Raymond Carver is not one of my very favorite writers, but his work is full of resonant nuggets that linger long after one puts him down. Fires contains four essays, a number of poems and half a dozen or so stories. Carver has useful things to say about using common language in writing, although he arguably makes a fetish of it. The best things in the book are a handful of poems, and the standout seems to be “The Baker.” Other excellent poems include: “Iowa Summer,” “For Serma with Martial Vigor,” “Looking for Work,” and “Cheers.” Fires also includes a lengthy poem on Bukowski where Carver appears to be recounting an evening’s worth of Bukowski’s conversation. Good stuff, but not of overwhelming interest except to Bukowski fanatics.

The essays, on his father, on writing, are very sharp. Carver’s prose, as he himself admits, tends to be lean, approaching flat, but accumulates force on that account: “If the words are heavy with the writer’s own unbridled emotions, or if they are imprecise and inaccurate for some reason-if the words are in any way blurred-the reader’s eyes will slide right over them and nothing will be achieved” (“On Writing”). This is fundamentally true and great—and I would add if the words are just right the reader’s eyes will stick, and even come back to them for a second look.

Little things register. From the title story: “On the other end of the line was the voice of a man who was obviously a black man, someone asking for a party named Nelson. It was the wrong number and I said so and hung up.” Here, decisiveness of language (“and I said so”) fused with perfect choice of noun phrase “a party named Nelson” achieve a remarkable force.

Carver’s paragraphs tend to close where other writer’s would just be beginning: (his motto: “Don’t explain. Don’t complain.”): “I really don’t feel that anything happened in my life until I was twenty and married and had the kids. Then things started to happen.” That’s it. What does he mean? does he mean happen, like, “that’s really happening man,” or just happen, as in, flatly events transpired. We are left to guess; the paragraph ends.

Here is “The Baker”:

Then Pancho Villa come to town,

hanged the mayor

and summoned the old and infirm Count Vronsky to supper.

Pancho introduced his new girl friend, along with her husband in his white apron,

showed Vronsky his pistol,

then asked the Count to tell him about his unhappy exile in Mexico.

Later, the talk was of women and horses. Both were experts.

The girl friend giggles and fussed with the pearl button on Pancho’s shirt until, promptly at midnight, Pancho went to sleep with his head on the table.

The husband crossed himself and left the house holding his boots without so much as a sign to his wife or Vronsky.

That anonymous husband, barefooted, humiliated, trying to save his life, he is the hero of this poem.

A great poem, I think, nearly perfect. The one line that may have been implicit is “both were experts.” Cut it, and see how it reads. Also, the “promptly” is questionable. The action verbs, “hanged,” “summoned,” “showed” establish Pancho beautifully. “Showed Vronsky his pistol”-does Carver mean he showed it off, or showed it to him as a threat? The line works both ways. He doesn’t let the husband off the hook either; the “humiliated,” at once celebrates his pragmatism and signals his cowardice. Finally, in the second to last line, the additional, grammatically unnecessary, “he” cements the husband as a man, even if a emasculated one.

The poem ends unresolved; the husband is “trying” to save his life. We don’t know whether he succeeds. Carver doesn’t explain.