Lish

August 4th, 2009 / 4:20 pm John Madera—

Interesting. It’s obvious that we need to read some more viewpoints. You know, according to his blog, Michael Hemmingson will have his “13,000 word essay on Gordon Lish editing both Raymond Carver and Barry Hannah” published in Critique: Studies in Contemporary Fiction. He also has a book on Lish coming out next year. It’d be great to have this kind of critical voice included in the dialogue.

Hey Blake, how about inviting Hemmingson to guest post here, maybe offer the readers here a few tasty teasers from his book?

August 4th, 2009 / 6:28 pm sasha fletcher—

“Still, I don’t regret publishing My Romance for a second. I grew very fond of Gordon and remain so, as do most people who come under his eccentric spell. The rights and wrongs of the Carver business will take years to sort out and will become part of American literary history, comparable in some ways to Pound’s inspired editorial rolfing of Eliot’s first draft of “The Wasteland.” (Of course, Lish and Pound and Maxwell Perkins, at least in respect to his work with Thomas Wolfe, are the extreme outliers in the craft of editing. Most of us put ourselves at the service of helping the writer realize his or her particular vision with a mixture of nurturing and commercial calculation and, I suppose, passive aggression.) What I hope does not get lost in this dust-up is what an energizing figure, as mentor, cheerleader, trickster, and Svengali, on the literary scene that Lish was, how many invaluable talents in American fiction he brought to light, and how very interesting and influential a writer he himself is.”

August 4th, 2009 / 6:31 pm Ken Baumann—

‘He’d bulldozed his editor into allowing him to write his own over-the top flap copy which ends in this way: ” … no reader will go away from these pages unshaken by the force of his sentences, nor will any reader not know why it is that Gordon Lish has so powerfully and indelibly entered the literary history of this century.”‘

August 4th, 2009 / 6:34 pm sasha fletcher—

“Gordon Lish is looking for a new publisher.”

August 4th, 2009 / 6:35 pm sasha fletcher—

“It was Don DeLillo’s fault”

August 4th, 2009 / 9:08 pm Justin Taylor—

Yeah but have any of you actually read My Romance?

August 4th, 2009 / 9:43 pm Blake Butler—

My Romance is brilliant, and hilarious, and actually literally made me itch in his description of his skin conditions. The way it comes to summation feels more powerful than most of Lish’s other books I think. I would put it near if not at the very top of the list of his works. It’s meta in ways no one else has been meta, and probably one of his best books. So another win for the boss. He didn’t let nobody fuck his pearl.

August 5th, 2009 / 12:14 am Shya—

I would like to hear Justin Taylor say something bad about Gordon Lish.

August 5th, 2009 / 4:37 am Ken Baumann—

I look forward to reading it; his behavior is absurd & bombastic & rude, is all. Nothing against his art. I just find huge ego funny, always.

August 5th, 2009 / 6:41 pm student—

“However, I can tell you this with complete certainty: Had I had any bright editorial ideas, Lish would have summarily rejected them.”

From what I have gathered, I call bullshit on this. If the ideas he had were actually “bright” then Lish would have considered them. I think Lish is more dedicated to creating a better text than he is dedicated to his ego. Perhaps these ideas just weren’t as “bright” as he thought they were.

August 5th, 2009 / 10:19 pm student—

Bee tee dubs…

Lish has invited Gerald Howard to come to the current Lish class at the Mercantile Library and have a little chat so he can have the chance to put his money where his mouth his. Haven’t heard from Mr. Howard. Probably because he is shitting in his pants.

August 5th, 2009 / 6:43 pm John Madera—

Hey “student,”

How is it possible to separate what one considers “a better text” from their ego (or to use a term less fraught with misinterpretation, but one no less challenging to define, namely, subjectivity) anyway? And what does it mean to be “dedicated”?

August 5th, 2009 / 6:45 pm Ken Baumann—

You make it sound like a boxing match, which is really funny.

