|
Post by carolinedorman on Sept 16, 2013 3:39:18 GMT
The night we were assigned “Cathedral”, I was talking with a couple of my fellow Senior Honors English compatriots about the homework assigned. One friend said, “We were supposed to read “The Cathedral” right?” The other friend corrected, “No, isn’t it just “Cathedral”? Why is it that a simple article can have such an impact on the meaning and implication of the story as a whole? Clearly, the sub and one of said unnamed friends found something natural or normal with adding “the” in front of Cathedral. “The” is definite and decisive. The Cathedral, as Google defines it, is “the principal church of a diocese, with which the bishop is officially associated”. Cathedral, however, is not a tall, defined structure, but an epiphany. Cathedral and not the cathedral is what makes the story so poignant. The narrator was blind to the thoughts and feelings of other human beings until he starts to draw a cathedral with Robert. Carver writes, “My eyes were still closed. I was in my house. I knew that. But I didn't feel like I was inside anything”(Carver). What began as a simple tool for helping a blind man see becomes a turning point for the life of the narrator and his wife as the narrator begins to truly see. Calling the story The Cathedral materializes something intangible. It perhaps reinforces our own need to began to see beyond was is directly in front of us.
|
|
|
Post by avinash on Sept 16, 2013 3:40:51 GMT
To start off, I decided to contrast the substitute teacher’s instructions with those you had given us.
Substitute: Read "The Cathedral." Mr. Paris: Read the story "Cathedral," which can be found on page 98 in your anthology.
The most important difference that I perceived was in the title. “The Cathedral” vs “Cathedral.” Judging by your reaction, this was a colossal error on the substitute’s part. Continuing on the topic of art from our class discussions, art is highly individual in terms of its resonance (or lack of resonance) with the reader. Art is also highly expressive on the creator’s part and is meant to be viewed in its entirety, not in parts. For example, the “Mona Lisa” just wouldn’t be the same if one was to block out the background in the painting. It is not up to us to say what the most important part of a piece of art is. Each person takes interest in different parts, which leads to greater appreciation (or less appreciation, but either way you are interacting with the art). For this reason, all parts of a work of art should be viewed as important. Likewise, in this story, the title should be considered important. It is a part of Carver's art. The expression “don’t judge a book by a cover” has become a cliché because it reflects the human nature to have pre-conceived expectations. And what lies on the cover? The title, of course. I know when I was reading “Cathedral” I was waiting for there to be a mention of a cathedral for the entire story. That just goes to show the impact the title can have on one’s entire reading experience.
Another issue you may have had is the implications the word “the” has. “The” implies “one"…there is only one cathedral. There may have been only one drawing, but the cathedral meant something different to every reader. There is meant to be ambiguity in this story. That is why the narrator has such a hard time describing a cathedral. There is no significance in the cathedral when thought of as a singular idea or object. The cathedral in this story more than one thing. The Cathedral is used to symbolize something. Carver leaves this vague because this symbolism varies from reader to ready. “The” answer doesn’t exist.
Now, to tie this back to what I said about art. In essence, Carver’s art is ruined by not allowing the reader to fully connect with the piece by creating the notion that there is only one thing that the cathedral can represent. Also, the real title wasn’t expressed by the substitute, not allowing the author to fully express his creativity. The substitute's mistake ruined Carver's work, leading to your agony.
|
|
|
Post by rileyhatfield on Sept 16, 2013 4:01:14 GMT
I know that when I think of a cathedral, I immediately think of my 8th grade DC trip where we toured one. And I remember being so bored as well as really tired from a long week of traveling. So unfortunately, the memories tied to the word "cathedral" aren't very positive. So when you assigned it as a reading, I already felt bored and even kind of tired. I think that a lot of people have some uninteresting memories that accompany "cathedral" because, like Haley said, it equates to religion, or going to mass as kid, or just straight boring information about the structure of the building. I'm sad that my mind jumps to negative conclusions when I hear that word because I know how beautiful, unique, and intricate they are. I feel like this connects to Robert very well. He had heard the word cathedral probably all of his life and had heard it been explained in drawn-out details that he couldn't even relate to, much like me not being able to relate to the tour when I was dead tired and ignorant of the true beauty in cathedrals. But as soon as Robert experienced the drawing of the cathedral, his life was undoubtedly changed, even in the most minute way. From now on, when the word "cathedral" hits his ears, he will have a positive outlook on it because he experienced it in a whole new and amazing way. By the end of the story, I knew that I was going to remember "cathedral" in a whole new way since a positive and intriguing memory was now newly tied to that seemingly simple word.
