Lecturer

Lecturer

BusinessCommunication

Biggs(1) noted that the growth and communication revolution was not untilearly 1920s that people began to pay attention to the media. However,some countries such as Rome and Greece took rhetoric and the art oforal and written communication more serious. Dumas (45) on the otherhand, explained the impact of the internet and the growth oftechnical effects of the web and its history had on people andbusiness. Biggs and Dumas’ arguments, both believe that evolutionof business communication will help the growth of the media and thefuture.

Dumas(63) observe that using the web or the internet acts as a bridge thatconnects oral and written communication, today. People in theinternet age should therefore focus more on the internet and howmedia has revolutionized history and cultural studies. Dumas wentahead to explain how technology and the use of internet have helpedshaped the mode of communication, both oral and written, since theancient times. Biggs work is more of religion and culture, and themanner in which it has revolved over the years. Biggs (10) alsocautions that media also has social and cultural consequences, andthe scope and nature of it appears more controversial.

Fromboth works, it is evident that for further improvement ofcommunication in business, it is better to gain a stable ground ofthe media. Media is also important for better understanding ofcommunication theory. Biggs reveals how history has helped to changefew elements and show future communication may be affected as aresult of communication theory not understood from its history. Dumaspaved way for readers to understand the media, the internet, andrecent developments, to further impact internet potential in thefuture and its growth on business.


Lecturer

Lecturer

Comparisonbetween William Shakespeare’s “Sonnet 116” and Raymond Carver’s“What We Talk About When We Talk About Love”

Shakespeare’s“Sonnet 116,” published in 1609, had its form and structure oozesa typical example of a Shakespearean sonnet. Also known as “Let menot to the marriage of true minds,” Sonnet 116 begins with astatement about how he is not supposed to stand in the way of genuineand true love if at all it changes for no apparent reason. Love, asdescribe in the Sonnet, is supposed to be constant despite any formof difficulties. In the seventh line for example, a reference ismade, which alludes that love is viewed as a North Star to thesailors (Shakespeare 15). Sonnet 116 emphasizes that love should not,by any chance, fade with time, but instead, should last forever.

RaymondCarver’s “What We Talk about When We Talk about Love” on theother hand, is a 1981 short stories collection by this Americanwriter. The collection is again the title of one among the stories inthe collection. The short story is about two married couple downingsome gin and dishing about love in one of the afternoons during alate summer or rather, the beginning of an early fall. The charactersin the story, Mel McGinnis, Laura, and Terry are seated in a kitchentable drinking gin (Carver 26). Mel engages the narrator, whobelieves love is spiritual. The paper therefore, compares the twoshort stories, Shakespeare’s “Sonnet 116” and Carver’s “WhatWe Talk about When We Talk about Love” in terms of the definitionsand/or examples of relations and love provided by the two literaryworks. Additionally, has the idea of love shortchanged in ourculture? Is it hard today to find true love? Is the definitionsprovided by the two literary works harmful or helpful in today’srelationships? The paper attempts to provide answers.

Themain theme between Shakespeare and Carver’s literary works is love.Shakespeare’s “Sonnet 116” is one of his most well-known lovesonnets. However, Shakespeare (16) noted that most of the scholarshave since argued about the theme being misunderstood. Theappreciation of “Sonnet 116” to be a celebration of true love islargely mistaken, mostly because the poem’s context sequential toother adjacent sonnets has not been properly considered. Sonnet 116defy typical concept and provide a different perspective of what thedefinition of love is and the manner in which it is experienced orportrayed. In this section of the sequence, the poet accepts andacknowledges its fallibility of his love to be more fully than hecould have acknowledged earlier that of the other young man.

Onthe other hand, throughout Raymond Carver’s short story, the natureof love becomes elusive, despite best efforts from the characters todefine it. Mel attempts again and again to identify the meaning oflove, but all his examples ends in a no coherent conclusion. Carver(29) observes that Mel explains about an elderly couple to all hisfriends of how they nearly died in an accident. What depresses is howthe old man was not able to check on his wife, which also confuseseveryone. In the story, the definition of love according to Terri, ofall her friends, seem to hold water (Carver 29). She repeatedlyclaims that Ed, her abusive ex-boyfriend, genuinely and truly lovedher, despite his weird and crazy ways of showing it. Definition oflove is provided through Terri’s ex-boyfriend’s actions. He usedto threaten, beat, and stalked her, which according to her, wasdisturbing but was a proof that he love her.

Sonnet116, unlike What We Talk about When We Talk about Love, appears to bemeditative with an attempt to define fidelity, independence ofreciprocity, love, and eternal beauty (Shakespeare 17). In lines 9and 10 of the first stanza, the poem defines love as “Love’s nota time’s fool / from within its bending sickle’s compass come.”Despite the Sonnet 116’s apologies and uncertainties, there is nodoubt that the poet defines love as love. In Sonnet 116, the essenceof friendship and definition of love is mutuality and reciprocity.The idea definition of an ideal relationship, according toShakespeare’s literary work is considered the “marriage betweentwo true minds,” which is a union realized through faith anddedication (Shakespeare 18).

