DQ 7

Week 7 Discussion Questions
Discussion Questions Week 7: CommunicationWhat We Talk About When We Talk About Love:
1. Use a personal definition of love and analyze one of the character’s definitions of love in “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love”. Do they contradict one another? Complement one another? What do you think most contributes to one’s worldview in terms of what love is and what we ought to do with it? 2. Consider the analysis provided in this week’s lecture (in “Course Materials”). Did you interpret the story similarly? Why/why not? Does the analysis change your interpretation at all? Why/why not?
I am answering both questions above at one time.
True love is a feeling that is deep and strong that has no exact definition and that the dictionary does not have the right word to define it. I mean true love is something dynamic that does not only take the best out of a person but as well the his or her worst. Sometimes I wonder if love is not after all a positive feeling but a negative one as well. Does the word love overly marketed or sustained that it has lost its essence?
I do not agree that this is story is about social class and especially of what the last sentence states, “…romantic love is only a derivative that allows the characters to discuss the realities of social class under the guise of “true love”. I would say that this story is about the notion that love is universal – bears no boundaries or limitations. It shows that even the successful and the “elite” feels love as well but has no right standard of what true love is. I am not sure if Mel’s definition of love is at the “spiritual” level as to how the “rich and educated” would feel and define love. I would rather say that Mel’s definition is driven by his years in the seminary. He was trained to look at love at a different higher level, which is the spiritual state of loving. I do not think the upper social class people would love in that manner. Only the lay people, the members of the religious circle and the “few” are gifted to love at that highest level. That is impossible to reach for us.
This story shows that the members of the upper class do search the true meaning of love. The analysis does not change my interpretation of this short story. This is more about love as a universal language and that even the rich and educated do not have the same interpretation of what “true love” is really all about. I do not think that one has a set definition of love and who has the right to say that there is only one way of defining it?
The analysis also states that it is more of a class conflict. It can be true but it is not. It shows that nobody really knows what true love is all about, even if you are in the upper social class or not because if they did, they would not be discussing the subject of love. And at this modern point of time, there are still researches or topics in TV all in search of what the four letter word is really all about. Love has been around for centuries and yet nobody seems to know what that really stands for. There are always new books on love that grace the book shelves in Barnes and Noble. It suffices to say that love is mysterious.
It may be a social issue because just like I said earlier, love has no boundaries, rich or poor he or she is still a victim of love. I sometimes think that it is kind of a disease since when it afflicts a person, some feels some kind of “high” or euphoria and sometimes it makes a person act so violently and commits a crime because of love.

3. “Is this story optimistic or pessimistic about true love? Is the old couple a positive or a negative example of true love? What about Nick and Laura? What about Ed? Could you argue that he was in love?” (Making Literature Matter 685)

This story is shows optimism about true love. I would say optimistic because Mel’s story of the two older people involved in the accident, where the husband was depressed because he was not able to turn his head to look at the wife is a good and strong indication that even if Mel says, love is at the spiritual level, he has not found that level of love just like the old guy felt for his wife. By the way these people talk about love, especially Mel it is incredible that nobody has a set definition of true love. But regardless of the definition, each one of them, including Terri, feels that love does exist. Can you just imagine, Mel is a cardiologist, but then it sounds odd to me that he does not discuss the “mechanics” of the heart? I would have expected that instead, he would discuss something about the “medical” benefits to his or her heart one has when a person is in love. Love is so powerful and strong that it drives people to do unimaginable things when they lost it or love reflects in their behavior or actions. The old couple is a good example of a true love. It is like they are bound to each other by love. It is like the couple loses his or her strength without seeing each other. That is amazing. Nick and Laura, I would say that they are in the first stages of the “excitement” stage. I could not very well remember the saying that says something of a couple’s marriage in the first 7 years. Ed, was really hit hard. I know other people would say (especially the psychologists or psychiatrists) that when one behaves and thinks differently outside the norm, it becomes abnormal and has a “mental” illness. But is that really so just because of the theories that are studied in school? Has anyone really made a thorough research of what love could really do to a person’s behavior and way of thinking? Can love pump up more blood to the heart and heal a person’s heart problems? I mean, I had been wondering this all these time. There must be a relationship on this.

Kaspar Hauser Speaks:
5. De Toqueville, the famous French observer, of early nineteenth- century American society, thought that a drawback to democracy was the tendency of small towns to move everyone to the middle – that is, to encourage conformity, to relentlessly urge every one to fit in. Btu what about those who don’t? What happens to them? Is this Kaspar’s problem?” (Making Literature Matter 1091)
I would say that the French observer does not have respect and consideration of the people who wants to keep their culture and heritage. I do not believe that is true though. Look at the Amish people who do not want to assimilate and be one of “us”. They chose to keep their own cultures and yet they are also able to interact with the outside world. Look at them they are able to survive on their own and they have existed without any problems. Fitting in also takes a lot of courage. For the older generation who is used to their cultures and heritage, it would of course hard to assimilate and adapt completely to the new country. It is the younger generation who are born to the new country who are able to assimilate faster and blend in the new culture than the older ones. It is not about moving people to conform and fit in, it should be learning to co-exist and understand each other’s differences and helps us to grow and help us better citizens of the world. To dictate a small group on what to do and how to live is not a sign of democracy…