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/
8/16/2019 Faces in the Mirror- Raymond Carver and the Intricacies of Looking
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 ).
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/16/2019 Faces in the Mirror- Raymond Carver and the Intricacies of Looking
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 ).
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/16/2019 Faces in the Mirror- Raymond Carver and the Intricacies of Looking
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/16/2019 Faces in the Mirror- Raymond Carver and the Intricacies of Looking
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/16/2019 Faces in the Mirror- Raymond Carver and the Intricacies of Looking
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/16/2019 Faces in the Mirror- Raymond Carver and the Intricacies of Looking
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-
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/16/2019 Faces in the Mirror- Raymond Carver and the Intricacies of Looking
8/16
Faces n theMirror 41
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 ).
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/16/2019 Faces in the Mirror- Raymond Carver and the Intricacies of Looking
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,
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/16/2019 Faces in the Mirror- Raymond Carver and the Intricacies of Looking
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).
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/16/2019 Faces in the Mirror- Raymond Carver and the Intricacies of Looking
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 ).
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/16/2019 Faces in the Mirror- Raymond Carver and the Intricacies of Looking
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-
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/16/2019 Faces in the Mirror- Raymond Carver and the Intricacies of Looking
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/16/2019 Faces in the Mirror- Raymond Carver and the Intricacies of Looking
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/16/2019 Faces in the Mirror- Raymond Carver and the Intricacies of Looking
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/16/2019 Faces in the Mirror- Raymond Carver and the Intricacies of Looking
16/16
Faces n theMirror 49
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.