|
|
Post by naomiporter on Sept 18, 2013 5:49:22 GMT
I agree with Jessica in that I really see little to no difference between archetypes and cliches. I think that, as Jessica said, it really is our perception of something that decides whether it is cliche or archetypal, annoyingly stereotypical or profound. I always attempt to see these potentially cliche things as if for the first time and not be distracted by the history I may have with the phrase/story-line/character/other possible archetype. I think this partly because I am often deeply frustrated when I want to express something profound I have recently discovered, only to realize that it is a cliche that I cannot say without sounding obnoxious. Cliches, if anything, could probably be more true and profound than archetypes because why else would they become cliches? I think that both cliches and archetypes are usually very true, profound ideas, but when an archetype becomes too popular or overused, it can become a cliche. I see cliches as basically being fundamentally similar to archetypes but with negative connotations.
Based on this definition, I think that in "Cathedral," the predictable plot-lines could be considered archetypes OR cliches based on how a specific reader perceives it. I personally did not consider the plot lines to be annoyingly predictable or overused, so I would not consider it cliche. That, however, is just my opinion, and to other readers, it could have been annoying and cliche.
|
|
|
|
Post by haleyjensen on Sept 18, 2013 5:53:35 GMT
When taking the position of believing that this story is not a cliché, it's hard to get around the fact that this story definitely presents some themes that are present across many works of literature. However, I think a key part of the definition of cliché is that it in a clichéd message, the meaning of the story is lost. I do not think this is the story is cliché; rather, I think it puts a fresh spin on a familiar, important message using familiar archetypes. I think Amy nailed it when she described archetypes as subtle. If someone had told me that a story called Cathedral ended with a grown blind man sitting on the floor of a house with another grown drawing under the influence of intoxicants, I would not have believed them. Yet, I see enough similarities between the characters/message in Cathedral and characters/message across other works of literature, that I think this story is effectively an archetype. Cathedral communicates messages of friendship and acceptance without directly coming out and saying that it is a story about friendship and acceptance (the latter being something a cliché would do).
One of the tools that helps draw the line between cliché and archetype is analyzing how a theme is presented. Others have already touched upon this subject, and noted the story's different flavor with it's use of an unexpected plot--this is exactly what I mean by how a theme is presented. The quarterback and the cheerleader, for instance, is an overdone story that often targets the emotions of young adolescents. Thus, by the time people start to mature in their literature and film tastes, this storyline quickly looses it's appeal. For some reason, High School Musical is coming to mind as an example of this. Although there are definitely some legitimate messages in it (friendship, the relative unimportance of social expectations, ect.), the movie is crafted in a way to resemble many other movies about high school friends and drama. Add a few more swear words and some raunchier scenes, and you end up with a movie like Mean Girls. Cathedral, on the other hand, is unlike any story I've ever read. Sure Robert is vulnerable and underdog-ish, and Robert is initially a jerk who undergoes a change of heart, but I don't think those reasons alone cause the story to be cliché. If life's greatest messages weren't commonly included in literature, why would we continue to read? Why would books stick around? Archetypes are the more sophisticated side of the line between archetype and cliché.
I also think it's interesting to explore the purpose of archetypes. Why do the same messages frequently occur in literature? One reason I think it's easy to be irritated by repetitive themes is because our human nature longs for something exciting, something new. I think this longing can be dangerous, because the best lessons and stories in life are ones that withstand the test of time. When I run into trouble or get frustrated with archetypes, it's because that, as a reader and active partaker in life, it becomes easier for me to dismiss crucial, foundational things I've learned and overlook them because I feel like I've mastered them; familiarity can breed apathy. I get caught in this web of arrogance and forget how much I need the lessons I've already learned, and that I'm still learning them. Archetypal stories that present universal themes are forgiving, because they allow readers an outlet to re-learn some of the same lessons that humans abuse and neglect.