August 5th, 2009 / 10:47 pm Ken Baumann—

‘ooooooh, words…‘

August 5th, 2009 / 6:53 pm John Madera—

And in this corner, we have the genius, who may not be criticized in any way…

August 5th, 2009 / 6:58 pm Lincoln—

From what I’ve heard of Lish it is probably true he is stubborn about his own work, as I expect most careful editors would be. Still, it seems kind of odd to say “This novel was perfect and I had no editorial suggestions… but in an alternative scenario where the book wasn’t good and I had actually had edits I bet he probably wouldn’t have liked them!”

August 5th, 2009 / 7:33 pm student—

Both of these questions are idiotic.

August 5th, 2009 / 7:40 pm student—

Because I am in the class and I don’t want to attach my name to this. Was just letting you know that Lish opened an invitation for him to come and explain himself in front of the class. Speaking of disparaging a person’s name, why won’t he come and do it to Lish’s face? Do you honestly believe this guy had any truly better editing suggestions for Lish after reading this stupid article he penned? Think a little bit, man. Just a little bit.

August 5th, 2009 / 11:56 pm student—

I mean, this alone…wait, let me stop laughing…okay…This alone is enough for me to understand why Lish wrote his own jacket copy.

“In my jacket copy, I was to write with complete sincerity: “Lish uses his voice the way another virtuoso, Charlie Parker, used his saxophone.””

August 5th, 2009 / 8:22 pm John Madera—

If Lish made this invitation, I’d ask myself as a student why Lish was using up class time to have a debate about his own career. And considering that Lish doesn’t allow audio/video recording, what would be the point of Howard’s attending a debate that would do nothing to support or contradict the statements made in a major news outlet?

Think a little bit, man (or woman; we still don’t know who you are). Just a little bit.

And have some courage and write without anonymity. What are you afraid of?

August 6th, 2009 / 12:58 am student—

How exactly is this a lie?? Though the jacket copy was written by Lish (and I doubt he is the only one to ever do this), it’s pretty damn good jacket copy and was probably better than anyone else could come up with at the time. This addresses what I was getting at before: Lish wants the best possible words. He doesn’t care who or where they come from, as long as they are the best.

And as a student of Lish, I never bothered to ask myself why he was taking up so much of my time because the invitation lasted the whole of ten seconds. The classes run 6 hours. Not too much taken away from it. He was just defending himself, which I think is fair. Oh, and, this is a big secret, but believe it or not, he lets you pee!! Lish was just saying that the guy was full of shit and knew little to nothing about him or his classes. Which is true. From what I gather. But that’s just me.

The anonymity: You see, we aren’t supposed to divulge too much about what goes on in there so I would be shooting myself in the foot by attaching my name to this. I was just piping in to inform you a little.

It would matter very little if I said who I was. If you doubt me, ask someone you know in the class (if you know anyone in the class).

August 5th, 2009 / 9:23 pm John Madera—

I do know a few people in the class. Rather than asking about Lish’s eccentricities, duplicities, controversies, etc., I’d rather ask them about Lish’s ideas about writing craft.

Hey, why don’t you use your anonymity to share some of those things yourself?

August 5th, 2009 / 9:31 pm John Madera—

Anyone who writes their own jacket copy and doesn’t put their name at the end of it is leading readers to believe that either the publisher or some other person or entity, like a marketing/publicity engine, has written it. This is a conscious lie. I am glad that he was exposed for it. I would guess that he wasn’t the first nor the last writer to do this. That does not make it any less reprehensible.

This is basic ethics. Apparently, you think Lish is above any such concerns.

August 5th, 2009 / 9:47 pm Student—

Hm, I never knew jacket copy was authored and signed every time.

Lish does not want what goes on in class divulged because his students pay money to take the classes and he believes what they learn is worth money, which they spent, and which others did not.
I’m sorry you didn’t get into the class but that doesn’t mean you have a right to the information for free when others pay for it. Does that make any sense?

August 5th, 2009 / 9:52 pm Student—

The guru comment is ridiculous. What is wrong with a guru? What is wrong with Lish? Wow, it would be so much better if he had never existed, since obviously none of his students have gone on to do any good writing. And his history as am editor bore no real fruit either. You are so right, Mr. Madera.

