|
Post by carolinedorman on Sept 16, 2013 3:58:13 GMT
The narrator is not an intensely likeable guy. In fact, when told that his wife’s intimate friend’s wife died, he responds, “’Was his wife a Negro?’”(Carver). Clearly, sensitivity and compassion are not virtues of the narrator. Rather than expressing sympathy for the spouse of the deceased, the narrator focuses on the unusual name. He is unable to look past his own perspective. Each character is therefore called the condition of what they are. His wife’s past husband, clearly once an influential part of her past, is not deemed important enough to deserve a name other than her childhood sweetheart. Additionally, the narrator never refers to the blind man as Robert even though they are formally introduced. Until the end of the story, the narrator is unable to see past the condition of a person. The narrator’s descriptions of the blind man make him seem alien. Everything he does is different because he is blind. It is not until the narrator experiences Robert’s blindness, however, that he experiences his own blindness and eyes began to open. Ironically, it is Robert who has been able to see the world more completely than the narrator ever had.
|
|
rishi
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by rishi on Sept 16, 2013 4:08:21 GMT
Raymond Carver's use of names in Cathedral serves to emphasize the sense of Feel (not feel, Feel). As Hannah pointed out, names are "superficial details," and I believe that names are superficial because they prevent the objective judgement of a novel's character. For example, after learning of the death of Robert's wife, the narrator exclaims, "Beulah! That's a name for a colored woman" (Carver 101). The narrator does not even know Beulah, yet he is making a judgement about her. Keely says that names are "significant to the human experience" because they are part of out "identities, ancestries, and cultures." The latter part of this is true, but I do not believe that names are so significant to the human experience to the point at which to "de-name someone is to dehumanize them." A major component of the "human experience" in my opinion is the concept of judgement, and it is more difficult to objectively judge an individual who has a name acting as a label than an individual without a name. In this way, names are superficial: we do not need to know an individual's name to judge him/her, but sometimes we do just that. For instance (please excuse this example of stereotyping as it is not something I believe is ethically correct), some might see a Muslim name and associate it with terrorism.
I believe that the reason why Carver neglects naming the narrator and his wife is to prevent the names from becoming a label. In a story that aims to illustrate the contrasting feelings of the narrator towards Robert, labeling the characters, specifically the narrator and his wife, with names would distract the reader from concentrating on their feelings. Now the questions that arise from this are: why is Robert given a name? Are his feelings not important? Surprisingly, in a story such as this one, they are not nearly as important as the feelings of the narrator, feelings that are dynamic. At the beginning of the story, the narrator bitterly complains, "Her officer-why should he have a name?" (100). Does the narrator act like this because he has already labeled Robert as blind, as superficial title that can be somewhat likened to a name? At the end of the story, however, the narrator starts using Robert's real name instead of "the blind man" or "her officer." It seems that because of this, the narrator starts to think of Robert as a normal person instead of one who is blind, and he wants to understand how Robert feels. Amy C. says this absolutely beautifully: "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 amysohlberg on Sept 16, 2013 4:16:20 GMT
Carver's use of titles instead of names in the story gave the characters a different face. The names "the blind man" and "bub" really remind me of names as they were in ancient hebrew culture. In the old testament of the bible, people's names weren't made up titles but descriptions or prophecies about the individual. For example, Abraham means "Father of Many" and Jacob means "He grasps the heel" (Jacob was born holding the heel of his brother, Esau, but the phrase was also used to describe someone who takes something that isn't his--like when Jacob stole his brother's rightful inheritance). I don't think the author's neglect of names detracts from their characters but rather shows, on a deeper level, how the narrator views the people around him. For example, his wife is "my wife", which is the primary way in which he classifies her identity. For most of the story Robert is known as "the blind man", which reveals the narrator's narrow thinking and close-mindedness. I think we still judge the characters on their actions and words, and our opinions aren't really affected by their names or lack thereof. The titles the narrator uses serve to show us the way he classifies the individuals around him, they way in which he can't get past their most prominent traits to see the character of the individual underneath.
|
|
|
Post by yongkim on Sept 16, 2013 4:49:37 GMT
I thought there were a couple reasons as to why the author chose to not name several characters in "Cathedral".
