|
|
Post by Jason Parris on Sept 12, 2013 22:40:52 GMT
Comment on Carver's use of names (or the lack thereof) in "Cathedral." Be sure you connect your exploration of this particular element to the meaning/effect of the story as a whole.
|
|
|
|
Post by betsyrahe on Sept 13, 2013 1:32:15 GMT
When I originally read this is a topic I thought about. When I read,"Her officer-why should he have a name?"(100) I had to pause because I found something so honest about that. Her ex husband's name is not prevalent to the story, so Carver doesn't even bother us with it. I think he wanted us to recognize at that moment how how much an impact names can be. He didn't write this about the narrator's wife and her ex husband. It's about Robert. Who is the only character that is given a name. I think Carver did this purposefully to signify that this piece is about the blind man, Robert. Names always have such significance of who someone is. To not include those other names was his way of saying they are not the main focus.
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabethmeyer on Sept 13, 2013 3:46:39 GMT
I agree. When I saw that same quote on pg 100, at first I thought it was just Carver's way of showing that the narrator is bitter towards his wife's ex husband. I mean, it makes sense. But at the same time, the narrator doesn't actually seem to be bitter towards the ex. He seems more disinterested than bitter. He doesn't give the guy a name because he's not important in the story - not because he's not important in his own life (or even because he has a problem with him). I do find it curious though that the wife doesn't get a name. The narrator's own wife and she doesn't even get a name! I think that's enough evidence right there to show that the only reason Robert gets a name is because he is the focus for the story, and therefore the most important. The others, even the narrator, aren't as important as the blind man. By not giving any one else enough character even to get names, Robert stands out as that much more important, and that much more developed as a character.
|
|
|
|
Post by moreno on Sept 13, 2013 3:50:34 GMT
I believe "Cathedral" is the first story I have ever read where only one character is named. Naming only one character certainly highlights him as important, however, Carver's decision to leave out other names also adds to the husband's character and voice. The husband writes as though he is scribbling in a diary. The thoughts are blunt, somewhat passive to the point where the husband seems disinterested in telling the story. For example, the husband writes, "But she was in love with the guy, and he was in love with her, etc," (99). When I saw he used the abbreviation "etc," I pictured the husband rolling his eyes, not caring to go into any real depth about emotions or feelings. This lack of depth is not only shown in the manner in which he tells the story, but his lack of naming himself and his wife. It is as if the husband does not want the reader to know the identifiable details...as if he fears exposing himself. This would make sense, for the husband comes across somewhat lazy and private as he uncomfortable accommodates his wife's friend. He does not mind naming Robert, but from my perspective the husband does not give himself, or his wife a name because, like his wife's ex-lover, he feels a name is irrelevant and useless.
|
|
Kasey
New Member
Posts: 31 
|
Post by Kasey on Sept 13, 2013 4:42:10 GMT
To me, the names Carver gives ("The Blind Man"; "My Wife") is more important than giving an actual name to them. It keeps the focus on what the narrator thinks about other characters by reducing them to their relation.
|
|
amychen
New Member
“But the wild things cried, “Oh please don’t go—we’ll eat you up—we love you so!”
Posts: 47
|
Post by amychen on Sept 14, 2013 9:23:02 GMT
 I'd like to dance with Morgan's statement. I'm not sure if she counts as a character, but Beulah, Robert's deceased wife, is also named. This is especially significant because the narrator remarks, "Beulah! That's a name for a colored woman" (Carver 101). This leads me to believe that Carver's use of names is, like others have said, to add significance to the importance of the blind man, Robert. In my view, however, the names are given to show how the blind man views the world. The lack of names in the story gives ambiguity as to the background of Carver's characters. Sure, we can assume that the narrator is probably white considering his statement about Beulah, but for the most part we have little to no background, as Betsy mentioned (dancing with that, however, I wouldn't say that Robert is the main focus---I believe that the narrator is the main focus, mainly due to the amount of the story that is his opinion and introspection as well as him being the only character that undergoes a change of character within the story). Names provide background as to what race or religion one might come from, which is deemed unimportant to one's true character in the eyes of the blind man because---well, he's blind. This is why the narrator's statement, "My eyes were closed. I was in my house. I knew that. But I didn't feel like I was inside anything" (Carver 108) near the end is so touching. The narrator, who can be generally described as a close-minded individual because he tends to discriminate, makes himself blind for a moment and ironically finds the experience eye-opening. He realizes what is important in the same way that he dismisses irrelevant names from the story, removing the shallow shell of what he sees and, as a result, Sees. |
|
|
|
Post by kevinle on Sept 14, 2013 18:07:09 GMT
Names don't indicate much; they don't communicate much significance. Parents can name their child anything, but they cannot forcefully shape the child's appearance or personality (okay it's possible if they go to extreme measures...).
Identity comes from one's appearance and personality, so adding names to all of the characters wouldn't add much to the story. Because Carver used descriptive words to "name" each of the characters, I better understand the identities and relationships of those characters in the context of the story. "Bub" to me sounds like someone who is indifferent and unenthusiastic, and the wife's husband fits this description because he'd prefer a stranger to not stay in his house. "Wife" communicates importance, for the husband cares for her and doesn't want a blind man intruding on their property. "Blind man" gives the blind man a story, as one can infer the challenges he faces in life.
