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?