Carver decided not to give numerous characters their names in order to portray the egotistical nature of the narrator. Despite how much the blind man, Robert, means to his wife, the narrator is solely concerned about how uncomfortable he will be having the blind man stay in their home. Also, when the narrator mentions his wife's previous lover, he states, "Why should he have a name? He was the childhood sweetheart, and what more does he want" (100). The narrator is evidently a very self-absorbed individual and by not assigning names to the characters mentioned in "Cathedral", Carver underlines that negative quality throughout the story.
The fact that the narrator refers to Robert as "the blind man" is also significant in that it constantly reminds the reader of Robert's disability. A name eliminates any confusion and allows the reader to be continually aware of Robert's inability to see. However, the lack of a name also allows the reader to detect a change in the story. When the blind man finally arrives at the home, the narrator begins to refer to the blind man by his real name: Robert. We realize that the narrator is slowly beginning to open up to the blind man whereas in the beginning of the story, he viewed Robert as someone who "moved slowly and never laughed". By the end of "Cathedral", the narrator finds a great appreciation for Robert despite his initial judgement.
|
|
|
Post by racheladele on Sept 16, 2013 5:15:31 GMT
As Jessica said earlier, humans give names to everything around us for lots of reasons. One of the main ones is for the purpose of communication, which is one of the most important factors in any society. Without names for people, states, countries and goods, international sustainability would be a fantastic struggle. Identification is another reason humans give names, because it allows for comparison and future insight with reduced confusion. In “Cathedral,” the reader is deprived of names for the majority of the characters, but in this case I don’t see it as a pitfall. The reader can still achieve communication (potentially between readers) and identification, as Carver’s storytelling removes the need. One reason for this is because there are so few characters, which allows the reader to refer to “the wife” or “the husband” without confusion. Another reason I considered is that names are simply not necessary, as they do not add to the plot. I wonder, if all characters were given names, would the story read differently? Would the reader come away from it with an altered view from the one we receive? I believe the answers to be yes, because of the nature of the story itself. I find it very interesting when authors deprive their readers of character names, and this is not my first encounter with this method. One of the books I read over the summer was Ralph Ellison’s “Invisible Man,” and the narrator/protagonist was never identified with much more than his age and race. In the case of “Invisible Man,” he was the only character not given a name, but similarly to “Cathedral,” the characters were distinct enough for this to not be a roadblock in understanding. Another similarity between “Invisible Man” and “Cathedral” is that there are some pieces described in the most beautiful and explicit detail (such as the cathedral drawing), while others are overlooked and not described (such as names and setting).
|
|
|
Post by danyhong55 on Sept 16, 2013 5:23:29 GMT
I think that the author simply could not think of names for all these different characters. As all of you have said, names have special meanings and those meaning can be interpreted, consciously or not, to paint a mental image of who that person is. For example, Someone who is named Trayvon will be treated differently by society than someone who is named George. Names carry a special, psychological connotation and connection in each person. In such a short story, such as the "Cathedral," the characters actually benefit from having a lack of name. This way, these people are much more open to interpretation than if they were given names.
My best theory is that Carver wanted us to connect with narrator of the story. By leaving the details, such as the names, ambiguous, the author allows us to fill in the blanks from our own lives, to immerse ourselves in the writing, in story. We can easily connect with them, empathize with them, draw with them and most importantly be them. We are inherently selfish people; even Mr. Parris openly admitted in the beginning of the year that we are all secretly narcissists. The best way to capture the attention of an audience is to involve them in the story because they love to hear about them. However, the reason Robert still retains his name is so that We cannot project ourselves onto him. He is his own individual character in a sea of our own immersion. He is carefully described, from his demeanor, to his past, to his appearance. Robert is the focal point of this story, not the narrator, not us. What is interesting is that in an unusual turn of the events, we are not the actor of action. Let me clarify, we do not read and picture Robert in our brains as we would Harry Potter. Instead, Robert shapes and influences us. By vicariously living the narrator's moments with Robert, our eyes are opened (while Roberts are still closed, HA!) to how the blind man sees the world. Carver purposely leaves out most of the names in this story to immerse and perhaps change the reader. Without the names, we are the ones drawing the cathedral with Robert, and we are the ones who realize that it is "really something" (100 Carver).
