faces in the mirror- raymond carver and the intricacies of looking

8/16/2019 Faces in the Mirror- Raymond Carver and the Intricacies of Looking

1/16

Universitätsverlag WINTER Gmbh is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Amerikastudien /American Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

Faces in the Mirror: Raymond Carver and the Intricacies of LookingAuthor(s): Christof Decker

Source: Amerikastudien / American Studies, Vol. 49, No. 1, Neorealism – Between Innovationand Continuation (2004), pp. 35-49Published by: Universitätsverlag WINTER GmbhStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41157910Accessed: 28-07-2015 18:17 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content

in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:17:11 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=winterverlaghttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41157910http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41157910http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=winterverlaghttp://www.jstor.org/


2/16

Faces

in

the Mirror:

Raymond

Carver nd the ntricacies f

Looking

Christof

Decker

ABSTRACT

It hasrepeatedlyeenpointed ut thatneo-realistexts re characterizedy particularisual

quality,

ot

only

with

egard

o audiovisual evices eatured

hematically

ut lso

concerning

heir

literarytyle,

which t some

point

ven came to be called

TV

Fiction. his

essay attempts

o

show

hat,

n

order o

appreciate

hevisual

uality

f

neo-realism,

e

should hift ur attention

from he

predominance

f he

mage

o a more

omplex

nderstanding

f

visuality.rawing

n the

concept

f he

gaze, suggest

hatwe

haveto examine

losely

ow he ct of

ooking

s ntroduced

as thecrucial

way

of

nterrelatingmage

nd

subject,

nd,

more

pecifically,

ow t contributeso

the

mergence

f

newforms f

elf-knowledge.y

case

in

point

will

be

Raymond

arver's

mini-

mal

realism,

hich s characterized

y

disjunction

etween oice nd

eye,

peaking

nd

ooking.

This

disjunction

as been inkedwith henotion

f

postmodern epthlessness,

et

would

rgue

that t relates ess

to

epistemological

oubt han o the dea of a crisis fcommunication.

arking

backto Americanmodernism,he ensuousness fthematerial orld s contrasted ith herealm

of

peech

n

order o stress hat

isual nd

haptic

orms f contact an

compensate

or he

funda-

mental

nadequacy

f

poken anguage.

hreedifferent

ypes

f

ooking-

the

narcissistic,

elevisu-

al,

and cinematic

aze-

will

be discussed

o elaborate

uestions

fvisualization

n

neo-realism.

Whenminimal ealism ame

to be

regarded

s a

major iterary

orce

n

the

1980s,

wo

spects

f

particular

nterest

erenoticedwhich

ave

ince

haped

he-

oretical ebates. n the ne

hand,

ritics

ere

mpressed

y

he

predominance

f

ordinary,

omestic

ubjects;

n the

other,

hey

marvelledt the

aggressive

ucid-

ity f he iterarytyledvocated ywritersuch sRaymond arver,

nn

Beat-

tie,

Mary

Robison,

r TobiasWolff.ncontrasto the

xpansiveness

f

postmod-

ern iteratureminimalism

ppeared

o be

likea

microchip,ighly

unctional,

finely

rafted,

nd

polished

o

precision

Herzinger

4).

Numerous

uggestions

weremade s to what his

ew

ype

ffictionhould e

called,

anging

rom

irty

Realism o K-Mart

ealism,

et

most riticseemed o

agree

hat n

mportant

l-

ementwasa newform f

ccessibilityrawing

n

the

epresentationalromises

f

realistic

riting.

s Kim

Herzinger

ummed

t

up:

'Minimalist'tories

enerally

position

hereader

irectly

cross he

able,

t

eye

evel,

where ommunication

s

most

ikely 15).

The notion feye evel ommunicationefers o the implicityfdesign reva-

lent

n

minimalist

riting

nd welcomed s a new readerorientation

r 'user

friendliness.'et talso alludes o the

mportance

fnon-verbal

orms fcommu-

nication rucial

n

stories

acking

laborate

assages

f direct

peech.

n

this e-

1

On the

oncept

f

minimalism,

f.Barth nd Facknitz

Menace

of

Minimalism ).


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/16

36 Christof

ecker

spect,

aymond

arver

as come o be

regarded

s one of he

most

mportant

u-

thors-though,s I will rgue, requentlyisapprehended.2incethe ate 1970s

the

visual

uality

f his tories nd

iterarytyle

as

persistently

een related o

painting.

hetherriticsaw

him s a

minimalist,

eo-realist,

r

postmodern

rit-

er,

hey sually

alledhis

ean,

unadorned

tyle

photo-realistic

cf.

tull,

altz-

man, luck,

nd

Nesset).

This

nalogy

with

hoto-

r

hyper-realism

rew

ut of

the sense that ertain

hemes nd moods

prevalent

n

photo-realisticaintings

could lso

be discerned

n

Carver's

writings.

oth rt

forms

eveloped

t

roughly

the ame

historical

oment,

n the

ate

1960s,

nd were een

as related esthetic

movements

n American ulture.

Yet even

hough

otions f

theme nd mood

eemed o

point

o

similar

ercep-

tions fAmericanociety, anyriticsailed onotice hat nterms f tyle,arver

and

the

photo-realists

dvocated

adically

ifferent

epresentationaltrategies.

While

ainters

uch

s Robert

echtle,

ichard

stes,

r

Ralph

Goings

trove or

a

representation

f

reality mulating

hevisual

ichness

f

photography,

arver's

highly

ondensed tories

ere,

n the

ontrary,

haracterized

y ompression

nd

reduction.3

aradoxically,literary

tyle,

hich ame

to be known s

minimalism,

was

routinely

ssociated

with isual

mages

enowned or heir

inely rought

e-

tails nd

high

ensity,

. e. their bundance

fvisual nformation.ritics

ailed o

see thatCarver's

mages

f uburbia ere

highlytylized

nd

compressed

ental

images

elated

o notions f n alienated

elf.

One consequence fthe inkagewas thatCarver'swritingouldbe subsumed

under hebanner

f

postmodernism.

ven

though

e

seemed

o returno certain

elements f

realism,

o the

rgument

ent,

e

shared he

photo-realists'

redilec-

tion or urface tructures

nd their oncomitant

epthlessness.

s MichaelTrus-

sler

uts

t: Thereader

erceives

he urface

event, escription),

ut

s

ncapable

of

penetrating

he

surface o discover he

occluded

meaning

r structurehat

grants

he urface

ts

texture,

ts

shape

27-28).

A

closer

ook at his stories e-

veals,

however,

hat

Carver

id not

attempt

o

reproduce

he

minutiae f visual

surface tructures

nd

consequently

as

not o be confused

ith he

fleeting

o-

ments f

pop-art'snapshot aintings.ather,

is

representation

f

reality

was

highly

electivend reductive. e followed n aestheticf

abstraction,

rowing

out

of,

ut lso

transforming

he

xperience

f

everyday

ife.

