Category Archives: JM13D

Raymond Carver is right about tension being an integral part of a story.  That goes for any story, even parts of a story.  One scene from a movie won’t work if there isn’t tension in it.  Tension, menace, whatever you wanna call it is the tie that binds any good story together.  Without tension there is no point in watching, reading, or listening to anything.

In Cathedral Carver does a great job of following his own advice.  This is also a good example of the fact that tension, or menace can be portrayed in many different ways, it doesn’t have to be a fight or something violent between two people.  By being inside of the husbands head the whole time we see the tension that he has in himself over his own anxieties about meeting Robert.  This makes you tense while you read the story because you never know if he is going to do something stupid or embarrassing to himself or his wife, regarding Robert’s blindness.  It’s like watching NASCAR, the whole story you are waiting for a crash and that makes it entertaining (although I found this more entertaining then a NASCAR race!).  The more they drink the more you expect something bad to happen, then when he gets Robert high for the first time you think “there’s no way this is going to end good!”

What I liked about this story though is the fact that it does end good.  Even though you expect it to go bad at some point, it never does, and I think even that is part of the tension.  The unexpected ending is always a source of tension.  This is a great short story that definitely follows the authors own advice.  It’s also kind of funny to think that just a short story about an old family friend, who is blind, could bring so much tension.  It’s also easy to relate to, most of us have been in the position of spending time with someone we don’t know, drinking too much, smoking weed and most of the time things don’t end as well as they did for the husband and Robert.  This is great use of normal everyday things, in normal everyday circumstances being used to create a source of tension.

Once you’re immersed in a relationship, it’s difficult to fathom being alone again.  People forget what to do with their free time, how to sleep by themselves.  Stereotypically, this happens more often to females, who are depicted as prisoners of their own emotions, unable to escape a bad situation because they can’t bear the thought of “losing” someone. In Ernest Hemingway’s controversial short story “Hills Like White Elephants” and Nathaniel Hawthorne’s twisted “The Birth Mark”, we meet two female characters whose happiness is entirely reliant upon the approval that their partners provide, and two men who pray on this need.
Jig, Hemingway’s lost girl, seems apprehensive and nervous about the abortion her boyfriend is pushing her to get.  However, she is put somewhat at ease when he promises her that he will love her afterward, that they can pick up from where they left off.  He tells her that he will start appreciating her anecdotes, her quirky comments again once the situation is taken care of.  Jig realizes that in order to keep him from leaving her, she has to go through with it, even saying that she “doesn’t care” about herself or what she wants.  She wishes that they could have it all-a family, a life together-but recognizes that he doesn’t want that with her.  The reader is able to detect the incredible melancholy of the day,  how the characters are numbing themselves with alcohol in the oppressive heat.  From my perspective, this abortion is the turning point in their relationship.  Jig, perhaps for the first time, understands that the situation is real, that her feelings are not reciprocated, that this child is something else she is going to sacrifice for someone who will never understand, and never try.  “The American” the nameless, faceless impregnator, can sense her desperation and anguish and exploits it.  He knows what she needs to hear-that he loves her, that the operation is quick and safe, that the choice is hers.  What he really means is “you have a choice-either this baby or me”.  Plying her with alcohol before she makes the final decision whether to go through with the procedure is a really suave move, too.
In Hawthorne’s tale of love and obsession, Georgiana  is so influenced by her husband, Alymer, that she dies at his hand trying to reach his idea of perfection.  Having no prior issues with her appearance, Georgiana so respects her husband’s opinion that she, too, grows disgusted by the benign crimson hand.  Although both characters seem to know that there is something strange and deep rooted about her birth mark, he makes her feel so unworthy of love, so broken, that says she would rather die than live with her perceived “flaw”.  Alymer seems to want Georgiana to be a “marble statue” and not a wife, a monument to his own scientific genius.  He cuts away at her very humanity and destroys her self worth mercilessly.  Alymer is fully aware that there are “risks” to the surgery and as his dream foreshadows, has a hunch that she will die.  However, like The American, he manipulates his woman into unnecessary medical procedures for his own selfish reasons.
The women in these stories make me sad.  Their idea of “happiness” is so inherently tied to their relationship status that they are willing to sacrifice everything to keep their partners from leaving them.  The men can sense this weakness and desire to be loved and, subconsciously or not, use this to get their own way.  I feel disgusted by the selfish behavior of the males, who think nothing of risking the psychological or physical health of their mates, and want to shake Jig and Georgiana by the shoulders for being so pathetic.  Apparently, happiness for women is forgetting who you are and allowing a man to make all major life decisions for you.

Cathedral presents the story of a blind man’s visit through the eyes of a wary narrator, one who makes it quite clear that the presence of a stranger–and a blind one at that–is not something he welcomes into his home with open arms. The tension is palpable even before Robert steps through the doorway, and it stems not only from the narrator’s preconceived notions of how the blind should be, but also his own insecurities and lack of confidence.

