Category: What We Talk About When We Talk About Love

If Mel believes his view of the elderly couple is true love then who is this author to say that it’s an “emotional immaturity? ” Especially, when Campbell also states that “the reader can rightly infer that nothing he has ever felt as love could be favorably compared with what he found in the elderly man who was depressed because he couldn’t see his wife. ” It makes no sense for him to say Mel is emotionally immature, then turn it around and say that the reader can rightly infer that all of the loves Mel speaks about don’t even compare to the elderly couple’s love.

I believe that out of all the loves Mel talks about, that is the one that should make him seem less immature emotionally. If he wanted to bring up the immaturity of Mel then he should’ve mentioned how he wanted to kill his ex- wife with bees or just his alcoholism in general. I think Campbell overlooks the fact that no one can express what true love is and anyone’s idea on what it is, is just as good as any other. Meyer, Adam. Adam Meyer presents an essay that describes Raymond Carver’s writing style and how “What We Talk When We Talk About Love” is Carver’s most exaggerated form of minimalism. Although Carver eventually reacted against this extremely pared-down-style, “this story continues to embody minimalism at its most distinctive” Meyer says. He describes how language is used so sparingly and the plots so minimal that the story at first seems to “have no life in them. Meyer goes on to tell how the characters frequently have no names or just first names and are so briefly described that they appear to have no physical presence, and certainly have no distinct identity. He discusses how Carver told an interviewer that the texts in “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” were “so pared down,” and everything he thought he could live without he just got rid of, or “cut out. ”. Meyer tells how Carver was urged by his editor to take out anything he could take out, as doing so will make the work stronger.

This is based in Ernest Hemmingway’s “theory of omission. ” “Pare, pare, and pare some more” his editor told him. Meyer then moves into the summary of the story stating that “Although its plot is rather thin, several of the obsessions that have run through the story–the difficulty of sustaining relationships, the effect of alcoholism as a contributing factor to that difficulty, the problem of communication–are given their most extensive treatment. ” He tells of how the old couple in the hospital could symbolize for Mel what a sign of a stable and long-lasting love is. Meyer also discusses his houghts on Mel and Terri’s relationship, bringing up how they start to argue more openly as the night unfolds, like when Terri kids Mel about sounding drunk, and Mel quietly responds, “Just shut up for once in your life…. Will you do me a favor and do that for a minute? ” He views Mel and Terri’s relationship as “disintegrating,” and their marriage at a stale state, while viewing Nick and Laura as “still glowing newlyweds” who are in the “first throes of love. ” Meyer ends his essay with, ‘the relative articulateness of these characters by no means enables them to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

The only resolution reached in this version of the symposium is that we really have no idea “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love”. ’ This is by far the best critical essay I have read On Carver’s “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love. ” Meyer takes into account what Carver was going through personally and what he was urged to do by his associates to make this story work. Instead of arguing that nothing happens like previous essays he understands that a lot is being said even though it has a minimal plot.

I like how he gives you actual research of Carver and shows that he analyzed the author’s background and writing style before jumping into conclusions of what the story is about. I also like how he sees the different obsessions the story offers such as the difficulty of sustaining relationships, the effect of alcoholism as a contributing factor to that difficulty, and the problem of communication in the story. His analysis of the characters are fair and not over analyzed and carefully comes to the proper conclusion of the story when he takes Mel’s question of “What do any of us really know about love? ” and answers it with “not very much. Brent, Liz. Liz Brent takes Carver’s “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” and dissects the character of Mel to a point where it seems he like is heartbroken man that protects himself from being hurt again. She claims that Carver demonstrates that the surface level of the conversation of the four characters is only the tip of the emotional iceberg. Brent talks about the figurative language used by Mel and how it’s expressive of his own feelings about the subject of love.

