Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
DANIEL JUST
ABSTRACT: With their brevity, ascetic style, and lack of resolutions, Raymond
Carver’s minimalist short stories have often served as an example of an unstylized
and even clumsy attempt to depict the more prosaic aspects of everyday life, result-
ing in a literature of utter banality. Against the background of the unquestioned cul-
tural anticipations of Carver’s critics, the author examines the syntactic uniqueness of
Carver’s minimalism, his turn to linguistic flatness and destitution, and his strategy of
suspending the referentiality of language. The author shows that the aesthetic effect of
these techniques is a paradoxical coexistence of heightened realism and a blankness
of meaning.
Keywords: American short story, Raymond Carver, minimalism, postmodernism,
realism
I n his review of Raymond Carver’s collection of short stories What We Talk about
When We Talk about Love (1981), James Atlas gives one of the first assessments
of a recently emerged short-story form, one that soon became christened “mini-
malist.” Rather abruptly, Atlas opens his article by questioning the artistic value of
these minimalist stories’ austere aesthetic, wondering whether in Carver’s case, less
is more or rather simply less (96). The question “Is less more?” is certainly nothing
new in the arts. It was addressed already in the sixties with the advent of minimalist
art, and its roots go back even further to discussions regarding neoclassical techniques
in narrative literature. What was wrought by this debate about the role of the aesthetic
function of minimalist art, as well as the one surrounding the neoclassical revival
of the literary trope of litotes, was summed up in the statement “less is more.” With
304 CRITIQUE
narrative voice that we encountered in the first paragraph. Not only is the discovery
of the dead body reported in the same manner as the description of previous activi-
ties but even the characters seem to be undisturbed by their macabre discovery and
continue with their routine:
They parked the car in the mountains and hiked to where they wanted to fish.
They carried their bedrolls, their food, their playing cards, their whiskey.
They saw the girl before they set up the camp. Mel Dorn found her. No clothes
on her at all. She was wedged into some branches that stuck out over the water.
[. . .]
The next morning they cooked breakfast, drank coffee, and drank whiskey,
and then split up to fish. That night they cooked fish, cooked potatoes, drank
coffee, drank whiskey, then took their cooking things and eating things back
down to the river and washed them where the girl was. (81)
As the story proceeds, the banality of its tone does not change. Even the scarce
dialogues between the husband and the wife after his return from the trip do not stir
the monotony of narration. As the story comes to an end, the wife’s presence at the
funeral of the murdered girl is described with the same terseness as the opening scene:
“We move a few steps down the hot sidewalk. People are starting cars. I put out my
hand and hold on to a parking meter. Polished hoods and polished fenders. My head
swims” (87). Indeed, such a sparse account could very well fit the state of a mourner’s
mind during a funeral, but because this story offers only this type of description, two
potentially different situations here become qualitatively indistinguishable. Without
transitions between sentences and with its relentless rhythm of thematic repetitions,
this story gives an impression of perceptions formed from a distance. At the same
time, however, the whole escapes, and only decontextualized details remain apparent.
With no epiphanies or consummations, the ascetic style of stories like this one made
many critics wonder what message such a type of short story seeks to convey.
When looking for the most exemplary minimalist stories, critics usually agree
that these come from Carver’s middle period, represented by stories such as “So
Much Water So Close to Home.” Atlas’s article “Less Is Less,” for instance,
opposes Carver’s style of his stories from his middle period (approximately 1977
to 1983), stories centered on the depiction of narrow lives starved of context and
inhabiting a bland featureless landscape, to the style of his earlier, more fully
developed stories. Atlas wonders why the minimalist style, with no explanations
of events, no revelations or epiphanies, replaces the “more robust, more ‘literary’”
style of Carver’s first collection (98). Atlas asks why “would a writer circumscribe
his talent?” and offers a rhetorical question as an answer—“is it a fear at failing
at something larger?” (98). As Atlas does not hide the fact that for him, literature
has to support our “conviction that we create our own destinies” (97), the position
from which he evaluates minimalism becomes quite clear: Literature has to express
a clear message. For Atlas, a larger and more robust narrative is also a more liter-
ary one; the problem with Carver’s stories in What We Talk about When We Talk
***
In spite of the more positive reviews in the late eighties of stories by Carver, Fred-
erick and Donald Barthelme, Beattie, Bobbie Ann Mason, and Richard Ford, who
in one way or another became associated with minimalism, the term minimalism
acquired relatively pejorative connotations such that practically none of these writ-
ers wanted to be associated with it. Even though later critics did not always share
the denunciatory attitude of the early reviewers, they frequently returned to earlier
arguments against minimalism’s lack of plot and deceptively plain style. Compara-
tive scholarly studies of different versions of Carver’s rewritten stories, for example,
almost unequivocally show a preference for the longer variants of these stories, which
were praised for their ability to “avoid ambiguity” (Broyard, “Books”). The longer
versions of, for instance, “So Much Water So Close to Home,” “Distance,” “Where
Is Everyone?,” and “A Small, Good Thing,” were seen as being more successful in
responding to many readers’ uneasiness with the sparseness of detail and thus able to
restore a “coherent whole” of the story (Stull 7), allowing for a “fuller understanding”
of the plot and thus providing a “fuller sense of humanity” (Meyer 244).
