How, How Do I Love Thee?
A Rhetorical, Rhetorical Analysis

The search for a soulmate always lurks in the minds of single young adults. People want someone who possesses similar qualities, yet at the same time, they want someone who will fill their flaws and make them a better person. For some, this process of finding the perfect partner can take years upon years, but the 21st century technology of online dating sites now allows prospective users to find potential dates within a few days. While this may sound like a breakthrough in the science of relationships, doubt regarding its viability exists. Lori Gottlieb, a renowned author who often focuses on the topic of online matchmaking, asks the question, “In the subjective realm of love, can cold, hard science help?” (2) To answer this question, Gottlieb endures countless hours of research, interviews, and simulations, writing her article “How Do I Love Thee?” as a final masterpiece to display her findings. Through a sarcastic tone, witty asides, specific details, and emotional, logical, and ethical appeals, Gottlieb effectively illustrates her discoveries on whether or not science can truly determine compatibility and lasting love.
Before she places her opinion on display, Gottlieb first builds up the article with interesting statements to keep the reader engaged. She frequently inserts her own sarcastic opinions into her article, sometimes through asides and parenthesis, and other times through appositives or descriptions. Her sarcasm brings the article to life, drawing in and captivating readers. She writes, “I’d taken the company’s exhaustive (and exhausting) 436-question personality survey” (1). Gottlieb’s decision to include her opinion of the survey adds humor to the sentence, making it more interesting to read. Additionally, her choice of a word similar to “exhaustive” gives the aside a more sarcastic, humorous feel. While the sarcasm may not directly convey Gottlieb’s purpose or explain the process and effects of online dating, it still plays a pivotal role in her argument. Without this sarcasm, a significantly fewer amount of people would spend the time to read the article. The writing would simply prove too dry. Her tone acts as the keystone of her essay: while the evidence and examples build up and prove Gottlieb’s claims, the bridge of evidence would collapse and bear little impact without the center stone, the tone that keeps readers engaged.
Now, aside from asides, Gottlieb also inserts specific descriptions, typically of people, to achieve a sarcastic tone. She describes eHarmony founder Dr. Neil Clark Warren as looking like Orville Redenbacher and speaking like Garrison Keillor (1), neither of which stand as compliments. Orville Redenbacher, an old, odd looking man with large glasses and crooked teeth, bears qualities typically unappreciated by society, so Gottlieb’s decision to compare a man who plays a major role in her research to Redenbacher proves audacious. Her audacious decision, however, also engrosses readers in her article. The poke at Warren creates humor in an otherwise boring sentence, causing people to actually read her essay, receiving her opinion as a result. Similar to the asides and parenthesis, although the goofy, sarcastic, and maybe even a little harsh descriptions do not impact the purpose of Gottlieb’s writing, it creates interest and eliminates boredom. So, instead of putting down the article after a few paragraphs, readers enjoy the whole article and fully absorb Gottlieb’s experiences.
Other descriptions do not necessarily provide sarcasm or humor, but simply make the writing more interesting. Consider the sentence, “‘Let me tell you why you’re such a difficult match,’ Warren said, facing me on one of his bright floral sofas” (1). Gottlieb could eliminate the entire phrase about the sofa, ending with “Warren said,” or could exclude the words “bright” and “floral.” In all honesty, these words do not impact the overall meaning of the article in the slightest. The words do, however, allow the reader to imagine the exact circumstance, creating a simulation of Gottlieb’s experience. Also, they simply create interest within the article, as the basic “(Name of person) said” stands as one of the most excruciatingly boring ways to end a sentence. Gottlieb uses this strategy periodically throughout her writing, making statements such as, “Buckwalter, who became a quadriplegic at the age of sixteen after jumping into a river and breaking his neck, is agnostic” (5). The paragraph in which this sentence occurs works to rebut the popular belief that Warren creates eHarmony solely for Christians, meaning that the comment about Buckwalter’s agnostic belief stands as the important information in the sentence. So, in reality, do the readers need to know that Buckwalter, a researcher for eHarmony, paralyzed himself as an idiotic, immature, and supposedly “invincible” teenager? No. But, does it make for a more interesting, more thought provoking, more intriguing read? Yes. By telling her story so precisely, Gottlieb entices her readers, who will continue to read her article and understand her opinion and experiences as a result.
