I'll be interested to hear whether or not you think Raymond Carver's story illustrates any of the attitudes and/or ideas we found in the essays by Brownmiller and Perrin. Or just comment on any aspect of the story you found interesting or about which you had a question.
By the way, I've now invited everyone to be authors of the blog. Let me know if you didn't get an email from me.
12 comments:
I found two things particularly interesting about this story, one of which I have a question about. First, I thought it was interesting that "Nick" didn't say very much in the conversation. Also, lines 140-150 of the story seem very important... I just can't quite seem to figure out their significance. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
Amy Graziano
Amy-
I agree with you that those last ten lines hold much significance to the story. Especially line 141, "It means I could just keep going. That's all it means." In context in seems he is talking about drinking, but I took it as his life, his love. That he could just keep going, it doesn't matter if he eats or not.
I like the ending of this story because he ends it very strongly by saying, "I could hear my heart beating, I could hear everyone's heart." They had been in conversation the whole night and at the end it was silent. It makes the reader think about their own life and what love means to them.
I thought that the comments about the nature of love made by the character Mel were quite interesting. Most people think that romantic love is more important than carnal love, and often you hear people say something like "I wish I could find some one who wants to be with me because they love me and not simply because they want sex." Mel also makes a distinction between the kind of romance the narrator and the character Laura are experiencing and carnal love, but he places more importance in carnal love: “I’ll tell you what real love is. […] Physical love, that impulse that drives you to someone special.” Throughout the story the narrator and his wife tend to gaze and smile at eachother, and Mel comments about how they “glow” with love. He then goes on to tell the story of the elderly couple injured in the car accident. Mel thinks it is absurd that the elderly man got upset over not being able to see his wife: “Well, the husband was very depressed for the longest while. […] 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.” I think that this shows that Mel doesn’t place great importance in “gaga” glances like the ones the narrator and his wife exchange and other expressions of romantic love.
I found it might somehow be significant or symbolic how Mel, being a cardiologist, works and operates on people's hearts for a living, yet appears to be uncertain about the true meaning of love.
That's really interesting about the connection between a cardiologist and trying to understand the heart. I didn't even notice that. Anyways, I can see how this story relates to the two previous stories we discussed. Just as those dealt with society fitting a man or a woman into a certain mold, this story, to me, seemed to say the same thing about love. The most obvious example of this is with Terri and her abusive ex. Although our society would typically classify his behavior as controlling and certainly not love, Terri felt something different. She could tell that he loved her, that maybe he just could not express it correctly. Another example of this, I think, is Mel and Terri. They seem to have a somewhat strange love throughout this piece such as saying that they knew they would both move on to other people if something happened to one of them (707). While most people claim that they would die without their partner and probably do believe this, Mel is honest that he could move on, even though he is clearly in love with his wife. I guess my point with these two is that even though they do not have the typical love that society expects, they still share a strong bond and affection for one another, or in other words, they do love each other.
I agree with what Patrick said. I think that just goes to show the difference between physical love and 'matters of the heart'. I think the irony that the Carver employs should draw the reader to a greater understand in the different types of love in the world.
Did any one think that there was a significance in needing to drink all of the 'cheapo gin'?
Amanda Mortus
I also noticed Mel and Terri's strange relationship. It reminded me of one that had been going on for much longer than their five years. After a while, it seems that husband and wife become so comfortable with each other that they throw insults at each other, yet it doesn't seem to matter to either of them. For an easy reference point, simply watch an episode of "Everybody Loves Raymond". I also love Mel's honesty when he makes his statement about moving on. While most people say they would die without their significant other or never love again, this is not always a realistic view. It is human nature to love, and when love is lost, it is human nature to grieve. But eventually, a human being must love again, and they will move on. Mel, who may have the help of a little too much to drink, is only being honest about what would happen in a life without Terri.
___Tim Dugas___
*Amy* - Why did you think it interesting that Nick didn't say very much and why did you find lines 140-150 important enough to bring up?
I agree with Ray that Mel might place physical love higher than romantic love.
I think that his wife believes love can also be... physical.
This disparity in thought, this change of what love means from person to person is the focus of the story.
Perhaps the Author implies that no two people can love the exact same way?
If this is true than a most horrible thought comes to mind:
One may find someone who they truly love, someone who they love perfectly. This perfect expression of their love for the other person will be necessarily different from what the other person feels for them.
If one's love for someone is perfect and the other person's love is different, than that other person's love is less than perfect.
If something is perfect, than anything different is necessarily less perfect, because nothing can be more perfect and two things can not be equally perfect and different at the same time, because that means that one has a good quality the other lacks, and if one lacks a good quality then it is not perfect.
So no two people can each love each other perfectly.
Or perhaps there is no perfect, no “true” love?
This story suggests that there are many different forms or types of love. Some projections of love may be more socially acceptable or understood. However, everyone presents themselves or interacts with others in different ways, leading to the different ways people show their love. In this story, love doesn’t appear to be something definable by a group as a whole, but something special and defined by just 2 people. As for the lines 140-150, they might suggest that his love could go on forever, he could drink forever, or perhaps it means that he could continue analyzing life, relationships, and love forever.
What Patrick realized was very observant, and I did not make that connection through the story. But now that he pointed it out it goes to show that the heart as a physical object and the heart as an emotional object, capable of feeling, are completely different. It really seems as if the author was trying to point this out, and the significance of the story lies within this irony. For Carver makes it a specific point to refer to Mels job, although he does so nonchalantly, it holds much meaning.
I agree that the story shows different types of “love”. What impresses me the most is that Mel and Terri have different opinions about what love is, but they still love each other. It is hard to understand how 2 people, with completely different thoughts and opinions about what love is can be together.
At the end of the story when they all are in silence and they can hear their heartbeat I think it is symbolic of the fact that they all have felt love for someone or have been in love in one way or another at some point in their life but they just don’t know how to explain what love is form them because everyone has different meanings of what love is according to their experiences.
One thing that seemed to surprise me when we considered this story in class was that we were looking at the negative parts of the relationships, attempting to discern love. Contrary to this analysis, I feel as though love can only be achieved when two people cease behavior that might insult the other person. It seems to me that in the truest form of love, a level of respect brings peace between the lovers. I’m willing to hear arguments supporting the idea of “playful/pretend fighting,” but I have not heard it described in a way that the person arguing really seems to believe fighting has a place in the highest form of love. What matters here isn’t whether we can argue for “playful love” as compatible with the highest form of love or against it, but whether “playful love” is really what we want. If anyone comes back to this post, just think about it as you go through life.
Post a Comment