the love one

so i believe the absence of food is the absence of nourishment and the alchohol is a improper substitute for that. and that is the reason the love fails. Love needs nourishment and for that reason the experiences the old couple went through gave them the nouresnment for their love to be real. the unnourished love people today have is the reason love does not last

response to michelle

It is quite ironic that the narrator either can't see the problems with the relationship, or that she needs to get out of it, yet see still seems to be advising the reader on how the handle the situation.

How to talk to a hunter

I was intrigued by this story. "How to talk to a Hunter" is intended to be the story of most relationships: a selfish, "hunting" man, and a trapped, hopeless woman. Pam Houston writes in the second person, and places different advice or perspectives by saying "your best male friend will say..." or "your best female friend will say..." This allows the story to be universal: anyone can fill in the character's names in the story and make it their own, hypothetically. Houston also uses humor to poke fun at her commentary of modern relationships. The story is on the whole, interesting and somewhat sad. It offers little or no hope of love between a man (or a hunter) and a woman.

RE: Love(steve's)

I'm in complete agreement with steve. Raymond Carver utilizes light and alcohol as representations of time in the story "What We Talk About...Love." I find it rather interesting that the two symbols work in opposition of one another. I guess one could this a unique sort of teamwork which aids the reader through this story.

Ditto

i can understand that. and i know where you're coming from. however there are feminists of all different styles just like there are of any other type of person.


AGREED! sleep is a good thing.

last one JT, i swear

I understand that about the Coyote woman, and yes that is very cool of her, I think. However, if you look at the story from another view point, she is sort of selfishly using the man because at the same time she is hurting this other woman. So its like, a woman putting down another woman for the guy. I don't think any feminist wants to portray that type of message in their stories.

IM GOING TO BED. enough bickering for one night.

"Beginners" and WWTAWWTAL

This is a response to Nicole's post earlier.

Like Nicole, I saw that the most apparent difference between the edited and unedited versions of the story is the way that the old couple's pure love is exhibited, but I also noticed the impact on characterization that edited version has. Other than the names changed for all the men in the story, I noticed that Herb and Mel seemed to be almost different men and that Terri in the edited version seems much weaker than she is in Carver's original work. For example, when Terri corrects Mel in the edited version about the word "Vassal," he replies:

"Vassals, vessels [...] what the fuck's the difference? You knew what I meant anyway. [...]. I'm a heart surgeon, sure, but I'm just a mechanic. I go in and I fuck around and I fix things. Shit"

While, in the original version he (Herb/Mel) says:

"Vassals, vessels, ventricles, vas deferens. Well, you knew what I meant anyway. [...]. I'm a heart surgeon, sure, but really I'm just a mechanic. I just go in and fix things that go wrong with the body."

Clearly, the message is the same in that we see Herb/Mel rejecting his wife's correction and sarcastically trying to prove greater intelligence. The difference I see is in the profanity he uses in the edited quote, which emphasizes his drunkenness, ignorance rather than intelligence, and a more grating flaw in his relationship with Terri. In the original quote he downplays any importance in knowing the word "vassals" by making a small joke in listing medical terms, which affirms his medical intelligence.

With Terri, I saw that there was a striking difference in her reaction to Mel hitting on Laura between the two versions of the text. In the edited version, her response is passive. She says, "Tell your story, [...] then we'll go to that new place okay?", disregarding the comment completely. This marks her as a more vulnerable Terri, the Terri who would be in an abusive relationship with Ed. I don't think that this was the way Carver wanted Terri portrayed since, in his original story, she has a much stronger comeback. She says instead, "Herb, you shit, [...] tell your story. If I weren't in love with you, I damn sure well wouldn't be here in the first place, you can bet on it." In Carver's "Beginners", Terri is a stronger character, making her relationship with Mel/Herb more equal in power than the one in WWTAWWTAL.

SB,

humble. very cool. thats' nice to hear every once in a while.

for me personally, when i view the Coyote woman, although yes she IS in a relationship with him, she seems oddly apathetic and uncaring. as if she views him the same way he views her. therefore i don't think she cares about the rest of the women, because she uses him for sex. same as he uses her. and if she is infact the female version of him, she is the female version of the hunter. someone who is in power emotionally and can do what they want while having flocks of people at their feet, so to speak.


as for the second one, i can understand where the whole feminist aura thing can be considered lax in this story. which i understand and can see. however, for me it seems as though Houston is using the Coyote woman as a model. therefore i think the coyote woman is supposed to be somewhat of a positive figure, although i could be wrong.

humbly,

jt.

agree to disagree?

JT,

Two more things.

I have to disagree with you on the Coyote woman. She seems like a strong figure but she is also hooking up with this guy who is just awful. He lies to her too and she doesn't do anything about it either! I just don't understand how a feminist story could possibly have so many negatively portrayed women.

Second, I don't know any other works done by Pam, So I'm not sure whether she is a feminist author or not. However, from this story, I'm really not feeling the feminist aura.

Mind you, thats simply an opinion of a partially ignorant young woman.

Dear SarA Buncke

Lol. sorry about that. old habit. gotta break it. :oP

" I believe your words were "it seems like an ignorant feminist on repeat." Forgive me for assuming the "it" was Pam. Even though you now admit that "by the nature of her writing... she seems to convey that attitude." "

true those are my words. and yes i do mean that. Pam obviously isn't ignorant, otherwise she wouldn't be famous now would she? so yes i agree with you on that she is not an ignorant woman. her attitude that is conveyed through the story IS, however. that, my friend, is my opinion.

" I know you didn't say it wasn't a feminist story. In fact I believe I am the one trying to prove its not, and you are the one thinks it is, correct? "How to talk to a Hunter" is merely a fictional account of a commonly seen relationship in society, unfortunately. Its a tale of a man who takes advantage of a women who is way too vulnerable and ridiculously attached. She outwardly professes her love to him, and in return, he abuses her trust causing her internal destruction. Obviously Pam does not like the type of relationship this couple is experiencing because she portrays the affair to be a negative one. She's just warning her readers not to get mixed up with any of those badass heartbreakers. "

i believe it is yes. Mainly because of the contrast of the two women, and mainly because of the Koyote (coyote, however you spell it) woman. Her contrasting spirit to that of the main character, who is emotionally weak, gives the woman (Coyote woman) the air of an empowered and independent woman. therefore because there is such a model in that story, and that model clearly understands the situation, is not weak or emotionally attached, she is a feministic model. I believe Beltramo would agree if one was to say that a woman's sexuality in literature is the authors attempt at empowering such a woman through her sexual acts and freedom. under that nature, the Coyote woman is a feminist figure and therefore i believe this story to be that of a feminist and a woman attempting to live her life, written, undoubtedly, but a feminist author. (Pam is, whether you want to argue one way or another, a feminist writer.)

