Raymond Carver v Critic
- This is a preview of the essay.
To view the full text you must login!
After reading three Carver stories in this book, write a response to the critic who said the following:
"Carver doesn't write stories at all, just rambling simpleminded anecdotes about not much of anything. They lack plot, style, theme, irony, and symbolism in short, everything that makes fiction worthy of notice. So drab, obtuse, and lacking in moral sensibility are the characters he creates that it's impossible to care about any of them. With carver, fiction is going to the dogs."
I seriously doubt that Carver, when writing these stories, was attempting to follow the "rules and guidelines" of proper fiction vehemently stated by this critic. It is quite obvious that his stories do not follow the common formula adopted by most fiction writers. However, this does not automatically disqualify his work, for Raymond Carver has more than enough originality and style in his words to render this critic's assumption dispensable.
Carver writes in a way that is different than almost all other writers whose work I have read. When he is writing in the first person narrative, he writes as if the character is a living, breathing person. He doesn't take us through lavish and detailed descriptions of mundane and unimportant things...