The author uses the image of the human “heart” and how it takes on figurative connotations in the story as it is referred to both in the mechanical sense, of the functioning of the human heart, and the symbolic sense, as the organ of love. She believes that the opening sentences of the story, in retrospect, play on the irony of Mel, a heart doctor, claiming to be an expert on matters of the heart. Brent also gives examples of another central element of figurative speech in this story revolving around Mel mentioning, if he could come back in a different life, he would want to be a “knight. She says that Mel’s fascination with the armor worn by a knight is perhaps a heavy-handed image of Mel’s need to protect himself emotionally against the ravages of love. ” She continues on stating that Mel explains “You were pretty safe wearing all that armor. ” She claims the image is extended to suggest that Mel’s protective emotional armor has failed to protect him against the dangers of new love: “It was all right being a knight until gunpowder and muskets and pistols came along. Brent then explains how Mel goes on to expand upon his fascination with the protective armor of knights: “what I liked about knights, besides their ladies, was that they had that suit of armor, you know, and they couldn’t get hurt very easy. ” From that, Brent came to the conclusion that Mel is expressing a desire to be protected from getting “hurt” at an emotional level in his relationships with others. As she stays on the same theme she discusses how Mel later uses the imagery of a beekeeper’s protective clothing to express a similar desire for some form of protection from love.

She claims that the armor imagery is echoed here in his description of the beekeeper’s protective clothing: “Sometimes I think I’ll go there dressed like a beekeeper. You know, that hat that’s like a helmet with the plate that comes down over your face, the big gloves, and the padded coat? I’ll knock on the door and let loose a hive of bees in the house. ” She concludes her essay by saying, “Although Carver is considered a minimalist writer, whose stories take on meaning more in what is not said than what is said, his use of figurative language gives depth to his stories by expanding upon their central themes. Although I believe this another example of over analyzing the character of Mel as well, it seems to be a good theory on whom Mel is. I never looked at those words and thought he was protecting his heart in some way, but after reading this, I believe maybe he was. Brent does a good job analyzing the words spoken and seems to carefully craft a conclusion on why he is saying those things. I don’t agree with all of her thoughts on the figurative language topic, but to dissect words and put another meaning to them is something I wouldn’t do but something I still enjoyed reading.

I also like that she’s not critical of Carver like other authors, and simply suggests what she thinks are some hidden messages through Mel’s words. I can see Carver looking at this and laughing but I can also see him walking away saying, I did mean it to come out that way, which shows a lot of thought and effort went into her analysis of Mel. Overall Brent does a wonderful job of looking deep into the meanings of Mel’s words and shows that words can be twisted into whatever meaning you want them to have and make the story that much better.

Love never has and can’t be described in a sentence; not even a paragraph. There is a wide range of views about love in the story ‘What We Talk about When We Talk about Love.’ This story involves a group of couples who are discussing love. However, they seem to be confused as to what love is. Everyone has their description and definition of love since individuals usually define it grounded in their societies, education, social classes, backgrounds, and cultures. This essay mainly focuses on the different views of love, such as Mel’s impassionate view of love conflicting with his wife, Terri’s self-sacrificing views about love. Once the perspective of love is developed as per the opinion of the characters, I will analyze it against my definition of love to see whether it supports or conflicts with the characters’ views about love. I will finally assess if Carver’s characters are believable.

When it comes to Mel, he is the person with the most absurd view. He is not passionate, and one can tell that his wife Terri favored marriage with Ed over his marriage. He is Terri’s husband, and he says that he only believes in spiritual love. Mel had spent five years in a seminary in the past, and this might be the base of his views about love. There is a point where Mel state that if there were a chance for him to go back in time, he would enjoy becoming a knight to protect him from others. This shows that he, not an emotional person and rather conceals his feelings from others. It is also apparent through Terri’s behavior that Mel doesn’t have the passion to experience love.

The only love he seems to experience is the love for his children; however, that is a different sense, and even if he would comment about it, it can be said that is the view of love. The love for his children is an instinct. The children were born to his care and made with his blood and therefore never searched for their love but came to be when the children were born. His relationship with women or rather with his wife or women he came across in the past is distant and indifferent as to whom they are inside.