|
|
|
Post by naomiporter on Sept 16, 2013 5:29:48 GMT
I would like to dance with the idea that the reason Robert is the only one named is that the story is about him. Though he is clearly very a very significant character, the narrator is the only one who experiences any sort of change or growth throughout the story. Robert is already an open-minded man willing to learn, so it is not as significant when he meets a new person or watches a new television show or smokes dope for the first time. As he puts it, "There's a first time for everything" (104). Later, he explains, "I'm always learning something. Learning never ends. It won't hurt me to learn something tonight. I got ears" (105). The narrator, on the other hand, begins as a narrow-minded man who is set in his ways and safe in his rituals, for whom it is a big deal to meet a blind man for the first time. He is reluctant to meet him and does not want to have to change anything about his ritualistic life, so the difference is much greater. I agree with the people who have said that the narrator refers to people based on his relationship with them or how he sees them. His wife calls the blind man "Robert" because she sees him as that person rather than just a blind man. The narrator, however, refers to both Robert and his wife by descriptions rather than names. I do not believe that this necessarily reflects on the closeness of his relationship with them, but rather that in this story, their significance comes from their role in his life. Though he makes a strong connection with the blind man at the end of the story, he still calls him "the blind man" because that is who Robert is in the narrator's life. It is the blindness that made the difference in the narrator's life. At the end, he finally connects with Robert not in spite of Robert's blindness, but because of it. That is why he felt that he had to keep his eyes closed; he finally had some understanding of Robert's blindness, and it was the quality that allowed him to connect with Robert. So I think the narrator refers to Robert as "the blind man" not as a measure of his significance, but because his blindness is the quality that bears the most significance in the narrator's growth. P.S. I do not know what this implies about his only calling his wife "my wife"....
|
|
|
Post by natalieskowlund on Sept 16, 2013 5:45:42 GMT
Several previous posts pointed out that Robert--the blind man--and Beulah are the only two characters explicitly named in "Cathedral." Yet, I have to disagree with what most of the others were asserting, that Carver specifically gives these two characters names to emphasize the idea that people judge each other off of very superficial matters like a name. Sure, Shakespeare's famous "What's in a name?" monologue has sparked countless generations to associate names with unfair judgment, but in another sense, names often play a positive role in shaping who we are and how we (and even others) view ourselves. To give a personal example, my name, Natalie, means "the birth of Christ." Now, don't worry, I do not believe I am the reincarnation of Christ. Rather, my parents named me Natalie because it was on Christmas Day that they discovered my mother was pregnant with me, and they wanted my name to reflect that occasion. Similarly, I believe that Carver chose to name the blind man and the blind man's wife because he wanted to accentuate their value and distinguish them (especially the blind man) from the less-unique narrator and his wife. Perhaps Carver left the narrator and his wife nameless also because he felt that they represent most people; in a way, they resemble the ambiguous characters in "Our Town," who had names but were hardly distinguishable aside from that, and for that same reason.
Interestingly, the meanings of the names Robert and Beulah actually work well with my assertion that they are meant to paint a more unique picture of the blind man and his wife. According to Google, Robert means "bright and famed." That meaning clearly alludes to Robert's importance in the story, but perhaps also attempts to recognize his success despite the setback of being blind. The fact that the narrator so easily calls the blind man Robert but fails to recognize the underlying significance proves Carver's idea that it is extremely easy to judge others, even when the truth about who they are is within reach at all times. Moreover, according to thinkbabynames.com, Beulah is a name symbolic of the promised land from the Bible. Like the name Robert, Beulah represents a sort of perfection and idealness. Yet, all the narrator could say about her was, "Beulah! That's a name for a colored woman" (Carver 101). The narrator again misses the underlying significance of Beulah's name and fails to show her any respect as person when he resorts to a superficial assumption that she is colored simply because of her name.
