Distance by Carver, doesn't feel like Carver I recently…
0 reactions
Distance by Carver, doesn't feel like Carver
I recently read Carver's *Distance*. The first thing that struck me about the story was that it had a clean arc, very clear from the first reading. The main character has to decide between his family and doing what he wants. This is the typical boy-has-to-grow-out-of-childhood arc.
The characters don't seem to have much depth. Carver's characters are typically complex, human types who are not perfect. They don't necessarily make the right choice because often there isn't one. For example, in *Cathedral*, >!the main character is puzzled by how the blind man functions. How could that man love what he couldn't see? How could the blind man live in society? How could he appreciate life without seeing it?!< The resolution of the main arc is not clearly told to the reader. Instead, Carver plants enough seeds for the reader to figure it out. Carver's best work is like that, they give the reader enough beats to figure out how the main arc closes.
*Distance* didn't feel like that. From the beginning, there was a clear choice to be made by the main character: >!his family or hunting!<. He chooses at the end in a very predictable manner. One may argue that the wife manipulates him, using the circumstances to force the issue, but that doesn't really complicate the choice.
There was nothing hidden in the text, no puzzle to solve. No aha moment. It felt flat, unlike Carver's layered writing.
Prove me wrong. Tell me what you think I'm missing.
#entertainment
I recently read Carver's *Distance*. The first thing that struck me about the story was that it had a clean arc, very clear from the first reading. The main character has to decide between his family and doing what he wants. This is the typical boy-has-to-grow-out-of-childhood arc.
The characters don't seem to have much depth. Carver's characters are typically complex, human types who are not perfect. They don't necessarily make the right choice because often there isn't one. For example, in *Cathedral*, >!the main character is puzzled by how the blind man functions. How could that man love what he couldn't see? How could the blind man live in society? How could he appreciate life without seeing it?!< The resolution of the main arc is not clearly told to the reader. Instead, Carver plants enough seeds for the reader to figure it out. Carver's best work is like that, they give the reader enough beats to figure out how the main arc closes.
*Distance* didn't feel like that. From the beginning, there was a clear choice to be made by the main character: >!his family or hunting!<. He chooses at the end in a very predictable manner. One may argue that the wife manipulates him, using the circumstances to force the issue, but that doesn't really complicate the choice.
There was nothing hidden in the text, no puzzle to solve. No aha moment. It felt flat, unlike Carver's layered writing.
Prove me wrong. Tell me what you think I'm missing.
#entertainment
| 4,000 mlx | |
| 5 | |
| 0 |