logo

32 pages 1 hour read

Raymond Carver

What We Talk About When We Talk About Love

Fiction | Short Story | Adult | Published in 1981

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Themes

The Inability to Define Love

The story considers the complexities of various types of love, which Carver juxtaposes throughout. Phila, or love between friends, is at the fore. There is the friendship that exists between Nick, Laura, Mel, and Terri. They meet as “pals” and spend an afternoon together, drinking gin and telling stories. However, there is an undercurrent of competition between the two men and the two women. Nick admires Mel and sees him as his superior, but at the same time, he refuses to endorse Mel’s ideas about love and later sabotages his medieval fantasy. Terri dismisses the happiness between Laura and Nick and cynically suggests that their “honeymoon” phase will end over time. Carver frames the exploration of love through the primary juxtaposition of the husbands and wives as well as through the respective couples.

Carver also contrasts the concepts of eros, romantic love, and mania, obsessive love. The comparison between Nick and Laura’s ostensibly loving and comfortable relationship and Mel and Terri’s tense bickering undercuts the notion of conventional romantic love. Additionally, Terri’s previous relationship with Ed is a traumatic example of obsessive love, which Terri endeavors to validate. Terri believes that Ed, her ex-partner, demonstrated his love for her through violence, which she sees not as abuse but as deep-felt passion. The prickly relationship between Mel and Terri is contrasted with the “honeymoon” period that comparatively newly-weds Nick and Laura are in. The latter couple speaks little, unlike Mel and Terri, but demonstrate their love through non-verbal actions: Nick touches and kisses Laura’s hand and strokes her “warm thigh,” and they bump legs under the table. In positioning Nick and Laura as a couple sustained through physical connection alone, the story brings forth the question whether their love is, in fact, enduring. Nick regards his partner as “easy to be with” (129), which suggests that their marriage may not work if Laura were more confrontational like Terri.

In contrast, there are discernible underlying tensions between Mel and Terri. She places a warning hand around her husband’s wrist because she thinks he is drinking too much, quite different from the way that Nick affectionately “encircle[s]” and holds Laura’s wrist. Terri also criticizes her husband’s use of English, which irritates him: “They were called vassals, not vessels” (135). They are less affectionate with one another and rarely touch. Instead, Mel fingers the ice in his glass, and Terri rubs the tablecloth. They only use physical expression to mask their irritation and maintain a superficial cordiality, such as when they meet halfway to kiss across the table. Although Mel adamantly rejects Ed’s actions as expressions of love, his own actions mirror volatility. He harbors the violent fantasy of killing his ex-wife and becomes increasingly caustic toward Terri. Mel is audibly self-assured about what love is not, yet he is unable to reconcile the true nature of love. At the end of the story, no definition can be agreed upon. Everyone has their own interpretation, with Mel declaring, “We are all beginners at love” (131). In omitting a clear definition of love, Carver suggests that there is no one correct interpretation. Rather, everyone views love through the lens of their experiences, and all perspectives are valid.

Talking About Love Is Ineffectual

The story is based on the premise that language is inadequate to our needs and reflects Carver’s own struggles with the creative process. The inadequacy of language is even indicated in the title, which mentions the act of talking twice and frames itself as a question that the story does not directly answer. The characters spend an afternoon debating the meaning of love and, in the process, expose the ways in which language is insufficient to explain something as important or intangible as love. Most of the story is dialogue, with minimal descriptors by Nick of the actions or setting. In the end, the characters run out of words and fall silent because the real meaning of love proves elusive. Dialogue is replaced in the last lines with the sound of human hearts beating.

Terri tells the story of her ex-partner, Ed, but words fail her when Mel challenges her views. Terri can only repeat the same point that Ed’s violence shows he really loved her. Mel has a different interpretation of the same events, but when Terri refuses to agree with him, he introduces a second story to “prove” his definition of love. Importantly, this anecdote involves an injured elderly couple encased in plaster casts. Mel attempts to uncover the cause of the elderly man’s depression, but what he learns does not align with his own worldview. The man is distraught that he can’t see his wife in the bed next to him, a sentiment with which Mel can’t relate. Like the characters in the story, no one is hearing what they want to hear, nor are they understanding one another.

As the anecdotes get more confused, and the characters get drunker, the more language starts to fracture. Mel’s arrogant manner is dented, and he becomes less assured. He loses his train of thought and is unable to tell a cohesive story. Unexpected questions, in addition to the rising tensions between him and Terri, exacerbate his confusion. He can’t properly grasp and communicate the point he is trying to make about the elderly couple’s love for one another, and his story breaks down in a flurry of bad language: “I’m telling you, the man’s heart was breaking because he couldn’t turn his goddam head and see his goddam wife. […] I mean, it was killing the old fart just because he couldn’t look at the fucking woman” (137). Unable to reach a conclusion, he asks the others, “Do you see what I’m saying?” (137). Instead of providing affirmation, Nick quietly dismisses Mel as intoxicated, and Terri audibly dismisses Mel as “depressed.” Exasperated with his inability to be understood, Mel diverts his attention to killing his ex-wife. The couples, unable to engage in healthy discourse about love, resign themselves to silence. Through Mel, Carver depicts the isolation and frustration that accompanies one’s inability to communicate complex, abstract ideas.

blurred text
blurred text
blurred text
blurred text