The Woman ahead of time
"There are some people who leave impressions not so lasting as the imprint of an oar upon the water."
---Kate ChopinKate Chopin was born Katherine O'Flaherty on February 8, 1850 of an Irish and French descent in St. Louis, Missouri. Kate was blessed by having many female mentors throughout her childhood; either the strong and independent widows in her family or the intellectual nuns of her school, who taught Kate to live a "life of the mind as well as the life of the home." Kate was a young age of five and a half when her parents sent her to the Academy of the Sacred Heart . Her father, Thomas O'Flaherty, was an Irish immigrant who was very successful in many business ventures. In 1855 on November 1, being one of the founders of the Pacific Railroad, her father was aboard the train on its inaugural journey over the Gasconade Bridge, which collapsed, killing many of its passengers. After only two months into her term at Sacred Heart, Kate came home and was to be educated by her great-grandmother. Eliza Faris O'Flaherty, Kate's mother, was a member of the prominent French-Creole community and a member of an exclusive social circle. Eliza was only 27 years old when she heard of her 50-year-old husbands' death. She may have been depressed, yet liberated by the news, or so Kate Chopin's "Story of an Hour" suggests: "a wife, hearing of her husband's death in a train accident, delights in thoughts of freedom." Her mother was barely 16 years old when she married Thomas O'Flaherty; six months after his previous wife had died leaving him with a son, George. Eliza brought a social status to the marriage, having been the eldest of an "impoverished, but well established family" of seven children. Thomas, a "self-made man," brought money. Eliza never remarried after her husband's death. Kate's grandmother and great-grandmother had also been widowed at a young age and never remarried. "There were young aunts and uncles, cousins, and four slaves in the household, but the strongest individuals were the widows." Kate's great great grandmother and her husband had been the first legal separation ever granted in St. Louis. She learned to read and write, gave birth to another child whose father was unnamed, became a keelboat entrepreneur, and ultimately an eighteenth century tycoon. Kate, having lost two very important male figures at an early age, developed strong ties to her great-grandmother. Kate's grandmother, Madame Charleville, gave birth to fifteen children with her merchant husband, Joseph Charleville. She taught Kate not only about music , history, and speaking French, she also stressed the need to live life "clearly and fearlessly."
Two years after her fathers' death, Kate returned to the Academy of the Sacred Heart . Kate met a girl named Kitty Garesche. The two girls both loved to write and read together, but in May of 1861 the Civil War broke out in St. Louis, and Kitty's family was banished for their Confederate "sympathies." Not only did Kate lose her best friend, but also her half brother, George, died of typhoid fever and her grandmother passed away at the age of 83. Kate lost all of her brothers and sisters, so that by the time Kate was 24 years old, she was an only child. When she graduated from the Academy of the Sacred Heart, she was known as a brilliant storyteller, an honors student, a youthful cynic, and an accomplished pianist. After the war, Kate almost had a depressed manner and one of the nuns of the Academy recognized the creativity in this lonely child. The nun assigned her to write a Commonplace Book , which is the first document of Kate's writings. This Commonplace Book became a diary of her intellectual and social life. More
“FREE! BODY AND SOUL FREE!”
(Composed by Hoang Ngoc Trang - DH02G-AV28)
Feeling free is a wonderful sense. Sometimes we feel free after an examination, feel free to leave our house and live independently, or feel free after we repay a debt. However, it sounds odd and shocking that a woman releases a feeling of freedom owing to her husband's death. Why did Mrs. Mallard utter “Free! Body and soul free!” when knowing that Mr. Mallard leaved her forever? Is it an acceptable reaction? Whether does that utterance have any further significance?