To be

sure,

arver's tories o

not

ignifysimple

eturno traditionalorms

f

realism

gnorant

f

postmodern

esthetic

trategies.

et

would

rgue

hat eferenc-

es

tothe

photo-realistic

uality

f

his

writing

ave bscured

ow nd

why uestions

of visualization

re at

thecenter f his neo-realist

esthetic.

requently,

arver's

writing

vokes

hevisual

uality

f

painting,

ut

t s crucial o realize

hat his s

achieved

y

ompeting

orms f

visual

xploration

nd

representation.

n

the ne

hand,

is tories

re

distinguishedy

various

orms f

ooking,

enerating

onflict-

inggazes

nd

types

fvisualization.n

theother

and, hey

ntroduce

he heme

ofvisualizationot s an end n tself ut s

part

f desire o communicate.ince

Carver's

haracters

xperience

erbal ommunication

s

prone

o failurend

frus-

2

On Carver's

blossoming eputation,

f. cott.

3

On Carver's

tyle,

f.

Campbell,

Nesset,

nd Facknitz

Menace

of

Minimalism ).




4/16

Faces

n

theMirror 37

tration,

on-verbalorms

erve s insufficient

et enuine ttempts

o

compensate

for his ack.4 he essCarver'sharactersalk, hemore hey bserve. hus,what

to some ritics

ppeared

o be a variant f

postmodernepthlessness

s

in fact n

inability

o communicate.

his

nability

o

express

hemselves

dequately

s not

only major

auseof he haracters'

uffering,

t lso

represents

n

mportant

le-

ment

f

Carver's

tyle.

ack

and

nsufficiency

ust e answered

y

a search or

newmeans

f

xpression,

ndthis

earch

hapes

he haracters's well

s the ead-

er's

activity.

n contrasto

the

photo-realists'

igh-densityaintings,

arver

re-

sents ketches

nneedof

upplementation.

n order obe

understood,

hey

must e

completed y sympathetic

ialogicalmagination.5

Looking

as an Act

of Transformation

The

inadequacy

f

spoken

anguage

s a recurrent

heme

n

Carver's

tories.

Characters

roping

or

words,

ot

knowing

hat o

say,

r

being

nable o

express

themselvesre a common

eature f

hisblue-collar

ettings

nd

serve s a

major

trope

or he

arger

risis

fverbal ommunication.

case

n

point

s thenarrator

of Cathedral.

esitant bout

a blindman

who comesto visithis

house,

he is

stunned o hear

him

ay

hat,

s an owner

ftwo elevision

ets,

e

prefers

o turn

on his olor et:

I didn't now

what o

say

o that. had

absolutely othing

o

sayto that.No

opinion

205). ronically,

s the

tory roceeds,

atching

elevisiono-

gether

ill

help

both,

he

blindman nd

the

narrator,

o come o a

new evel fun-

derstanding.

ut at this

oint

he

nability

o

express

imself

erbally ighlights

common ilemma

fCarver's

haracters.

anguage

s seento be insufficient

or

genuine

nd ntimate

orm fcommunication.

alking

reates

istance,

nd those

who talk

elf-assuredly

re looked

upon

with

uspicion. onsequently,

arver's

charactersre often

ortrayed

s

inarticulate,

t a loss for

he

right

ord,

while

the

ct of

ooking roduces

kind f

knowledge

n which he ense

oftheirnte-

riority

an build.

Thesignificancef his otion f nteriorityompensating

or he

nadequacy

f

spoken

anguage

wasmade

apparent

nRobertAltman's ilmhortCuts

1993),

based on a number f Carver's

tories.

n his

adaptation

or he

creen,

Altman

created

fascinating

etwork

f cross-references

etween itherto nconnected

stories

lowing

moothly

nto ach

other ike n elaboratemusical

iece.

Yet

some

critics oted hat

Altman ntroducedwo

narrative

echniques

hich undamen-

tally hanged

he haracter

f

Carver's

writing.

nstead f

ympathy

hey

aw ro-

ny,

while he

ubjectivity

f nternal

hought

ad been translatednto

xternalc-

tion

cf.Gallagher,

tewart,

cofield,

nd

Boddy).

n Tess

Gallagher's

stimation,

the ffectf hese

hanges

was to

toughen

nd

peedup

what s

tender ndcircu-

itousnCarver 11). In thehigh-densityodeoffilmmages, ltman eemedn-

capable

of

representing

hemoremeditativend

blurry

lements fCarver's

ma-

4

On the

mportance

f

nonverbal

ignals,

f.Gearheart.

5

The crisis fcommunication

n

Carver's tories

s elaborated

y

Gearheart

nd Shute.




5/16

38 Christofecker

terial.Most

mportantly,

he ension etween

alking

nd

observing,

rucial o his

explorationf ubjectivity,layed much mallerole n Altman's ilm.6

Carver's

isjunction

etween erbal ndnon-verbalormsf ommunicationas

first

cknowledged

n n

nsightfulnalysis y

David Boxer ndCassandra

hillips:

If

Carver's

ye

s that f he

voyeur, hey

write,

his

voice s that fdissociation

(81).

Sight

nd

speech, ye

and voice re differentiateds distinctommunicative

levels

n

Carver's

riting,enerating

ifferentinds

f

knowledge

nd

nsight.

on-

sequently,

oxer nd

Phillips

ntroducehe erm

oyeurism

tomeannot

ust

exu-

al

spying,

ut hewistfuldentificationith ome

distant,

nattainable

dea of elf

(79).

Dissociation,

n theother

and,

s

understood

s a senseof

disengagement

from ne'sown

dentity

nd

ife,

state

f

tandingpart

rom hateverefineshe

self, r ofbeing nselfed 79). Inboth asestheytress hefeelingf nadequacy:

gazing

t an unattainable

dea of

self,

isengagingerbally

rom he elf. et

they

also note

hat

arver

as

endowed he ctof

ooking

ith new

xperiential

orce:

Looking

tself ecomes

xperience,

ot

merely

icarious

xperience.

t

s a trans-

forming

ct,

newhich

hanges

he haracterf hat

whichs seen

79).

As Boxer nd

Phillips

ave

pointed

ut,

Carver ndermines

he

hierarchy

e-

tween erbal nd

non-verbal

orms f

ommunication

o show hat he

truggle

o

express

he elf akes

place

on differentevels.

n A

Small,

Good

Thing,

nn

Weiss ealizes fter hedeath f herchild hat he s unable o

express

er

grief

adequately.

he

thinks,

howunfairtwas that he

only

words

hat

ame

outwere

the sort f words sed on TV showswherepeoplewerestunned yviolent r

sudden eaths. he

wanted er

words

o

be

herown

76).