But why is the blind man the only person with a name in the story? The only person with a name is the only person who can't see; he can't see himself, so he cannot understand part of his own identity. Giving him a name fills up part of the hole.
|
|
|
|
Post by stever on Sept 14, 2013 19:26:46 GMT
Like Kevin said, names do not have much significance on their own. Our relationship to a name endows the name with meaning. Similarly, the cathedral did not convey much meaning to the the narrator: "The truth is, cathedrals don't mean anything special to me. Nothing. Cathedrals. They're just something to look at on late-night TV. That's all they are." The Cathedral, like names on their own, did not mean anything to the narrator because he had no relationship to Cathedrals.
We see this theme again when the narrator tries to describe the Cathedral to Robert, the blind man. The narrator tried to describe the Cathedral as it related to other sights, but Robert did not have any concept of sight, the narrator's attempt to describe what a Cathedral looked like failed. The narrator could not give the Cathedral meaning because he could not relate it to concepts Robert understood.
The Cathedral had more meaning when the narrator related it to the tactical senses Robert could understand -- once again, the relationship created meaning. Also, the narrator's relationship with Robert (which came in the form of empathy) gave new meaning to his understanding of seeing.
The names that imply relationships such as "my wife" or "the blind man" further emphasize the point that relationships create meaning. Names (or nicknames) like "Bub" are endowed with unique meaning because of formed relationships.
|
|
|
|
Post by hannahlewman on Sept 14, 2013 19:42:36 GMT
What I find interesting is that Robert doesn't really receive a formal introduction of his name. He starts out as "the blind man" and eventually Carver starts peppering in the name Robert without officially saying "Robert, the blind man." Carver just throws in the name in the sentence "Robert was left with a small insurance policy..."(Carver 101). It is not until Carver gets to the end of Robert's life story that he mentions his real name. He develops the character before adding in the name. This seems to say that one's personality is more important than one's name, as the name is just a superficial detail that gets left until the end and it is more pressing to talk about one's identity. To borrow from what Amy said, this treatment of names seems to reflect a blind man's opinion of the world. Personalities are most important, and superficial details, like names, come later, just as how Robert must learn personalities before he learns about more superficial things, for example the face of the narrator's wife. In a way it would be great if humans had similar priorities and people valued the identity of those around them more than the shallow details.
|
|
|
|
Post by austinellerbruch on Sept 14, 2013 21:16:07 GMT
I think that the lack of names in "Cathedral" is used to display the significance that names hold in identifying individuals. Similar to my other post about how the title fails to summarize the plot of a story, a name gives no indication of the nature of personality of an individual. Most characters are only referred as the terms which identify them, such as "The blind man," "my wife," or "this man." Interestingly enough, as Hannah mentions above, the only characters in the story that are actually given names are Robert and his dead wife Beulah. I think that they are given names because they are characters of interest, Robert, because of his life as a blind man, and Beulah, because she is the dead wife of a blind man. I think that Carver uses names as way to identify persons of importance. When I walk down the street, I identify people as "that woman," "that homeless person," or "that garbage man" (to give a few examples) I really only care to give names to those who are of interest to me, which is what Carver may be doing with "Cathedral."
|
|
|
|
Post by mattagritelley on Sept 15, 2013 1:33:52 GMT
Carver places a huge emphasis on names in "Cathedral." The narrator and his wife are never explicitly named. Robert is initially identified as "the blind man" but is later referred to by his real name. It seems peculiar that the first name identified in the story is that of Robert's wife, Beulah. "She'd told me a little about the blind man's wife. Her name was Beulah. Beulah! That's the name for a colored woman. 'Was his wife a negro?' I asked" (101). The narrator's obtuse use of the first name in the story reflects the sentiment that is pervasive throughout most of the story; the narrator has a narrow, constricted, and altogether cynical outlook on life.
Upon Robert's arrival, the narrator's wife places a significant emphasis on his name: "'You look distinguished, Robert,' she said. 'Robert,' she said. 'Robert, it's just so good to see you'"(102). The impending transition in the narrator's life (that which will eventually define the story) seems stressed here, as if the narrator's wife is forcing the blind man's identity down her husband's throat. As the story progresses, the narrator begins to call the blind man by his real name, Robert, and the interaction between the two seems more casual.
Robert, on the other hand, refers to the narrator as "Bub" the entire time. One can extrapolate that this nickname serves to demonstrate Robert's positive outlook and venerable life experiences. As the narrator spends more time with Robert, his views begin to converge and cross paths with Robert's. At the end of the story, the narrator develops a sense of what Robert experiences everyday without a sense of sight, and at that point learns to respect him in an altogether new way.
