’t feel inclined to constantly re-iterate Carver’s “bestness” because she figured this position was in the fact of her 500-page biography, and so the conversation could focus on more compelling concerns, such as those of placing the writer in his historical moment, speculating on what his unwritten work might have looked like, etc. Designating the limits of a writer’s talent and scope is part of any critic or biographer’s job–especially one who admires the subject. I don’t see anything “insulting” to be hot and bothered about here.
I’m not hot. It’s a forum.
Uh, I thought range had a lot of meanings. Even in writing, no way are you defining range. I wasn’t addressing their genre or subject matter, but more their style, consistencies (Boyle has a consistent problem with ending, getting out of the story he starts), and sentence work. I think both writers have about the same range there, except Carver’s started changing near the end. The black horses appearing in the yard, shadowy, seemed to predict a change coming down the line…
there was no down the line.
So, Boyle is a novelist. Carver was a poet. Let’s call it equal.
I just see this interviewer trying to get the author to engage in larger comparisons, and she keeps shoveling Carver into small boxes. It’s a brief interview and I haven’t read her book.
I was annoyed with one genre: this interview.
I’m not hot. It’s a forum.
Uh, I thought range had a lot of meanings. Even in writing, no way are you defining range. I wasn’t addressing their genre or subject matter, but more their style, consistencies (Boyle has a consistent problem with ending, getting out of the story he starts), and sentence work. I think both writers have about the same range there, except Carver’s started changing near the end. The black horses appearing in the yard, shadowy, seemed to predict a change coming down the line…
there was no down the line.
So, Boyle is a novelist. Carver was a poet. Let’s call it equal.
I just see this interviewer trying to get the author to engage in larger comparisons, and she keeps shoveling Carver into small boxes. It’s a brief interview and I haven’t read her book.
I was annoyed with one genre: this interview.
I read “range” as scope and vision in tackling larger issues, not so much his ability to writing in different genres and lengths. I might have misread?
I read “range” as scope and vision in tackling larger issues, not so much his ability to writing in different genres and lengths. I might have misread?
to write*
to write*
I don’t think it’s a slight to Carver to say that someone like Boyle has more range. It’s not a matter of genre alone or of the deficiencies that might be endemic to Boyle’s work, like endings, which I’m not sure I agree is a consistent problem for him. It’s that compared to Carver, Boyle is literally and figuratively all over the map, which seems to be deliberately something he strove for. He has stories that take place in the tropics and in the arctic, stories that incorporate historical figures (which of course Carver did… but only at the end), stories that oscillate between multiple points of view with radically different-aged characters, stories that are patently surreal and those that are more subtly Kafkaesque in their sensibilities, social satire and prose poem, first and third person, singular and plural, stories that draw from today’s headlines and from the voice of Thorkell the Norseman. His novels (what few I’ve read of them) are all over the gamut too. In terms of language, subject matter, genre, point of view, and so forth, Carver cannot compare range-wise. Which isn’t to say that he’s an inferior writer, only that his achievement has to be measured in terms other than range.
I don’t think it’s a slight to Carver to say that someone like Boyle has more range. It’s not a matter of genre alone or of the deficiencies that might be endemic to Boyle’s work, like endings, which I’m not sure I agree is a consistent problem for him. It’s that compared to Carver, Boyle is literally and figuratively all over the map, which seems to be deliberately something he strove for. He has stories that take place in the tropics and in the arctic, stories that incorporate historical figures (which of course Carver did… but only at the end), stories that oscillate between multiple points of view with radically different-aged characters, stories that are patently surreal and those that are more subtly Kafkaesque in their sensibilities, social satire and prose poem, first and third person, singular and plural, stories that draw from today’s headlines and from the voice of Thorkell the Norseman. His novels (what few I’ve read of them) are all over the gamut too. In terms of language, subject matter, genre, point of view, and so forth, Carver cannot compare range-wise. Which isn’t to say that he’s an inferior writer, only that his achievement has to be measured in terms other than range.
I don’t know, dude; she compares his cultural status to Hemingway’s in her very first answer. As for those quotes you have above- they’re totally out of context, and your use of them is disingenuous. The INTERVIEWER brings up Franzen et al. What Sklenika actually says is that she hasn’t read much of those guys work, but she has no reason to believe that Carver–had he lived–would have felt inclined to attempt the “novel of ideas” a la “Corrections” or “Kavalier and Clay.” This is obviously what she meant by “social range.” Moreover, when she says that she “never came across any indication,” you have to remember that she is talking about many years of exhaustive research that she conducted. She looked and did not find–what the hell else do you want from her? You’re entitled to your opinion man, but I’ve got to tell you, if this post had come across my editorial desk, you’d be back at yours re-writing it right now. Your use of those quotes is not a matter of opinion–it’s purposefully manipulative.
