They call me Blind Man. They call me Bub. That's not my name

The way that Carver uses names in "Cathedral" is quite unique. In most stories the first person the author introduces his or her audience to is the main character. The main character in "Cathedral," however, is given no name except for being called 'bub' by Robert, the blind man. Carver does not give his narrator a name because the lack of a name cloaks the his narrator in a shroud of mystery. Take every-day introductions for instance. The general trend when meeting someone for the first time is to shake hands and exchange names by saying something like, "Hi, I'm Gary." It's such a simple and overused line, but it's overused because it is so effective. By telling someone your name you you give them a label to paste alongside a face and a title that superimposes their actions. In essence, by telling another person your name you allow this person into your life.

Carver takes advantage of the significance of an introduction and leaves his audience hungry for a name throughout his entire novel, but never satiates this curiosity. What is his reason for this? We know that the narrator is important yet without a name and adjectives of physical appearance it is extremely difficult to label the narrator. Carver creates further mystery behind his narrator's persona when he begins his short story by introducing readers to Robert, the blind man. The narrator tells of his wife and Robert's entire history together, giving an audience a background from which to judge both characters, however through all this storytelling the narrator only reveals small tidbits of his own beliefs and opinions, like, "I wasn't enthusiastic about his visit. He was no one I knew. And his being blind bothered me. My idea of blindness came from the movies. In the movies, the blind moved slowly and never laughed...A blind man in my house was not something I looked forward to" (Carver 99). When the narrator reveals small pieces of his opinions, like this quote, we learn a little about how he thinks, but he remains an incomplete puzzle. The one advantage to this incompleteness is that we, as an audience, are more keyed into the narrator's development.

Once Robert comes over to the narrator's house the scene is kind of tense and awkward. The narrator generally seems out of all conversations and acts bored of his company, once turning on the television to the irritation of his wife when amidst a half-hearted conversation with Robert. Once the narrator's wife leaves, though, the narrator begins to warm up to Robert. The narrator gets to describing what's on the television, which ends up being a cathedral. When the narrator has worn out all his descriptive skills in trying to paint an image of the cathedral in Robert's mind, Robert asks the narrator to draw the cathedral on a piece of paper and let him hold the narrator's hand while doing so. Eventually Robert says, "Close your eyes now...Don't stop now. Draw" (Carver 108). At the end of this experience the narrator tells us, "My eyes were still closed. I was in the house. I knew that. But I didn't feel like I was inside anything" (Carver 108).The narrator has progressed from a character who initially was uncomfortable with the notion of blindness and blind people to a person who cannot say he completely understands what it is like to be blind but has had a major epiphany on the topic. He has morphed from an anxious and judgmental person into a more patient learner and his lack of a name has helped him to do so. When reading the final lines of this short story we can see a completely new character, and because the narrator does not have a name he has reinvented himself and created a new label that we pair with 'the narrator'. The lack of a name really separates the narrator from his past and any prior judgments we had created to describe him because in all honesty, we never felt like we were ever truly introduced to him. Up until now, he was shrouded in mystery.

I agree that the whole naming thing serves to denote who is important and who isn't. Think about the only names we come across in this story, but also what they have done in their life. Robert has lived an interesting life - "[He] had done a little of everything... a regular bind jack-of-all-trades" (103). His wife Beulah once experienced a notion so profound that the narrator couldn't help but consider her - "Imagine a woman who could go on day after day and never receive the smallest compliment from her beloved. a woman whose husband could never read the expression on her face" (101). Even Barry Fitzgerald, the Irish actor that Robert quoted when he insisted on having only a little water in his Scotch was named!

The narrator and his wife are a foil. They lead pretty unremarkable lives. The wife, maybe, has some interesting backstory with the failed engagement with the Army officer, but the narrator is certainly boring, at best. Robert had asked, "How long had I been in my present position? (Three years). Did I like my work? (I didn't). Was I going to stay with it? (What were the options?" (103-4). The narrator is so uninteresting that his wife won't even mention him in her long conversation with Robert: "They talked of things that had happened to them - to them! - these past ten years. I waited in vain to hear my name on my wife's sweet lips... But I heard nothing of the sort" (103). The narrator has contributed very little to the human experience, mindlessly dragging through his life waiting to die, and finding no intention of improving himself. The narrator isn't named because he doesn't deserve one.

A name only has as much significance as we assign to it.

The narrator is unsure of everything - himself, his relationship with his wife, his religious opinions, how he feels about the blind man coming to his house and how his wife feels about him. The only thing he really seems to be sure of is the blind man's identity. He knows Robert's name and his entire life story, while some pieces of his own wife's story are missing. He's gotten to know this man and all of his experiences through his wife, as if he really knows him. And he's detached enough from this man to believe that he really does know everything there is to know.

That's why the blind man is the only person referred to by first name, because he's the only thing that the narrator is sure of, that he knows by heart, from start to finish. In this context, a name is the height of recognition.