Firstly, how could a woman find happiness and freedom out of her husband's death? The story has too few rooms to tell us how the marriage of the Mallards was, but several details in the story can be the evidences. When she was alone in her room after having heard the bad news of her husband's death, the woman sensed “the new spring life” and “the delicious breath of rain”. Then she heard the crying of a peddler, the notes of a distant song, and the twittering of countless sparrows in the eaves. The peddler could go on the street to cry his/her wares only when it stopped raining. The notes of a distant song could reached her only when they were not drowned out by the noise of the rain and the thunder maybe. And the birds would not fly out of their nests to sing in the eaves if the rain was still there. Obviously, everything seemed to revive after the rain; and whether was it the case of Mrs. Mallard? It must be so because the woman now could see “patches of blue sky”, which were an image of hope and joy, “showing here and there through the clouds”, which represented the gloom and the dark of her life, and her fate. The rain and the clouds that derived beautiful things in her life were a strong evidence for the hard time she had experienced. That was the reason why a young woman had a “fair, calm face, whose lines bespoke repression.” Now the answer was too apparent. It was the repression that made a woman look older than she really was. It was the repression that made this young woman wish not to prolong her life but the day after, with the news of the husband's death, she wished the life would be long! By the way, if we notice how she was addressed, we will see changes in the way that people called her. At first, she was called “Mrs. Mallard” and only after her husband was deemed to be killed, she was called by her name “Louise”. However, she was addressed “wife” when Mr. Millard returned. Was that a woman did not have her own identity a kind of repression? Whether Mr. Mallard intended to abuse his wife or not, whether he was aware that his domination on her wife was a crime, the situation was the same for Mrs. Mallard: she was oppressed. Further, this poor woman was not coerced not only by her husband but also by people around who “believe they have a right to impose a private will upon a fellow-creature.” Mrs. Mallard considered what her husband and other people did with her “no less a crime”, no matter how it was “kind” or “cruel”. For all those reasons, for the happiness of being escaped, the woman uttered “Free! Body and soul free!”
Secondly, the problem here is if the reaction of Mrs. Mallard towards the husband's departure is tolerable. It is necessary to go back to the nineteenth century to find out the answer. American women in the late nineteenth century did not talk openly about sex or even walk down the street while visibly pregnant. The women in her time lived serving their husband and became slaves of their husband and of the matrimony. It was Louise who was unlike many other women at that time (“she did not hear the story as many women have heard the same”); she recognized the real situation where the nineteenth century women were sank in. Bearing such a life, a woman had the right to hope for a life of her own; and it is understandable if a woman considered “self-assertion … as the strongest impulse of her being” rather than love, husband, marriage or stuff like that. If women today are badly treated by their husband or are not satisfied with their marriage life, they can come to women associations for help, they can write for the newspaper, even they can ask for the divorce. Unfortunately, the women at the time of Louise did not have such options; they had to live under the patriarchal dominance forever. Thus, the departure of the husband in this case means the disappearance of sorrow and subjugation. Louise, as far as I am concerned, might not to be happy because of the death of her husband, but because of the death of the intolerable power upon her life. If someone thinks Louise is a bad woman, it is fair to find out what make a woman bad. If Louise had a guilty, it was the guilty of seeking for self-assertion, the guilty of a voice of freedom that was a taboo in the patriarchal dominance in American society.
Finally, “Free! Body and soul free!”, in my opinion, is not just a slogan of Louise's own revolution, but of the struggle against the patriarchal dominance. “The story of an hour” portraits internal changes of a woman in an hour. It was one hour when the woman for the first time lived with happiness and full awareness of life. It was only an hour so that, after that short time, the woman fell down when the husband opened the door. Why was that woman so painful and exhausted in her marriage? Why did that woman die not because her husband died but because she saw him returning? Her death accused the patriarchal dominance of murder. “And yet she had loved him-sometimes. Often she had not. What did it matter! What could love, the unsolved mystery, count for in the face this possession of self-assertion which she suddenly recognized as the strongest impulse of her being!” This sentence says all about the nature of marriage or the nature of the relationship. There cannot be a happy relationship if one of the partners loses her/his freedom. The slogan has created a huge need for identity and individuality. How could a human being impose her/his private will upon another? It is frankly a crime. Anybody has the right to be fee, both body and soul.
All in all, “Free! Body and soul free!” brings up the idea of freedom, identity, and individuality and defy any form of dominance that derives these innate and inevitable rights of women as well as all human beings. However, this utterance was just whispered by Louise and it was the only external evidence of her changes, which showed the limitation of social norms on Mrs. Mallard and other women in America of the nineteenth century.Mrs. Mallard's reaction toward the saying “Free! Body and soul free!”
(Composed by Dang Xuan Thai Ngan DH02G-AV28)
The short story “The Story of an Hour” is as short as the shortness of an hour, within an hour, anything can happen. It is an hour for Mrs. Mallard to feel the things she never felt before, to fancy a free life ahead, to get in touch with the world outside, and then, she dies within that hour because hopes and dreams are suddenly taken away at the end by the sight of her husband coming back
The detail I am interested in the most is the reaction of Mrs. Mallard toward the saying “Free! Body and soul free!” It is not easy to understand her reaction. I think that reaction is the result of her inside conflict in which she hesitates about how to determine her own feelings: She doesn't know how to react, she should feel sorry about the death news, but she feels happy about freedom.