I don’t know, dude; she compares his cultural status to Hemingway’s in her very first answer. As for those quotes you have above- they’re totally out of context, and your use of them is disingenuous. The INTERVIEWER brings up Franzen et al. What Sklenika actually says is that she hasn’t read much of those guys work, but she has no reason to believe that Carver–had he lived–would have felt inclined to attempt the “novel of ideas” a la “Corrections” or “Kavalier and Clay.” This is obviously what she meant by “social range.” Moreover, when she says that she “never came across any indication,” you have to remember that she is talking about many years of exhaustive research that she conducted. She looked and did not find–what the hell else do you want from her? You’re entitled to your opinion man, but I’ve got to tell you, if this post had come across my editorial desk, you’d be back at yours re-writing it right now. Your use of those quotes is not a matter of opinion–it’s purposefully manipulative.
Well if it was going through an editor’s desk, I would agree. that would be a specific assignment for a theoretical specific place, one with an editor so an editorial take.
What I did was put quotes in and wrote how I responded when I read those quotes. I included the link to the very interview so any reader can see the interview in its full context, easily (as you have done). I am trying to spark discussion.
I’m taking into account what you are saying, but I think it’s my (I stress my) issue I am working through while posting here. I try this, I try that, getting a feel, and trying to juxtapose off other poster’s tones, subjects, moods at HTML.
It’s a larger subject I am picking at here…but I’ll keep trying.
There is no doubt I am picking quotes–obviously out of context–and placing them next to how I felt about those quotes, but it is this accumulation of quotes, her answers that gave me the “feel” I got from the entire interview.
Maybe I should just read the book, a thing I was not going to do.
Well if it was going through an editor’s desk, I would agree. that would be a specific assignment for a theoretical specific place, one with an editor so an editorial take.
What I did was put quotes in and wrote how I responded when I read those quotes. I included the link to the very interview so any reader can see the interview in its full context, easily (as you have done). I am trying to spark discussion.
I’m taking into account what you are saying, but I think it’s my (I stress my) issue I am working through while posting here. I try this, I try that, getting a feel, and trying to juxtapose off other poster’s tones, subjects, moods at HTML.
It’s a larger subject I am picking at here…but I’ll keep trying.
There is no doubt I am picking quotes–obviously out of context–and placing them next to how I felt about those quotes, but it is this accumulation of quotes, her answers that gave me the “feel” I got from the entire interview.
Maybe I should just read the book, a thing I was not going to do.
She did sound a little tired in the interview, I mean physically tired, but I don’t think she was dismissing him.
She did sound a little tired in the interview, I mean physically tired, but I don’t think she was dismissing him.
“Is it really more important for younger writers to look at living writers? I absolutely disagree, and my MFA program disagreed, and I am thankful.”
chock up another reason not to get THE COVETED MFA.
“Is it really more important for younger writers to look at living writers? I absolutely disagree, and my MFA program disagreed, and I am thankful.”
chock up another reason not to get THE COVETED MFA.
Coveted?
Are you arguing is more important to look at living writers? Why? I don’t understand how presently living makes them more important. When they die, do their works lose all importance for writers?
Coveted?
Are you arguing is more important to look at living writers? Why? I don’t understand how presently living makes them more important. When they die, do their works lose all importance for writers?
Do you think it is more important then to look at living writers over dead/past writers?
(Intentionally leaving the MFA sentiment out of this. I’m not particularly interested in getting one either. I’m just interested in your thoughts on the importance of living/current vs. dead/past writers.)
Do you think it is more important then to look at living writers over dead/past writers?
(Intentionally leaving the MFA sentiment out of this. I’m not particularly interested in getting one either. I’m just interested in your thoughts on the importance of living/current vs. dead/past writers.)
personally i think both are dumb.
she said “young writers” focusing on “writers”.
that statement folds forever.
let’s put it this way:
you are a track runner. you are very good at running the 100 yard sprint.
what are you more concerned with: your position in relation to the race at hand with the contestants or your time against some meat bag that ran 45 years ago?
while you figure that out.
i’ll be outside jogging in the rain.
personally i think both are dumb.
she said “young writers” focusing on “writers”.
that statement folds forever.
let’s put it this way:
you are a track runner. you are very good at running the 100 yard sprint.
what are you more concerned with: your position in relation to the race at hand with the contestants or your time against some meat bag that ran 45 years ago?
while you figure that out.
i’ll be outside jogging in the rain.
c.e.,
i think it is important to look at writing.
in relation to the quote, i think living writers would be more important.
the quote specifically states ‘young writers”. young holds a negative connotation. a lack of experience.
insecurity.
c.e.,
i think it is important to look at writing.
in relation to the quote, i think living writers would be more important.
the quote specifically states ‘young writers”. young holds a negative connotation. a lack of experience.
insecurity.