August 6th, 2009 / 2:01 am Ryan Call—

john have you read this one
? it talks a little about whats goes on

August 6th, 2009 / 2:10 am Lincoln—

That seems to be taking it pretty far John. Jacket copys are like ads… they aren’t supposed to be neutral sources or objective assessments. I certainly don’t see it as “lying” to write your own copy anymore than I’d consider it a lie if a film director wrote his movie trailer.

August 5th, 2009 / 10:10 pm Lincoln—

That seems to be taking it pretty far John. Jacket copys are like ads… they aren’t supposed to be neutral sources or objective assessments. I certainly don’t see it as “lying” to write your own copy anymore than I’d consider it a lie if a film director wrote his movie trailer.

August 6th, 2009 / 2:19 am pr—

Film is different than book publishing. It’s not so much that he wrote his own jacket copy- but that he insisted on doing so. Generally speaking, readers assume that jacket copy is written by NOT the writer. The funny thing about this discussion is that Howard really ,really loves Lish and his work. I think that is pretty clear in the article. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t think the guy is kooky. The whole part about not offering editorial advice is clearly stated that it was because howard thought the book was perfect. Perfect. And the article ends with him wishing more people read Lish, as how I read it. Lish is not the first crazy writer, right? Right?

August 6th, 2009 / 2:24 am Lincoln—

pr: Hey, I understand calling it ridiculous, arrogant, absurd… whatever. I just don’t’ see how it is a “lie” or unethical.

August 5th, 2009 / 10:24 pm Lincoln—

pr: Hey, I understand calling it ridiculous, arrogant, absurd… whatever. I just don’t’ see how it is a “lie” or unethical.

August 6th, 2009 / 2:33 am pr—

Well, that is because of assumptions. People assume that jacket copy is written by not the writer. So, it comes off as not honest. This is an assumption- maybe wrong- in book publishing. If you are willing to call it ridiculous arrogant and absurd..well, those are not nice things to say.

Lish is a troubled genius in my mind. So was Joyce, Milller, my love, Philip Roth. The list goes on. He does good, has done good, and has done damage too. I’ve seen him bury writers. And as I state, I think Howard loves him.Did anyone read the whole thing?? The guy thinks he’s a master writer!!! And it’s disconcerting to hear people say “what’s wrong with guru?”. Um, guru-writing teacher- to me, equals sort of bad, maybe not always bad, but a bit iffy.

August 5th, 2009 / 10:49 pm John Madera—

Jacket copy isn’t signed. It should be if the author of the blurb is the same as the one who wrote the book. That should be obvious. Buying any other line seems to smack of the slavish devotion of the sycophant.

I didn’t apply for the class. What makes you think that simply having the means to pay for the class is what got you in? There might have been a cap and once they reached it, they closed it. Who was rejected and why? It would be foolish to think that only merit guaranteed entrance.

And if what you say is Lish’s reason for not codifying his method, it seems wrongheaded. There are just too many examples of teachers who have outlined their methodology in a systematic way, for Lish to fear that no one would want to attend one of his classes. Once this “last” class is finished, will Lish now put his thoughts, philosophy, theory, in a cohesive form? We’ll see.

August 6th, 2009 / 2:58 am Lincoln—

saying something is kind of ridiculous is a far cry from saying it is reprehensible, I think.

I’ve never studied with Lish though so I don’t have that much of a horse in this race. But I have a hard time believing the reaction would be the same if we were talking about another writer who had done this.

Whatevs, I”m gonna go rock some TI and try to do some work.

August 5th, 2009 / 11:00 pm John Madera—

There’s nothing wrong with the word guru especially when it’s used within the context of the India and Indian culture, and also when it’s properly used as a designation of someone with profound knowledge and wisdom. I used it in this sense, first as a play off of the song “We Don’t Need Another Hero” and also as a way of pointing out that blind following results in smacking into things and falling off ledges and cliffs. And I’m sure Lish would hope to distance himself from that term.

As for what is wrong with Lish: that’s a good question and the whole point of this dialogue we’re having here is to ask those questions and to find answers for them. In my mind, Lish’s legacy as an editor and a writer is secure. However, the record of his eccentricities, megalomania, and hurtful and insulting behavior, leave much to be desired. I just want the whole picture, not slavish, uncritical devotion.

