Popular Mechanics Raymond Carver Analysis

1. What is the title of the text and what is the text about?

My reading of choice was “Popular Mechanics”, by Raymond Carver. I was published for the first time in Playgirl in 1978 and then included in Carver’s collection, What We Talk About When We Talk About Love, in 1981, and finally again in 1988 in I am Calling From.

“Popular Mechanics” is the story of a couple splitting in a very unfriendly terms, both trying to hurt the other as much as possible, even using which both should love the most: their baby.

2. What is the author’s view? How do I know?

The author criticizes the overwhelming irrationality in the way the couple splits, where both adults do their best to hurt each other, without considering even for a single minute that

For no good reason apart from satisfying one’s ego or taking revenge, one provokes the other, and the other, without thinking twice of the trap, falls into the provocation. Very soon the whole situation is irreversible and there is no way back. Two persons that had loved each other turn into enemies and suddenly their priority number one in life is hurting the other, no matter what.

5. Is the evidence relevant? How do I know?

As “Popular Mechanics” is a fictional story and not the testimony of a witness in a justice court or a sociological or psychological study about how couples split, I am not sure if this point is strictly applicable.

The lesson that one must take from this story is that both parts are responsible for the harm the little one is suffering. Of course, the man’s physical strength and the violence he uses pushes us (at least me) to the woman’s side, but it was precisely her provocation by taking out the baby’s photo what pushes him to claim the baby: before that he seems to be satisfied with just the photo.

6. Have I heard/read anything similar or dissimilar? What was

Actually, I passed through something like that many years ago. I had no children and therefore at least no little one was taken as a hostage in the situation, but things got really violent.

I hired a very reasonable lawyer, who never let me fall into the provocation. I couldn’t understand her because I wanted her to destroy my ex-husband in the same way he was trying to destroy me, but she insisted that her objective was to win the trial for me and not destroying anybody.

In court, my ex’s solicitor tried to catch me in all sort of provocations too, but mine had prepared me very well, and I was able to keep calm (at least in the outside) and all the provocations fell on their own side.

And we won everything, even more than I had demanded.

7. Do I agree or disagree with the views expressed by the author? Why?

Therefore, I completely agree with Carver’s view. Wasting energies trying to take revenge on someone is not only wasting energies, it is hurting oneself. Overreacting makes things worse and irreversible, and before taking any step in that direction it is better to count up to 10 (or 10 thousand) and consider the