Raymond Carver Writing Style

American writer Raymond Carver has been credited with reviving interest in short stories in the 1980’s because of his minimalistic style and zero endings. He wrote many successful short stories including “Chef’s House” and “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love”. His writing style has analogized with Edward Hopper, an American realist painter of the 1930’s-40’s. When comparing Carver’s story “Cathedral” to Hopper’s painting A Room in New York more closely, it becomes evident that they share similar characters, perspective, and elements of mood. Both pieces document a snapshot into the lives of two main characters. Carver and Hopper are both styled realists. This reflects in their depictions of their subjects because they all seem like

In Hopper’s painting, the viewers are outside on a street in New York and are looking into the scene. This perspective makes the audience feel unincluded and separate from the painting and subjects. In the short story, Carver makes the readers feel unincluded when he only uses simple phrases describing actions and leaves out the character’s deeper thoughts. In doing so, both pieces force the audience to dig deeper and read between the lines to figure out their significance and bigger picture. With this style and perspective comes ambiguity. “Cathedral” is left with a zero ending that causes the reader to develop their own interpretation of denouement. The short story ends with the narrator saying, “I was in my house. I knew that. But I didn’t feel like I was inside anything. ‘It’s really something,’ I said” (228). On the surface, readers may feel underwhelmed by the ending. However, the main character was left different than he was at the beginning of the story and it is subtly implied that he underwent a revelation in that moment. Also, in the painting A Room in New York, viewers are left to interpret the body language of the subjects in the scene. Objectively, the painting is simply a man and woman sitting in a room. However, Hopper expects the audience to conclude and understand that the focus is not on what the people in the painting are doing, but more of why they are doing what they are doing. This is