And I look forward to you coming out from behind your mask once your fear of getting punished by your imagined Lish is alleviated, Mr. or Ms. Student.

August 6th, 2009 / 3:13 am pr—

Student,
You see, the creepy thing is your defensiveness. Guru connotes- and does not thoroughly mean, but implies in certain circumstances– someone who takes over the minds of impressionable persons. So yeah, something is wrong with gurus. Jim Jones was a Guru. I mean in NO WAY to say that Lish is as bad as Jim Jones, but I am trying to explain that someone who is so severe in their ways of teaching- to be secretive about it, to talk about enemies, to have issues with control beyond the norm- deserves some skepticism. Student- you are happy with what you are doing. So let go! Those of us who are critical of his ways should in no way bother you. We are just white noise. You have no need to defend someone who needs no defense. He is who he is. But let us -who don’t believe in his ways- express ourselves openly.

August 5th, 2009 / 11:13 pm pr—

Student,
You see, the creepy thing is your defensiveness. Guru connotes- and does not thoroughly mean, but implies in certain circumstances– someone who takes over the minds of impressionable persons. So yeah, something is wrong with gurus. Jim Jones was a Guru. I mean in NO WAY to say that Lish is as bad as Jim Jones, but I am trying to explain that someone who is so severe in their ways of teaching- to be secretive about it, to talk about enemies, to have issues with control beyond the norm- deserves some skepticism. Student- you are happy with what you are doing. So let go! Those of us who are critical of his ways should in no way bother you. We are just white noise. You have no need to defend someone who needs no defense. He is who he is. But let us -who don’t believe in his ways- express ourselves openly.

August 6th, 2009 / 3:25 am pr—

I’m sorry you didn’t get into the class but that doesn’t mean you have a right to the information for free when others pay for it. Does that make any sense?

that sentence makes me so sad. We are talking about writing? Right? Good God. It’s like Cold War shit. It’s so weird.

August 5th, 2009 / 11:25 pm pr—

I’m sorry you didn’t get into the class but that doesn’t mean you have a right to the information for free when others pay for it. Does that make any sense?

that sentence makes me so sad. We are talking about writing? Right? Good God. It’s like Cold War shit. It’s so weird.

August 6th, 2009 / 3:38 am sasha fletcher—

“I had reasons to be both intrigued and extremely wary. “

August 5th, 2009 / 11:42 pm John Madera—

Yeah, me too. What’s the sense of this kind of divisiveness?

August 6th, 2009 / 3:44 am pr—

OK- a bit of nonsense opinion.
I am not ready, nor have even been, even in my impressionable youth, to believe that writing methods are something secretive or sacred to be only shared among the very few. Nor do I believe in any way that brilliant writing is something that needs to exist in a small world of those who are deserving. I do think there are writers who can learn so much from others. I do think there is something weird, strange and inexplicable about those whose work is read a century later from when it was written, but I am not certain that that can be accomplished by those who just want it to be such. This is not about greatness, or even about the desire for longevity, but it is about uncertainness. Many of us strive against uncertainty! How we fight. How we grasp onto those we think can lead us out of oblivion. We all do what we do. But to desire a certain place- to be associated, to not with the benighted, to be beyond all of those we wish to pass- can any one lead us there? Maybe. I doubt it. I think it is beyond our own desires.

August 6th, 2009 / 3:50 am Ryan Call—

i dont pay much attention to this stuff, though im not saying its not fun to talk about. i just really like what ive read about how lish looks at words. and i like what ive read from a few people who have had lish look at their words. its really simple to me. the stuff he has touched, i just like reading a lot of.

i first heard about lish in a class. a prof at mason told a story about lish’s seminars; i dont know how true it was, but basically the whole story was aobut how much of a dick he supposedly was. that colored my percption of him until i finally read his work and noticed that a lot of authors i liked had thanked him, etc, for his help. after that, i felt like all of the other talk was not important to me. that is all.

August 5th, 2009 / 11:50 pm Ryan Call—

i dont pay much attention to this stuff, though im not saying its not fun to talk about. i just really like what ive read about how lish looks at words. and i like what ive read from a few people who have had lish look at their words. its really simple to me. the stuff he has touched, i just like reading a lot of.

i first heard about lish in a class. a prof at mason told a story about lish’s seminars; i dont know how true it was, but basically the whole story was aobut how much of a dick he supposedly was. that colored my percption of him until i finally read his work and noticed that a lot of authors i liked had thanked him, etc, for his help. after that, i felt like all of the other talk was not important to me. that is all.