If I had to draw an official line between archetype and cliché, I would craft it using these questions: What's cheesy and what's deep? How does the story communicate the overall message? How many other movies or pieces of literature follow the same plot line? Does the message move you although you've heard it before? If it doesn't move you although you've heard it before, should it?
|
|
|
|
Post by jamiezimmerman on Sept 18, 2013 6:10:02 GMT
A cliche is derived from archetype. As I see it, an archetype can evolve into one of two things: a cliche or an innovation. It is very risky, trying to create innovation from archetype when it is so easy to slip into triteness. What separates the two is stylistic creativity - beautiful art can be made much more aesthetically pleasing if written or drawn more creatively. New perspective can also make the difference between archetype and cliche more distinguishable. If Art says exactly what has been said before it is a cliche. If Art says something that is nostalgic but definitely adds a new dimension to the previous school of thought, it is an innovation. No art can ever really be pure. It always builds upon the constructs of others. In fact, the entire institution of jazz music is based on this principle. An improvisational solo is twisted and formed into a work of art that is personal to the current musician. That is how to play jazz - it is required to steal from other people and make it your own. In this way, Cathedral follows an archetype but doesn't become a cliche. The archetype is the blind man helping the other man "see". But it offers a lot of new sentiments that develop out of literary allusions and styles that are new to us. There are a lot of connections to be made that engender notions of omnipresent vision. Most of all, Cathedral makes us feel very concentrated emotions in a very tangible way; you just don't feel the same way about cliche story lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by billfeng on Sept 18, 2013 6:11:32 GMT
“Life is full of archetypes.” This was one of the main messages I was able to take out of the previous short-story, “Bullet in the Brain”. As Cassie said, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for stories in modern day not follow an archetype that has already set precedent. Where I disagree with Cassie and Adam, though, is that there is a large gap between the archetype and the cliche.
As Mr. Parris defined (and Joel clarified later on), there is a negative connotation that surrounds a cliche. All squares may be rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. This rudiment from geometry class can be applied in a same manner to archetypes and cliches. As so, I agree with Jamie that a cliche is a negative derivative of the archetype. I follow an aesthetic credo in which I believe that an effective work of art must bring upon a transformation to me. Unfortunately, “Cathedral” does very little to meet this concept. It’s not that Carver’s story is poorly written, rather, his minimalist style and irritable presentation of the narrator distances me from the story. It’s not a bad thing that “Cathedral” follows the common “After-school-special” archetype; what makes the story cliche to me is that Carver’s bigot character, the narrator, has no redeeming quality to him. Reading the first few sentences of “Cathedral”, I already predicted the ending correctly. Carver tries to mark the reader’s view of the narrator with contempt early on in the short story. But, he does very little to redeem the character at the end. With a minimalist “zero ending”, I am left somewhat unsatisfied and cheated by the story.
In conclusion, I feel that the message Carver tries to present is too convoluted by the hostility he puts in the narrator. I would’ve been more pleased if Carver didn’t hastily push the dramatic arc to the point that my emotional investment became blanched.
Carver did not lazily wrote “Cathedral”, but I do believe that the pitfalls of the archetypal story makes it cliche.
|
|
|
|
Post by rileyhatfield on Sept 18, 2013 6:20:52 GMT
I find the line between a cliche and an archetype to be one in the same. Except maybe the archetype line is more formal and classy looking compared to the cliche and people tend to want to hang out with the archetype more because it is less annoying than a cliche. Even the Wikipedia definitions sound the same, just worded differently. The dictionary describes archetypes as "pure forms" while cliches are "irritating." The concepts are the same to me because they both simply portray a certain work, action, etc., in a perpetual form. But the difference is that archetypes appeal to everyone more since the wording is more attractive and even more creative than a common cliche. Also, archetypes tend to be more sophisticated. Almost anyone can pick out a cliche from a movie or a book, but an archetype is hidden between the lines most of the time, where one has to search through some flowery language to find it.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Sept 18, 2013 6:36:54 GMT
As many previous responses can tell you, no specific criteria can truly draw the line between archetype and cliché. Although we prefer well-defined distinctions to hazy uncertainties, the distinction between archetype and cliché, in reality, often relies on the perspective of the author or the reader. Yet for today, I will do my best to draw what I believe to be this fine literary line.
Generally speaking, the words “pattern of behavior” in Wikipedia’s definition of an archetype are the most helpful in understanding the distinction. Patterns require repetition, and repetition implies that a series of factors logically affects an entity in the same way for a number of trials. Thus, an archetype serves as a law of literature, so to speak. If you plug in x, the answer is y. If you place a character here, he will end up there. Simply put, an archetype represents a logical progression of events that could be expected to repeat itself, regardless of the character or setting involved.
Clichés, on the other hand, tend to skip the fine details and jump to the conclusion. An archetype can certainly result in a clichéd ending, but a cliché – in isolation – skips the logical steps of behavior that accompany an archetype. Thus, readers often feel cheated by clichés, as they often lack the logic and evidence necessary to compel the reader to buy into the perfect, romantic ending.
