'Minimalism In Raymond Carver's Little Things'

Raymond Carver’s “Little Things” informs readers about a man and woman encountering a dispute over who is going to get to keep the baby when they go their separate ways. In the beginning of this work, the omniscient third person narrator updates the audience of the situation at hand. The man is packing his suitcase while the woman declares that she wants him to leave. However, a quarrel occurs when the couple decides that they both want to keep the baby for themselves. When evaluating this text within the context of the minimalist tradition, there are many contributing elements to minimalism. Carver’s choice of short sentences and a lack of quotation marks allows readers to feel tension arise, while he uses a minimalist style to speak about
According to the Iceberg Theory, only the tip of the iceberg is seen but there is a lot more under the surface. Minimalistic pieces follow this theory. The audience is only shown some of the story, or what happens, and the rest is beneath the surface for the audience to make their own interpretations and assumptions about what really happens, what happens next, and even what the author intended for the story to mean. “Little Things” is chocked full of symbolism and includes an abrupt ending that leaves the readers alone with their imagination. In the very first paragraph of the story, the narrator depicts a change in the weather, “Early that day the weather turned and the snow was melting into dirty water” (np, Carver). The word “dirty” stands out in the sentence. Perhaps this symbolizes the melting down of the once beautifully growing relationship into something unclean and ugly. The first sentence could be considered foreshadowing for what is to come. The last sentence of the first paragraph states that not only was it dark outside, but “it was getting dark on the inside too” (np, Carver). This already sets the stage for the readers and could even be a glimpse into the state of mind of the adult characters. Another point to make is that neither character ever calls the baby by his name. This could mean that the baby is considered just another possession for the two to fight over rather than an actual child. It becomes evident that the two are using the baby as another thing to argue over when they begin to literally pull the baby back and forth like a tug of war. In the midst of fighting over the child, a flower pot is knocked over and broken. For something to become broken during the conflict, it appears as if it could be symbolizing the relationship. After all of the pointless arguing, perhaps the fight over the baby was the breaking point