As the rhetoric of these accounts reveals, readers and critics often approach these
stories with specific expectations. Although the short story as a genre usually portrays
only a select aspect of a life experience, its format does not free it from an obliga-
tion to convey a clear message that would render human experience intelligible in a
larger context. To avoid simply presenting a meaningless “slice of life,” the story is
expected to either frame its content by means of more elaborate stylistic strategies,
such as understatements, litotes, and epiphanies, or to present content that is in some
way meaningful on its own. In short, to paraphrase Leo Bersani’s proposition about
the role of artistic creation in the West, literature is expected to have a redemptive
dimension beyond the everyday—there must be something “more” in the work of art
than just its impoverished material. Because such a dimension is precisely what the
critics find missing in the American minimalist short story, it is rather striking that they
never really address the question of the reasons for, as well as the implications of, the
formal sparseness and pedestrian content of these stories. If, for instance, the reader
feels uneasy about the ambiguous closure of many of these narratives, what does this
reveal about the reader’s expectations? If the subject of these stories is perceived as
uncomfortably vapid and lacking in depth, can this very discomfort act as a mirror
whereby the role of the reader is placed in sharp relief? And last but not least, what
can the ungratified wish fulfillments produced by these texts tell us about the aesthetic
codes valorized by our culture?
As is the case with the majority of literary terms, also the notion of minimalism
emerges as a product of critical discourse. With minimalism, however, this notion
appears as an outcome of the negative reviews it received, that is, a negative pro-
306 CRITIQUE
jection of the cultural anticipations connected to the genre of the short story and
narrative literature in general. Adam Meyer’s study offers perhaps the best example
of these anticipations, not so much because it synthesizes some of the previous
analyses, but because instead of simply stating a subjective preference as Atlas does,
it tries to perform a strictly textual analysis.1 Adopting Herzinger’s definition of
minimalism as a category of “deadpan narratives about ordinary subjects,” Meyer’s
main point is that the “slightness of story”—together with the absence of a clear
ending that would offer some kind of revelation of previous events—creates a sense
of ambiguity about its meaning. Whereas in Carver’s most minimalist narratives the
reader “leaves the story with a feeling of uneasiness and fear” (Meyer 241)2 because
he “does not allow us to get inside of the characters,” in longer stories, by contrast,
he “turns the sum of its fragmentary parts into a coherent whole” and thus “moves
away from the threatening ambiguity” (242–43).
In his article, Meyer repeatedly emphasizes that the paucity of information Carver
gives us often leads to hermeneutic deadlock. Even though endings usually alleviate
this difficulty, Carver’s minimalist stories, as Meyer points out, lack “any kind of
summation, let alone consummation” (248). If the story is minimalist, Meyer would
want at least the ending to be either conclusively explicit or explanatory. Wherever
Carver manages to depart from his strict minimalism, the reader is rewarded with
a “completeness and richness” that offers “a fuller understanding of the story” and
thus “a fuller sense of humanity” (244, 249). Even though Meyer tries to avoid
the denunciatory attitude taken by most of the early reviews, even his attempt at a
structural comparison of Carver’s minimalist and more traditional stories ultimately
reinforces a generally negative view of the shorter pieces. This type of criticism is
nonetheless quite important because, in spite of its effort to offer a nonjudgmental
analysis, it unwittingly reveals deeply rooted cultural expectations about narratives.
For minimalism, then, such criticism paradoxically strengthens its role in unmasking
these expectations.