That said, “Cathedral” makes for a strong example of a cliché. The story lacks a logical build-up towards the conclusion. Rather, the blind-phobic man suddenly “opens his eyes” as he draws a rough sketch of a cathedral. The ending, which is focused on the beautiful irony between the narrator closing his physical eyes and opening his metaphysical eyes, comes out of nowhere. The reader has a hunch that such an ending will occur simply because the reader is accustomed to seeing similar events – not because the author has properly set up the ending using a logical pattern of behavior. Thus, whether or not the cliché ruins the story is arguable, but the line between cliché and archetype has certainly been drawn.
|
|
|
|
Post by jessicapollard on Sept 18, 2013 6:47:23 GMT
For some reason or another, I always feel somewhat ashamed for feeling affected by what others may deem as 'cliche' or uncool. Just this week in PAS class we watched Sean Koyczan preform his poem "To This Day" and while the room was filled with bored looks of 'meh' for many, I still found myself tearing up despite my having heard the poem multiple times. I already know that bullying is an awful awful thing, and yet hearing it from Koyczan-- however cliched his points may be-- elicits this extreme emotional response within me. As I mentioned in class before, somedays I think you just have to let yourself fall for the cheese, so to speak.
It is easy to throw an eyeroll in the direction of "Cathedral", as the resonating idea of 'seeing v. Seeing' is oft the central point in cheezy ABC Family original films. While the idea itself may already be well-processed by readers from previous experiences, it is the execution of "Cathedral" that makes it worthy of chills.
Firstly, it is worth noting that the narrator's 'eye-opening' experience has been tainted by drug use. It is entirely possible that his night could've ended much more plainly has he skipped out on the random midnight-toke. This in itself seperates "Cathedral" from other run-of-the-mill stories that may be emittting similiar ideas.
Secondly, I really cannot see the fault in allowing the re-packaging of already known information impact you. Mr.Parris once spoke in class about how the film Avatar merely re-enforced our blantant anti-racism ideologies. Yes, perhaps those experiencing these 'cliches' through art are not exposed to new ideas, but their already prominent passions may be resparked, which I find to be just as important. To me, it is not so much the ingenuity of the message being presented, but moreso the ingenuity of the presentation. This is why to me, "Cathedral" was extremely impactful. Its non-chalant tone interestingly contrasted the deep meaning at hand. Is the repackaging of cliches in a new and interesting way an archetype?
|
|
|
|
Post by shannonfender on Sept 18, 2013 6:47:53 GMT
Clichés and archetypes are tricky, because there is little to distinguish one from the other. Both (on many occasions) have felt overdone and unoriginal, yet we still hold greater appreciation for a classic archetypal structure over a typical, clichéd tale.
I went into this journal thinking I would write about how archetypes and clichés are essentially the same, but then I tried to apply this idea to "Cathedral". As we know, "Cathedral" tells the story of an unhappy man who learns to appreciate something he couldn’t understand. Although this initially seems very clichéd, Carver somehow saves his story from being unbearably corny. As a result, I couldn't commit to defining a cliché and archetype as the same thing. I believe there are two distinctions between these story types: character complexity and plot/theme limitation. I’ll begin with character complexity.
An almost essential aspect of reading is this notion of the “human experience”. We do not read literature that extends beyond our social/comprehensive realm- This is why almost every non-human character (in books that either have no human beings or have a non-human main character) exhibits some sort of anthropomorphic qualities. A cliché takes a particular human stereotype and simplifies it to a grotesquely basic form. Then, the writer roots that trait within a single character. With this lack of complexity, the reader is left with nothing to relate to. We as multi-dimensional human beings cannot relate to a one-dimensional character. Thus, the story as a whole seems hollow and “clichéd”.