“For one thing, he was too much imitated and for another, it is usually more important for younger writers to look at living writers.”
Yeah, so you can see how bad they suck and then realize that being alive is a huge advantage if you’re trying to go up against the “truly” greats.
“For one thing, he was too much imitated and for another, it is usually more important for younger writers to look at living writers.”
Yeah, so you can see how bad they suck and then realize that being alive is a huge advantage if you’re trying to go up against the “truly” greats.
Writing is only like a race in that who cares about the other competitors. A runner and writer set their own goals, are working for the self, not against some imagined others.
I am not an Olympian or a Nobel laureate. Will never be, but activities interest me.
I enjoy running to run and writing to write.
I will see you outside, but not jogging. We never jog. We run.
Writing is only like a race in that who cares about the other competitors. A runner and writer set their own goals, are working for the self, not against some imagined others.
I am not an Olympian or a Nobel laureate. Will never be, but activities interest me.
I enjoy running to run and writing to write.
I will see you outside, but not jogging. We never jog. We run.
exactly sean. i am glad we both agree there is no value in dead writers.
exactly sean. i am glad we both agree there is no value in dead writers.
One must however view the new in light of the old, yes? When one sets out to build a new Ferrari, mustn’t he/she first understand how an engine works? How Things went from steam tractors to mass production and back to boutique elitism? Thousands more such analogies, etc. (Similar discussion going on over at one of the posts on thebarking.com)
The point being perhaps recent/current writers are more immediately impactful and exciting. That is, “Gertie the Dinosaur” has shitty special effects when you look at it in terms of Jurassic Park, but is notable and fascinating and important as being the first working with keyframe and inspiring Walt Disney and else. No, you don’t need to know when stop-motion or cartoon framing began, necessarily, to make a film about dinosaurs when you don’t have any real ones. But surely you wouldn’t say it is unimportant.
One must however view the new in light of the old, yes? When one sets out to build a new Ferrari, mustn’t he/she first understand how an engine works? How Things went from steam tractors to mass production and back to boutique elitism? Thousands more such analogies, etc. (Similar discussion going on over at one of the posts on thebarking.com)
The point being perhaps recent/current writers are more immediately impactful and exciting. That is, “Gertie the Dinosaur” has shitty special effects when you look at it in terms of Jurassic Park, but is notable and fascinating and important as being the first working with keyframe and inspiring Walt Disney and else. No, you don’t need to know when stop-motion or cartoon framing began, necessarily, to make a film about dinosaurs when you don’t have any real ones. But surely you wouldn’t say it is unimportant.
How about a Brangelina type thing for Lish and Carver?
Raydon?
Carvish?
Larver?
Gorday?
How about a Brangelina type thing for Lish and Carver?
Raydon?
Carvish?
Larver?
Gorday?
Also, it’s kind of stupid to write anything about Carver without mentioning Lish. I realize “the conversation” about them working together is dead until Lish decides to talk (which he never will), but to want to hear about Carver’s writing without also hearing about Lish is like wanting to discuss Morrissey without mentioning Johnny Marr. You are welcome for that terrible analogy! I try my worst.
Also, it’s kind of stupid to write anything about Carver without mentioning Lish. I realize “the conversation” about them working together is dead until Lish decides to talk (which he never will), but to want to hear about Carver’s writing without also hearing about Lish is like wanting to discuss Morrissey without mentioning Johnny Marr. You are welcome for that terrible analogy! I try my worst.
Please explain to me why reading Franzen is more important than Joyce or McCarthy more important than Faulkner. I don’t understand this line of reasoning at all.
Please explain to me why reading Franzen is more important than Joyce or McCarthy more important than Faulkner. I don’t understand this line of reasoning at all.
perhaps the worst metaphor for art I’ve ever read.
perhaps the worst metaphor for art I’ve ever read.
sure charles since you asked.
did i say reading franzen was more important than joyce?
no i did not.
the quote specifically states “writers”. not writing.
in terms of reading the writing? yeah. of course go read all the dead authors.
duh.
personally, i think there is more value in obsessing over a living genius than a dead one.
if you are going to obsess.
you disagree.
great.
mexican breakdance.
sure charles since you asked.
did i say reading franzen was more important than joyce?
no i did not.
the quote specifically states “writers”. not writing.
in terms of reading the writing? yeah. of course go read all the dead authors.
duh.
personally, i think there is more value in obsessing over a living genius than a dead one.
if you are going to obsess.
you disagree.
great.
mexican breakdance.
[…] at least one Indian interviewer figures the country can learn from Raymond Carver. (via […]