|
Post by Jason Parris on Sept 12, 2013 22:49:35 GMT
A couple of years ago, I had to be out of school for a day, and my sub left the following instructions on the board: Read "The Cathedral." I looked at the board, dropped to my knees, and wailed "Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!" Why?
|
|
|
Post by betsyrahe on Sept 13, 2013 2:28:55 GMT
Cathedrals are often seen as these massive old archaic buildings. It's something that 1) we don't even have in the US so it seems unattainable 2) it sounds boring because of the history and old nature of the building. The title sounds like the reader has to learn about Cathedrals. Which for some could be very boring. I think Carver named the piece "Cathedral" because he was aware of it's connotations. Cathedral's are truly gigantic and from the outside very intimidating. Similar to how narrator felt about Robert in the beginning. He was judging Robert on his outside physical appearance, but when he really got to know him they bonded and understood each other. The inside of a Cathedral is a beautiful thing. The stained glass windows, the beautiful biblical artwork, the statues and all the little details. You have to get past the exterior to appreciate what's inside. Yes, I know it's super cliche but that's what I saw.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethmeyer on Sept 13, 2013 2:37:44 GMT
I would guess that such a response was elicited by the addition of "The" to the title. The actual title of the story is just "Cathedral". Just plain old "Cathedral" with no added titles or descriptions. By adding "The" to the title, it seems to limit the possibilities of the story. Suddenly, it seems as though the story must be about one specific cathedral - say, Notre Dame in Paris (which is referred to in the story on pg. 106, line 92). "The Cathedral" would be a story about a cathedral, not a story involving a cathedral. Not a story about everyday people who bond over a cathedral. By titling "Cathedral" just that and nothing else, Carver left himself and the reader possibilities. Cathedral could be anything in the world - and it could mean anything in the world. It could mean the architecture of grand, old churches. It could be simply a cathedral in which something spectacular happens to the main character. It could be a picture. It could even be a name - weird though that would be. Or it could just be an idea. "The Cathedral" has limits, while just "Cathedral" has possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by moreno on Sept 13, 2013 4:04:27 GMT
Elizabeth states it perfectly, "'The Cathedral' has limits, while just 'Cathedral' has possibilities." This must have been what evoked such a response. Though to add on to Elizabeth's point, 'The' not only limits the possibilities of what the story may be about, but it also limits the universality of the story and its message. I may be off base, but when I finished the story I did not think of cathedrals at all when thinking about the things I see versus the things I know. I believe the author's intention was to open the door to the idea that we may see things, but we do not know them, thus we are somewhat blind. For instance, if we are unable to describe a cathedral to someone else, than it is as if we have never seen one, like the blind man. I suppose what I am getting at is that adding 'The' to the title not only limits what the story is about, but it limits the readers ability to take the story and apply it to other things as well. If one believes the purpose of the story is THE cathedral, then in my opinion, the message is intended for people interested in large, ancient buildings.
|
|
|
Post by kevinle on Sept 14, 2013 18:33:53 GMT
Teachers leave instructions for substitutes regarding the curriculum for the day... right?
So if you complained that the substitute instructed students to read "The Cathedral," the substitute must have disobeyed you and committed some form of treason. ...or simply wandered off your instructions. If the substitute wandered off the path once, what is to say he or she did not wander off multiple times? The substitute could have poisoned the minds of students.
Maybe your lesson plan was to read about cathedrals, not to read "The Cathedral." If so, then your disappointment arose from misunderstanding. And like the others said, "The Cathedral" is limited, while "read about cathedrals" is not. Having the students read "The Cathedral" most likely changed the path of the class curriculum, as the story itself is pretty unrelated to the importance and characteristics of cathedrals. Look at the effect now. The entire class is reading "The Cathedral" as if it is concretely part of the class curriculum. What was the original lesson plan before? How much of our futures have changed as a result of the change the substitute initiated? Nobody knows...
