"Love Story" by Erich Segal


Read: 2/12/09

3/5 stars


I believe I first read Love Story either late in high school or early in college. I fell so in love with it then that I proceeded to buy and read most of Segal's available books at that time: Oliver's Story, The Class, Doctors, Acts of Faith. Aside from liking his stories, I was so enamored with Harvard then that I gobbled up everything that referred to Segal's alma mater (and boy, were there many). But that was long ago, and I believe I've "graduated" from plain romance novels already. Hence, I wasn't particularly excited to read Love Story again for my book club's February discussion. That, and the fact that I'm not really given to rereading books, except for a couple of favorites.

But read it I did, even if I couldn't exactly make the discussion. And this is what I found after my rereading of Love Story:

  • I still like the snappy dialogue. Both Oliver and Jenny are obviously intelligent (Segal takes care of that for us by indicating that they are from Harvard and Radcliffe, respectively, both graduating magna cum laude), but Segal does make them seem witty, too (which, I maintain, is different from being just intelligent).
  • That being said, though, there is sometimes a tendency for Jenny and Oliver to sound alike, as if I am only reading one voice. But we can excuse that since the story is Oliver's narration of events.
  • It being Oliver's version, therefore, I'd say the character of Jenny seems extremely romanticized. She's perfect. Except for the fact that she becomes terminally ill and dies, there is nothing wrong with Jenny. Everyone loves her, barring the Oliver Barrett III, who is immediately painted as the staid WASP hence not inspiring compassion. However, perhaps we can also excuse this romanticized portrait of Jenny by saying that, since the story is Oliver's, a man so in love with Jenny and who lost her, the tone by which he describes and speaks of Jenny is apt when he idealizes her.
  • If this is so, then Oliver would be an unreliable narrator, who presents us with only one aspect of Jenny--the Jenny he knew, seen through a rose-colored lens reserved for the beloved dead. If he is unreliable, then even the way he portrays his own father is not to be fully believed, nor, perhaps, the ideal love that he and Jenny shared.
  • But perhaps this is meant to be so, for the story may not really be a story about love, but a character study of this man, Oliver, who is so caught up with his "name and number" (even in spite of denying it). So, he relates his foray into real emotion with Jenny, only to lose her, thus rendering him once again adrift in a world of superficial esteem. Hence, it is a story of love and loss, the love questionable, but the loss, real. Romantic thought, I must say.
  • And so, I would prefer to answer the first line in this manner: What can I say about a twenty-five year old girl who died? That she was beautiful and blah blah blah? Nothing. People die all the time: young, old, beautiful, ugly, smart or dumb. But, what does it mean to you (Oliver) that she died? If you tell me that, then perhaps I would be more interested. And so goes the story.
  • Which is why, for me, I do not find Jenny interesting. Her death, per se, was not tragic. The tragedy is how her death will change Oliver. So, personally, though it is only the sequel that is entitled Oliver's Story, it was Oliver's story to begin with, and not a really a story to highlight the deathlessness and purity of love. I don't buy it because Oliver doesn't prove this in the first place.
  • Which brings us to the immortal line: "Love means not ever having to say you're sorry." When I was younger, I puzzled over this. Then, I arrived at the following interpretation, which I will call Interpretation A: You don't say you're sorry because if you really love someone, you wouldn't do anything to hurt that someone. Later on, I refined this interpretation into this, which we will refer to as Interpretation B: You don't have to say you're sorry because, if you really love someone and that someone really loves you back, then you accept each other for everything you are, including the mistakes and the imperfections. Hence, no need to apologize for everything was forgiven beforehand.
  • It bears noting that, because I did spend some time in the course of years figuring out this line, this must be a thought-provoking book. Or at least, a thought-provoking line
  • Anyways...I now have an Interpretation C. Interpretation A did not hold for long cause it was just plain stupid. Interpretation B held a bit longer, but was abandoned due to unreality. Hence, Interpretation C: The quote is just plain wrong. Explanation forthwith.
  • In the event of unconditional love in both parties, an apology is still necessary should a wrong have been committed. Just because your beloved accepts you through and through does not give you a get-out-of-jail free card from giving apologies. At the very least, it is courtesy. At the most meaningful, it is equally a sign of love. Depriving someone from his/her ability to apologize means depriving that person of an opportunity to express his/her love. This I have arrived at through careful study and analysis. In other words, I lived a little bit of life.
  • The quote does sound nice and romantic. But this does not mean it makes sense.
  • So, bottom line: The story is still somewhat sweet. I say this out of loyalty to my original feeling. But I did not derive the same enjoyment from it as I did the first time. It did not become richer for me through the rereading.
  • My reflection: First love never dies, until you (see him/read it) again. :)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Soledad's Sister by Jose Dalisay, Jr.

Filipino authors with internationally-published books

The El Bimbo Variations by Adam David