In all, Carver makes a very interesting with his names/no-names shenanigans. In leaving the narrator and the narrator's wife nameless, he suggests that they represent a large portion of people, which then leads to the concept that being superficially judgmental is extremely easy and common, and that many of us tend to do it, whether or not we are aware of it. And to then emphasize the detrimental quality of these far-too-common judgments, he gives the two characters that the narrator judges names--Robert and Beulah--that not only set them apart from all of the other nameless characters but also signify their inner worth, that worth that the narrator overlooks.
|
|
|
Post by adamgrace on Sept 16, 2013 5:48:00 GMT
I think Carver uses names in a similar fashion as McCarthy in "The Road". The main character in "Cathedral" is seemingly lost in his regular behavior so much that he forgets be open to new experiences like a normal human should be. In "The Road" there are a clear void of names to establish that humanity is gone and names have gone with it. In "Cathedral" the only person (other than Beulah) that is named is Robert, the blind man. The main character mostly just refers to him as "the blind man", showing how narrow minded he is. Robert is the only named character because he's the one that shows the main character a fresh outlook on the world. Robert seems to be the only one that has an ounce of "true" humanity.
|
|
|
Post by madisonarmst on Sept 16, 2013 6:03:22 GMT
It's worth noting that the blind man is given a name, but the man with full use of his five senses is left nameless. We use a lot of different ways to get peoples attention: looking directly at them, waving, looking at them and saying something ambiguous such as "hey you", walking up to them and beginning to speak, or simply saying their name. A blind person, however, would be unaware of all these methods, other than directly calling them by name, because they are unable to see the actions that play a vital role in the way we communicate. Speaking is the most obvious way of communication, but subtle actions also play an important role in communication that is often overlooked. These subtle actions--such as looking directly at a person instead of completely ignoring the, or appearing happy and excited to see them, rather than disappointed--are important in determining if two people accept each other and the relationship between them. Because the other characters do not feel like they can reassure Robert that they approve of him in the ways they normally would, they feel the need to repeat his name to ensure that they are including him. Robert never asks for this approval because--being blind--he is unaware of this, but his friends--particularly the wife--feel the need to give it to him regardless. finally, the blind man is called by name because there is no other way to communicate with him, but the other men have many alternate ways of communication, so a name is almost unnecessary. Carver is sending a powerful message about the use of actions in communication, and the importance of them in how we perceive others and how we think other perceive us.
|
|
|
Post by billfeng on Sept 16, 2013 6:21:43 GMT
I’d like to jazz hands my way to Morgan and Amy’s theory.
Ernest Hemingway, a well known user of simplistic language, tries to keep his dialogue and words economic. Raymond Carver takes this minimalistic style to a new level by emulating Hemingway and, in addition, obscuring the identities of the narrator and his wife.
There are very few specifics in the short story. I agree with Amy in that the ambiguity of the story is based off of Robert’s blindness. Why would the identity of the blind man, Robert, and his deceased wife, Beulah, be revealed to the reader? Why would the identity of the husband and wife be concealed? Why are no specific cathedrals ever named as the British commentator speaks of them? The conclusion I make is that Carver is trying to treat the reader to a “literary” blindness to make him/her feel like Robert. When the TV drones on about cathedrals, Robert states, "Cathedrals. If you want the truth, bub that's about all I know" (Carver 106). The blind Robert can only learn by sound, taste, and touch, which robs him the privilege of being specific. Carver connects Robert's deficit with the reader by robbing specificity from central aspects of the story, as well.
|
|
|
Post by jessicapollard on Sept 16, 2013 6:37:35 GMT
Firstly, "Cathedral" reminds me of Camus' The Stranger in the sense that both narrations have an almost morbid sense of bluntness which I am growing to appreciate. I feel like the no-nonsense tone of the story really allows everything grandiose and poetic to speak for itself, which is partly why the lack of names is really essential to understanding the protagonist's epiphany. As many before preceding my post have said--er, typed-- the absence of names adds to the sense of disinterest and straightforwardness in the voice. The intention seems to be to direct attention away from any side characters, and I think it works out perfectly as you can develop a much better sense of the protagonist by wondering why he is wording things a specific way as opposed to what he is referring to when he describes people and events. I believe that the absence of names proves just how dependent on sight the narrator really is. Instead of referring to people by name, the narrator depends on visual characteristics for identification. When he first meets the blind man, his wife even introduces him by name, " 'I want you to meet Robert. Robert, this is my husband. I've told you all about him.' She was beaming. She had this blind man by his coat sleeve" (pg. 102). Even after the narrator is explicitly told the name of the blind man, he chooses to identify him by the physically evident fact that he cannot see. In fact, the paragraph in which he describes the blind man's eyes is perhaps the most illustrious part of the entire story. This causes me to think that the narrator is not actually listening to what others have to say. The only time that I can find him actually mentioning someone's name is when the name clues him in on the potential appearance of that person. He is only interested in Beulah's name because it very well could mean that she's black. It seems to me that the narrator literally takes things at face value, causing him to dismiss the actual value of the human beings he encounters. I find it intriguing that at the story's close, he doesn't refer to the man as either the blind man or Robert. Just "he". The narrator is seemingly freed from the construct of physical senses such as sight and sound, and is now more in touch on a meta-physical level as he sort of 'feels' the cathedral and the collaboration that created, rather than seeing it with his own eyes.