|
|
|
Post by austinellerbruch on Sept 14, 2013 20:33:50 GMT
Honestly, when I was told that we were going to be reading a short story called "Cathedral" I thought we'd be reading some boring story about a priest or some religious conflict within a cathedral, which is actually not the case at all with the real plot line of the story. I think we set to much expectation on the stories we read based on their title, which is why I think you reacted as you describe. While browsing through a library or bookstore, we tend to initially attribute our interest in a novel based on the title. It is the books with creative titles that tend to catch our eye. If I had a choice between picking out "Lord of the Flies" or "Cathedral" while at a book store, I would more likely choose "Lord of the Flies" because the title sounds more interesting, whereas "Cathedral" sounds dull and unoriginal.
|
|
joelk
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by joelk on Sept 14, 2013 22:24:27 GMT
I would like to macarena around with Elizabeth’s and Morgan’s points.
Firstly, I strongly concur with the idea that placing a “the” in front of the title limits the scope of the story and one’s ability to apply it to one’s own life. The use of the definite article would certainly seem to imply that the story focuses on a definite and specific Cathedral.
To add to this point, though, I find that the not only does “the” limit the sense of a universal meaning, but it also focuses on the wrong idea entirely. I feel that “The Cathedral” doesn’t just imply a specific cathedral; rather, it implies that the cathedral, or the function it serves, in the story is the focus of the story.
If “the” cathedral was the focus of the story, then I think it fundamentally changes the meaning of the entire story. My interpretation of the story’s title is that “Cathedral” symbolizes the experience of having something huge, practically life changing, occur in regards to one’s perspective on life, based on assumptions of what a Cathedral naturally symbolizes.
Contrastingly, “The Cathedral” could connect to the same sort of experience, but “the” places the focus on the object that initiates the experience, which, in this case, is “the” cathedral present in the story. Focusing on the object, however, would be incorrect—at least in my opinion—because the determinant of the impact of whatever experience we may be examining is the involved person’s perspective, not a certain quality of “the” object involved.
The best way to illustrate this idea is to look to the story itself. Specifically, let’s focus on what the narrator says about Cathedrals: “They’re so big, some of them, they have to have these supports…In those olden days, when they build cathedrals, men wanted to be close to God. In those olden days, God was an important part of everyone’s life” (107). With this statement, the narrator defines cathedrals as symbols of belief and importance to everyone’s life. In other words, cathedrals were a central part of one’s existence in “those olden days.”
If we were examining the symbolism of a “Cathedral” experience as I defined it above, I think we would find similarities to the narrator’s description of cathedrals. A “Cathedral” experience (coming soon: experience with a capital E! Just kidding) is “an important part of everyone’s life," as it changes a belief. A “Cathedral” experience partly arises from our want “to be close to” a sort of universal human existence. Finally, a “Cathedral” experience is not an experience you are soon to forget, for, in essence, it is a “big” part of your life from that point on. Thus, we can see that cathedrals are certainly good symbols for this sort of experience, for both are huge, sacred parts of your life, representing your ability to get close to some sort of universal truth.
Now, here’s where I think titles of “The Cathedral” and “Cathedral” diverge. If “the” cathedral were important, the narrator would probably strongly relate to some aspect of it. But when he discusses religion with Robert, he explains, “I guess I don’t believe in it. In anything” (107). In fact, as the narrator tells, “I can’t tell you what a cathedral looks like…The truth is, cathedrals don’t mean anything special to me. Nothing.” (107). Carver’s downplaying of the present-day importance of cathedrals to the narrator implies that no specific cathedral, or even cathedrals as a whole, is the real focus of this story. “The” object at play, a cathedral, has no impact on the narrator’s life or perspective.