August 6th, 2009 / 4:55 am student—

Okay. This is all becoming a bit weird. I did not mean to attack. It’s just that I overheard that you, John Madera, applied and didn’t get in. If this is incorrect, I apologize. And, pr, if someone is attacked in a post (I feel the posting of this article was a form of attack on Lish), then why can’t someone defend him? That seems fair. What goes on in the classes is pretty damn interesting and, I feel, worth defending. Have you, pr, taken a Lish class? You seem to know quite a bit about it. The whole guru thing is ridiculous. The man is not magic or a shaman or anything. He just REALLY knows his shit. I would recommend the class to anyone. Sure, some people tend to go over the edge about Lish and his ways and that is too bad. I don’t think that is what he wants. He genuinely wants to create great writers, and he does it.

Okay, I’m done. Thanks for the kind treatment here! You guys are great.

August 6th, 2009 / 5:02 am Blake Butler—

i think its pretty common practice for people to write their own copy actually

August 6th, 2009 / 1:02 am Blake Butler—

i think its pretty common practice for people to write their own copy actually

August 6th, 2009 / 5:03 am Ryan Call—

seriously jealous youre in that class.

August 6th, 2009 / 5:04 am Blake Butler—

I don’t understand what is being argued.

August 6th, 2009 / 1:04 am Blake Butler—

I don’t understand what is being argued.

August 6th, 2009 / 5:05 am Lincoln—

yeah I had no idea this was a big aberration. Maybe I just didnt’ have these assumptions to break…

August 6th, 2009 / 5:24 am drew kalbach—

i heard lish smells funny.

just sayin’.

August 6th, 2009 / 1:24 am drew kalbach—

i heard lish smells funny.

just sayin’.

August 6th, 2009 / 6:35 am not-student—

Hey student, are you Lish?

August 6th, 2009 / 10:07 am John Madera—

What I’m arguing for first of all is a comprehensive examination of Lish’s theories, instructional style, transcripts of his lectures, a thorough critical treatment of his pedagogy, his editing style, how and why he marks up what he considers a flawed text and removes what is extraneous from it. Lutz’s recent essay seems to me a good start towards that examination. But surely there’s a book-length treatment that just waiting to be written. Less interesting, but no less necessary is a thorough investigative examination of Lish’s cult of personality. All we have so far are pieces of interviews, flawed personal accounts and anecdotes, and all sorts of unresearched whatnots. I don’t see why you have to be in it to win it. Seems silly to me. But I’m not losing sleep over it. Lish isn’t an oracle. There is no oracle anyway.

August 6th, 2009 / 2:35 pm student—

Well, I am Lish in a certain regard. See, whoever he touches he turns into another Lish. Think Sorcerer’s Apprentice. We are multiplying by the minute. Little baby broomsticks. Everywhere. Soon we will all be Lishes and, finally, there will be no one left to argue with us. We are the disease. Drink the Kool-Aid, lick the infection, suck the dripping cock. It’s only a matter of time….

No, I am not Lish. I heard he doesn’t even have a computer.

August 6th, 2009 / 10:59 am John Madera—

If Lish wants to create great writers, this would concern me. (The idea that he wishes to do this is of course coming from an unidentified source and should be taken with a grain of whatever.) Great writers cannot be created by anyone else besides the writer her- or himself.

