The Intricacies of Love: A Comparative Essay between Shakespeare’s Sonnet 116 and Raymond Carver’s “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love”

For centuries historians, professors, and artists alike have been baffled by two things: love and Shakespeare. Shakespeare’s Sonnet 116 is perhaps one of the best examples of just how complex the two can be. One of the most effective ways to understand Sonnet 116, therefore, is to compare it to stories that are similar in theme to Sonnet 116 yet, in other ways, completely different. Enter Raymond Carver’s “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love.” It’s easy to give the simple platitudes about love; love is eternal, love conquers all, etc., however, both of these take the concept of love and put a spin on it that has not often been seen before or hence. The key theme that ties these two pieces of literature together is not just love, but love’s complexities and consequences, and how it can be ugly and even lethal. This paper will examine cultural and societal changes in the concept of love since Shakespeare’s time, and how these changes, if any, are reflected in “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love.”

First, it is important to establish the overall themes of these two works in order to better compare them. To start, Shakespeare’s Sonnet 116 is not exactly a conventional outlook on love. Most importantly, Shakespeare seems to insert himself and his own personal feelings into his own work with Sonnet 116. An analysis by Carol Thomas Neely reveals that the type of love Shakespeare is referring to is hypothetical in nature. Referring to the line in the sonnet “Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks,” Neely explains that these superficial features, in Shakespeare’s eyes, are merely passing delights, to soon be swept away on “sickle’s compass.” Neely also explains that Sonnet 116 resolves no real issues, except that it accepts the fallibility of not love in general, but his love. Essentially, what Neely is saying here is that although Sonnet 116 seems to be a jaded outlook on love from the mouth of an experienced, or perhaps just old, lover, the sonnet actually comes from within, almost as if it is Shakespeare himself ruminating on what he perceives to be “perfect” love. It is also important to note that the sonnets surrounding Sonnet 116 focus on imagery as well melancholic elements of love’s growth and decay, while Sonnet 116 regards love almost as a force of nature; a simple, non-mutual feeling that is free from both pleasure and pain. It is almost as if Sonnet 116 is a parody of the ones surrounding it, which would certainly not be out of character for Shakespeare. Now that the overall theme of Sonnet 116 has been established, it is necessary to find the theme of What We Talk About When We Talk About Love.

This short story focuses on the heart and feelings much more than Sonnet 116. In fact, virtually all of the short story involves how love can be found anywhere, anytime, despite what logic (the brain) has to say about it. To hit this point home, Terri, the wife of the main character, a heart surgeon named Mel, gives some rather outlandish examples of love. Most notably, she recounts physical abuse she endured from her ex, Ed, yet insists that the abuse was all a way of showing his love for her, a concept that Mel, somewhat understandably, finds preposterous. Mel counters with a tale of bizarre love of his own, involving two couples severely injured in a car accident, yet having the greatest pain of all be sitting in the same hospital room, bandaged up, without being able to look at their partners. This is certainly a different take on love than Terri’s story; almost polar opposites, in fact, but the point the short story is trying to establish is that although love can be brutal, it can be found anywhere. This is the main point of contention with Sonnet 116, which seems to regard love as one might regard a Pegasus; beautiful, yet unattainable.

Consider the ending of “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love.” Nick sitting alone, listening to the heartbeats of the lovers around him. The symbolism here is obvious; perhaps too obvious. Love is everywhere, constant, and warm. The ending, ironically, sets the tone for the rest of the story. It is an idealistic view of love. It gives specific examples of love in the strangest places; places where very few people will find love. Love is absolute, seems to be the moral of the story. And yet, at the end of the story, everyone in the room seems morose and sullen, despite the abundance of love. In contrast, Sonnet 116 gives a matter-of-fact, almost scientific view of love. Love is an illusion, Shakespeare seems to imply. And yet through his ruminations, the reader, in the end, is given a much clearer idea of love and its unattainability. So while “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” gives a happy outlook on love, it is ultimately pointless, as none of the characters are really any happier for having experienced it.

This dichotomy between these two forms of literature represents what could very well be a shift in how the world perceives love. In modern times, love is everywhere. It can be found in the most repulsive human. In Sonnet 116, Shakespeare regards love as a more personal feeling. It is not a sentiment to be openly shared, as they so openly do in “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love.” As technology continues to advance and communication practices require less and less effort to transmit emotions, perhaps love is the manna that everyone can now experience. Perhaps this is why one of the lines of Sonnet 116 reads “Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.” With this line Shakespeare seems to be saying that love is so ideal as to be unattainable, and that humans are fit for some other, lesser substitute. Indeed, a piece that, at first glance, seemed to be condemning love is now one of its most fervent advocates. In Shakespeare’s time, love was much rarer, simply by virtue of the fact that there were fewer people. In today’s world, one sees people in love virtually everywhere, which is, keep in mind, one of the central themes of “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love.” In Shakespeare’s time, it is reasonable to assume that a lessened exposure to couples and love in general would lead him to put it on a pedestal. At the same time, he seems to be bitter toward anything he does not perceive as “true love.” In contrast, “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” seems to think that love of any type can be found anywhere, and that is the primary distinction in theme between these two works of literature. While Shakespeare remains ruminative about the immortality of love, the short story, while on the surface cheerful about the commonality of love, actually degrades into a retrospective piece about how nothing, not even the powers of love, can fill a truly empty heart. An analysis of “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” by Karen Bernardo explains the ending. “’…not one of us moving, not even when the room went dark.’ They can't move because they suddenly realize the fact that none of them have ever moved; their lives have always been, and will always be, empty and dark, and they no longer have gin to cover this up.” Looking at the ending from this angle, it seems obvious the author wants the reader to not take the story at face value, and to remember that love is not a luxury, as Shakespeare believes, but a necessity, that one cannot live without.

Conclusion

These two works of literature share common themes in regards to love being a bittersweet feeling, although they go about this in their own way. Their themes diverge when it comes to the intricacies of love. Namely, how common true love really is. Shakespeare believes that only true love can be called real love, while Carver seems to believe that one should experience love as much as possible to quell the yawning emptiness inside of the human heart.

Works Cited

Bernardo K. An Analysis of Raymond Carver’s “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love”

Neely C. T. (1977) Detachment and Engagement in Shakespeare’s Sonnets Journal of the Modern Language Association of America 92.1. P.85-90