The real impact the narrator feels as a result of his “Cathedral” experience comes from his own reactions and realizations, none of which are necessarily tied to a cathedral. After all, once they begin drawing the Cathedral, the narrator tells, “I couldn’t stop…So we kept on with it. [Robert’s] fingers rode my fingers as my hand went over the paper. It was like nothing else in my life up to now...my eyes were still closed...'It's really something'” (108). The experience of drawing the cathedral holds great significance for the narrator, likely in regards to his opinions of the blind (past the idea that this experience changes the narrator's perspective, the actual change is unimportant to my point and could be a completely different discussion). This significance, however, does not surface because he is drawing a cathedral; his stunned reaction, as he narrates it, does not specifically tie into the cathedral he is drawing. In fact, he even states that when he begins drawing, “First I drew a box that looked like a house. It could have been the house I lived in” (108). The narrator’s experience thus has nothing to do with the fact that he is drawing a cathedral, for he might as well be drawing a house—or any other object—as he relates it. Rather, the narrator experiences something deeply significant because of how he interprets the experience regardless of the object involved.
Overall, I think that a title of “The Cathedral” not only limits the story to cathedrals in general, or the cathedral specifically present in the story (thus limiting the universal applicability of the story’s potential meaning, a point that both Morgan and Elizabeth tangoed with), but that “The Cathedral” limits the meaning of the story to the concept that some action or object—“the” object—must be what initiates a life changing or perspective altering experience.
In reality, I think the story implies that such deep occurrences are determined only by one’s perspective, not the object or objects present at the time of the experience. “The Cathedral” implies a tangible object and focuses on the "the" cathedral/object of the story, while “Cathedral” implies the sort of mindset of such an experience: cathedrals are huge/important, sacred, and available for one to enter in an attempt to find some universal meaning to life. “The” is much less often used with phrases such as “the perspective,” “the point of view,” or “the opinion” than it is with objects such as “the car,” “the boat,” or “the house,” because it is inherently understood that opinions, unlike objects, are all dependent upon who holds them. Perspective is, by definition, personal, implying that one is directly responsible for his/her own perspective regardless of "the" objects involved.
|
|
|
Post by The Dude on Sept 14, 2013 22:30:14 GMT
Might as well just sensually salsa around Kevin's post as well too, Joel.
|
|
|
Post by mattagritelley on Sept 14, 2013 23:15:28 GMT
Your devastation is undoubtedly attributed to the addition of the article "the" to the title of the story. Elizabeth and Morgan both eloquently underscore the inherent limitations that the word "the" presents, and Joel focuses on the difference between the tangible implications of "the" and the perceptual implications associated with its absence. I, too, agree with Joel in his differentiation between the two. I also believe that Carver's deliberate open-ended title reflects the inherent impossibility of limitations in blind Robert's mind.
Imagine that you are the narrator looking at a brilliant cathedral. You try hard to explain its grandiose appearance by attempting to discuss its pointed tower like structures and supporting flying buttresses. Robert listens, trying to visualize that which is inevitably unimaginable. This structure that the narrator describes-- it is not "the" cathedral to Robert. It isn't even a cathedral. It only represents all of the things in the world that are described as being large, having pointed tower-like structures, or utilizing flying buttresses. It is not the cathedral that matters to Robert, but rather the myriad of thoughtful concoctions the mind can create from its description.
Carver is trying to urge us to understand the expansiveness of the human mind, whose creative nature is accentuated through the thoughts of those who cannot see. The narrator's own biased and apathetic views towards Robert transition and change throughout the novel, primarily during his attempt to describe and draw "the" cathedral for Robert. It is not until the narrator realizes how flawed his assumptions are that he is able to warrant the necessity for "cathedral": "My eyes were still closed. I was in my house. I knew that. But I didn't feel like I was inside anything" (108). The narrator's description of losing his sense of sight (albeit momentarily) shows his understanding for lack of understanding. In other words, the narrator is finally able to relate to Robert's inability to see and comprehend certain tangible ideas. Thereafter, he is able to understand that his description of a cathedral does not enable Robert to understand any one idea specifically; it only depicts the resonance of all possible mental understandings. Robert will never be able to formulate a concrete thought of a cathedral, but that is okay, for "cathedral" represents all of the different perceptions of a certain idea through the mind's purest form of imagination.
It isn't fair to Robert to limit this expansiveness through the use of a constricting "the" in the title.
|
|
|
Post by abbylyons on Sept 14, 2013 23:17:53 GMT
In “Cathedral”, the narrator wants to communicate the concept of cathedral. Not a specific cathedral, but any cathedral.
