"To read Carver is to face down that most worrisome of quandaries: what are we to do with the lives that are not remarkable, those lives that everyone else ends up living?" - I am crying.
I love what you write about the 70s/80s damp-carpet purgatorial feel of Carver. I wonder if for a lot of old-millennial writers/readers from working class families, this aspect means Carver hits a little too close to home. I feel so uncomfortable reading him; he resonates with something from so early in my childhood I can barely articulate or even remember it -- my parents' inability to connect with their older sick relatives, my sense they didn't have enough hours in the day to take care of me and be happy in their own lives, etc.
You could say that about a lot of periods in literature, ofc, but the specific feel of 80s precarity really brings it home to me.
I felt similarly when I read Brad Watson and Denis Johnson, just this uncomfortable full-body recollection. But then I felt excited because I had never seen it rendered so honestly and truthfully. And it ends up feeling so poignant it breaks my heart! Haha. But yes, emotionally harrowing, for sure.
Excellent, interesting, and right on time. Carver’s stories make me homesick too. Maybe that’s why I keep reading them. One line in Gazebo never leaves me: “But maybe I should be looking at the floor.”
But the blind man and the husband draw a cathedral together, thus discovering an unspoken commonality across their conflicting experiences of pain and alienation!!! Lol (I'm being cheeky)
I think the political novel discourse makes sense if you think of it as an offshoot of the publishing industry's marketing. A lot of adults don't read and then I think the majority who do read only read 1-3 books per year, so trying to sell something as "important" to the times we're living in or whatever makes more sense from that angle. People are maybe just looking at the bestsellers list for a beach-read or maybe something to make them feel like they're keeping up with the times. The people who read a lot, and those more likely to pay attention to "the discourse," I would think, are actually a minority and are maybe (likely?) not the people the industry are really targeting to sell to (because of course they would try to sell to the majority) but in a way I think they set the tone for how downstream discourse might happen... even if the people who actually read book reviews and author interviews, etc., are likely the ones who read a lot and could do with better, more sophisticated discourse? I don't really know but that makes sense to me anyway... I listen to audiobooks when at I'm work and can go through a book a day basically, and whenever book discourse sounds silly to me, I think it's because I forget a lot of people only read a couple books a year and then when I remember that, it makes more sense.
I don't disagree that the discourse often comes from the marketing, but I think in this case you've got it backwards. I think a good faith read of the situation--assuming that publishing industry people aren't just automatons trying to scam us all--involves the idea that things are marketed as "political" and "important" because there is some value in those terms for the public. I don't think the idea of the political novel started as a marketing term. I think it comes from a long tradition, at least that's what Kazin seems to be saying in his book. So, I don't think this really boils down just to marketing, though of course marketing is an actor here. I mean, we all live under the algorithm, etc etc. But I do think that the reason people make appeals to authority and to "political" worth in art isn't just marketing. I think there is the assumption of some underlying importance there. Even if at the end of the day, it's just people trying to make a ethical and moral claim about why what they like is the be thing to like.
Yes, I see what you're saying. I think it goes back and forth and the marketing part squeezes and stalls the conversation, by latching onto something about the moment. Of course they saw something about their consumer base and were responding to it. I just think the discourse takes on an outsized importance to people for whom there's no real reason for it to have much importance and I wonder how much it would happen, if say, the average reader read like 100 books/year.... I guess you'd still have a certain kind of political discourse, but it would be more sophisticated, less reductive, and well, less dumb, like the idea of just having a character eating cornbread making it political or whatever... I don't think that would happen so much... But then again, yes, your last sentence here does sound like what people are like, so I don't know, haha. Thanks for responding and I really enjoy reading your essays, always thought-provoking!
Thank you for this comment, it's something I often forget about and I think it's an important thing to remember when thinking about book marketing. Those of us who read dozens and dozens of books in a year are not really the target of quite a lot of book marketing.
I’ve also been re-reading Carver. Just finished Cathedral. He describes those stories as “opening” more. It made me wonder what might have happened to his style and form if he had more time (dying so young, at 50). All great points. You might find this interview interesting, in which he says staying sober (above everything) was his greatest accomplishment: https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/3059/the-art-of-fiction-no-76-raymond-carver
This line: To read Carver is to face down that most worrisome of quandaries: what are we to do with the lives that are not remarkable, those lives that everyone else ends up living?
This is what I've been trying to explore (in a rom-com, eesh) and your piece tells me that I must start by re-reading Carver.
"To read Carver is to face down that most worrisome of quandaries: what are we to do with the lives that are not remarkable, those lives that everyone else ends up living?" - I am crying.
Same, tbh.
I love what you write about the 70s/80s damp-carpet purgatorial feel of Carver. I wonder if for a lot of old-millennial writers/readers from working class families, this aspect means Carver hits a little too close to home. I feel so uncomfortable reading him; he resonates with something from so early in my childhood I can barely articulate or even remember it -- my parents' inability to connect with their older sick relatives, my sense they didn't have enough hours in the day to take care of me and be happy in their own lives, etc.
