Monday, February 18, 2013

Andrea Abbott, Blog 2, New Crit.- "Cathedral"


In the short story, “Cathedral,” by Raymond Carver, a blind man visits an old-time friend, whom used to work as his assistant. Over the years the couple exchanged tapes of themselves to each other, discussing vital occurrences from moving and divorces to the death of a loved one. Eventually, Robert (the blind man) comes to stay at her house where her recent husband reveals no enthusiasm and makes the situation into a dreadful one. As the plot unravels, the pre-judging and self-pitying husband realizes the actual joys of letting go of sight and listening to the heart within. Through a simple interaction, the ironic spouse develops the understanding that although Robert cannot see in a literal sense, he (the husband) remained the “blind” man.

Before the man arrived, the husband concluded the “pathetic” life he lived just because of stories he learned from his wife. After hearing about the death of Robert’s wife he “found [himself] thinking what a pitiful life this woman must have led… who could never see herself as she was seen in the eyes of her loved one.” Then, as the narrator’s wife left to pick her friend up at the depot, he blamed the man for making him wait at home. Everything about Robert made the husband cringe, and although he expresses it as self-pity and sorrow, he seemed almost jealous because of the intimate and influential relationship shared between the two. Previously, the wife wrote a poem and shared with her husband about the blind man touching her face, and “recalled his fingers and the way they had moved around over her.” In response the narrator did not “think much about the poem.” Later on, however, the green within his face rose to surface as the friends “talked of things that had happened to them [over the] past ten years.” Robert “waited in vain to hear [his] name on [his] wife’s sweet lips… but heard nothing of the sort. [Just] more talk of Robert.” Then, the husband stood up to turn the TV on, perhaps out of boredom, but maybe also to remind himself who the superior, un-jealous one in the room is—the one who can see.

As the story goes on, and the two men focus on the TV program, Robert asks the husband to explain what a cathedral looks like. With a loss of words, the man stumbles over himself in finding just the right description. Robert tells the man to draw a picture of the building with him, and as he places his hand on top of Robert’s finally words are unnecessary—the strokes, lines and figures explain it all. Then, the blind man said “close your eyes” and as he did he thought, “It was like nothing else in my life up to now.” Although the husband pitied Robert before, he now sat there with his eyes closed longer than necessary taking in the absolute peace of experiencing the world from a deeper and wider perspective, and “felt like he was inside nothing,”—because not even  the walls of his house could control his imagination and new understanding.

Carver used a problematic and resolution plot structure with various ironies, and created the narrator’s character to help us grow as readers. The short story confronted stereotypes and misinterpretations one might conclude, and in doing so we, like the husband, may not be so blind anymore.

3 comments:

  1. Good post, I like your style of writing. I have a couple questions though, near the end of the 2nd paragraph is it supposed to be "The Husband “waited in vain to hear [his] name on [his] wife’s sweet lips… but heard nothing of the sort. [Just] more talk of Robert.” instead of Robert waiting? That part confused me since his name is Robert. Another question I had was the paradox in the story, it did not seem entirely clearly identified, but especially in your conclusion. I'm guessing the paradox is that the husband is the real 'blind man.' If so make sure you re-identify that in your conclusion for your essay. Good luck!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Andrea,

    Your summary on the whole is effective. A few small issues: the two aren’t and haven’t been a “couple” – this indicates a romantic/sexual relationship.

    “Recent” husband implies he’s no longer her husband, and a person can’t actually be ironic (his/her actions can).
    You imply conflict here but don’t identify it explicitly; you may want to do so. (“Through a simple interaction, the ironic spouse develops the understanding that although Robert cannot see in a literal sense, he (the husband) remained the “blind” man.)

    “Before the man arrived, the husband concluded the “pathetic” life he lived just because of stories he learned from his wife.” As written, this sentence literally says the husband dies because of these stories. I know this isn’t what you mean; watch pronoun use/placement and grammar. The small issues I’ve already addressed are grammar/syntax problems. Because you’re dealing with two male characters, be especially carefully with “he/his” use – it isn’t always clear to which one you refer.

    What follows, beginning with “After hearing about the death of Robert’s wife . . . and ending with “Then, the husband stood up to turn the TV on, perhaps out of boredom, but maybe also to remind himself who the superior, un-jealous one in the room is—the one who can see” is a lot of detailed summary. Too much summary, too little analysis. Later on, however, the green within his face rose to surface as the friends “talked of things that had happened to them [over the] past ten years.” Robert “waited in vain to hear [his] name on [his] wife’s sweet lips… but heard nothing of the sort. [Just] more talk of Robert.”

    So far, there are a few hints of New Criticism, but you haven’t named a paradox, resolved it, dealt concretely with irony, ambiguity or tension. You’ll want to use the language of New Criticism to explain the text; this will help move from light implication to effective claim.
    This, too, is all summary: “As the story goes on, and the two men focus on the TV program, Robert asks the husband to explain what a cathedral looks like. With a loss of words, the man stumbles over himself in finding just the right description. Robert tells the man to draw a picture of the building with him, and as he places his hand on top of Robert’s finally words are unnecessary—the strokes, lines and figures explain it all. Then, the blind man said “close your eyes” and as he did he thought, “It was like nothing else in my life up to now.” Although the husband pitied Robert before, he now sat there with his eyes closed longer than necessary taking in the absolute peace of experiencing the world from a deeper and wider perspective, and “felt like he was inside nothing,”—because not even the walls of his house could control his imagination and new understanding.” Well written and observant, but you aren’t analyzing these moments, just retelling them. You DO move on to analysis below, which is great:

    “Carver used a problematic and resolution plot structure with various ironies, and created the narrator’s character to help us grow as readers. The short story confronted stereotypes and misinterpretations one might conclude, and in doing so we, like the husband, may not be so blind anymore.” Not sure what you mean by “resolution plot structure”. Are you trying to say the author uses a complicated/complex conflict that’s ultimately resolved? I do note that you write consistently in past tense (“The short story confronted stereotypes”, for example) – as always, stick to present tense. ) This is a great point: “and in doing so we, like the husband, may not be so blind anymore.” It would work best in the conclusion, though, in terms of discussing the influence/timelessness of the text. As it actively invokes the reader’s response, it shouldn’t be part of the body for a New Critical analysis. Regardless, more of this (what’s in the last paragraph) and less of what comes early on (lots and lots of summary), and the paper will come together nicely, I think.
    A

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kelsey makes a good observation here: "I'm guessing the paradox is that the husband is the real 'blind man.' This is certainly ironic, but as stated isn't a paradox exactly (a paradox might be "the seeing husband is literally equipped with vision while concurrently being emotionally and psychologically blind", etc.)

    ReplyDelete