|
Post by juliamoreland on Sept 15, 2013 17:09:35 GMT
First off, I definitely agree with what everyone has said about the word "the" adding limitations. To avoid being redundant, I’m going with a slightly different approach. I like how we seem to be trying to remember out first impression upon hearing our assigned reading titled "Cathedral." Mine was, "Oh wow, that sounds really familiar" and then once I started reading it, I realized that I had already read the story. My freshman year in Mr. Parris's ACS class, I would always forget a book for the reading time and would read out of the anthologies sitting on the table. Now I promise this is not a pointless little freshman year story. As I read the story this year, I remembered my reaction freshman year. Then, I was focused so much upon the relationships of the characters, this man finding a connection and a path out of his ignorance. This year, I was thinking about names, symbols, rituals, etc. The simplicity of my freshman year reaction is something I am in love with right now. Not worrying about other aspects of the story, just the emotion I found from it.
Adding the word "the" onto the title limits my emotion to a certain area. Cathedrals, churches, this story is going to be about architecture or religion. But without the word "the", "Cathedral" allows my emotions to be untainted and open to the new world and perspective this story shows. Also, I very strongly dislike when stories are obvious about their title. When it is obviously a main part of the story, the title either ruins it or makes it. Also, if a title is super obviously part of the story, then any slight alteration on the title can change its meaning in the story. Hence, the disappointment around altered title on the board. The one title where I actually liked the title being part of the story is in the "Poisonwood Bible," but I wont ruin that one for anyone.
Since I just harped upon how much I dislike the title being part of the story, if you could re-title "Cathedral" what would you title it? I cant think of anything, maybe that's why its called something in the story, cause its really hard to be creative. I really want to hear others ideas! Is the title "Cathedral" really what makes or breaks the story?
|
|
|
Post by Lacey Doby on Sept 15, 2013 18:18:59 GMT
I think the title "The Cathedral" is a perfect name for this story specifically because of what Emily said above: "Because of the stereotypes of Cathedral in my head." This story is partially about overcoming the narrow-minded belief the main character has which he mentions in the very first paragraph, "My idea of blindness came from the movies. In the movies, the blind moved slowly and never laughed," (Carver 99). Just as the main character has previous expectations for exactly what a blind man is, we, the readers, have expectations for exactly what a cathedral is. We make judgments about the story before we even begin to read it and understand it, just as the main character does about the blind man. "The Cathedral" are two simple words, and when they are just a title there is no telling how they actually relate to the story. For all we know, "The Cathedral" could have been anything from the history of some individual cathedral to a science fiction story about a man-eating building that ever so happens to be a cathedral. However, you, in your reaction of horror after seeing the name, simply assumed that the first choice was more likely. Making assumptions like that are a natural part of human behavior. Humans developed this tendency to judge things without previous knowledge so that they could easier avoid danger, like assuming a lion is probably more likely to eat you than to be your friend. Modern literature and movies like to play around with people's natural born beliefs like that though, simply to prove the popular idea that things are not what they seem. Snap judgments, though they do serve a purpose, can be very incorrect. Just as the main character had a previous belief about Robert, you had a previous belief about "The Cathedral."
|
|
|
Post by allegra on Sept 15, 2013 19:04:23 GMT
The Cathedral, as Elizabeth pointed out, limits the story quite a bit from thing to just-a-thing. When the word "the" is added to something, like with most horror movie titles, you know it's going to be bad because it's been limited. I think that, as other people have also said, "The Cathedral" is an incredibly misleading title that can lead to some preconceived opinions that such a story is not worth reading or somehow already below our standards as high and mighty senior AP english students. The other part of this is that the sub wanted the students to read "the cathedral." You cannot read a cathedral; you can enjoy its presence, you can appreciate its aesthetics, but truly, you cannot read a cathedral. The narrator attempted to read the cathedral on television to the blind man, but you cannot read something so vastly ingrained into human history as plainly as you can read a book and for the sub to require that of your students is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by fionabyrne on Sept 15, 2013 21:35:19 GMT
Reading the title I did not think of a specific building. I didn't even think of a generic cathedral with intricate architecture. "Cathedral" brought to my unfocused mind the impression of a revered shelter. The title made me think of something big and strong and respected. The focus of the story is not THE Cathedral that the narrator draws, because he does not try to draw THE cathedral. He says "I can't tell you what a cathedral looks like" (107). Here, "Cathedral" is a concept. Tying it down to a specific edifice is diminutive to the meaning because "Oh what a shame, the blind man will never know what the cathedral, that specific one, looks like" is nothing beyond mildly sad. The concept of a cathedral, however, is so much larger and bring to mind not all of the other specific things that Robert will never see like we do but the ideas of things that he in fact can see when another person cares enough to take the time to show him.