In contrast, archetypes offer diversity. An archetype lays down a model that can be loosely followed rather than strictly adhered to. This not only allows for development of character, but also creates expansive plot and thematic possibilities. Carver does this in Cathedral with the blind man and the main character. The dynamic between these two characters not only creates a diverse story line, but also creates the extended cathedral metaphor. Contrarily, clichés limit room for a plot or theme to grow, and I do not believe that Carver’s work is deserving of such a title. That being said, "Cathedral" does fall short in the realm of character complexity. The main character comes across as a grouchy man and not much more. Carver does not even attempt to characterize the wife in the story, and the blind man is simply a mystical and inexplicably wise old man. I'm nervous to define "Cathedral" as an archetypal story or a cliche, but I think it's important to think about it before labeling the story as one thing or another.
|
|
rishi
New Member
Posts: 38 
|
Post by rishi on Sept 18, 2013 6:53:55 GMT
One warm summer evening, I was peacefully napping by my window, relishing the rare tranquility of my high-school life. For once, I could not hear anything but the gentle wind flowing through the maple trees in my yard. But like all beautiful things, this came to a quick end: suddenly, I heard the explosion of dramatic music coming from downstairs. Great, my parents were watching another movie. I could hear the frantic violins accompanying an intense bass line as the protagonist confessed his passion for his lover. I could hear the booming of the timpani as the protagonist’s father promptly rejected this forbidden love. A few minutes later, I joined my family on the couch in front of the television, only to witness the aforementioned lovers blissfully reuniting and dancing in the rain…again. Was this movie Romeo and Juliet? No, but I am sure that this legendary play served as an archetype for what I was watching – or what I always watched – with my family. Yes, we were watching a Bollywood movie, a movie that had fundamentally the same plot as hundreds of other cliché Bollywood movies that I had already watched.
Examining Mr. Parris’s definitions (the Wikipedia definitions) of an archetype and a cliché, it is fair to say that the word “archetype” typically holds a positive connotation while the word “cliché” almost always presents a negative one. Despite this distinct difference between the two words, I believe that a cliché is a subcategory of an archetype. A cliché always is an archetype, but an archetype is not always cliché. An immediate objection to the previous statement would be: no, clichés (negative implications) cannot be placed within the domain of archetypes (positive implications). While this is true, it is important to note that not all archetypes carry a positive undertone. A cliché is by definition merely an archetype “...which has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning.” To draw a clear line between an archetype and a cliché, we must examine how closely any given work of art imitates another work of art from the past.
A cliché can be seen as a lazy, overused imitation, but isn’t that also what an archetype is? In cases such as these, determining the border between two distinct titles is variable to perception. It is up to the reader to determine if a work of art is cliché, if a work of art "...has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning.” Like some have already mentioned, past experiences have a significant effect in one's determination of whether a work of art is cliché. What if I had not watched hundreds of Bollywood movies that all had relatively the same plot? Would I still think that all movies that stem from the Romeo and Juliet archetype are cliché? Probably not or not nearly as much as I do now. But what makes Romeo and Juliet an archetype and not a cliché? Could it be the fact that it was one of the first of its kind? Or maybe it became an archetype because of its relevant theme of the nature of love and violence.
Substitute family names for vampires and humans and we create Twilight, a work of art that has received much commercial success. Judging from its commercial success, it is reasonable to assume that Twilight is not publicly deemed as cliché. While some may argue that Twilight's success can be attributed to actors Taylor Lautner and Robert Pattinson, I believe that its success stems from the movie/novel's stark differences from other Romeo and Juliet-inspired works of art. Although the concepts of love and violence in the Twilight series are similar to that of Romeo and Juliet, Twilight is written in a completely different setting, with a completely different style, and with completely different characters (vampires!). Clichés are created from using an archetype and minimally changing details such as character names and setting, but clichés can be avoided by telling a familiar story with unique twists. It is up to the audience to decide whether these "twists" are truly unique.
Connecting this distinction between clichés and archetypes to "Cathedral" by Raymond Carver, I think that the story was clearly cliché. This is clearly demonstrated at the end of the story as the narrator closes his physical eyes only to see what Robert, the blind man, sees. Before, the narrator seemed to scorn Robert, but all of a sudden, he starts to appreciate Robert's lack of sight as his "eyes were still closed" (Carver 108) even after Robert asks the narrator to open them. The reader anticipates this epiphany due to past experiences and readings: the epiphany always comes at the end. To argue this, I turn to Charles Dicken's classic story, A Christmas Carol in which the cranky and hated Ebenezer Scrooge reaches a revelation at the conclusion that he needs to become more thoughtful in order for people to appreciate him. In Dicken's novel, this revelation is achieved through the visits of three ghosts, but in "Cathedral," the narrator's revelation almost comes out of nowhere; the narrator suddenly gains an appreciation for Robert's lack of sight. As I said in the beginning of my post, all beautiful things come to an end; all beautiful archetypes ultimately create clichés, but it is up to the audience to judge whether the uniqueness of a work of art truly avoids a cliché.
|
|
|
|
Post by yongkim on Sept 18, 2013 7:00:57 GMT
NOTE: I honestly did not realize Bill talked about the rectangle rule until after I started to write about it... I see you, Bill.