" Well, I don't recall any mention of female empowerment. Its merely a story of one persons' actions causing the downfall of another person. "

that's too simple an explanation for a story written by an author of the level of Houston. I dissagree. that is describing only one small event in the story and attempting to make it static, solitary, and the sole plot, which is not the case.

"I wouldn't say Pam Houston's attitude is that of an ignorant feminist at all. She's simply telling a story. I mean, she is a famous author, she can't be too ignorant, eh?"

:) we're all ignorant on some level. it's just to the degree of which you are. as for Pammy here, obviously she can't be that ignorant you are right. however even the smartest people have their generalizations and misconceived perceptions. Whether it is HER personal attitude being manifested through this story, or just the attitude of the story, the undeniable fact is that there is blame put on the hunter and the way he is portrayed and not given a proper identity. that sends a message. the message is pretty clear.

Response to Eric

I don't think Pam Houston is expressing the fact that women in particular are "dumb enough" to stay in an unhealthy relationship. This applies to both men and women. The story represents the fact that love is blinding. Intellectually you might know what's best for you, but be unable to act on it because you are emotionally attached. Women aren't the only ones chained to a relationship, it depends strictly on the person. Furthermore, I don't think that the woman in the story is being manipulated by the hunter because she knows what he is doing. She sees that he has fifteen voicemails and she smells the coyote woman on him. She is completely aware of his "player" actions yet stays with him for her own emotional and sexual needs. The narrator knows the hunter does not deserve her, but if all men are hunters how can she get better? There is no real relationship described in this story, because the hunter does not love the narrator and the narrator does not love the hunter. Both men and women can be blind in certain circumstances; this does not just relate to women.

response to mollyj

i agree with molly's statement that the "When We Talk About When We Talk About Love" "reminds us that love comes in all different packages". The story does show how all people have a different way to express their love for one another. Carver illustrates the ways the way people show their emotions for one another. One could tell another to shut up but still loves them. But Carver still shows the stereotypical "true love" with the old couple in short story.

I Love to Read

I enjoyed the short story "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love". In the short story "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love", I realized the different types of love that are discussed between the characters in the story. I found the relationships between the characters interesting. Each relationship shows different types of love such as real love and old fashioned love. Terri and her relationship with Ed can be argued as real love because she stayed there when he died. She shows her love by being the only one there to stay with him when he was dying. The other relationship that shows the old fashioned type of love is the old couple. The old couple is mentioned throughout the whole short story and is an example of a stable relationship while the other relationships being discussed are sort of dysfunctional. Time is also another important aspect in the story. It is shown through the gin being drank and the light outside. Once the alcohol is gone, it is dark outside and the story ends.

True love is unconditional. In "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love", the only example of this is the old couple whose love never fades. All of the other loves described in the story have certain conditions or faults that take away the essence of eternal, genuine love. Ed's abusive behavior towards Terri cannot even be considered a form of love. He has personal issues that he takes out on his girlfriend, but he does not abuse her out of love. Mel expresses that his love for his ex-wife has turned into hatred for her. While he criticizes Ed's aggressiveness, he contemplates setting a swarm of bees lose on his ex-wife, which would kill her since she's allergic to bees. This shows his hypocrisy and blindness to the idea of real love. Previously Mel says how love can turn into just a memory; at one point in time it can be real and meaningful but later on it can dissolve. I have a problem with this, because at the end of the day true love is unconditional. Mel's relationship with Terri is not healthy either; he tells her to "just shut up for once." People don't express their love with such harshness normally. Mel tends to flirt with Laura throughout the course of their conversation, which is another sign of his absence of love for Terri. The old couple represent the essence of love. The husband is depressed because he cannot see his wife, not because of the accident. He loves her and just wants to be close to her at all times. In short, this story expresses only one true love while portraying numerous cases of unhealthy "love".

Dear Jack Treseler

Jack Treseler, first off, as you can see from my username, Sara does not have an H at the end. But thats beside the point.

I believe your words were "it seems like an ignorant feminist on repeat." Forgive me for assuming the "it" was Pam. Even though you now admit that "by the nature of her writing... she seems to convey that attitude."

I know you didn't say it wasn't a feminist story. In fact I believe I am the one trying to prove its not, and you are the one thinks it is, correct? "How to talk to a Hunter" is merely a fictional account of a commonly seen relationship in society, unfortunately. Its a tale of a man who takes advantage of a women who is way too vulnerable and ridiculously attached. She outwardly professes her love to him, and in return, he abuses her trust causing her internal destruction. Obviously Pam does not like the type of relationship this couple is experiencing because she portrays the affair to be a negative one. She's just warning her readers not to get mixed up with any of those badass heartbreakers.

Well, I don't recall any mention of female empowerment. Its merely a story of one persons' actions causing the downfall of another person.

I wouldn't say Pam Houston's attitude is that of an ignorant feminist at all. She's simply telling a story. I mean, she is a famous author, she can't be too ignorant, eh?

- This is for Eric

"I do not agree with your statement "personally it seems like an ignorant feminist on repeat" because no where in the story is there a moment where the female should think that men are pigs."

Actually, i believe there is. Houston does not outright and bluntly say that men are pigs, as that would give way to controversy, something most people seem to want to avoid for one reason or another. However, through small details, such as the 15 messages from other women on his answering machine, his obvious views of women as another animal to hunt (only this time sexually), and even the title gives way to her views. "How to talk to a HUNTER." Many people have said this, and i will reiterate what they say for your sake. The hunter has no name. Therefore he is all of us. INCLUDING YOU. if all these small facts are to ignite a reaction in readers that ALL men (no name hunter) are predators, how is that not saying that all men are dangerous, pigs, and must therefore be dealt with in caution?