InCarver’s What We Talk about When We Talk about Love, the fourfriends whose discussion about the definition and nature of love ischaracterized by a motif of drinking up to the last drop of Gin. Mel,Terri, Nick, and Laura all consume large amounts of alcohol with anattempt to define and discuss what love is. With characterization ofthe four friends brought into play, it is evident that Mel, acardiologist, who as a high likelihood to be well-informed aboutmatter of the heart, his drinking eventually results into a blurredramblings and confusion (Carver 30). Nick, just like Laura and Terri,have affectionate gestures, whose suggestion reveals how they wouldtalk about love all night, but unfortunately, words would not matterin the end.

FromCarver’s literary work, the definition of love is confusing andaltered depending on individual’s and the society’s view of it.The idea of attempting to define it, while at a drinking spree,reveals the slight importance place on it (Carver 33). However,Shakespeare’s Sonnet 116 provides a sober and a clear definition ofit. The poet is well-informed about what he is talking about. In thefirst stanzas of the poem, we recognize the poet’s attitude towardslove. He first explains it, then goes ahead and negatively definesit. The “forever fixed mark” is considered the traditional seamark, which guides the mariners – The North Star – with theirvalue inestimable even though its altitude, its height, isdetermined. Unlike the physical beauty, the North Star is not asubject that ravages the essence of time, nor is the definition oftrue love, a “Time’s Fool” (Shakespeare 17).

Loveis not properly defined according to Shakespeare (16), withoutintroducing the concepts of both time and space. Shakespeare’sSonnet 116 applies time and space in its ideals of a true love. Inone of its lines, it says “Love alters not necessarily with itsbrief hours and weeks,” but “bears it out of even in the edge ofdoom” (Shakespeare 17). The poet challenges the critics withabsolute conviction to find him on the wrong in his definition oflove. The manner, in which the poet is secure, is about his standardsof love and friendship, is hi hope that the youth would achieve it,with evidence shown in the concluding couplet. Sonnet 116 takes awager that love is everything that was meant to be described as itshould be.

Comparingthe two literary works, has the idea of love changed in our culture?Despite the use of confessional tone used in Sonnet 116, both workshas no reference to the youth. In Shakespeare’s Sonnet 116 forexample, the general context is made clear that its temporaryalienation is in reference to the youth’s betrayal andinconsistency. In our culture, majority of the people remembers theshared rapture and burning desire of the first “love”. The ideaof love have changed over the years as a result of feelings ofjealousy and the essence of rejection, even still the difficult facedto make marriage last and flourish.

InRaymond Carver’s short story, Mel explains to her friend how herex-boyfriend used to mistreat her in the name of love, but stillcontinue to stay in the relationship. Her situation begs thequestion it is hard to find true love? We all have that desire, justlike Mel in Raymond Carver’s short story, to find love and to beloved right back. It is thus difficult to find that person to sharemutual feelings with. First, there are often thoughts and believesthat there are only one person meant for each one of us. Mel, forinstance, stayed in the relationship despite all the abuses, threats,and beatings she received with the belief that she was only meant forhim (Carver 34). Finding love is therefore difficult since the beliefto wait for that one person is draining, both mind and soul.

Asdefined by Shakespeare’s Sonnet 116, literary or culturaldefinitions of love are harmful to people’s definition today. Thisis because the essence of friendship and love as narrated byShakespeare is all about mutuality and reciprocity, which goesagainst what is believed as the inexistence of true love but theability of two people finding a common ground together. As referredin the sonnet, “the marriage of true minds” has turn out to beharmful in today’s relationship since the union can only berecognized by the faithful and the dedicated (Shakespeare, 18).Additionally, Shakespeare (18) observed that time and space is a rarecommodity in today’s era, which makes it even harder to find valuein the meaning of love.

Inconclusion, the two literary works, Shakespeare’s “Sonnet 116”and Raymond Carver’s “What We Talk about When We Talk about Love”views love and its definitions from a different angle altogether.Sonnet 116 explained love in the inverse. The poet talked about lovein what would have been natural to talk about. Carver’s short storyon the other hand, despite the character’s best efforts to defineit, the definition and nature of love remains elusive. There is alsothe inadequacy of language use. It was evident that their use oflanguage would not define abstract objects such as emotions. The useof confessional tone in the short story is again a revelation ofsentimental, but serious use of simple language to define love.Additionally, both literary works attempts to define and explain loveby all means possible, but they fall short, mostly because just likein today’s era for instance, there has been a difficulty inassessing it.

WorksCited

Carver,Raymond. WhatWe Talk About When We Talk About Love: Stories.New York: Knopf, 1981. Print.

Shakespeare,William. Sonnet#116.Project Gutenberg, 2004. Internet resource.