The cultural consensus that a work of art should be “full” and far-reaching in the
richness of meaning it condenses is implied also in John Aldridge’s reexamination of
minimalism more than a decade after its first emergence. Whereas the central part of
Meyer’s critique of Carver’s stories was the absence of revelatory endings, the crux of
Aldridge’s argument resides in the notion of the understatement. Coming to the same
conclusions as Meyer, Aldridge argues that if the narrative chooses to be minimalist,
it must use such linguistic devices that clearly indicate a richness of meaning under
relatively simple forms and impoverished contents. For Aldridge, such proper form
of minimalism can be found in, for example, Hemingway. Praising Hemingway’s
use of understatements, Aldridge inverts the famous “tip-of-the-iceberg” metaphor to
argue that just this kind of dignity is what is lacking in Carver’s work, “for the por-
tion showing above the surface [in Carver’s stories] appears to be the entire iceberg”
(51). Whereas Hemingway’s minimalist method is seen as a statement of the little
he “deliberately chose to say out of all he might have said,” Carver’s minimalism is
merely a “confession that this is all he had to say” (52). If one does not want to end
***
Leaving aside the question of aesthetic preferences of the wider public, per-
haps the most important reason for the uneasiness caused by the minimalist short
story in academic circles is the difficulty of categorizing it as a genre and iden-
tifying its techniques according to the established pattern of the major literary
paradigms. Although an allusion to realism often serves as a way of explaining
the literary language of the minimalist story, its radically austere prose results in
an extreme form of ellipsis that, critics argue, cannot carry the full weight of a
308 CRITIQUE
realistic rendering of experience (Gorra 155). Such noncompliance with conven-
tional literary determinations is, of course, not the only reason for the ambivalent
reception of minimalism. Because the noncommittal tone of these stories under-
mines the easy identification of the story’s relation to its object of description,
the reader often feels disoriented about the purpose of such a story. Morally
motivated or not, many critics are therefore disturbed by the detached tone that
makes it impossible to determine how a given text relates to the tedium of its
reported actions—does minimalist story criticize or endorse what it describes (be
it consumerism, alcoholism, and so forth)?
It is true that difficulty with clearly categorizing the text’s techniques, determining
its genre and its relation to its subject matter is nothing new and has been a part of
literary studies at least from the advent of the first modernist experiments. However,
this problem acquires quite a different dimension in the minimalist short story. As
it is in the very nature of this story—precisely in its “minimalism”—to suspend the
possibility of a clear determination of the text’s relation to what it talks about, and
as minimalist language is anything but abstract, the question arises whether the very
notion of verisimilitude applies in any way to this type of short story. It is precisely
the question of verisimilitude that causes not only so much discomfort with the
reception of the minimalist story but also a misinterpretation of its aesthetics.
As Gérard Genette has convincingly showed, far from being a transhistorical cat-
egory, as the critics of the minimalist story often believe, verisimilitude rather desig-
nates such a literary technique that is, at each given period, culturally authenticated and
appropriated. The result of this authentication consists primarily in the reader’s easy
recognition of the texts that employ these techniques (Genette 5–21). Contrary to this
permissiveness, the feeling of uneasiness discloses not only the fact that unquestioned
and seemingly natural categories are culturally constructed but also shows that these
cultural valorizations are always based on a principle of exclusion. In other words,
according to Genette, categories such as abstract, realistic, or postmodernist represent
a specific distribution of potential descriptions that exclude—and therefore render
unintelligible—other descriptions of reality. Because the minimalist story does not use
abstract language but, at the same time, is not conventionally realistic, its language and
style therefore necessarily generate perplexing reactions among its readers.
If the kind of realism invented by the minimalist story was not one based on cul-
tural codes that make narrative techniques intelligible as realistic depictions of reality,
what was, then, the historical impulse for such an odd narrative technique? As Mason,
a writer often associated with minimalism, explains, the trend toward bare realism
among minimalists served as “a breaking away from all that [phantasmagoric things
depicted by Barth and Pynchon]” (24). For Mason, realism, at that particular historical
moment in the development of American literature, acted as a reaction against post-
modern methods of parody and pastiche. Interestingly enough, not too many critics
took Mason’s proclaimed break with postmodernism too seriously. Kim Herzinger,
for instance, explicitly describes the “depthlessness” and “plotlessness” of the mini-
malist short story as postmodern (Introduction; “Minimalism”). A similar difficulty
310 CRITIQUE
vague. For a garrulous narrator of Barth’s stripe, a vast variety of literary forms and
techniques can be seen as minimalist, to the point where it ceases to be clear how
minimalism differs from other approaches, most notably postmodernism.