"Even though the men do control the relationship in the story and in society, there is nothing stopping the women from leaving the relationship, it is her decision in staying and doing a mistake in staying in it."

Four words. Emotional. State. Of. Mind. Her emotions and feelings for the hunter force her to blind herself intellectually, therefore stopping any thoughts of leaving him. If she were more detached from him, then yes, she would have the power and the ability to leave. However, as you like to say, "she's whipped." She's emotionally obsessed with this hunter and therefore can't and won't think straight or logically for that matter.

Men control the relationship in society? what society are You talking about? My history may be a little fuzzy... but i think familial hierarchies were a fad of the 30's and 40's. Not the 2000's. And i think Harstrick can attest that not all relationships include the man wearing the pants. (not a zinger at you, Alex, just remembering you saying that a bunch of times when mentioning your significant other)

"Your statement in someways is right, but no where in the story is the female in danger and should think that all men are predators, so I think you should reread the story to catch the different side of what I see because I know where your coming from, but in "How to Talk to a Hunter" the man is in control but in no way does he put the narrator in any danger."

I would call emotional distress, possibly ruining her future with any other male that deserves her, any monetary job she may sacrifice for being by his side, mental walls to blind herself from reality, and in all general senses of the words, emotional and psychological SUICIDE a danger. I don't know about you.

Response to Berto

The sad reality is that every one of these marriages will last a long time and heres why. Everyone has seen the couple that just hates eachother and wont leave eachother, because thats what they feed of off, their hatred of eachother- weird right, but its true. Similiarly to Nick and his wife, they are absolutely enamored with eachother, and their relationship is beautifully contrasted with Mel's in that they are happy being happy, and Mel is happy wanting others to be as unhappy as he is. Like the old couple, all of these dudes are in for the long haul. Carvers criticism, or "what we talk about when we talk about love", is that "love" per se, is not syn ominous with longevity in a relationship, but rather, the actual love inside it, which is unmeasurable.

To: Sarah

quickly, i never said that Houston was an ignorant feminist. although by the nature of her writing, and without any personal history, and this story solely as evidence, she seems to convey that attitude to the reader.

so, question from sarah: Jack Treseler, my question to you is this: what do you mean when you say Pam Houston is ignorant? What is it exactly that she is unaware of? That this story is so not a feminist story? or do you still think it is?

I never said it wasn't a feminist story. In fact i never made such a comment. Do i think this story has elements of a feminist view of the world? of course. However, i personally do not agree with the way Houston portrays men in this story. The only male character in this short story is that of the "hunter." The hunter is given no name, therefore he represents all of us (us being males) and in that regard her statement (or reference, inference, whatever you want to call it) that all men are players (based off the nature of the hunter), i find personally general, ignorant, and yes incorrect. However i do not have enough or adaquate information to say that Houston herself is ignorant. just the way she portrays her characters, and the attitude the story gives off i view as ignorant.

by using the phrase "ignorant feminist on repeat" i don't know if many of you have met one. i have met a couple. and lemme tell you that those i have met say the same things. Men are the predators and women are the victims. And again and again they say that. And me living with an educated feminist (mother) i've come to expect a better argument from those who consider themselves feminists. frankly, i got bored with the message that Houston sent out in that regard.

I personally do think this story is a feminist story, mostly based off the descriptions of the main character and Koyote. K seems like an independent, strong woman, and views the hunter the same way he views other women. In short, K is empowering. I still do not think that this view of women as animals or something to be hunted is right. However i also do not believe that the same views should be entertained by women. Whether in reaction to men or not. To be Truly empowering, and to Truly show men that women are more than meet, women, i personally believe, should rise above that mediocre mindset.

as for rereading the story, of course i will. However i also encourage you to do the same, Sarah, as both of us may have missed a few things the first time over.

The Woman Gets her due

Its hard to say that the fault completely lies on the man. While i believe Houston was very critical of the "Hunter" i believe she was equally responding to she who talks to the hunter. This criticism relates more to what Houston doesn't say than what she does. For example, she never says the woman voices her concern openly to her male companion. Similiarly, this seemingly intellegent woman, given that she attended graduate school, never has the hunter buy into her interests, whatever they may be, however she obviously does for the hunter (wearing the moose hide for a picture). Its obvious the "hunter" is abusive and manipulative to the woman, but its even more obvious that in the words of the typical Jerry Springer audience member, "she gotta kick him to da curb". Houston's work is very intriguing, but her message is what makes it most powerful. Why do women go for the men who will treat them poorly? Yes, every work can stipulate that the bad boy complex is attractive to a woman, but when did that complex mean that the men have to treat women so poorly. In short, the "Hunter" wouldnt exist if there was no woman to hunt. Like a predator on its prey, it only lives if their are things to hunt, for that it is how it lives. If women wouldnt buy into the abuse and fuel it, it wouldnt burn. So before we lay all of our blame into the obvious perpretator, the nameless woman deserves her due.

Response to Jack Tresler

I do not agree with your statement "personally it seems like an ignorant feminist on repeat" because no where in the story is there a moment where the female should think that men are pigs. Even though the men do control the relationship in the story and in society, there is nothing stopping the women from leaving the relationship, it is her decision in staying and doing a mistake in staying in it. Your statement in someways is right, but no where in the story is the female in danger and should think that all men are predators, so I think you should reread the story to catch the different side of what I see because I know where your coming from, but in "How to Talk to a Hunter" the man is in control but in no way does he put the narrator in any danger.

Response to Will

I completely agree with Will's interpretation of the author's message. I believe that she is an extremely bitter and pessimistic woman who shows her distaste for the opposite sex by attacking them in her short stories. Like Will, I disagree with the message the author is trying to convey. She is trying to say that men are evil and women are too attached (or stupid) to get out of the relationship. I think she is wrong and i think that the author is just trying to play into stereotypes of men and women to make an interesting story. I do not believe that this is how the world works. I know that there are many men and women like this in real life, but the media and stories like this make it seem like America is doomed to be filled with non-committed men and submissive women. Not only do I agree with the authors beliefs on men and women, but I resent them. She is maybe one of the most pessimistic writers I've ever heard of if she truly believes that all men and women are like the characters in her own story.

