Thesis (M.A.)--Indiana University, 2008. / Title from screen (viewed on August 28, 2009). Department of English, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). Advisor(s): Robert Rebein. Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 84-85).

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / In 1998, D.T. Max wrote his article, “The Carver Chronicles,” about the manuscripts Gordon Lish sold to the Lilly Library at Indiana University. The public was made aware of Lish’s heavy editing of Raymond Carver’s short stories—both in early story form and, later, in book collection form. His heaviest editing was during Carver’s first two major story collections, Will You Please Be Quiet, Please? (1976), and What We Talk About When We Talk About Love (1981). I discuss three stories, “What’s in Alaska?” and “Fat,” from the first major collection, and “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” from the second major collection. For this last story, we will separate Lish’s editorial vision from Carver’s original authorship by comparing the published book text with Carver’s original story, “Beginners”—two versions, one story. The stories were examined to understand Lish’s editorial motives. To generate a deeper understanding of their textual visions, a critical analysis will evaluate their differences. The stories will first be analyzed in the state they existed before Lish’s changes, and then a second analysis will pinpoint Lish’s major editorial changes and show how they affected Carver’s original vision. The analysis will provide a foundation for discovering a final product understood as a combination of two visions, Carver’s original authorial vision and Lish’s editorial vision. The basis for future Carver studies is to separate these men’s work. Carver’s authorial intent becomes paramount in the investigation for finding the true Carver through critical and textual analysis. Their two distinct and separate visions affect how contemporary Carver studies critically examine his work. To understand Carver textually is to get at his original intent, to illuminate his true vision, separate from Lish’s edits, in order to open up a new perspective and understanding of Carver’s emotional depth and expansiveness. Robert Rebein, Ph.D. (Chair)