Yet,

s this esire o

find

words

f one's own s

thwarted,

lternative eansof

expressing

he self

must e

foregrounded.alking

eads to alienation

rom

he

elf

nd

others,

hile

looking

r

touching

reates

feeling

fcloseness nd sometimes

ven senseof

empathy.

re-verbal,

isual nd

haptic,

orms

re ntroduced

o

compensate

or

communicativeack.

However,

ince

hey

re ess elaborate

hey ighlight

de-

sire o communicate

teeped

n

the

discrepancies

f

ambiguous

r

fuzzy

emiotic

systems.

Boxer

nd

Phillips

ocussed

n thekind

f

voyeurismrevalent

n stories ike

Neighbors,

here ill

Miller,

ending

othe

mpty

partment

fhis

neighbors,

begins

o invade heir

rivacy y observing

he

apartment

losely:

He looked

outthe

window,

nd then e moved

lowly

hrough

ach

room

onsideringvery-

thing

hatfellunder

his

gaze,carefully,

ne

object

t a time

13).

However,

character's

aze

can have

variety

f

mplications

n

Carver's

tories:tcan

signi-

fy eflexively

he

process

f

collecting

nd

selecting

material

or

new)

stories;

t

can be

part

f a

voyeuristic

ct of

spying,canning

nd

possessing' bjects

hat

help

o

transformhe

elf;

r tcan

mply

hat

he elf s

placing

im- r herself

n

the

cene

under bservation. ow charactersook at

objects

nd

people,

r how

they

re

being

ooked

t,provides

ot

only

ital its f

storynformation,

t

also

underlineshat he

gaze

nCarver's

writing

s an active

rocess,

mplicated

n re-

6

RobertAltman's

daptation

must, owever,

lso be seen

n

thecontext f his

ownwork. n

particular,

he enseoffarcical

rony

nd

the

depthlessness

fhischaracters ave been

persistent

elements fhisfilms ince he

arly

970s.




6/16

Faces n theMirror 39

lations f

knowledge

nd

power. ooking

n

tsmost

omplex

orm ecomes n

act of elf-examination.7

Carver's

Regime

of

Gazes

Carver's toriesmust

e

carefully

ifferentiatedith

egard

o the

question

s

to what he

haracters

re

ooking

t,

how heir

azes

are

qualified,

nd what

hey

see.8 hree

ypes

f

ooking

re

particularly

elevantince

hey

akeon

a reflexive

quality:ooking

nto

mirrors,

atching

elevision,

nd

closely

bserving

undane

objects

r scenes.

ooking

ntomirrorss a traditionalevice or he

motif f elf-

analysis. et t s strikingowoften tfigures rominentlynCarver'swork. ro-

tagonistserusing

heir aces

nmomentsf tress r

n

unusual nvironments

an

be found

n

numerous

tories.

n

hisfirst isit o the

mptypartment

fhis

vaca-

tioning eighbors,

ill Miller ends o the at and

plants,

hen

lowly

e is over-

powered y transgressivempulse:

Leaving

he atto

pick

t her

food,

e head-

ed for hebathroom. e looked

t himselfn themirrornd then losedhis

eyes

andthen ooked

gain

Neighbors 0).

He

goes

on to search hevarious ooms

ofthe

partment,

o that t this

oint ooking

nto he

mirrors ike

waking p

n

a

strangely

ltered

tate,

meeting

he elf n a

new,

more

evealing

nd

fascinating

form.

ater,

s he

puts

n his

neighbor'slothes,

othmale nd

female,

e returns

repeatedly

o stare ntomirrors,

ngaging

n the silent

pleasure

of

seeing

his

formerelf akeon

multiple

ppearances.

Carver's arrator

s careful otto

udge

what

Bill

thinks f

himself hilehe is

observing

imselfn the

mirror,

nviting

he

reader o

speculate

n thethrills

f

cross-dressing.

et a character's

ook nto hemirroran also denote decisive

step

oward new evelof

elf-knowledge.

n

this ense

Al,

themain haracter

f

Jerry

nd

Molly

nd

Sam,

whose ife eems o be

fallingpart

nd

who,

n a des-

perate esture

o restore

senseof

order,

as abandoned he

family og,

makes

vital

iscovery

hile

ooking

nto hemirror:

Whilehe

was

shaving,

e

stopped

once andheldtherazor n hishand nd ookedat himself

n themirror: isface

doughy,

haracterless-

mmoral,

hatwas theword.He laid therazordown. be-

lieve havemadethe

ravest

mistake his ime

165;

original

talics).

or a brief

7

The

concept

f the

gaze

is

adapted

from ilm

heory

here twas

developed

n

the ontext

f

psychoanalytic

nd

apparatus

heories. or our

purpose,

wo

aspects

re most

ignificant.

he

gaze

not

only

efers o

thevisual

bjectgenerated y

the ct of

ooking,

.

e. the

mage;

t

also

in-

cludes he

ctivity

f

ooking

s

such,

. e. the

way ooking

ontributeso the onstruction

f

par-

ticular

ubject

r

subject

osition.

o

analyze

he

gaze,

therefore,

equires

close

examination f

'image'

nd

subject'

n

order

o discern ow he ext

resents

heir

nterrelationship.

or

different

approaches oncerning

he

oncept

f the

gaze

in film

heory,

f.TheSexual

Subject.

8 Care mustbe taken o distinguishetweenCarver'srelativelyhort tories nd his onger,

more laborate

ieces

for

n

ntroductoryeneric nalysis

fthe hort

tory,

f.

ratt).My

choice

of

examples

elates o both

ypes, hough

have ncluded

nly

ew eferenceso

hisvolumeWhat

We TalkAboutWhenWe TalkAboutLove.

A

critical

ebate has raised he

question

o what x-

tent he xtreme

revity

f ome of the tories

n

this

olume an be traced o revisions xecuted

by

ditorGordon

Lish;

cf.Max.




7/16

40

Christof ecker

moment

l

breaks

hrough

isreluctanceo

acknowledge

hat

he haosof

family

life s a consequencefhisownmaking,side-effectfhisfaultyimmoral har-

acter. n this

ase,

hen,

ooking

nto hemirror

riggers

psychological

r moral

insight

hat

Carver nderlines

y nterspersing

rief

assages

f nterior

ono-

logue.

The actof

ooking

onjures p

the

word

immoral l seems o have

been

looking

or,

et

he does not

mention

t n

conversations

ith iswife.

elf-knowl-

edge

generated

y

mirrors

ften emains t this

ubjective

evel

without

ntering

direct erbal ommunication.