To establish conceptual precision, the term minimalism should remain reserved
for those early eighties stories of, for example, Carver, Beattie, Ford, and Mason
that retain austere prose, do not provide detailed descriptions or attempt to depict
psychological depth, and do not turn to either understatements or satire to recover
meaning. In short, minimalist is precisely the type of story that critics such as Atlas,
Aldridge, and Meyer perceive as the early, “arid minimalism” and to which they try
to oppose a qualitatively better, “fuller minimalism” of the later period.
If minimalism should be extricated from some of the seemingly similar techniques
used by writers in the early eighties, it should be also differentiated from its predeces-
sors in the genre of the short story. Tracing back the roots of minimalism, it would
be difficult not to see a structural similarity between the most prominent minimalist,
Carver, and the notoriously impersonal and “innerless” language of Ernest Heming-
way’s short stories. Indeed, Hemingway’s linguistic asceticism and banality of tone
resemble those of Carver in many respects and that even in spite of Aldridge’s belief
in the lack of dignity that Carver’s stories display next to the profound Hemingway.
It is nevertheless important to point to a paradoxical effect of Hemingway’s flat style
that differs greatly from Carver’s—instead of slowing down narration, Hemingway’s
style accelerates it, thus inciting a speedier consumption of the text.
As Harry Levin observes, Hemingway manages to create a sense of overwhelm-
ing action in spite of his thin diction and dull adjectives. By placing the emphasis on
nouns, “continuous forms of the verb, and all kinds of participial constructions” (Levin
110), Hemingway extends his sentences beyond their grammatical capacity. Instead of
being periodic and thus suspending their burden, his sentences gradually break down
and start anew. Following a peculiar logic under which the first part of the sentence,
as grammatically started, implies a correct grammatical form for the second part of the
sentence, Hemingway makes the second parts of his sentences defy the grammatical
rules set up by their beginnings. In this unusual form of anacoluthon, the failure to
finish the sentence as it was planned precipitates an effort to save its meaning in a scat-
tered movement of “bringing the subject as quickly as possible to its object.” As Levin
concludes, this movement “opens up at once into a familiar Hemingway catalogue,
where effects can be gained seriatim by order rather than by construction” (99).
The following passage from “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” can serve as an example
of what Levin has in mind:
But when he no longer was in love, when he was only lying, as to this woman,
now, who had the most money of all, who had all the money there was, who had
had a husband and children, who had taken lovers and been dissatisfied with
them, and who loved him dearly as a writer, as a man, as a companion and as
a proud obsession; it was strange that when he did not love her at all and was
lying, that he should be able to give her more for her money than when he had
really loved her. (Hemingway 45)
***
How, then, can literary criticism begin to understand the minimalist short story
both in its stylistic uniqueness and within the context of the genres of narrative
literature and their historical development? Such a reevaluation should start with a
closer look at the nature of minimalist realism, because it is quite striking that at the
time when novelists and many short-story writers found it historically necessary to
abandon realism, for minimalists and Carver in particular the compromised refer-
entiality of language rather initiated an effort to reinvent realism. Instead of parody
and pastiche, the method became precision. Although Carver rarely clarifies the
motivations behind his techniques, he reveals the ideal sentence he is looking for
in his writings by remarking that one can find “words that can sound so precise
that they even sound flat, but they can still carry, if used right, all the notes” (Fires
18). Neither relying on the referentiality of words as naive realists used to do nor
turning to a postmodern parody of language, Carver, in contrast, turns to its flatness
and destitution. Anecdotally, one could say that his use of exhausted language and
slow rhythm of narrating tries to make, to twist a riddle of J. L. Austin’s linguistics,
words do things. The referentiality of his style arises precisely from the heaviness
and exhaustion of his language—blank and transparent. In other words, Carver
attempts to bring the referentiality of language to the point of its breakdown, but
rather than completing it, he suspends it for inspection. The effect of this height-
ened realism thus becomes paradoxically indistinguishable from a blankness of
meaning that, as he hopes, can still carry all the notes.
312 CRITIQUE
Most of the stories in Carver’s collection What We Talk about When We Talk about
Love, which offers a perhaps purest form of such heightened realism, are indeed quite
undramatic. This is so primarily because the characters in these stories are almost
never presented as subjects of actions. Instead of reporting action, the dominant mise-
en-scènes of these narratives are reduced to uneventful moments. Carver’s characters
are simply not doing anything—they are sitting, often looking out of the window,
smoking, slowly drinking, rubbing their faces or fingers, or listening to rainfall or
the clock. It is important to point out that these actionless moments do not serve as
a mere preparation for some more substantial kind of action. They are themselves
elevated to objects worthy of prolonged attention and become the only content of the
stories. Coupled with slow delivery, such an impoverished content makes no pretense
toward creating any sense of development or action.
