Love Is A Fallacy

Love is a Fallacy

Love is a Fallacy is a short story by Max Shulman that narrates the efforts of a smart college law student who feels superior to his roommate. The story can be viewed as an expression of numerous false and unstable arguments conveyed during day to day social interactions. The story includes various anti-women elements as well as anti-men characteristics. Therefore, this paper argues that if the story is anti-woman, it is equally anti-man.

The Narrator’s View of Polly

The narrator of Love is a Fallacy presents the character Polly as unintelligent and of a witless nature hence seems to view her as a woman of beauty only. Mostly, the narrator uses intuitive reasoning in judging women such as Polly to bring up unjustified assumptions about her. His conclusions about Polly as unintelligent were founded on limited actual interaction with her with no much reasoning to back the claim. On trying to converse with Polly, the narrator views her as unintelligent due to the use of short words such as “terrif” and as a simple-minded lady who lacks the ability for rational thought (Barnet and Bedau 386). On the contrary, the narrator could interpret the use of short words to symbolize spontaneous, fun or even outgoing other than an indication of a dull-minded person. Furthermore, intelligence is subjective, and any person may have their qualifications as to what makes one intelligent. He wished to date Polly due to her beauty and nothing else. Furthermore, the narrator points out those other successful lawyers married to beautiful and gracious women of whom Polly was a perfect match for that. He viewed Polly as the right choice for marriage to help him in furthering his career (Barnet and Bedau 384). Therefore, these are indications that Polly was only a symbol of beauty and nothing else which is an illustration of being anti-women.

The Narrator’s View of Petey

On the other hand, the story revolves around a man who considers himself as great and no one can measure up to his high standing. He classifies himself as being better than everyone else. The narrator assessment of character Petey is generally causal evidence. Being into fads and trends, the narrator views Petey as “dumb as an ox” which is an assumption with a faulty premise (Barnet and Bedau 383). Since Petey desires to be like “the big men on campus” is not an expression of lack of intelligence (Barnet and Bedau 384). Furthermore, a person may love trends but still be brilliant thinkers. Also, the narrator considers Petey as dim-witted due to his choice of a raccoon coat instead of a beautiful woman such as Polly. Conversely, the narrator ought to understand that every person has different priorities, at different times in life hence a person’s preference cannot be used to quantify their intelligence but rather an indication of their character. Moreover, he is of the opinion that a beautiful woman such as Polly would never consider a man such a Petey as he viewed him of low intelligence (Barnet and Bedau 391). Since Petey was not as intelligent or a law student, the narrator believes that he is of a lower standard. Certainly, the narrator is denoted as a patronizing, stereotypical man, defining the anti-men argument in his view of Petey.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the evidence presented by the narrator in the story is patronizing, and in no way a proper means of measuring intelligence. The narration is both anti-women and equally anti-men.

Works Cited

Barnet, Sylvan & Bedau, Hugo. Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing: A Brief Guide to Argument, 8th Edition. Boston: Bedfors/ St. Martin’s, 2014.