Still,

t

shouldbe obvious hat

ooking

ntomirrorss a mode of

self-analysis

does notfollow he

postmodern)rope

fboundless orms freflectionnable o

locate sense f elf. n

Carver'smore

omplex

tories

e.

g. Jerry

nd

Molly

nd

Sam or WillYou Please Be Quiet,Please? ), ookingntomirrors arksmo-

ments fmoral

r

personal nsight,

hile

n

his hortertoriest

usually

akes n

the

quality

f a

narcissistic

aze:

an

exaggerated

orm f self-interest

rying

o

combat he

feeling

f

mptiness

r

blankness.

n

both ases

t

represents

form f

looking

hich llows

limpses

nto he haracters'

ersonalities,

evealing

heir t-

tempt

o

integrate

hat

hey

ee withwhat

hey

eel,

o find he

right

ords or

images

fthe elf.

Watching

elevision

If

we can callthenumerousaces nthe

mirrors

mong

arver's tories

prima-

ryway

of

ooking

n,

watching

elevisionan

be understoods a

way

of

ooking

out.

Significantly,

hough,

t s a

way

of

ooking

ut anchoredn thedomesticet-

tings

f he haractersndthus erves o

emphasize

ather

han vercome he

fun-

damental

assivity

ntheirives.

t can

signify

heblank tare f n mmobileudi-

ence,

athering

n

front

f

the elevisionet n order o kill

ime,

s in the

drying-

out

facility

f Where

'm

Calling

rom : I make t to a

big

chair hat's lose to

the

radiator,

nd I sit down.

ome

guys

ook

up

from heir V. Then

they

hift

back o what

hey

were

watching125).

n

this

ase,

what

xactly hey

re watch-

ing

snot laborated

n, nd,

ndicating

he

degree

ftheir

xhaustion,

t doesn't

seem

to make difference.

atching

elevision,hen,

an denote routine

aily

activity

hat

metonymically

lludes o the

repetitious

nd mechanical

attern

f

everyday

ife. nsteadof

engaging

withwhat

hey

ee

by looking

ut intothe

world,

arver's haractersend o

be drawn

eeper

nto heir

omestic

phere.

On theother

and,

watching

elevision,

ust

ike

ooking

nto

mirrors,

as more

complexmplications,articularly

hen ntroduceds a

competing

arrativeevice

influencing

nd

nterrelating

ith

he ction

n the

tory.

s has been

pointed

ut,

the

force f Carver's toriesies n their

bility

o underminehehabitual

xperi-

enceof

veryday

ife

ymaking

he sual eem

trange:

It s the

amiliar,

he eem-

ingly

known,'

hichs the ruemask fthe

errifyingBoxer

nd

Phillips 3).

To

this

nd,

watching

elevisions a constant

eminder

f

how

uickly

error

enerated

in the

public phere

an nvade he

eeming

almness f the

private

ealm.

High-

lighting

he

ontingency

f

death nd

violence,

arrativesn television

epresent

subtle hreat rom

he utside

world,

technically)

eceivedn the

deceptive

eclu-




8/16


sion f hehome.

n

the

gin-soaked

ocial

gathering

f WhatWeTalkAboutWhen

We TalkAboutLove, ardiologistel McGinnis ummarizes horrible ighway

accident:Drunk

kid,

eenager,lowed

hisdad's

pickup

nto his

amper

with his

old

couple

n t

146).Watching

elevisionanhave he imilarffectf

nterjecting

visions

f

sudden eath.

As

Jack

nd Franvisit iswork

al

Bud in

Feathers,

stock arrace s

running

n

television:

'Maybe

ne of hose amn arswill

xplode

right

nfrontf

us,'

ran aid.

Or

else

maybe

ne'llrun

p

nto he

grandstand

nd

smash he

guy elling

he

rummy

ot

dogs' 9).

Significantly,

ran

magines

cenesmoreviolent nd brutal han heones

actu-

ally

hown,

bviouslyxpecting

he

worst.n contrasto the

ntrospectiveuality

of

ooking

nto

mirrors,hen,

watching

elevision

reates differentevelofvisu-

alization. n theonehand, elevision'segime faudiovisualityeemstoblock

out

moredirect nd

open

forms

f

communication,

itualizing

n

empty

orm f

interaction

n

relationships

hathave osttheir motional

asis.As Jack emarks

about

his

marriage

ith ran: She and

talk ess and ess as it s.

Mostly

t's

ust

the

TV

(23).

On the

other

and,

he act of

watching

elevision

s torn etween

two

radically ivergent

motional tates:

gnorance

nd

hypersensitivity.

oth

re-

actions,

taring assively

t

the televisionet or

anticipating

he worst o

come,

indicate hatCarver's haracters

eel need to

protect

hemselves

gainst

ver-

powering

mages.

n

this

ense,

watching

elevision,

ike

ooking

nto

mirrors,

e-

volves round he

theme f a

split ubject.

Unable to find

words o

express

he

self, arver's

rotagonists

lso seem to lack an

adequate

emotional eactionn

thefaceof disaster.

ornbetween xtremes- ilence nd

small-talk,

isinterest-

edness

nd

sentimentality-

he

notion

f a

split ubject oints

o the entralack

of

his

characters:

he

nability

o

express

nd

integratembiguous

eelings

nd

the oncomitant

ear f

shifting

ncontrollably

etween

adically ivergent

mo-

tional tates.9

Analyzing

heSelf

The

exploratory

aturef

ooking

n and

ooking

ut an

partly

e

explained

y

thefact hat

mirrorsndtelevisioncreens

re

technologies

fvisualization

hose

reflexive

uality

s an intrinsic

spect

ftheir

esign.

he third

egime

f

ooking

that want o focus

n

goes beyond

his lement

f

technologicalesign.

t in-

cludeswhatBoxer nd

Phillips

efine

s a

voyeuristic

dentification

ith n un-

attainable

dea of self

79).

Yet t need not

necessarily

r

solely

e seen

as

voy-

euristic,

. e.

performed

n

secrecy

nd fueled

y

forbiddenesires.

More

fittingly,

it

can

be characterizeds the ctof

generatingelf-knowledge

y

careful

bser-

vation

f

mundane

bjects

r scenes.Carver's narticulate

haractersften

ain

their irstnsightsimply y ooking.Middle-aged, arried rnoldBreit, he n-

9

Obviously,

eo-realism la Carver lso creates

'new

psychology.'

scillating

etween

n-

tagonistic

tates f

feeling,

he

subject

does not see

him- r herself s

integrated

r whole but

rather

s

responding

o various timuli rom he outside.

he concomitant

poverty

f

spirit

s

viewed

riticallyy

Facknitz

Menace

of

Minimalism ).




9/16

42

Christof ecker

hibited

rotagonist

f AreYou a Doctor?

visits woman

who

has

mysteriously

calledhim t home nd wants o see him.Arrivingther partment,e finds hat

shehas

gone

outandwaits or er:

He looked

around.The roomwas

lighted y

a

gold

floor

amp

that

had a

large shtray

and a

magazine

ack ffixed o the

pole.