A Woman Chained To A Relationship

Pam Houston writes the story "How to Talk to a Hunter" wonderfully because she writes a lengthy story about an ordinary situation nowadays. Houston is able to write a well-written story about women being chained to relationships and the man being in control of the relationship. Even though the woman in the story realizes that she is being manipulated she still stays with him because of the "love" she has for the hunter. What I think Pam Houston tries to show us with writing this story is how women are dumb enough to stay in relationships where they give the love, but receive none but are still somehow satisfied in being in this type of relationship. Even though some readers might see this as a story to show how men are pigs and think they can control the women, I believe it is quite the opposite I see it as trying to show the blindness women acquire when they are in love and cannot see the truth or do not want to because they think their relationship is full of "love".

Response to Jack

Jack Treseler, I am a little confused on your comment you mentioned twice that said the author sounded liked "an ignorant feminist on repeat." I mean, I guess I could sorta see how you'd think shes a feminist because she portrays the boyfriend as a huge jerk. And, she doesn't give them names, which is an authors way of stating that the story is common and the characters actions are universal. However, if she were a crazy "feminist on repeat" wouldn't she give the woman more dominating characteristics? Wouldn't she end the story with the girlfriend dumping the jerk and finding true love elsewhere? In the many feminist books I've read in the past, the woman or the women always stand strong in the end because they bind together and form an alliance against the males. In this story, the other woman (her friend) hardly helps the girlfriend; she sees her friend falling and doesn't REALLY try to stop her from getting totally hurt. Also, Janie Coyote is some woman who probably knows just as well as the main character does that the boyfriend is a cheating tramp, but that doesn't stop her either. What kind of feminist author portrays women as insignificant and needy? On top of that, what kind of feminist author casts women as characters who instead of binding together, stomp on each others' feelings and integrity solely to get the guy? So Jack Treseler, my question to you is this: what do you mean when you say Pam Houston is ignorant? What is it exactly that she is unaware of? That this story is so not a feminist story? or do you still think it is?

Reponse to Reid

I agree with Reid's view on "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love." Mel and Ed both do have warped views on love, although both of them think that their views are correct. Mel considers himself an expert on love, when in reality he has kind of a jaded view on love, one that makes him unable to understand the old couple's everlasting love, and also one that allows him to have the view that if Terri died, he would quickly be able to move on to a new person to love. Ed's view on love is that violence is an okay and correct means to express his enormous amount of love for Terri. Both of these views are unhealthy and incorrect, and will lead to nothing positive. Ed's view led to his untimely suicide, and Mel's view will make him unable to appreciate and grow from the love he cannot understand in his relationship with Terri, and his probable future relationship with another woman.

RE: how to talk to a man (buono)

I agree with this post in a sense that I think it was wrong of Houston to generalize the hunter to all men and the fact that she must have had difficult relationships with men in order to make such a general stereotype like that. Although it is a bit harsh, I don't think it's meant to be seen as offensive. I find it interesting that the narrator is so good at 'talking to the hunter'. It seems that she knows exactly what to say to kind of "play the game" that is this relationship. I think for Houston to write something that specific, when having to do with a relationship, she would have had to gone thorugh something similar. I do think stereotyping is wrong but Houston does have a premise for this since this isn't the first I've seen of this kind of relationship. It is seen in movies, on telivision, and in other works of literature, which says that not everyone made it up. I also disagree with the statement made that every relationship has to play out like this. It doesn't. This is just one example of a common type of relationship. I also overall enjoyed the story.

Something about a Hunter?

Player. In a .Management. Profession. (thought it applied)

Basically this story is all about a woman who can't get over a cheating boyfriend. The author builds her up as intellectual, smart, cunning, gorgeous, etc. Basically she is described as the type of girl most guys dream of. On top of that, she has no name, signifying that she can be any girl in the world.

The hunter is basically a player. Although to be more in the mind of an english teacher, we could say that the word "hunter" is a metaphor. Not only does this man hunt animals but he also hunts women, so basically he is a predator. Except, predator in this sense does not imply rape or sexual abuse or anything you would see on C.S.I. or Law and Order SVU. Predator here basically means what i said earlier, player. He plays women. In this day and age he'd be called a "pimp." (get it? player in a.... nvm). So anyway, this "predator" has no name, again meaning he represents every male. On top of that, the scene of these two starts out in bed, basically already insinuating a sexual relationship. Also, this guy has fifteen other messages on his machine from other women (dang he's good, fifteen? has he no life?)

Apparently, he likes country music, which alread puts him in my bad books. Then add that he is a republican and well.... safe to say i'm not his drinking buddy. The girl on the other hand loves rock and roll, is kind of spunky in a way (don't ask, i'm writing half of this while not awake. so don't blame me), and is a democrat. Sounds to me like the quintesential cool rocker chick guys fall for. Unfortunately throughout this story she is revealed again and again to let her emotions get in the way of her thinking. She is too blinded by her emotionial strings being to attached to him to realize that she's been cheated on with fifteen other women. (i think that's a new record...) So to me it seems as if the message in this story isn't so much "how to talk to a hunter" more as: "Ladies! yeeeeah!? (Run DMC anyone? no? thought not...)

Right, all jokes aside, I think the main message of this story is, like a feminist on repeat, men are pigs, not lovers (fish are frie.... sorry). So basically, i think the message is for women to have a mentality as quoted in the last part of the story (and possibly the coolest quote i'll ever write), "take it when he says 'I don't want to hug anyone else.' Substiture the 'hugging' for 'f***ing' and take it as a compliment."

So after writing all of that. i could have just said: men are pigs. women- be pessimistic and all will be good.

^ain't that a beezy.


-JDT

So far we have, "men are hunters and players, they play women, and women, poor poor women are always the victims." Personally it seems like an ignorant feminist on repeat.