The narrator makes it a point to never refer to his wife’s last husband by name, calling him instead “the childhood sweetheart” and acting as if even the mention of his real name would be a threat to his marriage. It’s very obvious that he views Robert in a similar light, as he makes it a point to bring up several instances where the blind man and his wife’s relationship could have possibly bordered romantic, and comments negatively on many aspects of the other man’s appearance and actions.

Raymond Carver makes a good point of following his own advice, as even just the opening section of Cathedral is enough to illustrate the underlying sensations of restlessness present in the narrator’s mind. The transition from these hostile feelings that the narrator experiences to a more willing acceptance comes gradually, as he struggles to find common ground with a stranger whom he initially believes is too different to get along with. Unlike the theme of our English class, what the narrator experiences isn’t happiness. But it’s definitely a start in the right direction.

I like it when there is some feeling of threat or sense of menace in short stories. I think a little menace is fine to have in a story. For one thing, it’s good for the circulation. There has to be tension, a sense that something is imminent, that certain things are in relentless motion, or else, most often, there simply won’t be a story. What creates tension in a piece of fiction is partly the way the concrete words are linked together to make up the visible action of the story. But it’s also the things that are left out, that are implied, the landscape just under the smooth (but sometimes broken and unsettled) surface of things.

Wow! Raymond Carver sure follows his own advice, and this can be seen in his short story, “Cathedral.” While reading the short story, I felt that there was a sense of urgency–a sense of doom, almost. As if something bad was lying underneath Richard’s blindness. While reading the short story, I kept asking myself, “Is Richard really blind?” Carver drops a couple of fascinating points in this short story such as the narrator’s wife’s thigh being exposed and the narrator’s shift from calling Robert “the blind man” to calling him by his actual name after admitting he felt pity towards the old man. Likewise, the narrator’s attitude towards Robert is fascinating, as in the beginning, he already has some sort of resentment towards the blind man due to the stereotypes we associate with blind people. But, he was left flabbergasted when Robert appears to be quite confident, gregarious and even at times not blind (like when he was eating with a great amount of skill and etiquette).

Now, back to Carver’s quote, I do agree that the way words are grouped and the details that are left out usually make up the action and build up the suspense of a story. For example, what did the narrator actually draw? Why did he keep his eyes closed? Why does the narrator (and we, the readers) only know so little about the blind man’s wife? Did she even exist, or was she a figment of Robert’s imagination, meant to fill up the empty void that the narrator’s wife left..and if so, did he use the tapes in order to live out his fantasy? These are all questions I kept asking myself, and I wish I knew the answer to..but these unmentioned, seemingly unimportant details is what makes the story seem suspenseful.

Unfortunately, we’re also crippled by the narrator’s inability to be fluid and hold onto small details. Because of this, the narrator is successful in keeping the story seemingly ominous..but at the same time, we’re left with not knowing what he doesn’t know. This also contributes to the feeling of tension between the couple and the blind man because we are only seeing this short story through the narrator’s eyes.

But, at the end of the short story, that tension is cracked. By keeping his eyes closed, the narrator wants to step into Robert’s shoes. I felt that the strongest statement that the narrator shares in the short story is:

My eyes were still closed. I was in my house. I knew that. But I didn’t feel like I was inside anything.

Although we’re used to the narrator’s short and vague sentences, I felt that this was the moment in which he really did try to understand Robert..and he shares it with us in a fascinating way. To say he didn’t feel as if he were “inside anything” can relate to how being blind can make you unaware of your surroundings..so much so that you know where you are, but you don’t feel as if you’re there because you’re not able to experience it in the same way everyone else may. You’re not aware of the colors of the wall, how the sunlight floods in through the windows..how the drapes block out the outdoors. You’re just there. Floating, almost. A disconnected person..you might even feel like an outcast. But, at the same time..I feel that the narrator was able to understand Robert: Just because he is blind, doesn’t mean he can’t see. He can’t look, but he has the deep ability of seeing. This can be seen even through the interactions of the wife and Robert: Robert understands the narrator’s wife in a way that may be stronger than the narrator’s ability, because the narrator is only aware of his wife. He only looks at her..he doesn’t see her.

I know I’m all over the place, but the fact of the matter is that the more I think about this story..the more that I’m starting to realize that I’m starting to actually understand it better. I guess this is the problem with a lot of texts we’re given..for example, “The Story of an Hour”..if you just read it, you’ll believe that the wife may have died from being so happy to see her husband. But, from actually taking a closer read at the text..things start to come to the surface: The wife was unhappy with her marriage…she was happy her husband “died”..etc.

So, I’m starting to reflect back on this quote:

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.

