In Carver's "Cathedral," how does the point of view contribute to the effectiveness of the story?

Carver’s choice of first-person point of view for the
narrator in “Cathedral” provides a clearer portal of view into the feelings, attitudes,
and isolation of the narrator, who is never named aside from the nickname of “bub” given
him by Robert. When the narrator “speaks,” his mood and inner traits are revealed by his
tone of “voice.” This adds to the effectiveness of the story because we hear things he
doesn't directly or intentionally reveal; as a result, we know him at a deeper
level.

For instance, the narrator’s resentment of others’ close
relationships with his wife, who is also never named, is apparent from comments he
makes. For example, his remarks, “we didn’t ever get back to the tape. Maybe it was just
as well. I’d heard all I wanted to. … Now this same blind man was coming over to sleep
in my house,” are bitingly negative when he speaks of the tape recording they listened
to (but during which they were interrupted) and of Robert’s upcoming overnight stay: the
narrator is bristling with resentment that is indirectly revealed in his tone.

In another instance, the narrator’s fear of unknown people is
unintentionally made apparent in other comments he makes, such as the way he always
makes references to Robert as blind:

readability="7">

“I don’t have any blind friends,” I
said.
She had this blind man by his coat sleeve.
The blind man let
go of his suitcase and up came his
hand.

The fear of others that
the narrator unintentionally reveals adds to the effectiveness of the story by drawing
us deeper into an experience of his psyche since his feelings, though unintentionally
revealed, are as veiled for us as they are for him. Incidentally, the reference to
Robert’s blindness is a metaphor for the narrator’s general isolation, which he and
Robert dissolve together when they move hand-in-hand through the motions of drawing the
cathedral--a spiritual sanctuary.

If a third-person narrator had told
us the character is resentful and fearful--and had named him--the perception of his
isolation would be reduced. In other words, the narrator would be connected in some
degree to the character in order for him/er to reveal the character to us. Also, if a
third-person narrator were narrating the crucial climactic moments of the story, the
immediacy and sense of participation would be reduced. In other words, being told about
their two hands moving together by a third-person witness reduces our own experience of
the moment, whereas a first-person narrator allows us the parallel experience of having
our minds move together with the narrator’s while his hand moves together with Robert’s.

As a result of this parallelism, this unity of movement, which is
created by the first-person narrator, we feel for ourselves the possibility of
connectedness with others--the possibility of deliverance from isolation--as the
narrator discovers it. This imparts and empowers Carver’s message rather than merely
tells it as a third-person narrator would do. These are some important ways in which the
first-person point of view contributes to the effectiveness of Carver’s
story.