|
|
|
Post by amysohlberg on Sept 16, 2013 4:52:10 GMT
By attaching a definite article to the title, you make it a certain object. THE cathedral. Now you're just going to be waiting and waiting for the epiphanic moment of the story when the great symbolic or literal Cathedral is revealed, and base your entire analysis and interpretation on the object. If the story is THE Cathedral, the cathedral Robert and the narrator drew at the end of the story MUST have some huge significance. The entire story was named after THAT very Cathedral, after all.
This is exactly why Carver titled the story Cathedral, not The Cathedral. It doesn't revolve around the life changing drawing at the end of the story. It's about an idea, a worldview. A perception that was changed. A new world that was discovered. "Cathedral" is like the code word for this change; the change isn't found in the object of the Cathedral itself.
|
|
|
Post by emwolfram on Sept 16, 2013 4:56:45 GMT
I love what has been already said here in terms of the limitations of adding "the." I would love to just rephrase everything all you wonderful people have already said but that would be a little boring and potentially plagiarism. However I would like to give props to Fiona Byrne for stealing the words out of my head in saying:
"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."
^ A more eloquently stated response to what I thought of when I first began to think of the impact of "the" in regards to the story. My opinion is highly reflective of Fiona's. After thinking about this prompt I decided that "Cathedral" is representative of this broad and wondrous idea whereas "The Cathedral" can only be a single specific object. So with that stated I will spin my response in a different direction.
Why I choose to respond to this prompt is because if I had been Mr. Parris's sub I would have probably made the same mistake and thought nothing of it.
I found reading through these posts particularly fascinating because many of them quite passionately discussed the immense tragedy of calling the story "The Cathedral" vs "Cathedral." Apparently "Cathedral" instantly brings a feeling of interest and excitement whereas "The Cathedral" means boring building. But perhaps I am missing something because before it was pointed out and discussed I saw no difference in the two titles.
This made me feel slightly out of the loop. Like maybe I had missed out on a lesson on "How to make super deep connections based purely on the title of a story" But then BAM! I realized this is where criticism serves a greater purpose. People interpret things differently and to some the absence of "the" in the title is detrimental to the stories entire theme whereas to others, like me, it made no difference. Yet in learning about Mr. Parris's outrage and reading my classmates responses I feel as if my understanding of the story has increased enormously. "Cathedral" is a story that has a lot more to do with ideas than with concrete things and the "Cathedral" vs. "The Cathedral" conflict highlights this in a way I would have certainly overlooked. And I love that. I do not know if there is anything cooler than discovering something you never would have seen before. I have rarely looked at titles as more than just a name for a book. Now I will never underestimate the importance of a title or the placement of the word "the" again. There is value in every word because we as readers, critics and human beings choose to give things value. By sharing what we see and how we interpret the world we are able to grow and learn from one another. And that is truly awesome.
|
|
|
Post by racheladele on Sept 16, 2013 5:30:49 GMT
I like to think that one late night with a looming deadline, Raymond Carver sat at his desk, rewriting and then erasing the word “the” over and over in front of the word “Cathedral.” Finally, he came to the conclusion that this was the right choice for his story.
