Love is arguably one of the most discussed topics in the social realms. Love is not just a preserve for the social circles. Scholars in the academic realm have explored various dimensions of the subject. Carver is one of the authors who have explored one of the perspective of love. In the short story, What We Talk about When We Talk about Love, Carver explores the ideas of different people when they talk about love. There is a need to focus on certain elements as they are crucial to the understanding of the short story. One such element is the elusiveness of love. The fact that people have different definitions of love, or will find fault in one other’s definition of love is testament of the elusiveness of love. Despite the best efforts of people to define love, they end up widening its scope or confusing their audience. This is a theme that Carver has explored intensively in the short story. The characters take turn articulating their definition and meaning of love. Each of the characters have their thoughts on what constitutes love and what it means. Despite their earnest efforts, what is apparent from the short story is that the characters only manager to exemplify the mystery that is love rather than lay its meaning bare for all to see and perceive. The elusiveness of love is also exemplified by the fact that despite the expression of certainty of its understanding, none of the characters in the short story are able to translate that certainty into a clearly articulated explanation of the meaning or definition of love. Focusing on this element helps the reader understand the short story in its entirety because it prepares the reader for the major theme in the short story. It also informs the author that love is a subjective phenomenon and that the definition of one person is as good as that of the next person as is overtly illustrated by the characters in the short story.
When Carver (356) writes, “My God, don't be silly. That's not love, and you know it, Mel said. "I don't know what you'd call it, but I sure know you wouldn't call it love," he shows the disagreement between the characters in the short story regarding what love is, its definition, and meaning. However, the characters actually agree with one another on what love is despite their overt disagreements on the same subject. This position is exemplified through different scenes in the short story as will be illustrated in the following paragraphs.
Despite the disagreements between the characters on what love is and what it is not, there is consensus that it is subjective and its perception varies from one individual to another. There are many indications in the short story to this effect. For instance, Carver (357) writes, “He did love me though, Mel. Grant me that," Terri said. "That's all I'm asking. He didn’t love me the way you love me. I'm not saying that. But he loved me. You can grant me that, can't you?" Firstly, the utterances by Terri are an indication of the belief that there can be more than one definition or meaning of love. It challenges the concept by Mel that love is absolute, that its meaning is consistent through time, context, and place. Terri’s utterances also signify that people can love others in different ways and to a different extent, and that that would still be referred to as love.
Mel is very adamant throughout the short story that the actions of Ed to threaten Terri, and the fact that these actions are attributed to his love for her does not amount to love. Mel is even adamant that that the kind of love that drives Ed to try and kill Terri and end up killing himself is not true love. Carver (359) writes, “But sometimes I have a hard time accounting for the fact that I must have loved my first wife too. But I did. I know I did. So I suppose I am like Terri in that regard. Terri and Ed." He thought about it and then he went on. "There was a time when I thought I loved my first wife more than life itself.”
The excerpt above shows retrospective thinking, and probably a recognition of the arguments the other characters make. It also advances the thesis that love is not absolute, and that its definition is unique to the different people. It also advances the argument that even if people share commonalities in their definition of love and the perception of its meaning, there lacks an absoluteness in its elements and mechanism. This is exemplified by the fact that Mel, a man who was previously married and loved his former wife is married to another now, and also loves the present wife (Carver 359).
Firstly, Mel finds it difficulty toe explain how it is possible that he loved his first wife and later on came to despise her. The reader can draw comparisons between the behavior of Mel to someone he loved and the Behavior of Ed if they disregard the fact that Ed’s behavior was quite extreme. By looking at the motivations for the behavior, it is arguable that unrequited love or something that had to do with love was responsible. Secondly, the fact that fact that Mel loved one woman and now loves another signifies that there are different ways to love, especially because the two women are different from one another (Carver 359).
Carver (362) features the story of the old couple who had been involved in an accident on the interstate. The couple sustained life threatening injuries. More precisely, the doctors who were working on them did not think that they would survive the injuries for long. The reader can sense the surprise in Mel’s voice when the couple improved every day in the intensive care unit. One can almost gather from Mel that he thought they could communicate through one medium or another and both made promises to fight for their life just to see one another again.
However, the most revealing thing about this incidence is given when Carver (362), “I’d get up to his mouth-hole, you know, and he’d say no, it wasn’t the accident exactly but it was because he couldn’t see her through his eye-holes. He said that was what was making him feel so bad. Can you imagine? I’m telling you, the man’s heart was breaking because he couldn’t turn his goddamn head and see his goddamn wife.” In this excerpt, Mel is referring to the cause of depression for the old man. His depression was not because he had been bandaged to within an inch of his body, or the fact that he had been in an accident that could have taken his life, or the fact that he was in an unbearable pain. At Mel’s surprise, the old man was depressed because he could not turn and take a look at his wife who was laid on another bed in the same room.
Mel’s surprise is given when Carver (362) writes, “Mel looked around the table and shook his head at what he was going to say.”I mean, it was killing the old fart just because he couldn't look at the fucking woman." When Carver (362) write, “Mel looked around the table and shook his head at what he was going to say,” he signifies that Mel did not understand that kind of love that would cause a man to focus on the fact that he could not see his wife despite the fact that he was in an accident and bandaged.
This causes the reader to doubt the hardline stands that Mel had taken earlier. It shows that Mel does not understand love as much as he projected earlier on in the short story. The fact that Mel looks around also appears as a concession on his part that love is too broad and subjective for one person to claim to fully understand it. It also shows a concession on Mel’s part that love is not absolute; that it varies from one person to another. This is an unsaid agreement on Mel’s part with the more humble opinions of the other characters regarding love.
Works Cited
Carver, Raymond. What We Talk About When We Talk About Love. London: Harvill Press, 1996. Print.