A

television et stood

against

hefar

wall,

he

picture

n,

thevolume ow.

A

narrow

allway

ed to theback of the

partment.

he fur-

nace was turned

p,

the

ir close with medicinal mell.

Hairpins

nd

rollers

ay

on the

coffee

able,

pink

athrobe

ay

on the ouch.

36)

The

passage

erves s a

descriptive

ntroductiono theunknown oman's

part-

ment,

et

t also sketches ital

details

stablishing

mood that

eflects rnold's

hesitanttate fmind. he pink athrobe oreshadowshat e will lumsilyry

to kiss

the

stranger,

onfused ver

their

meeting

n an

atmosphere

f

ntimacy

without

nowing

ach other ut

manating

similar

eeling

f

repressed

iscon-

tent.

hus,

ntently

bserving particularetting,

he

protagonist

ecomes ware

of

sexually harged bject,

which

orresponds

ith ishidden

esires. ther x-

amples

how venmore

xplicitly

ow

watching

scene an

generate

elf-knowl-

edge.

n Will

You Please Be

Quiet,

lease?

Ralph

nd

Marian re

experiencing

a

maritalrisis fter he dmits

o a sexual ffair.

alph

remembershe imewhen

they

were

honeymooning

n

Mexico nd he watched iswife

eaning

motionless

on

thebalustrade ftheir

partment:

She wore white

lousewith

bright

ed carf

t her

hroat,

nd he could ee her

breasts

pushing

gainst

hewhite loth.

He had a bottle f

dark,

nlabeled

wineunderhis

arm,

and thewhole

ncident

utRalph

n

mind f

omething

rom

film,

n

ntensely

ramatic

momentntowhichMarian

ouldbe fitted ut

he couldnot.

229).

Again,

s

in

the

passage

from AreYou a

Doctor? ,

bserving

brief,

intensely

dramatic

moment ntroduces

mages

with exualconnotations.

ut

n

this ase

theobservers not

only

haracterizeds

sexually

ntimidated

and

ultimately

n-

adequate),

he evaluates

he act of

ooking

s

a

painful

lash f

self-recognition.

SinceCarver's arrator

ualifies

he cene s

something

rom film t s

tempt-

ing o callRalph's ctof ooking cinematicaze helpingo establish particular

modeofnarration.

any

fCarver's tories

re characterized

y

hese

rolonged

passages

f

observation

ntroducing particular

etting

nd

combining

hisde-

scriptive

assage

with ubtle

eflectionsbout

place:

How does the

character it

into

he cenehe or she s

watching?

isual

xploration

f

space

thus reates n

establishing

hot fthe

etting

nd,

t tsmost

istinctive,

lso

serves s an assess-

ment

fhow ndwhere he elf an

be

placed

nto he cene.

Toward

he

end

of

the

tory

scene

mirroringalph's

arlier

lashback ision

ofthe

honeymoon

nderlineshis

narrativeevice.After

night

f

drinking

nd

gambling,alph

returnso his

home,

till ndecided owhe

should ct.

He watch-

es hiswife leepingnd,ust s inMexico, uzzled nd nsecure,ries ocometo

terms ith is

place

n the

cenebefore im:

She was

sleeping,

erhead off he

pillow,

urned oward he

wall,

herhairblack

gainst

the

heet,

he overs unched roundher

houlders,

overs

ulledup

from he

foot fthe

bed.

She was on her

ide,

her

secret

ody

ngled

t the

hips.

He stared.

What fter

ll,




10/16

Faces n theMirror

43

shouldhe do? Take his

things

nd leave?

Go

to a

hotel?Make certain

rrangements?

How should man ct,given hese ircumstances?249)

In a mild ubversion

f

gender tereotypes,alph

realizes t this

oint

hathe

the

man-

precisely

oes notknow

how

o act.The

experience

f

personal

risis

often

eads Carver'smale

protagonists

o

retreat nd a

heightened

tate f self-

pity

ather han

decisive ction.

arlier,

s

Ralph

wanders

imlessly

hrough

he

night,

is

feeling

f

vulnerability

s

evoked

n

entering liquor

tore:

A bellover

thedoor inkled.

alph

lmost

wept

rom he ound f t

241).

How the elf an

be included

n

a

scene, herefore,

ften eads to a notion

f

ackand nconclusive-

ness-

in

this ase the ackofmarital

normalcy'

ndthe

onsequent

motional

e-

stabilizationfthemaleprotagonist.et the rucial oint bout hepassagewith

regard

o the

analysis

f different

ypes

f

ooking

s that bservationnd self-

analysis

re

ntimately

inked ndtake n an active

uality,

hich

he

male)

char-

acters re

ncapable

f

n

a more

iteral ense.

Thus,

we can

distinguish

etween

hree asic

types

hat have

tentatively

and

heuristically)

alled

he

narcissistic,elevisual,

nd cinematic

aze.

What he har-

acters re

looking

t,

how their

ook s

qualified,

nd how t affectsheir

self-)

knowledge

ecomes

itallymportantgainst

he

background

fa

pervasive

eel-

ing

of

peechlessness.

n

Carver's

work he

gaze

takes n numerous orms

more

thanmentioned

bove),yet

wo

spects

re crucial.

irstly,azing

nvites consid-

eration fplaceand self. trevolves round he ssueofhow heobserver itsnto

the

cene

he or she s

watching

and

describing).

econdly,

t s

presented

s an ac-

tivity reating special

bond between

he

observer nd

the

person

or

object

looked t.

Thus,

he

gaze negotiates

evels

f

proximity

nd

distance,

nvolvement

and

retreat,

hich

aveboth

metaphorical

nd iteral

mplications.

he narcissis-

tic

gaze

s a closeform f elf

perusal

hile he elevisual

aze

s

by

definition)

ar

removed rom he cene

being

watched;

et

oth orms f

ooking

an ead

to sur-

prising

iscoveries-

.

g.

that loseness ncovers

feeling

falienation

hile is-

tance

may gnite

motionalnvolvement.

Still,

hevarious

ypes

f

ooking

an thus e summarized:

henarcissistic

aze

representsform f ntrospection,he elevisual aze signifiesooking ut at the

(mediated)

worldwhile hecinematic

aze

establishes

(self-reflexive)

orm

f

looking

which

cknowledges

he bservers a

participant

n a narrative

equence.