Mel also believes that love can continue even after one loses his first love. There is a point he states that the terrible thing although also the good thing is that if something happened to someone the following day, the other would only grief for a short time after which the surviving party would continue and love again. If a husband or wife dies, the other person would grief for a while but loves again and has someone else soon enough. Mel’s view here is that when someone dies, he or she dies with love and the one left would love another, and the dead love would be replaced.

The characters seem confused about the definition of love, and they all have different opinions. Mel’s views and his wife’s Terri conflict. It is clear that Mel is not personate and he is the person with the most absurd idea of love, but Terri is the closest to understanding what love is. One of the areas that give Terri’s view concerning love is the remarks she makes to Nick and his wife, Laura. Terri scolds them for basing their relationship on physical elements instead of passion or emotion. An excellent example of this conflict is when Terri explains about the man she lived with before Mel. She describes how the man tried to kill her as he shouted he love Terri. Terri calls this love, and when she asks the rest what they would with such love, Mel says that that is not loving and even ask his wife to stop being silly. Terri argues that people are different and this was love. This indicates the conflicting views between Mel and his wife, Terri about love.

My definition of love supports Nick’s view of love. Although he doesn’t talk much, one can see Nick’s stand about love. I believe that love is a force of nature, and no one is capable of commanding or taking it away. Love is more significant than a person, it’s like an energy that radiates. It can be inviting but it’s difficult to dictate where, when, and how love expresses itself. This is the case for Nick since he is unable to dictate it. As they are talking, Nick touches his wife a great deal, holding and kissing Laura’s hand and touching her legs under the table. Mel states “You guys have been together for eighteen months and you love each other. It shows all over you. You glow with it. But you both loved other people before you met each other.” This is why I say that I support Nick’s view of love since I don’t believe one is capable of dictating love. He shows genuine affection, and although his friends are talking about love, he doesn’t change. Nick is capable of hearing their hearts which shows that he has an insight of love that others don’t have. Nick suggests that love is absolute, and this is what my definition says. Love has no conditions, and it is free, and no one’s views can change your feelings of love towards someone. I, therefore, support Nick’s view and belief about love.

I would say that Carver’s characters are believable considering their based argument. Laura is Nick’s wife, who is 35 years old and a legal secretary, and therefore, her arguments can be believed. Mel is a cardiologist who is old enough (forty-five years) to have experience and bases his views on his experiences. The question about love came with Mel, and this means he has been thinking about it. He gives examples from real life; for instance, the example he gives about a couple who were almost killed in an accident. This is an indication that he has come across quite a lot in his life. Nick is a keen observer and married and therefore, can be credible concerning this topic. Terri also has her experiences, and she makes reasonable arguments. Terri is credible since she is the only character who is close to understanding what love is. These characters are believable. One can’t indicate what love truly is but each character has felt it in some way.

Raymond Carver uses a literature style that enriches the portrayal of the themes of each short story he writes. Yet his style of work demonstrates a common crucial problem: the misinterpretation of the message his theory attempts to portray to this audience. This misinterpretation stems from Carver’ minimalist writing technique that is simple yet effective in his work. He uses this technique to provide the reader with little information, along with a glimpse of the desperate characters tackling their unstable relationships and profound emotions whose significances they cannot understand. As a result, this encourages the reader to search for the meaning behind the story. Carver recognizes his characters as helpless and shadowed by pain. Carver creates this style where a character’s silence is as significant as the gaps filled with words. In the short story “What We Talk About When We Are Talking About Love” Carver utilizes the first person point of view as a tool to strengthen the bond and reliance between the narrator and the reader. Likewise, in the story “Cathedral,” Carver again uses the first person technique. This essentially allows the reader to recognize both love and the difficulties of life that Carver depicts in these two stories. There are major similarities that outweigh the differences between the two short stories. These similarities include both the use of isolation in the two stories and the failure of language between the stories. In “what we talk about when we talk about love” alcohol works like a social lubricant that removes one’s self- consciousness and allows emotions to quickly emerge. First Isolation is commonly found in Carver’s short stories.