Response to Will

I agree with Will in that not all men are sexual predators. Even though the role of males gets the most attention in this story, I think it is interesting to look at how women are portrayed in this story. We talked about how Pam Houston talked about the bad boy copmplex and how women are attracted to them. The woman knows that teh man is cheating on her, but she never does anything about it. She never stands up fopr herself in taht respect, at it is suggested taht she never will. if anyone were to leave in this relationship, its going to be the man. Just like not all men are sexual predators, not are woman are submissive to their boyfriend or husband. But I think that more often times than not, especially in the past, woman have done this.

"What We Talk About When We Talk About Love" reminds us that love comes in all different packages. Even though love is all around, people have many different ways of expressing it. Raymond Carver shows examples of many different types of love. There is no one way to define true love. Modern love is twisted and undefinable. In "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love", there are examples of love at all different stages. From Mel's spiritual love, to the abusive love triangle of Ed, Terri, and Mel, to the honeymoon love of Laura and Nick, to fading love of Mel and Terri, Raymond Carver accurately portrays that there is no one universal way to be in love. Love connects us all, but we must agree to disagree that there is no one way to live out love. True love does exist and should be cherished. The old couple in the story is a perfect example of true love that can only be imagined by most people. It is the type of love that most can only dream of being in. Their love exists because of the trust and compatibility they have with one another. When the old man cannot even see the face of his wife, he becomes depressed. They have practically become one.

How to follow your own advice when you talk to a hunter

In How to talk to a Hunter the narrator tries to convey to the reader how in fact to talk to a hunter. Not only in a sense that a hunter who hunts game or wild life, but one that hunts women. Throughout the story she gives tips on how to get close but not too close, lust but not love, and most importantly, to like the idea of it all but not think it as reality. With these tips she tries to tell the readers how to act around men like the hunter, but it seems that through telling the readers she is telling herself. She is giving all these "how to's" on a relationship with a man like the hunter but can't follow her own advice.You would think that she would listen to her own advice, but normally people never do and this story is no exception.
Every time she mentions "you" in the story, she is talking to herself. These are all things she has to tell herself to survive this relationship. But not once does she say 'you need to end it' or 'why are you still with him', she just keeps on making excuses or alternate tips for avoiding the dreaded breakup. I think she does this to create the argument that she IS in fact following her own advice, she just won't say what it the common sense thing to do, which is to end this intracate puzzel of a relationship. And even though this relationship is rough, part of her doesn't know what she would do without that in her life.

In Responce to David's Post

On the subject of Ed's love for Terri, my main concern is not Ed's actions towards Terri. I think most people can agree that yes, he Did love her, but at the same time it was not a healthy love. Ed was possessive, oppressive, abusive, etc, etc. Basically Ed was everything you would expect in a hollywood sob story about abuse. Unfortunately this type of "love" is very real and does happen everyday. Back on topic, I personally think that the major problem and danger in a relationship like this is not the "love" of Ed, but Terri's willingness to believe him and become attached to him. Let me pose a question. If you were to be beaten and dragged by the ankles by your husband, threatened with a gun (.22 to the head? are you serious?), and your boyfriend threatened nightly, would you sit there by his side as he dies? I would hope not.

Terri's willingness to be by his side to me is scarier and not only more dissapointing but also unfair to Mel. Because Terri still seems to be enamored by Ed, even after he killed himself, her relationship with Mel is much more strained. When reading the original text (the one holderman gave us in class) the relationship seemed much more clear as to how deeply Mel was hurting because Terri can't get over Ed. For some reason, Terri is obsessed with the memory of Ed, and not in the good way (if there is a good way). She is so focused on her dead husband and his mempory that it seems to me as if she is just going through the motions with Mel, to have a husband just to have one.

Terri's emotional state and obsession with Ed is bringing not only her down but also her husband. Also, when the subject of Ed was brought up in the conversation in the story, not only were there more references to the sun and its position in the sky (to me not only representing time but also possibly the dwindling hope of a happy marriage?) but also brought the tone and attitude of the conversation down to a dangerous and depressing low.


-JDT.

How to Talk to a Hunter

I found "How to Talk to a Hunter" a story that most people could relate to. The narrator, who although is smart, is stuck in a messy relationship with a cheating boyfriend because she is so overcome by her emotional involvement in it. Although many people may read the story and say "Why doesn't she just leave? He is the wrong guy for her, and she should just see that. It's so obvious," in the same situation they may do the same thing. Although the narrator knows that the hunter is a a bad boyfriend who cheats on her with so many women that his answering machine has "as high as fifteen" messages from them, she is so emotionally trapped in the situation that she sort of overlooks the hunter's many flaws and keeps taking him back. She realizes that she is completely unlike the hunter, which makes it hard for her to relate to what he is doing, but she stays with him none the less, trapped in this emotionally trying relationship, because she is so transfixed by his "bad boy complex". She compares herself to Janie Coyote, one of the hunters many women, that is so like the hunter, that you think the narrator would realize that Janie Coyote is the right woman for the hunter, and leave him for another man, who is more like her. Instead she stays in a relationship that makes her more and more like her dog that she leaves outside "chained and lonely and cold," who she wonders "if he knows enough to stay in his doghouse." This is a foreshadowing of the future of her relationship with the hunter, because she will just end up stuck in a relationship where she will become depressed and lonely as the hunter continues to cheat and treat her poorly, regarding her as just another woman, and not a woman who is special enough to commit to. Like the dog, she will not stay in her "doghouse," or out of the relationship with the hunter. Instead she continues to "stand outside", making herself vulnerable to the harsh elements of this toxic relationship, much like the dog who lets the intense elements of nature get the best of him instead of staying inside the doghouse, where he would be safer and warmer.