|
|
alice
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by alice on Sept 15, 2013 22:20:35 GMT
When I was a kid and heard the phrase "don't judge a book by it's cover" every time I wanted to read something, I devised a new system. I would judge a book by it's title because if you can't write a title maybe you can't write a book. Going into "Cathedral", I didn't know what to think. It was a word that had a strong image tied to it but it was also pretty vague, due to the lack of "the" as has been mentioned. When I started reading, I was confused on how the word "cathedral" had anything to do with this couple and their meeting with a blind man. All of the interactions had been pretty cold and distanced between the narrator and Robert until the narrator started to try to describe a cathedral. This description, or illumination, allowed the man to open up a bit to the blind man. At this point I began to think about what cathedrals do. As I recalled, cathedrals are a place of worship and a coming together of families and friends to learn and be accepted by religion. This cathedral drawing between Robert and the narrator seemed to bring them together through the mysterious cathedral-y powers, if you want to take the title metaphorically.
In a more literal sense, I think the title is indicative in the changing point in the character's relationship. It is when they encounter the cathedral when they begin to really bond with each other and when the narrator makes the first real effort to break away from his mundane rituals (cool tie in, riiiight?)
|
|
|
Post by pjharris on Sept 15, 2013 23:37:09 GMT
Trying to be creative here. (Perhaps) Because you yourself did not like the story but still prescribed it to your students because it had poignant ideas about life, point of view, and the dangers of static living that were important to the whole of the lesson (AKA supported exploration) you were trying to teach us. So you acquiesced to the short story, sacrificing yourself to the re-living of your dislike for the sake of the common good (very noble of you JP). But once the sub mistakenly put the simple and seemingly harmless definitive-article, "the", it created a first impression of a limited and boring lecture on stone buildings no one makes anymore (and the feeling created among already-over-booked-AP-students is of a busy-work, forced assignment that will just be forgotten and un-enjoyed). And first impressions can define a class can't they? So when the realization hit you that this atmosphere was thrust upon an already unpleasant experience for you and that it could possibly alter the entire view point of the years curriculum and you as a teacher yourself, you simply couldn't take it and broke down with primitive, instinctual rage and screamed to the high heavens of your sorrow and lament for the loss of this years peace and its only shot at happiness. That's probably an overstatement but, oh well! Leaving myself open to the possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by davidqin on Sept 16, 2013 1:07:18 GMT
I want to add to what's been discussed and danced-around by saying that "The Cathedral" is almost an insult to Raymond Carver and "Cathedral." Carver's short story is not about a cathedral or even the cathedral, but it is about how the concept and image of a very special building is used as a vehicle to generate a feeling of mutual trust and respect between two people. The story ends with the narrator overcoming his unease of Robert, closing his eyes, and surrendering to the same blindness that affects the latter. They just happen to be drawing a cathedral together, though it very well could be any other object. "The Cathedral" is merely the concept that helps this man understand Robert's perspective. Without the documentary on cathedrals, they would not have done this exercise and built that trust in each other. It's worth noticing that his wife wakes up near the end, sees the two drawing together, and says "'What's going on? Robert, what are you doing?'" (108). The static nature of his wife is in direct contrast to the change the two men have experienced, all thanks to Cathedral (here used in the same sense as capital-a Art).
I also found it interesting that Carver includes text and a description of the cathedral documentary. The visual description of cathedrals in Europe contrasts with Robert's understanding of these structures, and the narrator's visual description of them falls flat. The point that "Cathedral" makes is that there is more than one perspective (visual, spiritual, conceptual) to any object. For those of us that can see, the visual aspect dominates. For those who cannot, cathedral takes on a more intangible quality, and that intangible quality is highlighted in this short story for those of us who can indeed see these buildings. In this short story, cathedral represents understanding and a common attempt to bridge differences in perception. That is why this short story is "Cathedral" and not "The Cathedral," as the latter, as others have said, is limiting and evokes images of cathedrals rather than an eventual understanding of the conceptual cathedral.
|
|
|
Post by anaritter on Sept 16, 2013 1:08:01 GMT
Many people said that upon first seeing the title "Cathedral", they instantly thought of religious conflict and religious (specifically, Christian) motifs. But is that wrong? Many people said that the cathedral was of historical or architectural significance in context, but why can't it be exactly what it initially seems - religious? There's a reason Carver didn't use a castle instead of a cathedral - both are looming, ancient structures, yet one is secular and the other is not.