The addition of the word "the" in the title implies that is "a" cathedral, making the drawing into a specific, pivotal and existent object. In our story, however, what matters is the feeling of peace that comes from the act of drawing the building. The narrator feels this because it is his critical moment as a dynamic character. Robert likely feels many things, such as inspiration, gratitude, curiosity, and understanding, all of which somehow come from following the movement of a pen around on paper. Cathedrals in general, though not as commonly constructed as they once were, are a place of prayer and solace. That revelation is what Carver's "Cathedral" is about, more so than a drawing two people happen to create.
Many people have mentioned above that "Cathedral" is not a story of specifics, and I see this to be true as well. I’m glad Carver didn’t include “the” in the title, because it is restricting to one cathedral; more specifically, the cathedral drawn by Robert and the narrator. Carver rightfully didn’t want that drawing to be the center of the story. Titles are very important, as they give the first impression and prompt the first emotion from any art form. I know that when I read a book, in the back of my mind I am trying to interpret the title the entire time. Carver was clever, and by excluding "the" from his title, he allows the reader to focus on the deeper meaning of the story and the emotion of its characters rather than fact that two of them draw a cathedral.
|
|
|
Post by danyhong55 on Sept 16, 2013 5:50:32 GMT
I cannot tell you exactly why you despaired upon founding out the required homework was to read "The Cathedral." But I can guess why you did not want your students to read it. My best one is that you yourself have already read the story and had nothing really to do with the actual title. Perhaps you didn't like Carver's writing at the time, or perhaps it wasn't what you had in mind for your lesson plan. But, it seems it had little to do with the name. However, it seems as if this post is about the title, I'll humor you.
It seems many people here had a very different view from how they thought the story "The Cathedral" would play out. Some thought that the it would be boring literally about a Cathedral and some Priests. Others thought about the implications of religion in the text that we were reading. To be honest, I thought it was going to be about something totally unrelated to any sort of cathedrals. Enrolling in this class made me realize that the title of the story does not necessarily have to reflect upon the content therein.
Joel Wrote a lot about the effects of having a "The" in part of a title. While his points are valid, I am not completely swayed by his arguments. We as humans largely ignore articles in the English language, such as the, a, an. We only use them to specify number or which object we are referring to. Especially when other languages, such as Korean, Chinese and Japanese, lack articles entirely, we must ask ourselves if they really make a difference in our thought processes. I must tango with the idea that the word "The" really would. Your reaction of falling on your knees was a visceral, knee-jerk reaction. Your main focus was on the word "Cathedral;" the "The" really made little difference. So I must think that the actual effect on you was the word "Cathedral" itself.
This is where I must agree with Austin that perhaps your ideas about cathedrals were initially misguided upon seeing the title. The story was not about priests, nuns, saints nor the like. In fact, it was about a racially-insensitive man being visiting by a blind friend of his wife. Our first impressions were off base. Perhaps, we should not judge the book by its title either.
|
|
|
Post by adamgrace on Sept 16, 2013 5:57:05 GMT
I'll start off with the obvious. The "the" in the title is blatantly wrong and shows that the substitute didn't pay attention to even the name of the story. This implies that the substitute may have screwed up any other parts of the lesson. The story isn't about THE cathedral, it's about the concept of a cathedral. The fact that cathedrals bring together people of different origins to share something of common interest. This is mirrored in the story of the main character and Robert. They share an experience with a simple drawing of a cathedral. This experience sheds a new light on the main character's life. He seemed incredibly jaded and narrow minded before. Yet, now that he has experienced helping someone "see" something, he understands the appeal.
|
|
|
Post by yongkim on Sept 16, 2013 5:57:44 GMT
I have learned a very important lesson today. I should make it a priority to be one of the first to post in order to avoid repeating the ideas of my peers.
As others before me have already stated, your agony can be attributed to the fact that the substitute wrote "The Cathedral" instead of "Cathedral". Who knew three letters could make such a profound difference? I think of it like this... if someone were to say that he or she was looking for THE person as opposed to A person in our world, that individual would be narrowing the search down from over 7 million people to just one single person. Similarly, a title such as "The Cathedral" indicates that the story will be focusing on one single object while "Cathedral" allows for numerous interpretations.