What we talk about when we talk about love

I really enjoyed the complete contrast that Carver uses between Ed and Mel. Both of the men have unhealthy perceptions of love, but only one of their thoughts of love is seen as obviously unhealthy. Ed has a very unhealthy view on love. He is abusive toward Terri but believes that he is in the right. He drags her around the room but feels it is acceptable because he tells her that he loves her. Not only is he abusive to the woman he "loves," but he threatens to kill the new man that she has in her life. Ed uses violence to cover up for his own insecurities that he has in the relationship he is in. When Terri decides to leave him because of his violence, Ed becomes even more crazed. Ed threatens to kill Terri and Mel and he tries multiple times to end his own life because he cannot be with Terri. He is incapable of moving on and finding somebody else to love. Mel, on the other hand, has the complete opposite view of love. I like that Carver has Mel lecture everybody about his views of love when Mel also has unhealthy beliefs. Mel believes that if something horrible was to happen to his loved one, that he could move on and find another "soul mate" immediately. He tells about the old man who was suffering from heartbreak because he could not look at his wife, and he does not understand it. I think most people would hear that story and believe that it could become a perfect (if not typical) Hollywood romance movie. Mel thinks this guy is crazy, though, and does not see how one could possibly love another person that much. Carver tells this to the reader in a way that the reader can see that both men have unhealthy views on love, but neither one can see that their view is unhealthy. I think it was a very interesting way to tell the story and it really added to the idea that many of us have misconceptions of love.

Love

In "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love" there are two symbols that dictate time. One of these symbols is the alcohol. In the beginning of the srtory, all the characters are casually drinking gin and tonic, but by the end, the gin is ompletley gone and the characters, especially Mel, is very drunk. The second symbol that helps dictates time in this story is light. As the story progresses, the room becomes darker. At the end, the room is almost completley dark. These two symbols also work together. As more alcohol is consumed, the darker the room becomes. Similarily, when more alcohol is consumed, the thoughts of the characters becomes darker. I also thought it was interesting that Mel was getting really drunk in the middle of the day. Alchol may be his escape, as he is troubled by his past, especially his ex-wife.

How to Talk to a "Predator"

Pam Houston's short story, "How to Talk to a Hunter" leads readers to believe that all men are some sort of sexual predators. The absence of the hunter's name hints at Houston's belief that men naturally try to dominate women. Although I don't agree with her, I enjoyed her story and her analysis of the bad boy complex. Houston makes the arguement the women are instictively attracted to "bad" men. Her story focuses on a doomed relationship, where the hunter is "bad" in more than one way. Not only does he preys on her but also with Janie Coyote. The main women obviously knows that the hunter is fooling around with this other women, who in the girlfriend's eyes is a better fit for the hunter. Although the setting is in Alaska, to play on the hunter metaphor, this story can essential occur anywhere in the mordern world. I believe this is Pam Houston's critique of the mordern world, that the relationship of today are more corrupt, flawed and no longer based on sentimental love.

How to Talk to a Man

After reading "How to Talk to a Hunter" by Pam Houston I was somewhat upset by Houston generalizing all men as a predator. Yes, they are men out are exactly like the man in "How to Talk to a Hunter," but many are nothing like this man. I think Houston has had some troubling experiences with men and that is why she has made all men seem like a predator. I am pretty sure that not every man she has met fit the predator stereotype. Houston probably does not believe every male is a predator, but I am still not happy that she made every man out to be like this. I also did not like the fact that she wrote story telling us how it is going to happen. Not everyone has the same experiences as the next person and not everyone is going to have the same problems to deal with in their relationship. The story was fine, but I did not like her telling us every man is a predator and that every relationship has to play out like this.

TALKIN ABOUT LOVE

The story "What we Talk about when We Talk About Love" struck me as very interesting. I thought it was unreal that Carver changed so much of his original version of the story, and I really think that the addition of the lives of the elderly couple would have been useful in the final form we read.
The comparisons of different relationships of love made it easy for the reader to see flaws in each type. Mel's life had conflicts with all of these types of love- especially the kind that fades. I agree with the protagonist, Mel, who wonders sometimes what happens to love that at one time seemed so prominent, and then fades. I almost appreciate Carver spreading his knowledge and interpretations of the different kinds of love, as some believe it to be the strongest power in the world. People die for love. The differentiation allowed us to examine peoples' interactions and I think it was a very valuable contribution to our relationships unit.

In response to Rita's HTTTH

I have to agree with Rita's blog about "How to Talk to a Hunter". It was a fun story to read, but also quite sad. "How to Talk to a Hunter" is a real story that people can relate to. The bad boy complex is evident throughout this story. The protagonist cannot get away from the bad boy in her life even though his actions are causing so much pain in her life. Rita mentioned her "emotional bound" to the hunter, which I completely agree with. Even though she knows she deserves better, she cannot find an escape from the hunter who she has been with and has been "bound" to. Despite the advice from her friends, she still finds some sort of love for the hunter. I don't know if she loves herself enough to get out of the relationship with the hunter. She put her bad boy before her own feelings and attempt to find true happiness and love.

in response to davit t's what do we talk about... love

well i see love in different ways, for example love of different people, family in comparison to Friends. love toward every person is always different. i don't think destructive love is actual love it seems to be more of a escape. Love in that situation seems to be an excuse, an excuse for their personal insecurities. what i don't understand is why terri would feel that kind of love is real, i would think it has to do with the image she had of him before he started beating him and is still in love with that idea of him. Love being part of the honeymoon phase is more like they have not felt the difficulties in marriage i honestly think that has nothing to do with love. love seems to expand and evolve as time goes by not diminish. i think they are talking about the difficulties u face in marriage. The fact that all these people keep remarrying is their way for them to fill in the void in their lives. the void they feel will be filled with love, for that reason i believe people today have so much trouble with marraige is they jump into it before they actually find real love

What Do We Talk About... Love

I don't think I've ever thought about the concept of love in so many different ways. First, the spiritual love was brought up, then carnal love, and love that can EVEN be destructive. So then it brings up the point about which interpretation is closest to the ideal reality of what love is? Most people including myself would probably consider Ed's form of love, a love based on showing feelings for the other person through harmful actions, as probably not the real definition of love. But, the more I think about it. People are different; people express things in many different mediums. Ed's form of expression was through passionate fighting. Though I do not believe thats what a relationship should be like, I can't sit here and say that that is not love. I didnt like Mel's perception of love as though without the other person he would be fine if something happened to Terri. I felt that to be too rational a response to love, and in my opinion love is something complete irrational, something just that extends boundaries, doesn't fit in a box. When I read the part where Terri and Mel were commenting on Laura and Nick's affection and how they were still in the "honeymoon phase" it gave me the impression that marriage was despressing in reality. I do however believe that Mel should lay of the gin...

Response to Haley T.