The narrator is unable to accurately and succinctly describe the appearance of a cathedral to the blind man, just as he is unable to describe his own ideas and opinions about religion to the blind man. When Robert asks him if he is religious, the narrator answers, "'I guess I don't believe in it. In anything. Sometimes it's hard'". I would argue that "Cathedral" is less about the blind man, Robert, as many people seem to think, than about the narrator's confusion. Though Robert is the center of the narrator's attention, the narrator is the focus of the reader's attention. The blind man's purpose is to bring us to and draw our attention to the narrator's "cathedral", or religious perceptions, or lack thereof, making me believe that this "story" is really just an essay on the author's religious perspective.
|
|
rishi
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by rishi on Sept 16, 2013 1:21:14 GMT
As many have already emphasized, placing a "the" in front of the title restricts the breadth of the story. Elizabeth explains this idea eloquently when she writes, "'The Cathedral' has limits, while just 'Cathedral' has possibilities." By placing a "the" in front of "Cathedral," one can infer that the title refers to a specific cathedral, but I believe that the author, Raymond Carver, neglects the "the" in order to evoke a more open interpretation of the title and the symbol of the cathedral.
Cathedrals are built to create a powerful and lasting impression, yet since they have been commonly built for thousands of years, most know what they look like. Consequently, many have not given much thought as to the manner in which they could describe a cathedral to a blind man such as Robert. This lack of consideration is apparent as the narrator, attempting to describe a cathedral to Robert explains, "I stared hard at the shot of the cathedral on the TV. How could I even begin to describe it?" (106). We often admire a cathedral's aesthetic beauty, but rarely do we consider the engineering behind these monuments and the amount of work it took to construct them. Although Robert is blind and cannot see the cathedrals on the television, he understands that "...they took hundreds of workers fifty or a hundred years to build...The men who began their life's work on them, they never lived to see the completion of their work" (106). Robert understands that cathedrals create a powerful impression on not only their builders, but also those who use them. Not only do the finished products (what we think of when we hear the word "cathedral") demonstrate the impact of cathedrals, but the process in which cathedrals are built also attribute to their importance. Essentially, the point is that regardless of whether one is blind or not, it is still possible for that individual to comprehend the fact that cathedrals are important to the social and spiritual aspects of human society. Why else would men build cathedrals if "they never lived to see the completion of their work?"
But what does "important" mean? In a more specific sense, I believe that cathedrals are important to humans because they promote understanding, comfort, and unity. We go to church in an attempt to connect with God, to gain a sense of understanding about our places in the world. We pray for good luck and for our well-being, and these prayers somehow give us a feeling of comfort. Finally, cathedrals promote unity: under one religion, those in a cathedral all share something in common. These properties are what makes a cathedral a symbol in the story and in the real world.
By titling his work "Cathedral," Carver implies that the cathedral symbol can be used in a larger scope than if the story was titled "The Cathedral." Clearly, "The Cathedral" refers to the specific cathedral seen on the television while "Cathedral," as Joel stated, "implies the sort of mindset of [] an experience." Robert and the narrator's drawing of a cathedral at the end of the story represents their increasing comfort with and understanding of one another. Most importantly, it represents the unity that develops between two extremely different people. These concepts of unity and understanding are explicitly illustrated when the narrator explains, "My eyes were still closed. I was in my house. I knew that.. But I didn't feel like I was inside anything" (108).
|
|
|
Post by gracepark on Sept 16, 2013 2:05:01 GMT
Knowing that I’m not very familiar cathedrals, I decided to do a little bit of research on their significance. Today, as far as I know, cathedrals are more of an architectural masterpiece that qualifies for the “Top Ten Tourist Attractions” that evoke the “oo”s and “ah”s from the wide public. That’s why I found it very interesting that Carver chose a cathedral as the unifying image for his story. So. Here are my findings of the significance of cathedrals: In the Gothic Age (1100-1400), cathedrals were considered very democratic in the sense that they provided for the common good. People of every class had direct access to a regal and truly elegant public ground that was previously reserved only for the elite. Can you tell where I’m going with this?