August 6th, 2009 / 3:10 pm lash—

“What I’m arguing for first of all is a comprehensive examination of Lish’s theories, instructional style, transcripts of his lectures, a thorough critical treatment of his pedagogy, his editing style, how and why he marks up what he considers a flawed text and removes what is extraneous from it.”

jesus christ, really? it doesn’t seem to be the lish students/followers who put him on the pedestal as much as his detractors, who, usually, sound like people who are harboring grudges because they missed out or want in on “the big secret.” there is no “big secret” and i understand you, john madera, and pr’s, claims at wanting information open and accessible to anyone and everyone but first off that’s ridiculous to ask of anyone trying to make a living at teaching and secondly, that’s further creating this mythos around lish. john you say you’re not losing sleep over it but damn it man, you clearly are. look at all your posts. look at the portion i just extracted. that shit is what’s creepy. would you walk up to anyone writing today who happens to teach and demand the same from him/her?

and pr: “I am not ready, nor have even been, even in my impressionable youth, to believe that writing methods are something secretive or sacred to be only shared among the very few. Nor do I believe in any way that brilliant writing is something that needs to exist in a small world of those who are deserving. ”

again, this builds up this idea that lish has a golden touch or that any writing methodology can take you from a shit writer into a “brilliant” writer. not true. here’s the bottomline: calm the fuck down people. go write.

August 6th, 2009 / 3:13 pm mark—

John — I’ve never met Lish or been in one of his workshops, but from what I’ve gathered it would be impossible to make a John-Gardner-style “how to” book from his methods.

He does have rules that could probably be distilled into an article, and his mark-up of the story that would become “What We Talk About…” is instructive,

http://www.newyorker.com/online/2007/12/24/071224on_onlineonly_carver

but the various anecdotes tucked away here and there in the intertubes suggest that primary lessons are bound up with the workshop proper. Transference and counter-transference are part of the point, making the classes into competitions part of the point, training you to sit on your butt for six hours at a stretch and focus on sentences part of the point — all of which is destabilizing and crazy-making, but can lead to leaps in the abilities of some of his students.

The other book you propose, the “thorough investigative examination,” would be possible.

August 6th, 2009 / 11:13 am mark—

John — I’ve never met Lish or been in one of his workshops, but from what I’ve gathered it would be impossible to make a John-Gardner-style “how to” book from his methods.

He does have rules that could probably be distilled into an article, and his mark-up of the story that would become “What We Talk About…” is instructive,

http://www.newyorker.com/online/2007/12/24/071224on_onlineonly_carver

but the various anecdotes tucked away here and there in the intertubes suggest that primary lessons are bound up with the workshop proper. Transference and counter-transference are part of the point, making the classes into competitions part of the point, training you to sit on your butt for six hours at a stretch and focus on sentences part of the point — all of which is destabilizing and crazy-making, but can lead to leaps in the abilities of some of his students.

The other book you propose, the “thorough investigative examination,” would be possible.

August 6th, 2009 / 3:18 pm student—

Nailed it.

August 6th, 2009 / 3:19 pm student—

“Great writers cannot be created by anyone else besides the writer her- or himself.”

wrong

August 6th, 2009 / 11:19 am student—

“Great writers cannot be created by anyone else besides the writer her- or himself.”

wrong

August 6th, 2009 / 3:22 pm student—

“Transference and counter-transference are part of the point, making the classes into competitions part of the point, training you to sit on your butt for six hours at a stretch and focus on sentences part of the point — all of which is destabilizing and crazy-making, but can lead to leaps in the abilities of some of his students.”

This is the closest thing to the truth I have heard so far.

August 6th, 2009 / 11:47 am John Madera—

Thanks Mark. I’ve seen that marked up text before. It’d be useful to have Lish’s comments on their I think for it to be even more instructive.

As for the book, why not something along the lines of Robert Olen Butler’s From Where You Dream: The Process of Writing Fiction. It’s a distillation of his some of his lectures transcribed and edited by Janet Burroway. I’m not suggesting that this book is a great or useful one but I’d imagine something like this could easily be done.

It would also be interesting to read and in-depth examination of the competitive and power dynamics are set up in the class. It would require some expert cultural anthropological skills I’d imagine.

Personally, I feel any kind of “ends justifies the means” argument usually fall short of convincing. And I’m not convinced that what sounds like the oppressive aspects of his class has resulted in great leaps of abilities. I wonder what someone like Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi or Howard Gardner would have to say about the class. Why not invite them in, or someone like them, and have them analyze exactly what’s going on, to gather evidence, and with their analytic expertise, their understanding of how we learn, of pedagogy, and then draw some believable conclusions. Rumor is not research. Conjecture is not evidence. The quality of some of his student’s prose is not conclusive proof of his “methods,” most, if not all, have not been codified in any substantial way, that is, besides Lutz’s worthy essay.

