Roundup

Dumbledore was gay. Who knew? And what terrible timing and awful mechanism to reveal it: after the series, and without a shred of evidence actually inside the books.

There's a battle brewing between Raymond Carver's widow, who wants to publish the bulkier original texts of her late husband's short stories, and Knopf, who believes the texts should stay as is. I sincerely hope that Carver's widow loses.

A spate of novels with heavy doses of Christianity: Washington Post has a less-than-satisfied review of The Abstinence Teacher by Tom Perrotta, and the Guardian reviews the biblically structured Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit by Jeanette Winterson, in which she explores lesbian sexuality in conflict with the church.

I wish literary journals were this prompt in replying to submissions.

The Reading Experience on the dearth of good book reviews.

Comments

[hal lewis]

I was surprised to read you statment on Raymond Carver's wife wanting to print his short stories in a complete form.
Instead of what we now have which is Lesh's editing.

Can you explain why you would not want to read what Carver wrote. Then we can all judge if Lesh was right or not.

[John Fox]

I think the essence of Carver's style was minimalism - therefore, all the added bits that were cut out would change that essential character. And it's not a good distinction to try to demarcate editor from writer - every single writer has had multiple editors change what they wrote before anything gets to final stage - and 97% of the time, those changes are for the better - so I think of them as a unit, working together, making a single product. Also, since Carver became famous for those stories, it can only hurt his reputation to bring out the earlier drafts. It will be useful for Carver scholars but not good reading for readers.

[Hal Lewis]

I found you answer shocking to say the least. Let me try a few questions:

You think of Carver’s style was minimalism - therefore all the added bits that were cut out would change the essential character.

The style was minimalism because of Gordon Lish not Raymond Carver, so how do you know if those added bits that were cut our would not made a better story? You do not because you have never read them.

You state it is not good distinction to try to demarcate editor and writer (strange order, editor before writer).

Again, your statement that 97% of the time the editor’s changes are for the better. Being I suspect that statement is your opinion which you have a right too. However, it does not make it true. If the great editors you talk about are that top gun, why are they not writers?

You state that these stories made Carver famous. Agreed. However, that does not preclude that the stories as originally written would not likewise made him famous.

Bringing out these stories can only hurt his reputation. Really, why? Many classics have had additional text added after first being published without harm. How about the new War and Peace just published with additions?

The most amazing line was you last line. “It will be useful for Carver scholars but not good reading for readers. “Not good reading for readers!” Just what does that mean? How could you possibly decide it would be, not good reading for readers, when you have never seen what was produced by Carver.

As for being good for only Carver scholars. Why? Are they special people? I know where this country is going but I do not believe it has reached the point when I need a scholar to assist me with my reading or in this case read it for me. It seems like the old adage, those that cannot do, teach. Surely, scholars would want to read it and most likely write about it, great, they should, but that does not mean I cannot read it and make up my mind on its quality.

The Guardian story stated that Carver did not want the stories changed to that degree, including the endings that I guess, Lish like better. As if he had the right to change the ending, I think not.