While the tone and detail prove necessary to bring the whole essay together and keep readers engaged, neither of these strategies truly answer Gottlieb’s original question, “In the subjective realm of love, can cold, hard science help?” (2) To answer this question, Gottlieb provides cold, hard evidence and research, along with her own experiences with eHarmony and Chemistry.com. When presenting her evidence, Gottlieb uses the three appeals of an argument, pathos, logos, and ethos, to effectively convince her readers that ultimately, while concept of online dating appears promising, it may take generations to truly determine the role of science in romantic relationships.
To a certain extent, Gottlieb’s tone and description fits in the emotional appeal category, or pathos. Gottlieb, however, also uses other aspects of emotional appeals that allow her to provide evidence while still connecting to her readers. Anecdotes and physical experiments prove an effective way for her to do this. The first time she includes a personal example by writing about setting up an eHarmony account, filling out the survey, and viewing her matches (or lack of matches) (6), Gottlieb demonstrates that reasonable doubt regarding the viability of online dating exists. At first, she does not receive any matches, and when she finally does, she describes the three matches as “a bald man with a handlebar moustache, who was fourteen inches taller than me; a five-foot-four-inch attorney with no photos; and a film editor whose photo shows him wearing a kilt––and not in an ironic way” (6). Her personal experience serves two main purposes, first, to connect with the readers. By showing that more than just research and interviewing go into the formation of the article, Gottlieb demonstrates her true passion for the topic, making the readers appreciate her dedication. Also, she brings herself down to the general population’s level by actually trying eHarmony rather than simply observing it. Second, Gottlieb’s experience gives her a considerable amount of data and gives her the right to question the scientific methods that dating websites use. While they certainly work to some extent and may contain potential, Gottlieb’s odd matches prove that a perfect, or at least frequently successful online dating algorithm will take time to generate.
Logical appeals and ethical appeals, logos and ethos respectively, also prove exceptionally important to Gottlieb’s opinion. She often uses facts regarding both the positives and negatives of online dating to back up her claim, citing them to prove credibility. Gottlieb uses logos to present each fact, often in the form of a quote. In her essay, she includes, “The members of happy couples are far more similar to each other than they are different” (4) in which she gives Galen Buckwalter credit. Specific facts and details such as this demonstrate that science and research behind relationships exists and allow readers to see the more logical side of things rather than the abstract ideas the article also presents. Citing Buckwalter suggests that some truth behind the statement exists as well. Gottlieb does this frequently throughout her article, mentioning how Dr. Pepper Schwartz explains that both similarity and complementarity stand as crucial to a lasting relationship (10-11). By using these quotes and by appealing to logic, Gottlieb supports her thesis through factual information with citations. Without the facts, her argument would include only opinions, making it extremely weak and difficult to believe or take seriously. Simply providing the authorities who gave her information, however, proves not enough for Gottlieb. In order to further strengthen her argument, Gottlieb also shows the credibility of her sources.
Most people cannot just name off countless researchers and college professors. Thousands of these people exist, and while many of them possess great knowledge, it stands as impossible to know each and every one of them. So, in order to prove their credibility, Gottlieb uses ethical appeal and explains a little about each person she cites or quotes. Both Buckwalter and Schwartz receive brief descriptions of their jobs and education, allowing people to trust everything that they and Gottlieb say. Gottlieb describes Buckwalter as the Vice President of research for eHarmony and former psychology graduate student at Fuller Theological Seminary (3), proving his knowledge in the field. Schwartz, a sociologist at the University of Washington Seattle, leads the nation in relationship expertise (10), allowing people to trust her words and believe her claims. By using ethos to build this trust with to her readers, Gottlieb ensures that people will listen to and accept her thesis because the time put into quality research and interviewing proves apparent.
Hundreds, thousands, even millions of factors and variables affect compatibility, so Gottlieb's conclusion that generations may pass before the proving of the viability of online dating makes sense. The way she creates her argument, however, stands as what truly convinces her readers of her opinion. Her sarcasm, her details, and her appeals to emotion, logic, and ethics all work to build a strong argument in which readers feel both engaged and extremely educated. While she waits to see if her hypothesis proves true, she will also need to wait for some better matches on eHarmony. If science cannot truly determine compatibility, it may take a long, long time.