In “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love,” by Raymond Carver, there is repetitive symbolism in the word love. Everyone in the short story who is sitting in the room has a different point of view on love. Loving someone could mean giving someone your all, or in some cases it could mean hurting someone to show them how much you love them. In the story Nick states that “love is an absolute,” at first I didn’t know what this meant but then I began to think about it. Absolute love means that you give someone your all. It can also mean true loyalty to a person. Earlier in the text Terri tells us her version of love. She says that the man she used to live with loved her so much that he tried to kill her. It was a different kind of love she says. When you first read her statement on love it makes one question, who could ever love someone who hurt them? How is that a type of love? Maybe he did love her and maybe he was crazy but from personal experience, I would never let a man lay his hands on me. I believe that if someone loves you that they would never do anything to hurt you. After earlier in the text when Mel says, “that true love is nothing less of spiritual love,” he tells a story of an elderly couple who got in an accident and loved each other more than anything. This ultimately changes the groups outlook on love. This text explores the depth of human emotion and the inconsistency of romantic love. The truth behind this one word has come out, all while sitting at this table. People say “when your drunk the truth comes out.” While they were sipping on their gin their truly feeling and emotion all came out to play.
Brittany,
ReplyDeleteYou write, ““What We Talk About When We Talk About Love,” by Raymond Carver, there is repetitive symbolism in the word love.” I’m not sure you’re talking about an actual symbol here (a symbol is something concrete that represents something abstract). What you describe is a number of people who view romantic love and its traits very differently, but not symbolism per se.
“In the story Nick states that “love is an absolute,” at first I didn’t know what this meant but then I began to think about it. Absolute love means that you give someone your all. It can also mean true loyalty to a person.” Can’t tell whether you’re moving toward N.C. or R.R. You’ll want to use the appropriate jargon for clarification (i.e., are you trying to suggest that the meaning of “love is an absolute” is ambiguous and that this ambiguity is later solved? If so, you’re doing N.C (you’re also writing in first person, though, which isn’t an option with N.C., so perhaps you’re trying for R.R.)
“When you . . . “ Really watch the use of 2nd person – we don’t use it all academically. You’ll want to stick to 1st and/or 3rd person, as appropriate.
“? How is that a type of love? Maybe he did love her and maybe he was crazy but from personal experience, I would never let a man lay his hands on me. I believe that if someone loves you that they would never do anything to hurt you.” Here, it would appear you’re doing R.R. If so, again, you’ll want to use the concrete ideas and language associated with R.R. Are you dealing with horizons of expectations and/or gaps here? Also, you mention your “personal experience” as it relays to “let[ting a man lay his hand’s on me”. You’ll want to explain this. You don’t have to if it’s too personal, but I’d cut this if you don’t want to expand (you’re implying you’ll chronicle something that makes you respond strongly and personally to Terri’s story but don’t yet follow through).
“After earlier” --??
“This ultimately changes the groups outlook on love.” Why/how does Mel’s take on love changes everyone else’s? How do YOU respond to it? Does the narrator “signal” that Mel’s version should be valued the most or that Mel has the most insight?
“The truth behind this one word has come out, all while sitting at this table.” Doesn’t the text both implicitly and explicitly state that many “truths” about romantic love exist? What is yours (since readers are naturally going to confront what a text offers as truth with truths of their own?)
By the conclusion of your response, I’d say you’re doing Reader Response. I hope what I’ve offered is helpful, but you don’t yet have a structure or a clear theoretical path established (i.e., clues and signals, or horizons of expectation, or “gaps”, etc.) I do hope my comments help you find that structure, and I look forward to reading your paper.