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.