In the early story “Furious Seasons” (1977), for instance, washing, shaving and
drinking coffee become the subject matter of the brief narrative in which they are
treated with ceremonious care. A pivotal scene concentrating on a coffee cup with
brown drops running down its side offers a powerful image that condenses the effect
of timelessness this story generates. Sitting in a kitchen in the gloomy dimness of the
early morning, the protagonist of this story stares at this coffee cup, listening to the
rain outside, the clock inside, and thinking about the dampness of the green ground
under the trees after the rain: “He smoked and drank the coffee and listened to the
clock on the stove squeaking. The coffee slopped over the cup and the brown drops
ran slowly down the side onto the table. He rubbed his fingers through the wet circle
across the rough table top” (29). Motifs of weather and changing seasons, frequent
in Carver’s stories, are also here promptly juxtaposed with banal details with no
obvious relevance to the supposed development of the story. As “Furious Seasons”
approaches its end, this oscillation between details and an abstract absoluteness of
time makes the protagonist remain in essentially the identical situation as at the
beginning. Standing motionless in front of the house with the rain falling on him, the
character does not describe his emotions in this scene nor earlier in the opening one.
And, as the story closes with no sentiments or explanations supplied, the meaning or
“message” of the story remain unclear.
Despite the fact that the sense of motionlessness Carver creates in his stories
necessarily turns the reader’s attention to the character’s consciousness, Carver
never psychologizes his characters. In his stories, characters never contemplate
themselves and only rarely offer a density of consciousness into which they
could plunge. At the same time, however, they are never absentminded. Despite
their lack of action and scarcity of long dialogues, Carver’s characters are always
present in the moment. In depicting the majority of actions as objectless and
self-sufficient, his most minimalist stories thus create a distinct image of the
present in which smoking, sitting, or listening become somewhat disembodied
dispositions severed from subjective agencies. These acts never merely report
characters’ actions but rather mark prolonged moments in the bareness of their
brute existence.
Besides the hindrance of the act of reading, an important effect of the austere sim-
plicity of stories such as “The Bath” is its ability to unbalance the distance between the
narrator and the narrated. On the one hand, the slowness of delivery together with the
relentless realism of representation utilized in these stories make that which is narrated
314 CRITIQUE
indistinguishable from its narration. This produces a sense of distance for the reader
from that which is narrated in the story. On the other hand, however, because words
lose their density and become transparently nonexpressive, that which is narrated
resists objectification from a distance. The act of narration in a story like “The Bath”
thus becomes a product of a fundamental disjunction: Narration remains focused on
the precision of language, whereas that which is narrated seems to evaporate. As “The
Bath” reaches its end, the same detached tone prevails and even though the language
retains a high level of exactitude for rendering realistic detail, the narrated story fails
to objectify its details into a completed whole: “She got out of the car and went to the
door. She turned on lights and put on water for tea. She opened a can and fed the dog.
She sat down on the sofa with her tea” (56).
As stories such as “The Bath,” “Furious Seasons,” and “So Much Water So Close
to Home” demonstrate, the syntactic uniqueness of the minimalist story lies in the
juxtaposition of incongruent effects of verisimilitude, on one hand, and a collapse
of referentiality on the other. This unification of austere realism with a meticulous
concern for form is rather puzzling for most critics in that they cannot come to terms
with a strategy that combines such contradictory methods. Critics such as Aldridge
and Meyer, then, find refuge in either celebrating the less minimalist works for their
poetic qualities or reproaching the more austere stories for their deadpan aloofness.
This, however, disregards the fact that the minimalist short story is neither a self-
involved experiment with style nor a narrative simply mirroring reality. Indeed, the
problem critics such as Gordon Weaver experience with minimalism is precisely the
impossibility of deciding if it is poetic or lifeless, realistic or self-indulgently stylistic,
focused only on details or suppressing all details altogether.
***
UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX
ESSEX, UNITED KINGDOM
316 CRITIQUE
NOTES
1. Studies more openly critical of Carver’s minimalist period include Mars-Jones; Stone; Broyard,
“Diffuse”; Howe; and Stull.