In “What We Talk About When We Are Talking About Love,” the couple isolates themselves from how they feel and do not allow themselves to feel the stress of their pasts. This is part of the reason why Carver introduced “gin” in the story, which is interpreted as alcohol. (alcohol works like a social lubricant that removes one’s self- consciousness and allows emotions to quickly emerge). It is evidently shown they need to “feel” each other in order to confirm they are really in love. The couple also finds it difficult to express this love in words. This symbolizes the end of the alcohol bottle. The alcohol runs out, just as the thoughts and on-going conversation follow. At this point, everyone seems to be isolated in his or her own world. This is shown when everyone stops speaking to one another. The character Nick comments, “I could hear my heart beating. I could hear everyone’s heart”. This is important because this quote shows the element of irony at the end of the story. It ends by hearing the heart beating, incapable of expressing words to the people they love, yet still alive and truly in love with each other. Alcohol also menaces the relationship between the characters and isolates their identities in the “Cathedral” In addition to alcohol, smoking is used as a device between the narrator and Robert, the “blind man” in “Cathedral.” The narrator is the most isolated character; he is imprisoned within himself and unable to voice his insecurities that seem to consume him. He hides his loneliness behind a shield of drugs and alcohol. Isolation is also present when the narrator feels that his wife is not including nor bringing his name up in conversations.

The narrator points out, “ I waited in vain to hear my name on my wife’s sweet lips… But I heard nothing of that sort more talk of Robert”. Consequently, the narrator feels no connection in the beginning towards Roger, which also creates some jealousy. As the story progresses, drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana releases the tension and increases male bonding, and finally the narrator’s superficial vision develops. The narrator becomes connected to Robert when cannabis is introduced. This is shown when he begins to appreciate the company of Robert, the narrator starts realizes how empty he is when he points out, “every night I smoked dope and stayed up as long as I could before I fell asleep. My wife and I hardly ever went to bed at the same time”. Connecting with the “blind man” allowed the narrator to face his identity and his own loneliness, and his mind unlocked new possibilities. This is similar to “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love.” Alcohol is used in order to create a bond between the friends around the table. When the narrator closes his eyes, Carver writes, “My eyes are still closed, I was in the house I knew that but I didn’t feel like I was inside anything”. Similar to Nick in the “Cathedral”, he is experiencing isolation around him. His eyes are closed, which brings back the idea of darkness and isolation, similar to the dark kitchen in “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love.”

Isolation continuously emerges with the theme of the failure of language In “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love,” the characters continuously try to define what the term love is. None of the characters are able to pin the idea down and end up failing. The use of physical intimacy is also added to replace the weak exchange of expressive language. The couple performs this many times. Carver writes, “I took Laura’s hand and raised it to my lips”. Another example shows through the character Nick. He pauses and is unable to express his feelings with words. Instead, Nick grabs her hand instead to try to prove he is in love. This indicates a weak performance of language throughout the story. This also indicates that the couple is still in their ‘honey moon phase,’ which is known as the phase where love is still new and wonderful. By the end of the conversation, Laura mentions that she is a hungry. Carver writes, “I’ll put out some cheese and crackers”. Terri responds but also sits there and did not act. This also proves the inability for the characters to communicate the feeling of love to each other. In “Cathedral,” language also fails.

This is shown when the narrator tries to describe to Robert, the blind man, what a cathedral appears to look like. Essentially the narrator fails, but near the end, similar to the couple in “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love,” the stories use physical intimacy in place of words. When Robert and the narrator touch hands in order to draw and describe what a cathedral looks like, unlike the couple, there is some success through the intimacy, and they start to connect faintly at the end of the story. Furthermore, Carver may be potentially symbolizing that the narrator is also “blind” as he gets stuck in words describing to Robert cathedrals description. Carver uses similar techniques in both short stories to create his message to the audience. His effective use of minimalism is crucial for the audience to understand that there is more to the story than meets the eyes.

The combined display of irony and symbolism between the stories enriches the hidden meaning even more. The reader is led to understand this when comparing the two stories. The stories denote the failure of language and the idea of isolation within one’s self. Carver’s astonishing literature style crafted two different stories that are alike in ways of themes, but also different in ways that the readers figure out for themselves.