August 6th, 2009 / 4:11 pm Ryan Call—

oh i see what youre saying. yeah dont know that ive ever seen that. i dont think lish would ever write abook like that though. id read it though. id kill to see notes form the class and have it taperecorded and so on. oh well.

August 6th, 2009 / 12:11 pm Ryan Call—

oh i see what youre saying. yeah dont know that ive ever seen that. i dont think lish would ever write abook like that though. id read it though. id kill to see notes form the class and have it taperecorded and so on. oh well.

August 6th, 2009 / 4:12 pm Lincoln—

And I’m not convinced that what sounds like the oppressive aspects of his class has resulted in great leaps of abilities […] The quality of some of his student’s prose is not conclusive proof of his “methods,” most, if not all, have not been codified in any substantial way, that is, besides Lutz’s worthy essay.

While I have not been in a Lish class (although I have been in classes by students of Lish who used some similar methods), the above argument reminds me of the same thing I hear about MFA programs, that there is no evidence they can help anyone, writers would have been good anyway, etc.

I don’t know. In the case of Lish I think there is enough testimony out there from former students that his methods greatly helped them and enough results to use occam’s razor and say yes, his methods can clearly make real improvements in writers. At the same time, I’ve heard testimonies that he has damaged writers who were doing well, so perhaps an argument can be made about the overall value or perhaps his methods just only work for some (which is probably the case for all methods.)

Personally I know enough professors and writers I admire who have told me the value of his classes that I have no doubt his methods work.

August 6th, 2009 / 12:12 pm Lincoln—

And I’m not convinced that what sounds like the oppressive aspects of his class has resulted in great leaps of abilities […] The quality of some of his student’s prose is not conclusive proof of his “methods,” most, if not all, have not been codified in any substantial way, that is, besides Lutz’s worthy essay.

While I have not been in a Lish class (although I have been in classes by students of Lish who used some similar methods), the above argument reminds me of the same thing I hear about MFA programs, that there is no evidence they can help anyone, writers would have been good anyway, etc.

I don’t know. In the case of Lish I think there is enough testimony out there from former students that his methods greatly helped them and enough results to use occam’s razor and say yes, his methods can clearly make real improvements in writers. At the same time, I’ve heard testimonies that he has damaged writers who were doing well, so perhaps an argument can be made about the overall value or perhaps his methods just only work for some (which is probably the case for all methods.)

Personally I know enough professors and writers I admire who have told me the value of his classes that I have no doubt his methods work.

August 6th, 2009 / 4:15 pm Lincoln—

Has that Lutz essay been put online? I unfortunately missed that issue of the Believer

August 6th, 2009 / 4:16 pm Ryan Call—

is this thread vaguely similar to another thread?

i mean the discussion about money, paying for something, etc?

just curious.

August 6th, 2009 / 12:16 pm Ryan Call—

is this thread vaguely similar to another thread?

i mean the discussion about money, paying for something, etc?

just curious.

August 6th, 2009 / 4:50 pm Blake Butler—

I’ve seen some seriously fowl writing get turned into some seriously nice writing by smart editors. (Lish vs Carver being the protypical model in this discussion: the Carver beforehand was utter purple shit). So yeah, I can’t say that I agree with the ‘great writers cannot be created but by themselves’ statement.

August 6th, 2009 / 12:50 pm Blake Butler—

I’ve seen some seriously fowl writing get turned into some seriously nice writing by smart editors. (Lish vs Carver being the protypical model in this discussion: the Carver beforehand was utter purple shit). So yeah, I can’t say that I agree with the ‘great writers cannot be created but by themselves’ statement.

August 6th, 2009 / 1:34 pm John Madera—

I too have seen some foul writing turned into some seriously nice writing by smart editors. But Blake your argument seems to prove my point. Lish didn’t create Carver’s “greatness,” a term itself that has to be taken apart. Was Carver a great writer after Lish’s edits or was Carver’s writing great after Lish’s edits? I wouldn’t argue against the latter, at least in most cases, but what’s the evidence that Carver was a better writer after Lish was through with him. It’s all conjecture, even if Carver were to have said it himself. The effect/influence a person has on one another is incredibly difficult, if near impossible to determine.

