Comparing Lessons Of Love And The Skating Party

The short stories “Lessons of Love” by Judith Ortiz Cofer and “The Skating Party” by Merna Summers depict experience of two protagonists in their desperate attempts to obtain true love. Both are blind to the egotistical agendas of their love interest until the conclusion, and regardless of such neither person regrets the situation or outcome. They harbour irrational illogical wants, both of which lead them to their own misery. All in all, both stories emphasize the illusions of love and how the two protagonists are impeded by their desire in such a way that submerges them into their own delusions of love.

In both stories the egotistical motives of the main love interest is revealed and yet in the moment, neither protagonist wishes to acknowledge

that information. In “Lessons of Love”, the girl is hopelessly infatuated with her crush, and fails to consider the possibility that he may not like her for the same reasons—let alone like her at all. She chooses to ignore the logic behind the likelihood of the boy—of whom before the climax never gives the inclination of even recognizing her as someone other than a passing face— kissing her and meaning to follow through wholeheartedly. Due to this naive behaviour, she spends countless hours questioning the little attention he gave her, not realizing her ideals had given her false hope. She does not accept this fact until she steps away from the situation and assesses it with a broken heart. Subsequently, only after does she learn from the situation and move on with her life. understanding that “If love were easy, life would be too simple.” [Coefer, 185] Parallel to certain aspects of this girl’s experience but having a different concluding thought, in “The Skating Party” Uncle Nathan tells the troubling story of being in love with Delia; dropping subtle hints and conclusions that could only have been made after time spent well away. Contrary to this “Lessons of Love”, he does not accept nor realize the true extent of his love interest, Delia, and her egotistical motives in the past. He describes her to have been someone extremely possessive, saying:
When she spoke of anything they had — whether it was a buggy or a kitchen safe or the pet dog — she would say ‘my buggy’ or ‘my kitchen safe’ or ‘my dog.’ ‘We’ and ‘us’ were words she didn’t use as all. [Summers, 195]
She was a person of whom had the notion that “the more things you’ve got, the more things you’ve got to take care of” [Summers, 195]; at one point Uncle Nathan had become this extra baggage to her, however to keep an eye on her belonging she gave him to her sister.

Uncle Nathan does not dote on this passing thought whilst in this situation, however it’s shown that he understood Delia’s true motive when speaking to Maida: Delia only shows interest towards him during the skating party to assert her previous dominance and sense of ownership—being given back to her by the betrayal of lust Uncle Nathan partook in— of which she felt was being stolen by her sister. Uncle Nathan had this evidence laid before him, as he clearly understood the type of person Delia was from previous encounters and situations. Nevertheless, he chose not to realize the facts before him as he is blinded by the love he had immersed himself within. As a result of this action, he is unable to move on from his past in the same way that the protagonist

in
Both protagonists show no sign of remorse for their actions or the situation, even after the consequences that they suffer seem to outweigh the gains of the prize. In “Lessons of Love” the main character claims that her “[view] is too cynical a view to sustain in the face of that overwhelming rush of emotion that is first love” [Cofer, 185]. By contrast, she mentions previously that she understands the truth behind his actions, and the heartbreak she suffered:
...the few times I saw him in the hallway, he was always rushing away. It would be long weeks of confusion and pain before I realized that the kiss was nothing but a little trophy for his ego. He had no interest in me other than as his adorer. [Cofer, 185]
Yet as previously stated, she shows no signs of remorse for the incident, no matter how impacting the effects were on her negatively. Though true that she gains something deeper and more profound than love itself, it does not deny the fact that she is still affected by love long after the revelation. Similar to this story, Uncle Nathan does not mention nor emit a sense of regret for his actions. He merely displays guilt over not being able to save both girls at the same time. Furthermore, he never apologized for his actions nor did he feel the need to; he was content with his decision, but not necessarily in agreement with the nothingness he received in turn. He mentions that “[he wonders] if [he] would have felt any better about it if [he’d] got Eunice instead of Delia.” [Summers, 199] This is not a sign of remorse, but simply curiosity as to how the outcome would have changed if one variable was tweaked.
There is a common desire in both protagonists within their stories, and that is love. The means of which they go through to obtain that love is specific to each character; however it can be said without doubt that it’s human nature to want things we know we can’t logically have. When we are supplied with those wants, we lose track of ourselves and reality. In “Lessons of Love”, the girl was fully aware of the unlikelihood of her love producing the same affection towards her genuinely. They were separated by traits she had already identified as large obstacles, as “He could not see [her] because [she] was a skinny Puerto Rican girl, a freshman who did not belong to any group he associated with” [Cofer, 182]. Nonetheless, she overlooked this and relished in what he offered her in that moment. This caused her to be unreasonable with her wants, as she was already supplied with the impossible desire, and now expected every other wish to come true. For this reason the impact of reality was a far more powerful blow to her mind than it could have been, had she been able to differentiate her desire’s thoughts and hers. Correspondingly, while Uncle Nathan already had Eunice’s heart, his impulse for Delia caused him to partake in regrettable actions, later affecting his frame of mind. Delia was already married and could not have a normal relationship with Uncle Nathan, but when the slim opportunity of gratification was presented to him, he did not hesitate to fulfil his seemingly impossible want. This impacted his decision after as to which girl he would save: “Eunice deserved better, and [he] knew it.” [Cofer, 199] It was due to his delusion of hope that he had chosen the unrealistic outcome; as whether or not he saved Delia, he would still never be with her. He gave up what he already had in his hand for something he could watch from afar but never touch.
The illusion and effects of love have great impacts on the effectiveness of each story, and how they conveyed their message.

The absence of said effects would unconditionally change the stories and their outcomes drastically. The level of consequences and tragedy, as well as the mindset of the protagonists, would be completely altered in such a way that the short stories may not have been recognizable. So why is love, regardless of all the consequences and delusions that come along with it, so important and sacred in literature and our lives? The similarities between “Lessons of Love” and “The Skating Party” support the claim and theory that I’m about to make: if humans weren’t so human, we’d be dead. It’s human nature to be affected by feelings such as love. If we were incapable of feeling and reacting to emotions as such, we wouldn’t have the drive to improve and evolve to the point at which we are at today. We would simply shut out one another and have no need for change nor improvement in understanding ourselves, others, and the world around us. But as we are both living in and reading about a world where humans act like humans, both stories have their characters desire love; a facade of fate that drowns them in their own

delusions.