At first, I found myself agreeing with the narrator, because again, we’re only seeing what’s unfolding through the narrator’s eyes. We’re only feeling what he’s feeling. He’s the one who shapes the story..the tone..the sense of urgency and almost impending danger with this blind man. But, after reading it again, it so obvious that the narrator doesn’t understand that you don’t need to look at someone for their physical worth to love them; no, you need to adore someone unconditionally and understand them in order for it to be called love. What Robert and his wife had was something special..something that went beyond the physical. He didn’t need to be aware of what she may have looked like. It’s a classic example of personality vs. the physical in a relationship. We live in a society where looks DO matter as selfish and as harsh as it may sound. But, Robert is here to remind us that it doesn’t have to be that way..it shouldn’t be that way. The narrator sees his wife but he doesn’t share such a deep connection with her because he only touches the surface of the relationship they’ve built. He doesn’t delve deep. And as a result, the wife has a better relationship with Robert..someone who does have the ability to focus on her inner being. All of this also reminds me of the difference between listening and hearing.

• Hearing: Sound waves hit the tympanic membrane, the vibration is amplified through the auditory ossicles and the vibrations cause compressions in the fluid within the cochlea, causing the hair cells to respond and send information to the vestibulocochlear nerve.
• Listening: The brain processes the knowledge received through the act of hearing and assigns meaning to it.
• Looking: Light passes through the lens..hits the retina, which stimulates our rods and sends images to the brain using the optic nerve.
• Seeing: The brain processes the knowledge received through the optic nerve and assigns meaning to it.

See what I did there? haha.

Overall, this story is short, yes. Vague due to the narrator..yes, somewhat. But, it goes so much more beyond that. If we just read it for its surface value, we would become ignorant like the narrator himself. But, if we try to understand it..try to delve deeper into its meaning, we can truly appreciate it.

There are many people today who think accomplishing a single task or goal will bring them everlasting happiness. We often hear people say: “if i lose weight, then i’ll be happy.” or “if a buy that big house or that new car, i’ll be happy.” But do such people truly gain the happiness they are looking for? By no means. Sooner than later, they find out that they have myriads of problems and issues they have to deal with. They realize that in this imperfect system of things we all dwell in no one can gain never ending happiness.

  This same attitude can be clearly seen in the characters Aylmer and the American in the story Like White Elephants. Aylmer who is obsessed with perfection wrongly assumes that making Georgiana’s face perfect will lead to to everlasting happiness. He wrongly assumes that this will make her certainly perfect. In his quest for perfection, sadness and grief is what is gained. It seems he hasn’t contemplated the issue very well. Will making Georgiana’s face up to his standards really make her perfect? Perfection means flawless, without sin or error. What if Georgiana had lived and Aylmers discovers attitudes he didn’t like will he still think she’s perfect? Does Aylmer see himself as a perfect man? To err is human, only God is perfect. Aylmer by his attitude thinks he is God.

      The American on the otherhand thinks getting rid of Jigs pregnancy will make life everlastingly happy. But is that true? does he really believe that? or he is just trying to evade his reponsibilities by killing the baby? just like people drink or use drugs in order to free themselves from their responsibilities and wrongfully assume that they are happy.

I was pretty upset when Prof. Kaufmen told the class that the next reading we had to do was from Nathaniel Hawthorne because I’ve actually never liked his writing. I’ve read the Scarlet Letter and excerpts from him but I really disliked how most of his work is depressing.

When I began reading the story I was not really paying attention to the details but when I got to page 266 I was very interested in the outcome of the story. At the end of the story I knew that this ending would because every time I read Hawthorne someone has to die. It’s depressing. When I was reading a story a question arose in my mind and it made a connection to “Hills Like White Elephants”.

Did Jig and Georgiana choose to have what happen to them happen?

In “Hills Like While Elephants” the man seems to give Jig a choice whether or not she wants the abortion. Every time I read the story I feel as if the man is not giving Jig a choice because “I don’t want you to do it if you don’t really want to.” was repeated many times. It’s as if he’s trying to give Jig the guilt trip, trying to make Jig feel guilty about not agreeing with him and ruining their love. The fact that the man knew about the procedure of abortion tells me that he was the one to bring up the idea. Throughout their conversation it seems like the man is nonchalant about Jig not wanting to do it but the man never backs down from the idea of abortion because he says ” I think it’s the best thing to do.”. We only know what the man wants but not Jig. Is that what Jig wanted?

For “The Birth-mark” I felt that it was very similar if not the same as “Hills Like White Elephants”. Aylmer wanted to get rid of Georgiana’s birthmark but he basically forced her to agree to it. Aylmer kept telling Georgiana that he disliked her birthmark and could get rid of it. Georgiana once asked if it was really possible and he got angry at her for doubting him. It turned out to be Aylmer was really obsessed with what he wanted her to be and didn’t care about what she wanted. Even Aylmer’s servant stated that he wouldn’t want to remove it. It seems like Georgiana gave in to what ever Aylmer wanted in the end.

Women at the times that Hawthorne and Hemingway lived in had very little power in society because households were Patriarchal. So I felt that Jig and Georgiana did not have a choice or a say it what was going to happen.

Did the author mean for Jig and Georgiana to have a choice at all?