“Strange Love Affair” Rhetorical Analysis Essay
“Strange Love Affair” Rhetorical Analysis
A love affair is defined as a romantic or sexual relationship between two people, especially one that is outside of marriage. In the narrative essay “A Strange Love Affair,” the author Jan Myrdal tells a story of the strange love affair he had. In 1947 Myrdal fell in love with a woman, unfortunately she refused to give herself to him leading to their fall out and him meeting someone new. Eventually Myrdal ventured his way back to where he meet up with his former love, it is then when she try’s to give herself to him but is shot down because of his “feet stank.” In 1968 Myrdal shares about a big event from his life so others can learn from his mistakes and structures his narrative in such away just enough information to get the point across.
In the essay Myrdal starts of telling the reader how he meets his first love B, but then talks about how he leaves and gets married to one day go back to B. Accruing in such a short period of time it seems as if the war had a lot to do with the decisions he made. When he gets married it might have been only for the reason he wanted someone to belong to while he was gone. As the story progresses Myrdal goes back to see if the love he had for B was still there. In going back he realizes that he may not feel the same as he did many years before but he goes anyways to see her. It may not have been the right decision being a married man, but he remembers the feelings of love he once shared with this woman and wants to relive that same feeling again. However, once he is with the girl his conscious starts to take over and he haults himself from going any further with the girl. Hes making the right decision in the wrong kind of situation, yet he has a wife and its not okay to go out clear your conscious if its going to hurt others in the process.
Myrdal has very poor sentence structure in in this piece. Throughout the narrative it is as if he is writing notes to himself about the events that occurred rather than neatly organizing it for a reader to understand. The story lacks a lot of information and really reads it up to the reader to interpret. It is the structure that weakens his piece but it is the jumping from point to point that strengthens it.
He doesn’t want the reader to read a huge story, but he wants them to get an overall idea of what happened so that others and stay away from making the same mistakes he did. He doesn’t talk about war in the piece, yet it is for the reader to assume. As the reader, I think it is good he didn’t talk about war being a factor because it allows many different generations to relate to committing to one person but still wondering if it would be different with another.
Myrdal is successful in the piece because he was brave enough to put it out there in all honesty. Anyone who reads this can feel that he is opened to be judged, but is willing to allow others to learn from his mistakes. Although the paragraphs were a little incomplete, the main point of commitment is still their.