When we refer to someone by his/her name, it implies some sort of level of companionship or familiarity. "The blind man" does exactly the opposite. Therefore, the narrator's transition is clearly identifiable by his use of Robert's real name. This aspect is fundamental to the story, for Carver is trying to show that it is imperative to get to know someone before judging them. It is much easier to hide behind an ignorant facade and judge someone as "that blind man" than to learn about him and try to develop an understanding of who he is. That is why Carver emphasizes the narrator's transition so greatly.
|
|
|
|
Post by haleyjensen on Sept 15, 2013 1:47:16 GMT
I agree that given names don't have monumental impacts on a person unless they are outlandish. My parents almost named me Lindsay, and i think it would be strange if my name was Lindsay because i'm used to being called Haley. But this far in my life, things would not have been very different if I had been named Lindsay. So while names dont usually make or break a person's identity, I do think that the way we refer to people matters. For example... Although Robert has a name, and the narrator knows his name, he still refers to him as 'the blind man.' Names definitely play a huge component in identity, and the way the narrator refers to Robert speaks to the way he identifies Robert: primarily as blind, and secondly as a man. Their relationship in the novel supports this, considering the way the narrator observes even Robert's most minute actions. He says of Robert, "The blind man brought his hand up under his beard" (103). The narrator can't get past the fact that Robert is blind and view him as a person. It's the same case when referring to a person who is impaired. It is considered politically correct to refer to someone who is impaired as 'a person with a disability' and not 'a disabled person'.
Matt mentioned the passage when the narrator's wife greets Robert, and that passage definitely ties into the idea of how significant it is to refer to a person by his or her name. Of course we only hear her external words and not what's going on inside her head, but the fact that she refers to him by name, unlike her husband, exudes the respect she has for him. Conversations are much more endearing and personal when people refer to each other by name, and the narrator's wife uses Robert's name in a way that identifies him primarily as a person.
Its also interesting that Robert's thought process in regard to how he refers to people leads readers down the same path when discussing the story. Let me explain: because the narrator is left nameless, those who discuss the story have no choice but to refer to the narrator as 'the narrator', which is the same way the he talked about others. This leaves him with the primary identity of "the one who told the story." In our discussion, the narrator reaps the effects of his own thought process.
|
|
|
|
Post by rubyking on Sept 15, 2013 2:16:19 GMT
I suppose this would be an excellent time for me to piqué into the conversation! (Also I thoroughly enjoyed the music reference in that title, Mr. Parris)
In terms of Cathedral, I'm not sure that having a given name signify a character's importance... in fact I think I may believe the opposite! When we come to really know someone, identifying them by their given name seems almost limiting. What I mean is, in terms of Cathedral, The protagonist doesn't look at his wife and solely think, "Oh, that's so and so." There are too many memories and mannerisms behind this woman to see her as a name. Looking at her and identifying her by a Christian name is so..on the surface, of really knowing someone. She's not really just her name, she's the woman who would marry hastily for what she thought was true love; she's the woman who lets her robe fall slightly as she falls asleep. That sort of identification is so much deeper and endearing to me, to the point where calling her by her name seems almost insulting, if that makes sense?
|
|
|
|
Post by sammywong on Sept 15, 2013 3:26:31 GMT
Carter does not add names in The Cathedral because it is unnecessary. The relationship between the people is important, not the people themselves. Even The Blind Man, Robert, does not necessarily need a name, but is given one because he is the focus of the short story. Carter wants the reader to be drawn into the conversation between the narrator and the Blind Man. Their stories before are unknown, besides Roberts, because Carter intended them to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by mitralebuhn on Sept 15, 2013 4:41:30 GMT
I believe Carver leaves out the names in order to add to a theme that people are close-minded and judge others superficially for characteristics that are out of their control, for example, by names or appearance. Amy C. brought up the example of Beulah, which I also find significant due to the narrator's shocking reaction to Beulah's name. I was startled by this blatant racial judgement, and by the way a name can be so easily tied with someone's appearance. But, because of this connection between appearance and names, I came to a conclusion.
I think Carver's choice to leave out names aids the concept that superficial qualities such as names or appearance are insignificant. Like Ruby said, there is more to a person than a name or look. They do not make up a person, unless that person allows them to define him or her. Too much time is spent concentrating on unimportant details and stressing over how others will perceive us. People alter their bodies, change their names all to fit a mold, deemed "perfection", that we, as a society, set for ourselves. When the narrator states his near-final words, "My eyes were closed. I was in my house. I knew that. But I didn't feel like I was inside anything" (Carver 108), he beautifully captures this concept of the insignificance of outer details. Nothing matters besides what happens inside our outer shell. Life is about growth and connection, as shown when Robert and the narrator bond through the experience of drawing the cathedral. They draw this structure, and through that learn that it is not the actual detailed image that matters but the experience shared in the creation of the image. The same goes if you think of an actual 3-dimentional cathedral. Yes, the building is stunning and gorgeous, but what makes it significant is what happens inside of it, as well as the story behind its creation. When Robert shares his basic knowledge of what a cathedral looks like he explains the story of how they are made, and the time spent and sacrifices that men make in order to build them. It isn't the beauty of the cathedral that Roberts knows and values, but the work that is put into it's creation. People are like cathedrals, they are judged for their appearance, but their real value can be found in both the appreciation for the journey that was made in order to grow into the person that he or she is, as well as in the spiritual experiences and connections that are made when doors are opened and people can finally see the inside of the outer shell.
|
|