Hopefully everyone remembers the mathematical rule: every square is a rectangle but not every rectangle is a square. When I read the thread, I immediately thought the "rectangle rule" concept would be applicable to this archetype vs cliche debate. I personally believe that every archetype is a cliche; however, not every cliche is an archetype.
As others have stated before, a cliche is almost always used as a pejorative term. However, an archetype starts as a cliche but possesses a distinctive quality which sets it apart from the other overused ideas. The overall message of "Cathedral" is very cliche in that Robert, the blind man, teaches someone to SEE without the use of vision. Carver's use of the "zero ending", which allows the reader to interpret the ending, is what pushed "Cathedral" passed the line and toward the archetype side. When the narrator woke up the next day, was he completely changed? What would have made this story cliche for me is if the narrator woke up and was completely changed due to his revelation the night before. In reality, the narrator most likely woke up the next day with the memory of "seeing the cathedral with his eyes closed" but not a radical change in his views. Thus, I also agree with Steve in that Carver's style (character development, zero ending, etc) is what pushed "Cathedral" into the territory of archetypes. The reason why cliches do not appeal to us is due to their predictable nature; however, "Cathedral" gave the reader the freedom to create an ending.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbylyons on Sept 18, 2013 7:05:50 GMT
To make my position clear, I would like to point out that I strongly disagree with much of Jungian psychology. I like to think of humans as being born with no knowledge whatsoever – the “blank slate” theory. A common example of an archetype is the primordial beast. However, I do not think it is an “inherited unconscious idea.” Young children do not know that they should be afraid when a rabid tiger is about to attack them. They learn that tigers are dangerous because society presents them that way. As individuals see more and more related ideas through various mediums, archetypes and clichés form in their minds. As for cross-cultural archetypes, they exist because the human experience is surprisingly similar even in completely different societies. Everyone experiences joy and sorrow, life and death, fear and comfort, etc. The emotional connections between people are what archetypes refer to – not some elaborate inborn fluff.
An archetype is an idea that humans constantly need to be reminded of. This happens especially in relationships. When two people spend enough time around each other, they become increasingly argumentative and antagonistic toward each other as they begin to feel annoyed with each other while the need to impress one another with kindness has diminished. To avoid this, a person in such a relationship should put themselves in the other person’s shoes and experience what the other person is feeling. Doing so will lead to reconciliation. We all know that, before getting angry at a person, we should “walk a mile in his shoes.” But can this message ever be stressed enough? We still have much to take away from a novel like To Kill a Mockingbird, which presents the message in a refreshing yet familiar way.
A cliché, on the other hand, is not so universal. One example is “Always tell the truth, that way you’ll have less to remember.” There are many situations when dealing with an interpersonal relationship in which it would be unwise to tell the truth, the complete truth and nothing but the truth. On the other hand, understanding the other person’s feelings is essential.
