The Story of an Hour
I can’t entirely agree with the Fatal Assertion in Kate Chopin’s The Story of an Hour, as I consider this short story to be a purely famed literary work. The story is sarcastic and heartbreaking simultaneously, as the protagonist perishes after being freed from a confining marriage. In the article, the playwright mirrors how the story, notwithstanding being very short, a meager thousand words, has depicted womenfolk’s situation throughout Chopin’s lifetime. As Berkove1 writes, Chopin commences his article by including the opinions of two intellects, Toth and Seyersted, who alleged that respective facet of the short story outstanding an expressive impression on the reader (152).
To begin with, the article depicts the storyline caustic, as it fails to demonstrate evidence of whether Louise Mallard struggled with her matrimonial life or not. The statement that she was eventually unrestricted is not pointing towards her significant other being punitive or making her life despondent. The writer similarly propagates that what Chopin labels as self-assertive in Louise`s case, in a real sense, nothing above a simple thought on the part of the character (Berkove 153). I do not consider Louise as a protagonist; however, I perceive her as an egoist who becomes an object to her personal imagination. The unexpected thinking that develops in Louise’s cognizance gives an avenue to various attitudes and contrary statements that prefigure the story’s climax. The opinions of Toth and Seyersted, together with my personal thinking, disprove their statements concerning the story as a true portrayal of a woman besieged to sustain herself in a male-controlled society.
Truly, Berkove offers a candid analysis. The story hardly demonstrates that the central character was inconsiderately ensuing the male-dominated culture and was continuously forfeiting her desires for the wishes of one more, or maybe there was some overthrow that remained imposed on her by the husband. Chopin has specifically pointed out in a single scene was that Louise’s facial languages were suggestive of her having experienced repression. Though, the basis of Louise’s domination was not clear as Chopin did not dig deep into the details at any illustration in the story. The article’s focus is not majorly on marriage or the boundaries obligatory on a woman by the social order. Instead, the story seems to be centered on Louise Mallard’s charisma. The author similarly states that the faint hint that Chopin was unable to provide is insufficient to demonstrate that society during her time was repressing the women and limiting them from living their preferred life.
For me, the author is not providing the readers with evidence that the 19th century was patent with women’s coercion. From the beginning of the story, Chopin does not provide information regarding the protagonist’s husband or the kind of person he was; instead, his name is only brought up after the news of a train accident spreads around. As illustrated by Berkove (156), the lack of background justifies my claims that her husband was not oppressing Louise. The lack of proof regarding the society being biased gives space for open critique against Chopin. The only instance where there is a subtle hint of Louise being freed from a life of oppression is when she imagines her husband lying motionless (Chopin 1). Her thoughts regarding Brentley are evident from the following lines,
“But she saw beyond that bitter moment a long procession of years to come that would belong to her absolutely.”
The above-quoted lines are implicit in their meaning as there is no history of the married couple in the story that would justify the way Louise feels after hearing of her husband’s death. The story’s main focus lies on Louise Mallard only and not on her society or her married life, so the quoted lines are proof enough that Louise’s feelings of freedom were self-assertion. Aside from the thoughts that take over Louise at that moment, it should be noted that the narrator’s assertion regarding Louise finally being free from the restraints of marriage cannot be linked with suppression as there is no evidence of it taking place in the story. The situation of Louise upon hearing of her husband’s death only highlights the misconceptions that surround marriages. Women most often believe that marriage will turn them into slaves and the husbands’ needs are to be taken care of above anything else. Louise’s perspective regarding marriage has been shown through the following lines,
“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.”
In addition to the absence of any strong evidence about Louise being oppressed by her husband, Louise’s feelings seem like an exaggeration in her case as the readers are unaware of whether Louise was unhappy with her life or not. The following lines show a contradiction in Louise’s feelings regarding a spouse, she says,
“She knew that she would weep again when she saw the kind, tender hands folded in death; the face that had never looked save with love upon her, fixed and gray and dead.”
The mentioned lines highlight that Brently had been kind to his wife even though the author has only reflected Brently’s affection through his facial expressions, but it still stands to show that he was not the kind of man to oppress his wife. Moreover, in the same instance, Louise has contradictory feelings when she thinks about her husband. As the following lines show,
“And yet she had loved him—sometimes.” Louise’s acceptance of her husband’s feelings shows that she was not unhappy with her married life. These lines justify that Chopin could not show the male possession that she so claimed was prevalent in her society during the nineteenth century. Moreover, the phrase “live for herself” points towards Louise rejoicing at the thought of not being bound anymore. At the same time, the line does show that Louise might have slaved away her youth in service of her husband, but Chopin failed to provide any evidence to prove the protagonist’s assertion.
From my discussion, it is clear that Chopin’s short story is grounded on proof that is not having have a robust indication to demonstrate that what the author articulates lies corresponding to how her social order was. While it is true that there is a subtle hint that Louise might have spent all her life fulfilling the needs of her husband, the story lacks evidence that Brently had oppressed Louise. While most people might agree with Chopin on her themes of female oppression while living in a patriarchal society, it should be noted that a story such as this in which the author only focused on Louise’s thoughts and perceptions shows that Chopin was biased in her views regarding marriage and the society that she was a part of.