August 6th, 2009 / 1:43 pm Blake Butler—

i totally think its ok. the author is sometimes (though not always) the best at expressing the book in encapsulation the way it is intended to be. would you rather have copy you didn’t fully agree with, or would you rather write it yourself?

more importantly: who cares? it’s copy. fluff for people to gloss over. the book is the book. no?

August 6th, 2009 / 5:43 pm Blake Butler—

i totally think its ok. the author is sometimes (though not always) the best at expressing the book in encapsulation the way it is intended to be. would you rather have copy you didn’t fully agree with, or would you rather write it yourself?

more importantly: who cares? it’s copy. fluff for people to gloss over. the book is the book. no?

August 6th, 2009 / 6:08 pm Blake Butler—

dude, come on. that shit is hilarious. and awesome.

i wish i had the balls to write that on the back of something i’d written. seriously.

and as for character: i think there are already as many if not more questions about the dude’s persona open than there are even about his work. it is part of why he’s awesome. don’t worry. nobody is ‘getting away’ with anyway.

August 6th, 2009 / 2:08 pm Blake Butler—

dude, come on. that shit is hilarious. and awesome.

i wish i had the balls to write that on the back of something i’d written. seriously.

and as for character: i think there are already as many if not more questions about the dude’s persona open than there are even about his work. it is part of why he’s awesome. don’t worry. nobody is ‘getting away’ with anyway.

August 6th, 2009 / 3:26 pm John Madera—

Hey Lincoln,

Here’s the link to Lutz’s excellent essay:
http://www.believermag.com/issues/200901/?read=article_lutz

August 6th, 2009 / 10:27 pm Lincoln—

Danke!

August 7th, 2009 / 12:47 am jereme—

i usually keep my mouth shut when topics like this sprout up. i don’t have much formal education and really my opinion doesn’t matter but i feel i should say something from a logical perspective.

i have recently been reading hannah and have read carver (also just picked him up again). the lish influence is obvious. both have their own voice but also something similar in their writing. i am guessing that is lish’s influence.

does that make either writer “sub-par” or “bad”? no i don’t think so. lish obviously liked what he saw in their writing. he pick these guys for a reason.

as for where the writer starts and lish ends? who cares. i mean carver, hannah, etc. as creators chose to allow lish to change their work. they either felt he was right or submitted the work as not fully realized in their mind. lish on the other hand won’t let anyone change his stuff.

why do you think that is? ego perhaps. all artists have ego. most are inflated and annoying.

these guys should have told lish to fuck off and not touch their shit. go elsewhere and get published.

but they didn’t.

their choice.

just enjoy the work.

August 6th, 2009 / 8:47 pm jereme—

i usually keep my mouth shut when topics like this sprout up. i don’t have much formal education and really my opinion doesn’t matter but i feel i should say something from a logical perspective.

i have recently been reading hannah and have read carver (also just picked him up again). the lish influence is obvious. both have their own voice but also something similar in their writing. i am guessing that is lish’s influence.

does that make either writer “sub-par” or “bad”? no i don’t think so. lish obviously liked what he saw in their writing. he pick these guys for a reason.

as for where the writer starts and lish ends? who cares. i mean carver, hannah, etc. as creators chose to allow lish to change their work. they either felt he was right or submitted the work as not fully realized in their mind. lish on the other hand won’t let anyone change his stuff.

why do you think that is? ego perhaps. all artists have ego. most are inflated and annoying.

these guys should have told lish to fuck off and not touch their shit. go elsewhere and get published.

but they didn’t.

their choice.

just enjoy the work.

August 7th, 2009 / 7:49 pm ael—

He showed me his father’s watch. Took it off and showed it to me after he was done speaking.

August 10th, 2009 / 11:01 am Michael Hemmingson—

Lots of Gordon chatter. I find it a but Lishy and and suspicious.

August 10th, 2009 / 11:01 am Michael Hemmingson—

The chatter will increase greatly when BEGINNERS comes out.

August 10th, 2009 / 7:01 am Michael Hemmingson—