When I was in the fifth grade, my family and I went to France for a couple days on our Europe trip. I was fortunate enough to visit the most grandiose piece of architecture I had ever laid eyes on: Notre Dame. However, I now realize that my trip to that cathedral was my misfortune. While I was reading the story, I could only picture the one cathedral I had been to in my entire life. Don't get me wrong, Notre Dame is absolutely stunning; however, I truly wish my mind was open to different interpretations of a cathedral. I am envious of the narrator who got to experience a cathedral instead of the cathedral.
|
|
|
Post by natalieskowlund on Sept 16, 2013 6:19:50 GMT
Somehow, the lack of a "the" in front of "Cathedral" brings me an indescribable sense of inner peace. As others have been saying, "the" seems to restrict the title to one specific cathedral, but without the restriction of "the" it is as if Carver has carved (<---haha) out room for my brain to breathe. By keeping the title to simply one word, and moreover a word which each reader will associate with something different depending on his/her background, Carver allows the potential reader to imagine what the story may be about. As others have also said, calling it "The Cathedral" would have limited the scope of the story to a story based in a cathedral, or something of the sort. Readers would certainly not feel as inclined to think outside the box as to what the story would entail.
On a similar, but also sort of separate note, allowing readers the freedom to associate whatever they want with the title "Cathedral" because it lacks the restrictive "the" almost makes the reader a character in the story. Just like the narrator judges Robert and Beulah based on tangible aspects of their persons, readers will likely judge what the story will be about based on the title "Cathedral." Perhaps they will assume it is a religious story, that it is set in Italy, or even that it is about church clergymen. Whatever they decide, they enter into the story with a presupposed idea of what it will be about, and for a time they might feel slighted that their previous idea is not, in fact, what it is about. But in the end, perhaps their own judgments about the title will help them realize that perhaps they are similar to the narrator, quickly judging something on a very superficial basis only to be proven wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Sept 16, 2013 6:30:00 GMT
In order to maintain ambiguity in regards to what the story is actually about, Carver probably chose the simple title. Otherwise, it could be referring to a specific cathedral. It gives the reader opportunity to make connections to themselves, because it doesn't establish that the story is about structure. Also, it sounds better. By getting rid of "the", it sounds to me like the story might not be about a building at all. As for why your reaction was so intense, you could just be incredibly averse to the word "the", which probably makes being an English teacher as well as a member of society very hard indeed.
|
|
|
Post by jessicapollard on Sept 16, 2013 6:55:31 GMT
Growing up, we all had Blanket or Ball or maybe Kitty.
We didn't use 'the' because to our knowledge, what we possessed may have been all that existed in the world. There was no need to specify 'the' ball because so far as we assumed, there was no other ball to differentiate from. More than that, these objects that we so fondly named became entities that transcended the realm of physicality (as evident by the surprising amount of adults and teenagers that still cling to the mangled remains of their blankets and stuffed animals).
I like to think that Carver's intentions are in the same vein as those of the two year old versions of ourselves. Not only does the lack of 'the' represent a simplicity and newness that is often present in rebirth, but it also suggests that "Cathedral" is like no other in existence as it isn't so much physical or even spiritual as much as it is something to be felt with the senses that very few of us discover in our lives... if that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Sept 16, 2013 8:23:31 GMT
It’s clear that we’ve exhausted the question and have come to a decent consensus on the answer, so I’ll do my best to branch out. Since “Cathedral” without a “The” widens the scope of possible cathedrals, I’ll focus my response on one of the less obvious cathedrals in the story.
Upon reading “Cathedral,” a certain Bible verse came to mind: “Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit?” (1 Corinthians 6:18-19). This verse is the source of the slightly-more-common expression, My body is a temple, which signifies the importance of treating one’s body with care and respect. Initially, this expression came to mind as a result of the simple association between the words “cathedral” and “temple,” but upon further analysis, the story includes more evidence to substantiate the significance of the expression.