In the 19th century, this reaction was unacceptable in society, however, through the modern readers' eyes, her reaction is the explosion of true feeling which was repressed for a long time. In that century, a wife had to be subservient to her husband and her life was confined to the house. She was not free to do as she wanted. A traditional role like that makes Mrs. Mallard consider her marriage as a burden and she feels free when she gets to know about her husband's death. It is difficult to understand her reaction, since the story doesn't say about problems in her marriage. But I think that she feels overwhelmed with her everyday life of a stay-at-home wife, with complete dependence on Brently, his decisions, and maybe his dominance. She is probably disappointed with a harsh reality, and she is subconsciously looking for a chance to escape from the unhappy marriage.
Her saying “Free! Body and soul free!” is so direct and concise that some of my friends say that she does not love her husband. In my opinion, she loves her husband and sincerely cries for him when she hears of his death. What she does not love is the marriage which takes freedom away from her.
Through Mrs. Mallard reaction, I can see that she suffers a lot from her married life. Moreover, she has to confront an internal conflict between her desire and social principles. She tries to use her will to beat the feeling of freedom and the desire for independence but her will loses, and her true feeling takes control over her thinking. As a result, her reaction is different from what is usual and expected.
Her exclamation is also an objection to established social conventions which requires a wife to be subordinate and subservient to her husband. Mrs. Mallard, who represents the women in the 19th century, really wants more loose social principles which offer them more freedom and identity in marriage. Her reaction indicates her private needs, emotion and expectations which she keeps inside. The social norms repress Mrs. Mallard so intensely that she feels relieved just a short time after hearing of her husband's death news.
Personally, I think that the saying is the reaction of Mrs. Mallard to the coming escape from the marriage rather than the reaction to the death news of her husband. The reaction expresses the feeling of Mrs. Mallard about marriage: it is like a prison to her, she must live under the control of her husband, with little identity or time of her own and under his imposed “private will”. The reaction helps the reader identify more strongly with her need for individuality
Under strict established principles, the only solution for her problem is the death of her husband. That's the reason why although she loves her husband and acts as the society expects (“She wept at once, with sudden, wild abandonment”), she can not resist the sense of freedom at the prospect that she can live for herself, not for her husband. She welcomes and celebrates the death of her husband as a brand – new start of her life.
I can identify with Mrs. Mallard. To me, she is a poor lady who sacrifices herself for her husband. Her reaction shows that despite a lot of suffering, she is a dutiful wife to her husband until the last moment. She only dares to let her true feeling pour out after she hears of his death (not when he is alive) and in a place away from public view (her room). Her saying tells me that in her life she has never experienced such a moment of great joy, happiness and excitement like this. A free life is ahead of her, isolation and limitation in marriage that society principles impose on her no longer exist.
When I read this story the 1st time, it seemed to be a story of many unpredictable details. But after reading it carefully and discussing with my friend, I suddenly discover that the story contains a lot of foreshadowing details including the reaction of Mrs. Mallard: she should not be overjoyed at the bad news too soon and should not acquire so much positive energy and vitality like that! It's a sign for something bad and unusual to happen. .
Her whispered exclamations, “Free! Body and soul free!” keeps me wondering until the end of the story. It is the repression and limitation of being nothing more than Mr. Mallard's wife for so long that have created in Mrs. Mallard a desire for freedom too great to resist, even in a moment of mourning. However, until the last moment, she is a dutiful wife because except for the whispered saying, she does not dare to do anything that breaks the established social principles. To me, the story is still highly appreciated until strict social bias and peoples' expectations about gender roles in general and marriage in particular are denied completely.
What do you think of the reason of her death “of joy that kills”?
(Composed by Tran Thi Kim Chau - DH02G-AV28)
The story of an hour happened within one hour in which the reappearance of Mr. Mallard had led the story to a sudden end- the death of Mrs. Mallard. The reason of her death “of joy that kills” has arisen many thoughts. In my opinion, the term “of joy that kills” can be understood in two different ways as follow.