All

types

ndicate hat

n

Carver's

writingye

contact s a

specific

orm f ommu-

nications of central

mportance.

owever,

s the

discussionn WhatWe Talk

AboutWhenWe TalkAbout

Love

suggests,

his

may

not

lways

e clear o

the

protagonists.

n

the ftermath

fthedreadful

ighway

ccident,

aving

aved

the

old

couple's

ife

n

numerous

perations,

ardiologist

el

McGinnis

inds utthat

the ld man s not

uffering

o much rom he ccident ut

from

aving

isfield f

vision

mpaired.

nbelievingly,

e recalls:

I'm

telling ou,

he man's

heartwas

breakingecausehe couldn't urn isgoddamn ead and seehisgoddamnwife

(151).




11/16

44

Christof

ecker

Looking

and

Everyday

Life

In its movement etween

mages

of extreme

iolence,

otions

f

love,

and

states fdrunken

tupor,

WhatWe TalkAbout

When

We

TalkAboutLove es-

tablishes

precarious

alancebetween hedomestic

phere

nd a hostile utside

world. he notion fhome s an enclosed nd

protective

pace together

ith he

relationship

etween

rivate

nd

public,

elf nd

community,

s

constantly

hal-

lenged.

n

the ne

hand,

t s undermined

y

ommunication

echnologies

hreat-

ening

o invade he homewith isual nd verbal

messages.

n the

other

hand,

Carver's

rotagonistssually

ome

to

realize hat

he vil

they

re

trying

o hide

from esurfaces

n themidst ftheirmost ntimate

elationships.

t

signifies,

fter

all, he uppressedesire rviolent rge f heir issociatedelves,ndicatinghat

longing

o

retreat

nto

protectedrivate pace

must e seenas theultimateorm

of elf-delusion.

Still,

he

predominance

fthe

ommonplace

s an

importantspect

f Carver's

writing,

nd

the

domestic iction

ftheminimalistsn

general.

t harks ack o the

modernist

roject

f a

democratic

rt

apable

of

addressing,

nd situated

ithin,

the ealm f

veryday

ife.

ikeWilliam arlos

Williamsr

Charles

heeler,

arver

investigates

he

thingness'

f

ordinary

xperience

n an

attempt

o discover

at-

terns

apable

of

tructuring

hatworld n

meaningful ays.10

o this

nd,

ooking

becomes n

exploratory

ct

n

pursuit

f

experience

nd

knowledge.

et n con-

trast o the arliermodernists,arver rames his ttempt ith pervasiveense

of

mpoverishment,

oth

n

terms f he

ubject's

ntuitiveacultiesndthe ensu-

ous

quality

f

his or her

environment.rban

landscapes

nd

technological

progress,

allowed

ymbols

f

modernity,

ave

degenerated

nto uburban

ark-

ing

ots nd

Styrofoamups.

Colors, extures,

hadesof

ight

re notfeatured

prominently

n

Carver's

tories.

ather,

he

mpoverishment

f suburbia orre-

sponds

with

n

mpoverishment

f timuli or he enses.

Similarly,

he

xperience

f

everyday

ife,

n

tsritualizednd routine

spects,

s

often

ortrayed

s

frustrating

r even

depressing.

et at the ametime t s

highly

valorized s the

nly

modeofexistencehere s.

Thus, lthough

rdinariness

s the

cause of the characters'iscontentnd

suffering,hey esperatelyling

o itas

soon as it s

being

hreatened.

requently,

his onstitutesarver's

xistentialist

twist:

aught

nside

stifling

nd

pointless veryday

xistence,

is

haracters

ev-

ertheless

anic

as

they

eel

their

miserable

xistence

lipping

rom hem.

And

Carvermakes ure

hat t

does

slip

by ntroducing

sense fmenace hat reates

feeling

f

shiftinground: emporary

oments f destabilization

emonstrating

to the haractersheir

elplessness

nd

nability

o act

decisively

r

to

change

he

course f their ate.11he

struggle

f Carver's haracterso find words f

their

own

s, herefore,

ituated

n

the

arger

ontext f a

democraticrt

finding

t n-

creasingly

ifficulto

identify

he

extraordinary

ithin he

ordinary

r

to

assign

spiritual

alues o mundane

bjects. nchoring

esthetic

xperience

nthe

very-

10

Carver

allsWilliams ne ofhis

iterary

heroes',

f.

McCaffery

nd

Gregory.

n the

history

of

Sheeler

nd

Williams,

f.

Marling,

rvell,Rourke,

nd Lucie.

11

On the

prevalence

fthis enseof

menace,

f. owell nd Carver

On Writing ).




12/16

Faces

n

theMirror 45

day

world s

hampered

y

the

mpoverishment

f

ts

material

exture,

hilemass

mediated isastershreatenooverpowerheperceptiveacultiesivotal or dis-

criminating

ook.

Thus,

arver's eo-realistesthetics

ultimately

ore

oncerned

ith

he

ong-

ing

or iscoveries

n

the

rdinary

orld han he ctual

depiction

fthediscover-

ies

themselves,

fferingnly

ketches fmoments ftruth r

nsight.

et t could

be

argued

hat his

eeling

f unfulfilledesire onstitutes crucial

spect

f

his

stories

ointing

eyond

he smallness fvision hat

Carver

ound aultwith e-

garding

he ermminimalism

cf.

Herzinger).

n his

arly

tories,

he

ctof

ooking

generates elf-knowledge

n

order o overcome

he

nadequacy

f

spoken

an-

guage

hat s

underminingnterpersonalelationships.

n his

ater

work,

subtle

shifteems o occur s to the ignificancefnon-verbalorms fcommunication.

Now

they

re ntroduceds a

remedy,

owever

phemeral

nd

ncomplete,

or he

difficulties

f human

nteraction.

s

Carver

pens

up

themarital

ettings

f his

more

omplex

tories,

he ctof

ooking

ot

only

nhancesntimate

elationships,

italso comes o

denote,

metaphorically,

rtisticreation s such.

Discovering

he

Haptic

This hift

s

most bvious

n

Cathedral,

he

tory

bout blindman

visitingmarried

ouple

cf.

Facknitz

HumanWorth ],

rown,

nd

Gearheart).

ears

ago

thewomanworked or

im,

eading

rom ase studies nd

reports.

ftermov-

ing way

he has

kept

n touch

y

exchanging

apes.

Now,

s he is about o enter

their

ome,

he

prejudiced

nd

apprehensive

usband ells he

tory

f heir

meet-

ing, evealing

nxieties nd

ealousy oncerning

iswife's ormer

cquaintances.

In contrasto WhatWe TalkAbout

WhenWe TalkAbout

Love,

he

mportance

of

ye

contacts

acknowledged

s a crucial ommunicative

actor f ntimateela-

tionships.

n

fact,

henarrator

ustifies

is

pprehensivenessoncerning

he

blind

visitor

y magining

hat

tmust

e

like

o

be married o a blindman:

Imagine womanwho could never ee herself s she was seen in theeyesof her oved

one. A womanwhocould

go

on

day

after

ay

and never eceive he mallest

ompliment

from er

beloved.