It’s interesting how from the beginning of the story the narrator makes it very clear that he does not want a blind man in his house – especially one who has been sending (and receiving) voice tapes from his wife. The narrator explicitly states: “A blind man in my house was not something I looked forward to” (99). Nothing is ambiguous there. And in case a reader skimmed through that first introduction, the narrator continuously adds bits and pieces of his initial thought here and there. I’m not sure about all of you, but it’s clear that the narrator is setting up a boundary between himself as an elite, and the blind man, Robert, as almost like a poor, ordinary person. But when the two are exposed to this show about cathedrals, the gap shortens and we see the narrator and Robert becoming one. As they draw, hand-over-hand, the cathedral of both their imaginations, a beautiful scene of unification and understanding blossoms. It’s so intimate that the narrator’s wife, who happens to wake up during this time, cannot understand anything that’s happening. Carver didn’t just happen to choose cathedrals as his main symbol. He didn’t just happen to name his story “Cathedral”. His characters represent the very essence and significance of what a cathedral is. It’s where all classes, the most elite to the poorest, can meet at one ground to admire the beauty and elegance of this beautiful public building. It’s where a blind man and a healthy man can meet in the middle point and share the same sensation.
That’s why it’s called “Cathedral”. And honestly, I cannot say there can be a better name for this poem.
|
|
|
Post by keelycorrigan on Sept 16, 2013 2:22:54 GMT
Naming the story some derivative of “Cathedral” seems to be a no-brainer to me. The scene in which the narrator, whom I will affectionately refer to as Bub, has empathy for the blind man and his situation is the most powerful and most pivotal scene of the story. By naming the story after the most pivotal scene, rather than after a character or a line like many stories do, the focus is taken off of the evading initial narcissus of Bub and of his wife and onto the meaning of the short. This choice, to me, was very powerful as this story seems to be a couple thousand word study of insecurity manifested in narcissism. Bub, however, transitions from this as he moves the past blind man’s, Robert’s, limitations. The exploration of limitations is why the missing article in the title is so beautiful and reminiscent of the values of the story. Elizabeth and Morgan, and many others after, hit the nail on the head when they wrote of the limitlessness of a noun without a article. A noun without a article is a person without a label—just Robert, instead of “the blind man”. Bub even begins to see himself without the labels—which for him were the walls and preconceived boundaries that he put up against his house guest because of the life the man and Bub’s wife had know before Bub moseyed on into the picture. Carver writes, “So we kept on with it. His fingers rode my fingers as my hand went over the paper. It was like nothing else in my life up to now,”(108 in the Anthology). The reason why this is such a singularly important event in Bub’s life is because of the breakdown of the walls and limitations that he had built for himself. With out limits, he could just be. A noun without an article, a man without limits.
|
|
Kasey
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by Kasey on Sept 16, 2013 2:38:45 GMT
I figured you just really like teaching Cathedral. But that's not an AP enough answer, so here's a different one: The addition of "The" to the title almost gives away in the ending in that it narrows "cathedral" down to a central story point instead of a location, thought, or religious background.
|
|
|
Post by cassiecumberland on Sept 16, 2013 2:53:32 GMT
I think that "the" is important in a title because instead of talking about an actual, random cathedral, the short story could be talking about THE one cathedral that changed the way that the husband saw. The short story, however, is called just straight-up cathedral, which suggests that the moment between the two men was not the most significant part BUT the most significant part is the idea that your heart can transform SO quickly if you let it and you can SEE without seeing. The nameless husband saw clearer than he ever had. He saw THE cathedral but he also saw Cathedral, which may suggest enlightenment.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Sept 16, 2013 3:13:57 GMT
I feel like the "the Cathedral" and "Cathedral" are different in a similar way that "Artist" and "artist" are different. One is concrete, straightforward, and points at one single thing. The other is left open for interpretation, which is what we, as literary artists, are striving to improve at. "The Cathedral" would be a story you read in freshman English class, where a little boy goes on a tour of a large cathedral and decides to become an architect. But we are trying to push ourselves, in order to analysis text so that we can form educated, insightful opinions about it. The substitute's mistake closed the door on the opportunity for us to grow in our analysis of unlimited interpretations of a title and the story behind it.
|
|
|
Post by rubyking on Sept 16, 2013 3:34:09 GMT
Reading Cassie's point, I accidentally read "...about a blind man who sees and a nameless husband.." as "...about a blind man who sees A nameless husband.." But it makes complete sense, that in this moment Robert sees through the husband much better than his wife ever could. She stands in complete confusion, "My wife said, "What's going on? Robert, what are you doing? What's going on?" To an average person with the luxury of sight, they probably see the building as THE cathedral, but Robert only understands Cathedral, as if it emulates one central idea and all of the cathedrals around the world are connected. Read through that once more, but replace "cathedral" with "man." Upon meeting Robert, I think the husband obviouslly feels some sort of divide between himself anf his guest. He is THE man. But by the end of Carver's piece, I think Robert helps the husband to understand they both come from the same thing. Robert is of man. The husband is of man...
|
|