When it comes to “Cathedral”, I firmly believe that the idea presented is an archetype. Forming generalizations is a part of human nature, so we humans need to be constantly reminded that we should get to know a person before passing judgment on him or her. Even though we all know that it’s wrong to make quick judgments about people, we still do it anyway. There is no limit to how much we need to be reminded of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by patricktbutenhoff on Sept 18, 2013 13:46:50 GMT
I think that the main difference between archetypes and cliches is in effectiveness. Cliches are old maxims gone wrong. They are used and overused and misused so many times that they no longer carry any meaning (#YOLO). Archetypes, however, have the potential to be effective. Unlike cliches, they never grow old because they are an integral part of human nature, and because the story they tell is the story of humanity, unlike cliches, which more often than not are artificial, archetypes can always be effective. "Cathedral" does not slip immediately into the world of the cliched. The intolerant narrator and the wise blind man are archetypes. They don't immediately rouse the dread that one has read this exact story hundreds of times before. The setup still leaves room for plenty of originality, plenty of comment on the nature of the human race. It is not until the narrator learns of his misdeeds and repents of them after being enlightened by the blind man that the story descends into cliche. The author could have killed the cliche, ground it into dust by proclaiming that the blind man has left, the only trace of change on the narrator being slight irritation at being forced to have a houseguest. But he didn't, and we all knew what was going to come next, with no significant twists or deviations. "Cathedral" slips into the realm of cliche because there's nothing new there. Earlier I defined great literature as that which made me see the world with different eyes. "Cathedral" did not shift my perspective of the universe one iota. It lacks either the originality or eye-opening truth to keep from being a cliche.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anna M. on Sept 18, 2013 15:52:57 GMT
Stories with similar archetypes have similar messages and even similar characters, but they aren't cliches. After reading a cliche you feel unchanged by the story, like nothing was really revealed by the author. A cliches share a story and message so familiar that once you finish reading you have zero questions because it seems that all the other cliches have accustomed you to whatever story or idea you have just read. For stories with the same Archetype you can take something away from the story, even if its just more questions or a strange feeling in the pit of your stomach. Many things in Cathedral keep it on the side of the Archetype rather than the cliche. Mainly, in the end you have no idea exactly how the new understanding that the Narrator gains about Robert will affect their relationships and the dynamics of the three people afterwards. Another non-cliche in the story is the way that they bond. Robert and the Narrator break ritual by drawing a ritual-based object together. Their are several messages that Carver weaves into his short story and therefore his story is not a cliche because cliche's have one lesson to share. If Cathedral was a cliche then its only message would be "always be open to others", or something like that, but other themes and morals can be taken from the novel. When a story uses a unique situation to weave together many different ideas and messages, then it is my belief that the story shouldn't just be ruled out as a "cliche".
|
|
|
|
Post by Adrian Harter on Sept 18, 2013 20:00:36 GMT
The difference between "cliche" and "archetype" might seem blurred at times, but I strongly believe that there are some fundamentally different principles. Cliche is the celebration of the properties of archetype, extracting what an archetype does and planting those extractions into an entirely different environment. For instance, the classic cliche "There are always more fish in the ocean" is an offshoot of the archetype of lust, the desire of all humans to seek intimacy with another member of the species. Lust and love are not cliches themselves, but because they are inherent in all humans, there is no practical need to create a phrase to illustrate the feeling. Cliches then act as relievers of pressure, a soothing mechanism for those who need it and pure torture to listen to for those who are not in need of consolation. In "The Cathedral", the protagonist's progress towards empathy is purely archetypical. There are no concrete mentions of how he progressed, nor what he was feeling, only the confirmation that he understands the circumstances of others. The ambiguous nature of the ending is what defines the piece as a whole; the reader is now forced to reflect on the matter of empathy, because all readers naturally have the capability of compassion. The protagonist's empathy was not spliced into a situation where it became forced or learned, but rather was inevitability awakened by human interaction.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertxu on Sept 28, 2013 21:29:16 GMT
Chris and Shannon both talk about how the lines between a cliche and an archetype are blurred. Personally, I believe that whether a work of art is inherent in the work itself. Mr. Parris talked about how it is easy to tell which it is through the emotional effect that the work garners. Archetypes feel "profound" and cliches feel "lazy". The largest factors that determine which category something falls into are the originality/level of quality. For example, Drake was not the first person to incorporate singing/laughing, but he is definitely the most successful person to do so. He is the archetype of the introspective, sensitive rapper that can occasionally release a hard core "banger" like "9 A.M. in Dallas" or "Started from the Bottom". Drake's archetypal status rests on his originality, his success and the quality of work that he puts out (quality beats and unique lines/flows). If I, on the other hand, decided to recorded a rap on my laptop using garageband where I sang about ex-girlfriends with auto-tune for half the song and rapped about being "tough" for the other half, it would come off as cliched, and a little creepy. After reading a few posts up, I have come to the realization that many in our class think that "Cathedral" is a cliche and not an archetype. I don't think "Cathedral" can be put into either category. While I agree with Chris and others in saying that the model of an ignorant person reforming after coming in contact with a less fortunate person is overused, I believe that "Cathedral" has much more to offer than just that. Personally, I enjoyed the banal descriptions of everyday life: awkward conversations about desert, lighting up a "marijuana cigarette" on the couch, and watching late night historical programs. The juxtaposition of the everyday descriptions along with the profound message about acceptance that the narrator learns at the end just saves the short story from cliched mediocrity. With that being said, "Cathedral" is definitely not an archetype simply because archetypal status should inherent in stories/other works, and clearly many readers (including myself) did not experience an "emotional epiphany" with the narrator at the end.
|
|