You could say that about a lot of periods in literature, ofc, but the specific feel of 80s precarity really brings it home to me.
I felt similarly when I read Brad Watson and Denis Johnson, just this uncomfortable full-body recollection. But then I felt excited because I had never seen it rendered so honestly and truthfully. And it ends up feeling so poignant it breaks my heart! Haha. But yes, emotionally harrowing, for sure.
Excellent, interesting, and right on time. Carver’s stories make me homesick too. Maybe that’s why I keep reading them. One line in Gazebo never leaves me: “But maybe I should be looking at the floor.”
That story is so beautiful and so virtuosic in its technique. But also, just like, very funny and sad.
I really liked this. You described Carver so beautifully.
I liked Cathedral. Why's everybody hating on Cathedral these days?
I just think it's so blehhhhh.
But the blind man and the husband draw a cathedral together, thus discovering an unspoken commonality across their conflicting experiences of pain and alienation!!! Lol (I'm being cheeky)
Absolutely brilliant, loved this. Going to go read some Carver now!
Enjoy!
He is a discovery.
For sure.
This post has convinced me to read Carver. I agree with you on the “political” novel discourse. I find it a bit exhausting tbh.
I hope you enjoy!
"I wished I believed in anything the way Carver believes in dialogue." YEP.
Underrated!
I think the political novel discourse makes sense if you think of it as an offshoot of the publishing industry's marketing. A lot of adults don't read and then I think the majority who do read only read 1-3 books per year, so trying to sell something as "important" to the times we're living in or whatever makes more sense from that angle. People are maybe just looking at the bestsellers list for a beach-read or maybe something to make them feel like they're keeping up with the times. The people who read a lot, and those more likely to pay attention to "the discourse," I would think, are actually a minority and are maybe (likely?) not the people the industry are really targeting to sell to (because of course they would try to sell to the majority) but in a way I think they set the tone for how downstream discourse might happen... even if the people who actually read book reviews and author interviews, etc., are likely the ones who read a lot and could do with better, more sophisticated discourse? I don't really know but that makes sense to me anyway... I listen to audiobooks when at I'm work and can go through a book a day basically, and whenever book discourse sounds silly to me, I think it's because I forget a lot of people only read a couple books a year and then when I remember that, it makes more sense.
I don't disagree that the discourse often comes from the marketing, but I think in this case you've got it backwards. I think a good faith read of the situation--assuming that publishing industry people aren't just automatons trying to scam us all--involves the idea that things are marketed as "political" and "important" because there is some value in those terms for the public. I don't think the idea of the political novel started as a marketing term. I think it comes from a long tradition, at least that's what Kazin seems to be saying in his book. So, I don't think this really boils down just to marketing, though of course marketing is an actor here. I mean, we all live under the algorithm, etc etc. But I do think that the reason people make appeals to authority and to "political" worth in art isn't just marketing. I think there is the assumption of some underlying importance there. Even if at the end of the day, it's just people trying to make a ethical and moral claim about why what they like is the be thing to like.
Yes, I see what you're saying. I think it goes back and forth and the marketing part squeezes and stalls the conversation, by latching onto something about the moment. Of course they saw something about their consumer base and were responding to it. I just think the discourse takes on an outsized importance to people for whom there's no real reason for it to have much importance and I wonder how much it would happen, if say, the average reader read like 100 books/year.... I guess you'd still have a certain kind of political discourse, but it would be more sophisticated, less reductive, and well, less dumb, like the idea of just having a character eating cornbread making it political or whatever... I don't think that would happen so much... But then again, yes, your last sentence here does sound like what people are like, so I don't know, haha. Thanks for responding and I really enjoy reading your essays, always thought-provoking!
Thank you for this comment, it's something I often forget about and I think it's an important thing to remember when thinking about book marketing. Those of us who read dozens and dozens of books in a year are not really the target of quite a lot of book marketing.
I’ve also been re-reading Carver. Just finished Cathedral. He describes those stories as “opening” more. It made me wonder what might have happened to his style and form if he had more time (dying so young, at 50). All great points. You might find this interview interesting, in which he says staying sober (above everything) was his greatest accomplishment: https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/3059/the-art-of-fiction-no-76-raymond-carver
Discussion over at Metafilter: https://www.metafilter.com/191084/that-carver-boy-be-spitting
This line: To read Carver is to face down that most worrisome of quandaries: what are we to do with the lives that are not remarkable, those lives that everyone else ends up living?
This is what I've been trying to explore (in a rom-com, eesh) and your piece tells me that I must start by re-reading Carver.
(Thanks for this so much, for so many reasons.)
I have always loved Carver, and many other writers who are out of fashion. Thanks for a brilliant deep dive into Carver and his writing.