A

woman

whosehusband ouldnever ead the

xpression

n her

face,

be

it

misery

r

something

etter.

200)

The

scornful

gnorance

f the

narrator,

ho at the

beginning

f their

meeting

wishes heblind isitor ouldweardark

lasses, hanges

n

the ourse

f he

tory.

Slowly

e comes o realize hatnot

being

ble to read a woman's acedoes

not

mean

being

nable o communicate

on-verbally.

hile he hree fthem nd

the

evening mokingmarijuana

nd

watching

elevision

the

wife

alling sleep),

the

narratorappens pon channelhowing documentaryn thehistoryffamouscathedrals. t

length

etries o describe o theblindmanwhat he athedrals n

televisionook ike.

However,

fter fewfutile

ttempts

nd

finding

is

expres-

sive

verbal)

ower

oo

imited,

e

finallyives p. ngeniously,

heblindman

ug-

gests

he should raw

cathedral,

nd at this

point

new evelof

understanding

develops

between he two

strangers,

ounded n an

attempt

t non-verbalx-




13/16

46 Christof ecker

change.

he

narrator

athers ough aper

nd

enthusiasticallyegins

o

draw he

cathedral, orkingimselfnto kind f creativerenzy.ll thewhile,heblind

man'shand s

riding

n

top

ofhis o feel

he

hapes

ndforms

volving:

I

took

up

the

penagain,

nd

he found

my

hand.

kept

t t. 'm no artist.

ut

kept rawing

just

he

ame

213).

By

remarking

hat e s no

artist,

henarrator

tresseshe

rtlessnessnd ackof

refinementf

he

drawing,et

t

s obvious hat

he ctof reations the

rucial x-

periential

orce fthis cene.

The

unleashing

f

creativity

pensup

newforms f

communicationnd

thus,

lmost oo

obviously,ighlights

he

roleof art s a tool

for

ndividualnd

nterpersonal

rowth.

fter he

drawing

s

finished,

he

blind

man

encourages

is host

to look at the

result. ut he

prefers

o

keep

his

eyes

closed,eeminglyntheverge f discoveryhat equiresheblockingutof ye-

sight: Myeyes

were

till losed.

was

n

my

house.

knew hat. ut

didn't eel

like

was nside

nything.

It's

really

omething,'

said

214).

Thus,

henarratorf

Cathedral moves

rom

gnorance

o

nsight,

rom

reju-

dice

to

openness,

rom

assivity

o

creative

reakthrough

nd,

pparently,

lso to

a

kind f

piritual

evelation. ost

mportantly,

he

tory

emonstrates

owCarver

expands

n his heme f

non-verbal

ommunication

s the rucial actorn

human

relationships.

n

thefinal

cene,

ooking

means

ooking

nward.

hus,

he

motif f

gatheringself-)

nowledgehrough

particularaze

s

supplemented

y

he dea

of

seeing

with

yes

closed.

On theone

hand,

his an be

understoods a

philo-sophical xpansion fearlier hemes,

ointing

oward more

general

otion f

perception.

n the ther

and,

nd

probably

loser o

Carver's

onceptual

laims,

ithas

palpable mplications.

eeing

with

yes

losed

ntroduceshe

mportance

f

haptic

orms f

communication,

rimarily

ouching.

urthermore,

f

understood

metaphorically,

trelates o the

power

f

the

magination.

hile

n

the

beginning

of

Cathedral he

narrator

ities

heblindmanfor

eing

nable

o

read wom-

an's

face,

e

ultimately

omes o

appreciate

hat his

isability

anbe

overcome

y

touching

nd artistic

reation.

aptic

forms f

communicationstablish

ew ev-

els of

ntimacy

nd

exchange.

Significantly,

his

elebrationf

concretenessefers

ackto American

modern-

istmovements.

mong

he elevisedathedralsnCarver's

tory

henarratorlti-

mately

ocuses n the

famous ne n

Paris,

with ts

flying

uttressesnd ts

pires

reaching p

to the

louds

209).

By

accident e has come cross

mages

f

Char-

tres

Cathedral,

etby

choosing

t

as themodelforhis

drawing

e

incorporates

building,

hich

was the

subject

f

a famous

eriesof

photographs

y

Charles

Sheeler.

heeler ound hat

y bstracting

ertain

etails

f

the

building

e

could

highlight

tructural

imilaritiesetween

athedralsnd ndustrial

uildings,spe-

cially

ord'sRiver

Rougeplant.

arver nvokes

similar esthetic

rocess.

rans-

ferring

n

object

from ne

medium o

another- n this ase from

visual

epre-

sentation n

television o a

rough nd tactilemageon paper-creates new

object

apable

of

generating

ovel

nsights

ndnewforms f humannteraction.

Artistic

reation

n

both

ases ncludes

dematerializationf

objects

rom he eal

world

n

order o

change

ways

f

perceiving

nd

ooking

t them. ts main

bjec-

tivebecomes

change

f

perspective

or

heviewer

nd,

consequently,

lso

the

reader.




14/16

WorksCited

Faces

n theMirror 47

With Cathedral s

our reference

oint

we couldconcede

hat

Carver's

eo-

realisttories ontinue ospelloutMalcolmBradbury'sotion f a moral on-

ception

fhumanism

24).

Yet t

has

been

argued

hat,

n

general, hey

re char-

acterized

y

n

inability

o create coherent

epresentation

f

reality

n a

moral,

psychological,

r

conceptual

ense,

ifferentiating

hem rom lassical

ealism

cf.

Stull,

luck,

nd

Nesset).Judging

rom he nconclusiveness

f

many

tories nd

the

rarity

f

epiphanic

moments

f

truth,

his bservations

certainly

alid.How-

ever,

ue to their

articular

odeofnarrationhe

feeling

f ack nd

helplessness

also becomes source

ftheir

trength.

s

Herzinger ightlymphasizes,

one of

thecrucial haracteristics

f minimalist'

riting

s its

profound

neasiness

with

irony

s a mode

of

presentation

14).

The

nability

o create

coherent

epresen-

tation frealitys,therefore,otframedya smart r ronic arratoreflecting

uponepistemological

r socio-cultural

easons

e. g.

imitationsf

anguage,

er-

vasiveness

fmass-mediated

mages)

ut

s

ultimately

eento be an

ndividual e-

ficiency,personal

efect.