I loved Haley T.'s interpretation of the short story "How to Talk to a Hunter" and connecting it to the film "How to Loose a Guy in 10 Days." Also, as I wrote in my previous post, I completely agree with her interpretation of the "Hunter", representing all types of men; who can be categorized as "players." Haley T. and I viewed this short story from all the same angles/concepts. In the end, I really like how her post ends; by saying "...and How to read a person by their actions not only their words." It is better to watch what people do; not what they say.

RE: Anthony's post

I definitely agree with what Anthony is saying about how Mel and Terri can't really love each other if they have different ideas about love. However, I don't think the relationship will come to an end. Because if that were the case it would have ended earlier. I think they are kind of stuck in an unhappy marriage, and that both of them think that they won't be able to find anyone else if they were to leave each other based on what has happened with previous relationships. I just think they are both kind of stuck. :(

How to talk to a hunter

I really really enjoyed this story. Even though it takes place in a different setting, it pertains to modern day relationships. I found it kind of funny and sad at the same time, because the protagonist knows what the hunter is like, she knows he is with Janie Coyote, and throughout the whole story she is trying to advise us, the readers, how to "deal" with a man like the hunter. She is trying to teach something she can not do herself. Because for the protagonist when it comes to love, what's right and wrong don't really make a difference because at the end of the day she is "emotionally bound" to this hunter, when it is clear to her, her friends, and the reader that she should leave him. And that is why at the end of the story she is exactly like the dog, lonely and sad, but can't do anything because they are both "chained" down.

When we Talk About Love we Talk About Beginners

A response to KKs response to Nicole's blog...

The titles seem very important and specific to each rendition of the stories and I think KK has a point when she talks about how each title works best for the narrative it is applied to. Raymond Carver’s unedited edition, “Beginners”, is literally the story of people who are just starting to embark on their newest love stories. While they have all be in love before, one of the couples has been married a mere year and a half, still in the honeymoon stage. I agree with KK’s comment about “Beginners” being “a description and/or reflection of the level of love and level of comprehension of love the four main characters have and experience.” The beginners have no comprehension for the long lasting love that the 70 year old couple shares. The title “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” describes more of a, like KK said, general and superficial feel to it. It shows no deeper meaning to the couples, and most of the story about the elderly couple has been cut out completely, leaving them less significant. The two stories share the same ideas and story line, but I feel that they emphasize different things.

How To: Talking to a Hunter

This short story reminded me of the movie “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days.” Kate Hudson is a young gossip columnist who writes How To’s for the magazine that employs her, and she puts herself in a relationship doomed to failure by her secret motives. Although the story likes are very different, they share some of the same aspects and ideas. This short story is a similar and quite familiar description of how to deal with a “hunter” more commonly known as a player or a man who sleeps around. It includes the best male friend and the best female friend who give advice on how to woman can avoid being left heartbroken and can steer clear of the whole destructive relationship in the first place. The friends only want to help the protagonist be happy and make sure she knows what she is getting into.
It then struck me that this short story seems awfully familiar. This sort of relationship happens to many people and can be generalized as any woman who seeks a relationship with a man who has no sense on monogamy. The nameless main character stands to be every woman who enters into a relationship with any man who does not comprehend the concept of commitment. He gives her a key, which at first sight seems like he is trying to show some sense of tying himself to her, but at a second glace, a key can be copied a hundred times. A hundred keys for a hundred different women. The key seems less significant and more an easier way for his to gain access to the women. The story overall, ends up as a detailed How To avoid being “played” and How To read a person by their actions not only their words.

RE: Rob M's Post & Talk about Love

What bothers me about the idea that relationships "nowadays" are ephemeral, superficial, and headed in the wrong direction, is the idea, the fantasy, of what relationships were. When Mel pines for the life of a knight and his "vessels," he demonstrates his complete lack of understanding for chivalrous love. Chivalrous love was, and always will be, for show. It is flattering, and can be pleastanly humorous, but fails to embody the type of love Carver suggests can exist, embodied by the old couple. Going backward in time to some easily stereotyped eras (and even today), marriage, at least, has consistently been used as a tool. Combining wealth and priveledge, conforming to social norms (examin: the unflattering stereotype of a spinster), and preventing children out of wedlock are all instances that make a mockery of the ideal of love in marriage. Imagine becoming pregnant/impregnating a woman during the '50s, or any prior time. Yes, abortion has frequently been an option, but highly frowned upon. Really the only way to save a woman's (and later her child's) honor was to get her married off: ASAP. Mel and Terri, Nick and Laura, didn't face those pressures when married, but it is noted that all of them had previously been married. So perhaps infatuation and highly compatable personalities equate to love. The longer the infatuation lasts, the longer the romantic period endures. Once it evaporates, a comfortableness settles in when two people know and like each other-- they get along. But is that all love really is? The old couple could just have easily managed to maintain their "honeymoon phase" longer than anyone else has ever seen. When you're wrapped up in the idea of loving one person, and that thought pervades your body, is it possible to see their flaws? Perhaps a loss of objectivity would ensure the lasting existance of love. Would the old man have died if he found his wife did not survive? Carver does not make this an option, he never opens the doors to the possibility of allowing the old man to move on. And if the old man died, would that put him on a level with Ed? Carver uses the old couple as a glimmer of hope in an otherwise disillusioning revalation about the nature of love, but he never tests their love. We know nothing of affairs or quarrels, only marital bliss. Can one ever truly know good without having witnessed bad?

A Do It Yourself: "How to Talk to a Hunter"

I really enjoyed reading the short story, “How to Talk to a Hunter” by Pam Houston. The protagonist, who is nameless, can be identifiable by anyone who reads the story. The Hunter’s character also applies to any type of men; particularly men who fear commitment. This story portrays the universal themes of commitment issues and “rocky” relationships by providing nameless characters; so any persons can identify with the story. There are also other “characters” in the story, who act like the protagonist conscience. Houston calls them, “Your best male friend” and “Your best female friend. They also act like a support group for the protagonist. Another aspect of the story that I liked, was the part of “owning a key to his place”. In relationships, when people give each other keys to their houses, it really does not mean commitment. Generally, the owning of a key does mean commitment, but anyone can go out to an ACE Hardware store and make copies. In the end, the scene of the dog chained outside, representing the protagonist is probably foreshadowing more obstacles to enter her relationship with the Hunter.