-> Throughout his short story "Cathedral", Raymond Carver rarely ever refers to his characters as anything other than characteristic generalizations. Calling the narrator's wife, 'his wife', her blind friend, 'blind man', and her childhood lover, 'childhood sweetheart', the narrator's lack of specific names detracts from the ability of the reader to connect with the characters but overall enhances other areas of the story.

-> An interesting aspect of Carver's writing is the fact that he directly acknowledges his lack of name use in his story. I believe his intent with lack of names is to have the reader recognize the character as exactly who are they are in the story and how they are relevant, but no more than that. When discussing the narrator's wife's childhood sweetheart he writes, "Her officer- why should he have a name? he was the childhood sweetheart, and what more does he want?" (Carver 100). Carver feels as though the childhood sweetheart's name is irrelevant to the story and solely wants the reader to know the vital information. When Carver writes, "what more does he want", he really means "what more is necessary to use to describe him". Though lack of names makes the personal connections with characters difficult it does make it clear to the reader what is important to know and what isn't, especially in regards to characters.

-> Another unique writing technique that Carver uses is the interesting important he places on locations over people. When describing people Carver uses only generalizations, but whenever the concept of place or location is broached, a great amount of detail is used. Every Air Force base the wife had lived at is listed by name and the discussion about the blind man's travels took up a great portion of the evening and the conversation. This important on location of events rather than the people in them greatly ties in with the reason Carver doesn't use names.

-> By the end of the story the narrator has seen through the eyes of the blind man and truly changes his perspective on the world around him. I believe that the reason so little importance is placed on names is because Carver wants to portray the message that it could have been any person in the narrator's position with any blind man, the specific event and location would have changed them not necessarily the individual people.

I'd like to waltz with the array of different opinions presented regarding the use of names/titles and what that implies about the relationship between those individuals.  When we think about someone we know, we don't just think "that's Joe," we think of a collection of information related to that person.  We think of their physical appearance, their demeanor, their voice, their occupation, etc. but most importantly, we think of our relationship with that person.  At the same time, when we say "that's Joe" we don't just mean "that's Joe," we mean the collection of information we relate with that person.  For me names and titles are only important when you know nothing about someone. 

There is another distinction that needs to be made which is that of a book versus life.  In life we have that magical ability to associate large amounts of information with single words or phrases.  In a book, however, the narrator cannot convey efficiently quite the same amount of information through the same single word/phrase.  When the narrator first mentions Robert, he is simply "the blind man."  He refers to Robert by something distinct about him.  Once he shifts to calling him Robert, however, the reader can observe a shift in the narrator's perception of Robert.  Despite this, I think that names are simply another way to identify people.  In that way, I believe that a nickname is more significant than an actual name.  It is a name we give a person that gives us more information about them than their actual name.  In that way, I think that "my wife" and "the blind man" are the most important names in the story.  While they may not seem like the most loving of titles, they convey information about the characters.  In the same way, married couples often refer to each other by a nickname (stereotypical examples are honey, sweetie, etc) and only use their names when they are angry with one another or something along those lines.  Then there is the use of "Bub" by Robert. From my perspective, while it may seem a more familiar way of addressing someone, it seems more of something along the lines of Gatsby's "old sport" than a specific nickname given to the narrator.

Something I learned over the summer was that, in deaf culture, people who learn sign language but are not deaf can be assigned a personal sign.  When they first meet someone, they have to spell out their name.  Once they have a relationship with a deaf person, the deaf person can give the non-deaf person a specific sign to represent them based on their personality, but the non-deaf person cannot give themselves a sign or force a sign on another deaf person.  I think this is the perfect example of how names are simply a title that we make people use to represent the complex person that we are.  Once you are more well acquainted with a person, their name loses its meaning as you begin to think of them as their personality which can more easily be expressed by a nickname.

I agree with Morgan R. when she says that leaving out all the other character's names adds to the emphasis of Robert, the blind man, and his voice and importance.

Maybe Carver leaving out the names of the others shows that Robert does not segregate people by looks, personality, or names, but he simply gives love and lessons to all. Robert is blind and doesn't identify the world like us, who see, do. Robert's mind is made up of self-thought images and that sort of senseless yet appreciative life style captivates the husband. Robert's mind is not cluttered nor consumed by the business around him, but by the appreciation for life and imagination.

Think about our lives, we are all given names yet we aren't necessarily given unique names- there are many "Cassies" in the world and many "Roberts". Robert's name juxtaposes his life because he is not like us who can see. The husband's lack of name juxtaposes Robert because he can see yet is nameless... maybe being nameless in the story symbolizes meekness. The husband is not enlightened, until the end, (but I had my eyes closed. I thought I'd keep them that way for a little longer. I thought it was something I ought to do" (108)) like Robert is-therefore he gets no name.