Thus,

he

schewing

f

rony

nsures

hat,

t its

ore,

Carver's

writingonveys

an authentic

eeling

f

suffering.

ack of

coherence s not understood

meta-fic-

tionally

as doubt

oncerning

he eferentialtatus

f

anguage.

ather,

t s cause

for ndividual

ain

nd the

genuine

esire o find ew

ways

f

elf-expression

nd

communication.

otwithstanding

he

frequentapses

nto

entimentality,

would

argue

hat his

realistic) epresentation

f

deepfeeling

f

uffering

s crucial

or

the

accessability

nd success f Carver's

writing.12

t

epitomizes

hathis stories

manage

o communicate

t the

eye

evel oftheir

minimalistic

esign,

ollowing

lessfrom

high-density

tyle

han rom

ncomplete

nd

fragmentary

ketches.

s

Bradbury

oints

ut,

neo-realism

fthe

1970s nd 1980s ould

be

highly

ronical.

Yet n

Carver's

ase

we find hat he

difficulty

f

peaking,

he

truggle

f

finding

words,

s notmeant o be

amusing.

n the

ontrary,

t

highlights

he

eriousness

f

an individual

esire o overcome

hecrisis

fcommunication

ydrawing

n,

but

ultimatelyoing eyond, aptic

nd visual

orms fcontact.

12

Carver's

entimentaltreak s

noted

by

Saltzman nd

Fluck.

Barth,

ohn.

A Few Words

AboutMinimalism.

ew YorkTimes

ook Review

28 Dec.

1986:

,2,

25.

Boddy,

asia. Short uts

nd

Long

Shots:

Raymond

arver's tories

nd

Robert

Altman's ilm. ournal

f

American tudies

4.1

2000):

1-22.

Boxer,David,

and Cassandra

hillips.

WillYou Please

Be

Quiet,

Please?:

Voy-

eurism,

issociation,

nd the

Art of

Raymond

Carver.

owa Review

0.3

(1979):

75-90.

Bradburv, alcolm. Writingictionn the90s. Versluvs3-25.

Brown,

rthur

.

Raymond

arver

nd Postmodern

umanism.

ritique

'2

(1990):

125-36.




15/16

48 Christof ecker

Campbell,

wing.

Raymond

arver:

A

Study f

theShortFiction.New York:

Twayne,992.

Carver,

aymond.

A

Small,

Good

Thing.

athedral

ondon:

Harvill,

983. 5-

84.

-

. AreYou a Doctor? WillYou Please Be

Quiet,

lease? New York:

Vintage,

1992. 1-40.

-

.

Cathedral. athedral ondon:

Harvill,

983. 96-214.

-

. Feathers.

athedral

ondon:

Harvill,

983. -24.

-

.

Jerry

nd

Molly

nd Sam. WillYou PleaseBe

Quiet,

lease?NewYork:Vin-

tage,

992.

53-69.

-

.

Neighbors.

ill

YouPleaseBe

Quiet

Please?NewYork:

Vintage,

992. -16.

- . OnWriting. ampbell 3-97.

-

. WhatWe Talk About When

We Talk About Love. WhatWe TalkAbout

WhenWeTalkAboutLove.New

York:

Vintage,

989. 37-54.

-

. Where 'm

Calling

rom.

athedral. ondon:

Harvill,

983. 17-35.

-

.

Will

You Please Be

Quiet,

Please? WillYou

Please Be

Quiet,

lease? New

York:

Vintage,

992. 27-51.

Facknitz,

ark

A.

'The

Calm,'

A

Small,

Good

Thing,'

nd

Cathedral':

aymond

Carver

nd the

Rediscovery

f HumanWorth.

tudies

n

Short iction 3

(1985):

287-96.

-

.

Raymond

arver nd theMenaceorMinimalism.

ampbell

30-43.

Fluck,Winfried.Surface nowledgend Deep' Knowledge: he NewRealism

in

American iction.

ersluys

5-85.

Gallagher,

ess. Foreword.

hort uts.The

Screenplay.

y

RobertAltman nd

Frank

arhydt.

anta

Barbara:

Capra,

1993. -14.

Gearheart,

ichaelW.

Breaking

heTies that

Bind: narticulation

n the

Fiction

of

Raymond

arver. tudies

n

Short iction 6

1989):

439-46.

Herzinger,

imA. Introduction:

n theNew Fiction.

Mississippi

eview 0-41

(1985):

7-22.

Lucie,

Karen.

Charles heeler

nd

theCult

f

heMachine. ondon:

Reaktion,

991.

Marling,

William. The

Dynamics

f

Vision n

WilliamCarlos Williams nd

CharlesSheeler.

elf,

ign,

nd

Symbol

Ed. Mark Neuman nd Michael

Payne.

ewisburg:

uckneil

P,

1987.

30-43.

Max,

D. T.

The Carver hronicles. ew YorkTimes

Aug.

1998: 4.

McCaffery,arry,

nd

Sinda

Gregory.

An

Interview ith

Raymond

Carver.

Campbell

8-114.

Nesset,

irk.The

Stories

fRaymond

arver:

Critical

tudy.

thens: hio

UP,

1995.

Orvell,

Miles. The Artist ooks at the

Machine:

Whitman,heeler,

nd Ameri-

can

Modernism. merikastudien1.3

1996):

361-79.

Powell,

Jon

The

Stories f

Raymond

arver:

he

Menace

of

Perpetual

ncer-

tainty.

tudiesnShort iction 1

1994):

647-56.

Pratt,

Mary

Louise. The Short

tory:

he

Long

and the

Short

f t.

The

New

Short

tory

heories.d. Charles .

May.

Athens:

hio

UP,

1994. 1-113.

Rourke,

onstance. harles heeler: rtistn theAmerican radition.

ew

York:

Da

Capo,

1969.




16/16


Saltzman,

ArthurM.

Understandingaymond

Carver.

Columbia,

. C: U

of

SouthCarolinaR 1988.

Scofield,

Martin. Closer o Home: Carver ersusAltman.

tudies

n

Short

ic-

tion 3.3

1996):

387-99.

Scott,

A.

O.

Looking

or

Raymond

arver.

ew

YorkReview

f

Books

12

Aug.

1999: 2-59.

The

Sexual

ubject:

Screen

eader n

Sexuality.

ondon:

Routledge,

992.

Shute,

KathleenWestfall.

Finding

heWords: he

Struggle

or alvation

n

the

Fiction

f

Raymond

arver.

ampbell

19-30.

Stewart,

obert.

Reimagining aymond

arver

n Film:A Talk WithRobert

Altman nd Tess

Gallagher.

ew YorkTimes ook Review

2

Sept.

1993:

,

41,42.

Stull,

William .

BeyondHopelessville:

nother ide

of

Raymond

arver.

hil-

ologicalQuarterly

4.1

1985):

1-15.

Trussler,

ichael.

The

Narrowed

Voice: Minimalismnd

Raymond

Carver.

Studies

n

Short

iction 1

1994):

23-37.

Versluys,

ristiaan,

d. Neo-Realism

n

Contemporary

merican iction. mster-

dam:

Rodopi,

992.

faces in the mirror- raymond carver and the intricacies of looking

Documents