2. For these conclusions, see also Chenetier, esp. 176 and 179.
3. It is important to point out that the British critics were more receptive and less judgmental in their
reviews of minimalism. Unlike the American commentators who criticized the form of minimalist stories
as sparse and depthless—thus decreeing the content to be banal—the British critics found the style and
language of these stories to be a legitimate correlative of their content. See Buford.
WORKS CITED
Aldridge, John W. “Less Is a Lot Less.” Talents and Technicians: Literary Chic and the New Assembly-
Line Fiction. New York: Scribner’s, 1992. 47–78.
Atlas, James. “Less Is Less.” Atlantic June 1981: 96–98.
Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1975.
Barth, John. “A Few Words about Minimalism.” 1986. Further Fridays: Essays, Lectures, and Other Non-
fiction, 1984–1994. Boston: Little, 1995. 64–74.
———. “Thinking Man’s Minimalist: Honoring Barthelme.” 1989. Critical Essays on Donald Bar-
thelme. Ed. Richard Patteson. New York: Hall, 1992.1–4.
Bersani, Leo. The Culture of Redemption. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1990.
Broyard, Anatole. “Books of the Times.” New York Times 15 Apr. 1981: C29.
———. “Diffuse Regrets.” New York Times 5 Sept. 1983: 27.
Buford, Bill. Introduction. Granta 8: Dirty Realism. London: Granta, 1983. 1–12.
Carver, Raymond. “The Bath.” Carver, Talk 47–56. [Rev. and republ. as “A Small, Good Thing,” 1983]
———. “Everything Stuck to Him.” 1981. Carver, Talk 27–36.
———. Fires: Essays, Poems, Stories. Santa Barbara: Capra, 1983.
———. “Furious Seasons.” Carver, No Heroics 25–42.
———. No Heroics, Please: Uncollected Writings. New York: Vintage, 1992.
———. “So Much Water So Close to Home.” Carver, Talk 79–88.
———. What We Talk about When We Talk about Love. New York: Knopf, 1981.
Chenetier, Marc. “Living On/Off the ‘Reserve’: Performance, Interrogation, and Negativity in the Works
of Raymond Carver.” Critical Angles: European Views of Contemporary American Literature. Ed.
Chenetier. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1986. 164–90.
Genette, Gérard. “Vraisemblance et motivation.” Communications 11 (1968): 5–21.
Gentry, Marshall, ed. Conversations with Raymond Carver. Jackson: UP of Mississippi, 1990.
Gorra, Michael. “Laughter and Bloodshed.” Hudson Review 37 (Spring 1984): 151–64.
Hemingway, Ernest. “The Snows of Kilimanjaro.” The Complete Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway.
New York: Scribner’s, 1987. 39–56.
Herzinger, Kim. “Introduction: On the New Fiction.” Minimalism. Ed. Herzinger. Spec. issue of Missis-
sippi Review 40–41 (1985): 7–22.
———. “Minimalism as a Postmodernism.” New Orleans Review 16 (1989): 73–81.
Howe, Irving. “Stories of Our Loneliness.” New York Times Book Review 11 Sept. 1983: 1, 43.
Levin, Harry. “Observations on Style of Ernest Hemingway.” Hemingway and His Critics: An Interna-
tional Anthology. Ed. Carlos Baker. New York: Hill, 1961. 93–115.
Mars-Jones, Adam. “Words for the Walking Wounded.” Times Literary Supplement 22 Jan. 1982: 76.
Mason, Bobbie Ann. Interview. Daily Telegraph 4 Dec. 1989: 24.
Meyer, Adam. “Now You See Him, Now You Don’t, Now You Do Again: The Evolution of Raymond
Carver’s Minimalism.” Critique 30 (1989): 239–51.
Plimpton, George, ed. Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. New York: Viking, 1986.
Saltzman, Arthur M. “To See a World in a Grain of Sand: Expanding Literary Minimalism.” Contem-
porary Literature 31.4 (1990): 423–33.
Stone, Laurie. “Feeling No Pain.” Voice Literary Supplement 20 Oct. 1983: 55.
Stull, William L. “Beyond Hopelessville: Another Side of Raymond Carver.” Philological Quarterly 64
(1985): 1–15.
Weaver, Gordon. Introduction. The American Short Story 1945–1980: A Critical History. Ed. Weaver.
Boston: Twayne, 1983. n.pag.
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������
���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�����������������������������������������������
�������������������������
����������������������������������
��������������������������������������������������
������������������������������������������������������������������������
������������������������������������
�������������������������������������
������������������������������������������������