RE: Anthony's Post

I agree with what Anthony is saying about the relationship between Mel and Terri. Their relation will not last much longer, but what about other relations just like this in the U.S? Today, most relations could be seen just like Mel and Terri's, how they were drawn physically to each other and now have no love in between them. We cannot say for certain that these kind of false relations will cease, but the point is that we must recognize what can be considered as a poor relation compared to a meaningful relation. Relationships like Mel and Terri's is a wrap on the whole concept of marriage and how nowadays we only marry what we see.

In response to Nicole's blog...

In response to Nicole's blog...

Nicole mentioned a lot of things about the difference between the two versions of the story... I'd like to add one... The titles. Why do you think Carver's editor changed the title from "Beginners" to "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love"? I think that there's a huge difference between the two titles. For one, "Beginners", to me, is a description and/or reflection of the level of love and level of comprehension of love the four main characters have and experience. I think it's interesting how this group is one of adults and in fact they are beginners with love, especially juxtaposed against the old couple who is 70 years old, and have developed and maintained a sense of true love. I guess even when we become adults, we aren't experienced or even good at a lot of things, such as love. The other title, "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love" is more general, i feel. It's more intriguing but more superficial. Then again, i think it's appropriate since a lot of the original story was cut away by Carver's editor. The title makes me think - which i like - and it still holds some of the same insight as "Beginners" since the reader has to ask oneself 'What DO we talk about when we talk about love??' Love is different for everyone and I think that point is proven in both of Carver's versions, though the versions are indeed different and thus the titles reflect the stories in different ways.

What We Talk about when we talk about love

In the short story "What we talk about when we talk about love" i thought that it was ironic how the whole story Terri, and Mel were talking about love, they were almost rude to each other. The kept saying what love meant to each of them, but the almost disagreed about everything. How can someone married for 5 years still be together if the meaning of love is so different to each of them. This goes back to the other couple Nick and Laura and how they are still in the lovey dovey stage of there marriage because they almost agree about everything in the story. I feel that Mel and Terri dont really love each other anymore, i think that Terri is just scared to find someone new because of her previous love affair. Mel i think is in love with the idea that he is in love. I dont think there marriage will last much longer!

- ~~~~afb ~~~~~

Four types of Love

I found "What we Talk About When We Talk About Love" to be an interesting portrayal of four different types of "love" relationships. These include the abusive and obsessive love of Ed and Terri, the diminishing and faded love of Mel and Terri, the honeymoon love of Laura and Nick, and the profound and sincere love of the old couple in the accident. The story intricately described the dynamics of each of these forms of love. I believe that Raymond Carver was attempting to juxtapose negative forms of love with positive ones by creating two positive relationships and two negative ones. Overall I found the comparison to be intriguing.

What we talk about when we talk about love?

I really thought that I could relate to this short story because of what relationships mean to us nowadays. Relationships are, as I see it, made in a sort of artificial sense. For instance, maybe some relationships would seem like they would last forever, like a high school sweetheart relationship, but in reality they are fake. In the story, liquor dictates the relationship between Mel and Terri by revealing that their relationship is very poor, mainly focusing on abusive behavior, especially when Ed adds to their negative relationship. From what I can see, relationship cannot be made overnight; relationships have to be worked on constantly. Sometimes this would take many years of wisdom before a relationship is perfect. That is why the old couple's relationship is by far the strongest of the ones discussed in the story because they are true to themselves. Our generation has to relate to this story whenever we are in a relation with another person because those bonds are the most important connections we will ever have in life.

How to Talk to a Hunter

I really liked reading this story both because of its humor and also because of the style that is has been written in. This is one of the few stories I've read which addresses the reader with the pronoun, "you". I feel that this is an aspect which draws the reader into the emotional dilemma of the nameless protagonist, and makes her story seem very real. I also liked how Houston contrasts the hunter and protagonist with recognizable pop culture references like the Janis Joplin song lyrics "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" and the Willie Nelson song. The best male friend and best female friend are also believable as different sources of advice for the protagonist; I could almost picture people I know saying the same things about a relationship like this. Overall, I thought it was an engaging and realistic read on modern day relationships.

What we talk about when we talk about love and Beginners

I thought it was really interesting to read both versions of this story. The unedited version, "Beginners" seems more complete, but it also seems like a different story. The story told about the old couple in the accident is much longer in "Beginners". It is more obvious that their story is about true love. Their story is the center of "Beginners" because it portrays the only real love in the story. The old man is obviously in love with his life in the edited version, but his love is shown through his actions in "Beginners". He shaves and lotions before going to see his wife after the accident. When he kisses her hand, she beings crying uncontrollably. I think this is the moment that captivates the couple's pure love. In the edited version, their love is shown by the devastation the man feels when he can't see his wife, but the unedited version of the old couple seems more realistic. Many things are explained by Carver in the unedited version, like Terri's true feelings about Carl. Near the end, we find out that Terri was pregnant and had an abortion, which she feels bad about. I think both stories do a good job of explaining the different topics of love, and their success and failures, but they seem like different stories. "Beginners" gives a complete, detailed explanation of the topics of love, with true love being the main focus.

emily dickinson poem dedicated to the"blog"

I'm nobody. Who are you?
Are you nobody too?
Then there's a pair of us.
Don't tell - they'd banish us, you know.

How dreary to be somebody,
How public - like a frog-
To tell your name the livelong June
To an admiring "blog."

Hey Miles

what does this "photo" have to do with our relationship unit??? Mr. H.

Short stori

rob?

BBQ?????

LeTs Do A cLaSs BbQ!!!!

bahahah

:):)i CaNt WaIt To ReAd ThE sToRy sO wE cAn PoSt!!!!!! :):)

LOLZ

WoW tHiS iS sO eXcItInG! I lOvE BlOgGiNg! :-/ :-* :-0 ;-)

Here We Go Kids....Start Blogging!!!!

As you know we will be doing our Relationship Unit and Blogging....Have Fun and Happy Blogging!!!!