Squalls certainly failed to make an effective argument. Throughout the essay there are several instances where Bethink Squalls doesn’t consistently malting her focus. Bethink Squalls makes a weak Introduction and conclusion. The essay consistently has redundancy and contradiction, which makes her argument weak. Squalls argument was that the plot was not excellent and “the truth Is nothing much appends” (43).
The essay was all over the place and failed to consistently malting her focus of proving that “Cathedral” was a story with no plot. The focus constantly switches throughout the essay. In one paragraph Bethink Squalls talks about how isolated the narrator is and then two paragraphs later the focus is shifted to the narrator “gaining empathy and forges a bond with Robert over the drawing of a cathedral” (45). Squalls never gives us concise evidence that the plot was uninteresting. In the essay, the shift of focus weakens the argument.
The introduction of the essay explains some background information on the story “Cathedral”; the essay was supposed to be about “A Narrator’s Blindness” and instead Squalls talks about how the plot was disappointing and nothing much happens. The title doesn’t relate to the introduction in any way. The opening paragraph illustrates that the story climax was when they were drinking cocktails and smoking pot. The conclusion almost contradicts the title by saying, “The narrator’s view of the world is en filled with misconceptions that the visit from Robert starts to slowly change” (45).
Leading up to the conclusion Squalls doesn’t give enough context on why she believes the narrator is closed-minded. The opening and closing take the credibility away from the argument of “The Narrator’s Blindness,” the essay fails to have a steady progression of well-supported arguments toward a strong conclusion. The essay was full of redundancy and contradiction to prove her argument was a failure. Squalls repeatedly used the word isolation to describe the narrator.
Instead of using the same word, more explanation and facts from the story would have been more beneficial to prove the argument. Towards the end Squalls contradicted her own words, which pretty much made the essay take a dive for the worst. First, she states, “However even at the it isn’t clear Just whether or how the narrator has changed” (45). One paragraph later Squalls states that; ‘The narrator’s evils from Robert starts to slowly change his view on the world” (45). These two statements from the essay make a great case for how the argument was not effective.
Cathedral” was most certainly not your average story with some excellent plot but Squalls failed tremendously on making an effective argument. At times In the essay the reader ponders the question of what point Squalls Is trying to make here. The focus of the story was constantly shifted. The intro and conclusion were not very argument off the cliff. Works Cited Squalls, Bethink. “A Narrators Blindness in Raymond Carver’s ‘Cathedral The Norton Introduction To Literature. De. Allison Booth and Kelly J. Mays. New York: W. W Norton & co. , 2010. 43-45. Print.