When I was getting in The Gme back in the 80's, Raymond Carver was touted as the Writer To Be Like. At first I admired his spare style and his ultra realistic settings, and for a while I tried to write like him, but, while I still use minimalism and naturalism in my work, I rejected his overall approach.
He dealt with poverty and alcholism and frustration all his life and this was reflected in his work, which never suited me. I came to call him "Whimperin' Ray" and while I would point beginning writers to him I would not urge them to imitate him unless they plan to commit suicide at some point. But to get down to brass tacks... A recent article in The New Yorker has revealed that the spare style was due to his editor, Gordon Lish, who cut some of Carver's manuscripts as much as 70%. Lish had Carver over a barrell--Carver was broke and unkwon and Lish was an editor at Esquire--in them days landing just one short story in Esquire could make a career. The article printed some of Carver's anguished letters to Lish about so much cutting--of course Carver caved. Was Lish editing or mutilating the work? I could see an editor cutting as much as 50% of one of my stories for various reasons but if he had to cut 70% I'd figure he just didn't like it and I'd take it back. Any thoughts on this?