|
|
|
Post by travistoal on Sept 16, 2013 9:10:09 GMT
With names omitted, the only way to refer to a character is by their characteristics. Fitting. The Blind Man's name is given as a way to humanize him. The narrator was initially biased against Robert due to his preceding thoughts on blind people. Basically, his description left small difference between the blind and the deceased. By the end of the story, I feel like he's using the term 'the blind man' almost mockingly. It's not just that 'Robert laughed,' it's that 'the *Blind Man* laughed.' It's used to juxtapose the jolly, bearded man in front of the narrator with his image of the somber blind man from TV.
As far as the other characters go, their names just don't matter to the story, or the narrator, for that matter. Like the blind man experiences a Cathedral just from feeling the drawing, so too must we judge the other characters just from the description of the narrator. We see the Air Force officer as the 'Childhood Sweetheart,' and feel like we understand that chapter of his wife's life, but we get no depth, no understanding of the type of person that could leave his wife feeling so shut out and alone that she's driven to suicide.
|
|
|
Post by Adrian Harter on Sept 16, 2013 12:56:36 GMT
Carver's lack of names is a way to bypass human judgement, a factor that hinders character's who can see (like the husband), but gives truth to those who are blind, like Robert. The husband is initially very suspicious of Robert because he knows not who he is, but what he is; a blind man. The Husband's mistrusting nature of Robert only began to ease once he learned his name, something that makes him appear more human or realistic. Robert's purpose in the story is to accent the suspicion and paranoia of people who don't live out of the ordinary. When trying to explain the cathedral, the Husband gives up due to a lack of dedication towards the matter. The cathedral is initially a nuisance because he is not trying to explain the cathedral itself, but rather to satisfy Robert's curiosity so he can continue watching television. It is not until the two draw the cathedral that the Husband realizes that the cathedral is an entity powerful enough to stand on its own, magnificent buttresses and arches supporting it. The Husband can no longer open his eyes because the value of Robert's name has become clear. Robert isn't a blind man; he's Robert. Names in this case are reserved for the people who see the truth behind the artifice that is human judgement.
|
|
|
Post by patricktbutenhoff on Sept 16, 2013 13:51:08 GMT
Names themselves may not have much significance, but their usage conveys much about what the characters think of one another. It is not so much that the blind man is the only character with a name as it is that the wife is the only character that actually refers to people by their names. Names are generally used to indicate familiarity, and I think that's why the wife calls Robert by his name so much: she's trying extremely hard to be hospitable. The narrator, however, completely refuses to use Robert's name, believing that he is not a complete person and just a blind man. He shows no familiarity with the blind man because there is no familiarity there. He also goes completely out of his way to avoid using Beulah's name: "Was his wife a Negro?" That said, this passage shows that the names themselves are meaningless. The narrator tries into read into Beulah's name by guessing her race; he's wrong. Beulah's race, however, does not factor at all into the wife's ensuing monologue about her. Beulah's name and race don't ultimately matter, but the fact that the wife is willing to call her by name does. Again, Robert's name is meaningless, but the narrator's conspicuous disuse of it says much about his opinions toward his guest. Robert's "bub" is the median between the husband's use of names and the wife's. He tries to call the narrator by name, he tries to establish some of that connection, but at the end of the day, there is really nothing there. He wants to use the narrator's name but fails to do so. Names are important. While they in themselves carry no meaning, their use or disuse is extremely telling. Carver uses names as an expression of familiarity, of respect toward others. Although the characters' names are just superficial, like their race or disability, calling someone by name is still an important gesture of recognition.
|
|