Throughout the story, some of the most descriptive passages appear as Carver elaborates on the characters’ debauchery. First, the “blind man [smokes] his cigarette down to the nubbin and then [lights] another one.” Quickly after, the husband describes their dinner: “We dug in. We ate everything there was to eat on the table. We at like there was no tomorrow. We didn’t talk. We ate. We scarfed. We grazed that table. We were into serious eating.” Last, the men take the edge off the night as they indulge in “two fat numbers.”
The repetitive, almost-excessive appearance of such debauchery alerts the reader that Carver has likely imbued these descriptions with deeper meaning. Specifically, the topic falls into the greater discussion of religion in “Cathedral.” While this discussion is looming in the background throughout much of the story, it is brought to the forefront when Robert asks the husband if he is, in any way, religious. The husband responds by saying that he does not believe in anything.
The experience of drawing the cathedral, however, inspires epiphany for the husband. He explains, “First I drew a box that looked like a house. it could have been the house I lived in...Crazy.” The husband’s bliss is then elevated as he closes his eyes: “My eyes were still closed. I was in my house. I knew that. but I didn’t feel like I was inside anything.” Although the husband does not explicitly convert to religion in the end of the story, Carver portrays the drawing of the cathedral as a powerful spiritual moment for the husband. Through the drawing, he realizes the power and creativity within himself. In seconds, he transcends the walls of his own house and, like a cathedral, “[reaches] way up. Up and up. Toward the sky.”
Therefore, one of many possible cathedrals in the story is the husband himself. Even though the ending is somewhat inconclusive, subtle themes illustrate a path of transformation in the story. The excessive debauchery present in much of the story indicates that the husband’s body is not a temple, or a cathedral. Yet the ending of the story allows for the spiritual rise of the character. He realizes his own power, and therefore his existence as a cathedral.
|
|
|
Post by shannonfender on Sept 16, 2013 9:18:47 GMT
The substitute’s use of the word “the” creates an absoluteness that essentially contradicts the point of the whole story. As a definite article, “the” is generally used before nouns in order to establish specificity and existence. “The Cathedral” would imply that there is an actual cathedral of importance to the story, and I don’t believe that the title is meant to represent a tangible object at all- regardless of whether it is made made of stone or of grooves on a paper.
“Cathedral” is an idea- the idea of expanding perception and not simply taking the world at face value. This cathedral is more internal than anything, almost like a state of thought where we can observe and understand the world around us for more than what we simply accept as true. If our viewpoints change, then this figurative “Cathedral” changes, because unlike “The Cathedral”, “Cathedral” is not set in stone.
|
|
|
Post by robertxu on Sept 16, 2013 9:39:28 GMT
Personally, I believe arguing that the entire experience of the story is diminished if a "the" is inserted is an overreaction. In fact, I would argue it would add to the story in a sense. All cathedrals are different with their own idiosyncrasies. This idea is especially relevant when you put into consideration Robert's disability and how he might never be able to visualize what a cathedral actually looks like. In the scene where Robert and the narrator draw a cathedral together (which for some reason reminds me of the pottery scene in "Ghost"), they create their own cathedral. Therefore, if the title had a "the" in it, it could possibly refer to the specific cathedral that they created together.
Perhaps the substitute put in the "the" in the title for one class and omitted it for another as a social experiment to see whether it would affect the discourse in the room. Of course, the experiment didn't work out as planned and the students discussed "Watch the Throne" (or whatever else was hip in 2011) because that's what happens on substitute days.
With that being said, I could see how individuals would get peeved by the addition of a "the" in the title as it completely shifts the literary analysis and discourse involving the short story. After the metaphorical ghost pottery scene, the narrator reflects, "I was in my house. I knew that. But it didn't feel like I was inside anything" (Carver 11). Clearly the newfound open-mindedness of the narrator is partially attributed to the new perspective Robert gives him on the topic of "cathedrals". Leaving out the "the" simply reinforces that open and free mindset.
|
|