First of all, I would like to talk about the joy literally. The joy that killed Mrs. Mallard can be her extremely exciting feelings when her husband reappeared before her eyes unawares. Deep down in her heart, she loved her husband though living with him made her depressed. The joy she felt with the freedom she found in her husband's death was clear, but no specific evidence pointed out that she was skeptical of marriage in general. However, indeed, if we take the last line of the story literally, we would understand that Mrs. Mallard was intensely infatuated by her marriage to her husband that she died from the excitement of knowing he was still alive.
Another way of understanding the reason for her death “of joy that kills” can be the terrible shock. Taking into account the theme of the story, it is society's treatment of the disabled, "There would be no powerful will bending hers in that blind persistence with which men and women believe they have a right to impose a private will upon a fellow creature". This lets us know that not just her husband was repressing her but men and women around her. Her life had no meaning or excitement. All she ever wanted was freedom from the marriage and not to feel entitled to her husband at all times. That's why when knowing the death, a new feeling, a new sense of life came upon her and she felt relieved from her former lifestyle that included him. She knew she would be changed forever. Her feelings were expressed when she kept whispering "Free! Body and soul free!” She then felt that her soul was free from the torture her husband had brought upon her. She then was happy because she didn't have to live for anyone but herself. But, when she was on the pinnacle of freedom, the reappearance of Mr. Mallard made her shocked. She died instantly from heart attack because she was so frightened of the fact that she thought at last she had captured it back in her life, that she must continue living a depressing life which she had just thought she could stop living that way.
In conclusion, the reason of Mrs. Mallard's death “of joy that kills” can be understood as the real joy of freedom or the scare of getting back to the depressing life. Yet, as for me, the second thought takes priority over the first one. It is more persuasive to conclude that Mrs. Mallard died from shock and disappointment, rather than joy as the doctors diagnosed. Towards the reason of her death, the literary term “of joy that kills” implies a sense of irony which enhances the bitter sweetness of the ending.
What do you think the reason of death
“Joy that kills” in the short story
“The Story of An Hour”
(Composed by Vu Yen - DH02G-AV28)
Kate Chopin most definitely was a famous writer and a poet. She lived her life in the way she wanted to and wrote what she felt and wanted to say. Most of her works are about sex, love, and marriage, and some of them were rejected by many publisher at the early of twentieth century. One of her most famous and well-liked masterpieces was the short story “The Story of an Hour”. This story shows the sympathy of the author to a woman's grieves in her marriage.
“The Story of an Hour” is about an ill woman who learns of her husband's death. The story examines this woman's reaction to her sudden and unexpected independence and ends surprisingly when she discovers that her husband still alive.
The first thing to concern is that although there is no obvious evident to show that Mr. Brently abuses and doesn't love his wife, there are some factors that contribute to the fact that The Mallard's marriage an unhappy life. With her heart trouble, Mrs. Mallard was cared as gently as possible. Moreover the preservation from sudden and extreme distress has made her life tedious and flatting. By describing the marital and medical condition of Mrs. Mallard, Kate Chopin poses sympathy toward the feminist in the early of twentieth century.
Another point is that Mrs. Mallard is a subject to male-domination in her family and in the feudal society at the early of twentieth century. At the beginning of the story, Mr. Brently's wife is named as Mrs. Mallard, and her first name, Louis, Is only referred after her husband's death. At the end of the story, with the appearance of Mr. Brently, Louis is pronounced as Mrs. Mallard and once again becomes the property of Mr. Brently. In general, Louis's marriage exemplifies the status of the woman in the early of twentieth century, in which the Patriarch's power will “bending hers”. Mr. Brently may have some love for Louis, but he disregards Louis's happiness. The fact that they have no child shows that there is no sexual relationship in their marriage and “The lines (On Louis's face) bespoke repression”.
Kate Chopin Inspires a victory feeling for her female character, Louis, just in a short period of time. Louis manifests her joy as being an independent widow_” There was a feverish triumph in her eyes, and she carried herself unwittingly like a goddess victory”. Later on, the masculine discourse once again destroys Louis at the end of the story. The return of Mr. Brently leads Louis to the death, and the doctor declares that the cause of the death is that “She has died of heart disease_of joy that kills”. Kate Chopin eventually sets her character free by the death. Instead of retaining the status as Mrs. Mallard, the author emancipates Louis to another life where she will be no longer a subject to the patriach's power. It is the greatest final sympathy of the author to her feminist character.