Why does the author choose cathedral as the concept to be communicated? Because cathedrals are inherently distinctive and important. The fundamental purpose of their design is to make a strong and lasting visual impression. Centuries ago, cathedrals were by far the largest structures most people had ever seen; they were intended to inspire an awed respect for the power of the church and unquestioning obedience to its leaders. We all can recognize a cathedral when we see one. Since pictures are readily available, few of us have ever had to try to describe a typical cathedral to someone who has never seen one. It is surprisingly difficult.
The narrator finds he cannot convey the concept of cathedral without assistance. Robert cannot learn the concept without assistance. So the two strangers decide to work together to accomplish this task. In less than half an hour, they make a connection. They had been trying to form some kind of connection all day, with food, drinks, dope, and strained conversation, but none of it worked. However, as soon as they stop trying to make a connection and start focusing on completing a task together, the connection comes. Using a joint task to help strangers form a connection is a well-established psychological technique. Major corporations, armies, and other large organizations frequently make use of this technique to help workers form connections.
If the short story had been about “The Cathedral”, the interest of the two men in the communication task would have been less and the connection might not have formed. A particular building is of only minor interest, but the concept of cathedral is significant in Western history (as would have been explained in the TV show) and thus worthy of the two men’s effort.
|
|
|
Post by haleyjensen on Sept 14, 2013 23:35:55 GMT
First off, I definitely agree with the ideas that have been pondered above; it's amazing how such little words like "the" (or "they is") can make all the difference.
Secondly, I believe the feeling of wanting to run from a story titled "The Cathedral" comes from the fact that cathedrals, and the things they are commonly associated with (beliefs, religion, ect.), can make people feel uncomfortable. For example, when a person walks into a cathedral, they are subject to the beliefs and teachings of Catholicism. While some may devote their whole life to Catholic beliefs, others may take offense to what is being taught. Religion and beliefs have been at the core of disputes and divided humanity throughout human history. Maybe, just the mistaken title is enough to make a person want to crawl into a hole where arguments don't exist and a person doesn't have to defend their beliefs. I think this idea definitely rings true with the narrator in the story. While describing the Cathedral pictured on TV, he dismisses any further exploration of it and says to Robert, "but it looks like that's the best I can do for you. I'm just no good at it" (107). While I think this response is certainly a product of the fact that the narrator isn't used to describing things to people that can't see them, I think the next question that Robert asks him hints at another reason why the narrator doesn't attempt to further describe the cathedral. After being careful not to offend him, Robert asks the narrator, "But let me ask if you are in any way religious?" (107). While he could've pried a further description out of the narrator, or complained about the narrator's lack of ability to describe things, I think it's so interesting that Robert chooses to ask the narrator about himself and what he believes. These kinds of personal questions are the nature of the impact that cathedrals (and the like) have on people--they always have some sort of challenging personal implication. Cathedrals can raise discomfort, much like Robert did when he entered into the narrator's house. Ultimately, the real title of the story captures the parallel between the narrator's attitude toward Cathedrals and his reaction to Robert's blindness. To tie this exploration back to the "the" conversation above, I think the addition of "the" to the title severs the similar roles that Robert and cathedrals have in the story. If "the" is in the title, then there is no room for the discomfort Robert's blindness raises in the narrator to parallel the discomfort that cathedrals raise in the narrator.
|
|
|
Post by sammywong on Sept 15, 2013 5:22:30 GMT
I love the point Haley made of the narrator's religious background and his take on the cathedrals on tv. Carver does not explicitly state whether Robert is religious or not; one can only infer that with Robert putting his head down as the narrator jokes about saying a prayer that he is either a polite man, a religious man, or both. But after the narrator jokes about the dinner praying, the wife responds with her "mouth agape," so I would conclude that she knows that Robert is religious and is shocked of this tomfoolery being committed. (but of course, that is only my guess)By the way Robert is so interested in the cathedrals on tv, I would also guess that this is due to his religious devotion. And by the way the narrator brushes off explaining what a cathedral is to the blind man, I would say religion is not something the narrator is very fond of. But by the end of the story, cathedrals mean something to both men, which is why the title is so important. Two very different men. Two very different personalities, upbringings, and lifestyles set aside their differences and find the importance in a single, tangible object.
And I am a believer in not believing the word "the" really makes a difference in the title. The Cathedral. Cathedral. Maybe I am not deep and literature-y enough to see the difference but in my opinion Carver was trying to get across an idea that the cathedral presents, with or without the "the." In the short story, only one cathedral represented this idea of unity, so obviously it makes sense to put the "The" in the title.
|
|
|
Post by mitralebuhn on Sept 15, 2013 5:25:31 GMT
Like most of the people who have commented above, I too agree with the notion that the addition of "the" to the original title stunts the lack of specificity that "Cathedral" has. Without the "the", the title is broader and generalizes the concept so that it is more applicable to the individuals reading it. I mentioned in the "That's not my name" thread that the cathedral is symbolic of people. The original titles helps this notion as without the restriction so the "the", the reader may potentially see a cathedral as a symbol for himself or herself rather than consider the cathedral as a separate and tangible structure.
As much as I love this idea of the restriction of "the", I would like to move in a different direction. If you google "The Cathedral." you come up with very different results that do no include Mr. Carver's intriguing short story. You do not discover a thought-provoking and quick read discussing dope, perspective, ritual, etc., but you find...this...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_(novel). It's a book describing a cathedral in such descriptive detail that, according to this helpful wiki article, tourists use it as a guide book. Not to mention, it was not published in English until 2011. Now, considering these instructions were given a couple years ago, the novel would, at that time, only be available in French. Mr. Parris may not have a problem reading a novel in French, but I do believe that the majority of senior students might struggle. This silly sub should have put the author with the title of the story, as well as written the title correctly, in order to prevent this atrocious mis-direction. I can only imagine the guilt that you, Mr. Parris, had felt in the moment of reading that message, as you were aware of the horrible and unnecessary struggle your students would be suffering through for the next 2 evenings in order to translate a book that describes the appearance of a cathedral in an uncomfortably complicated way.
|
|
|
Post by jessicalee on Sept 15, 2013 5:40:17 GMT
I also agree in the idea that the addition of "the" in the title limits the story's meaning. The generic use of the term "cathedral", without any implication of a single cathedral, allows the reader to play with different images. It also embodies the narrators inability to describe one. He says, "You'll have to forgive me... But I can't tell you what a cathedral looks like" (107). The fact that the narrator can not outline the image of a cathedral to the blind man directly reflects the freedom that should come with viewing these beautiful pieces of architecture. The wonderful thing about artwork- such as cathedrals- is that no interpretation will ever be the same. Cathedrals vary on multiple levels, whether it has to do with appearance or meaning. The viewer's reactions are also surely different for each cathedral he or she sees. Thus, it is important that "the" should not be added to the title for the blind man (or anyone for that matter) should not be limited to an image of one cathedral. Rather, he should have the liberty to imagine his own.
|
|
|
Post by emilybrinkmann on Sept 15, 2013 15:43:51 GMT
When I heard the title Cathedral I thought we would be reading something completely different, because of the stereotypes of Cathedral in my head. After finishing the story I am still complexed with the title. I find that like many of me peers that the significance does not lie in "cathedral" but in "the". This adds room for interpretation as oppose to just the stereotype that I associated with it. It outlines the title the way a frame outlines a picture or painting. Without it, the title would still stand alone, but it would not be the same. The narrator also seems to look at things from the outside. Many people see a cathedral and think of the architecture and historical context, instead of the people who filled it and religious context, Robert feels sorry for Beulah because her husband could never appreciate her appearance. " And then I found myself thinking what a pitiful life this woman must have led. Imagine a woman who could never see herself as she was seen in the eyes of her loved one. A woman who could go on day after day and never receive the smallest compliment from her beloved" (103). One way is not necessarily a better way to look at a situation or cathedral, they are just different. I think the title implies that there are different ways in which the world can be viewed and it highlights the difference in opinion.
|
|