“The story of an Hour” by Kate Chopin (1984)
Freedom is relative and I strongly believe everyone understands that. From the readings one can say she was free at last. Her understanding of freedom is living and having total control of her life. This evident when she said “there is no one to live for those coming years; she would live for herself. There would be no powerful will bending hers in that blind persistence with which men and women they believe they have a right to impose a private will on a fellow-creature”.
Freedom is relative and I strongly believe everyone understands that. From the readings one can say she was free at last. Her understanding of freedom is living and having total control of her life. This evident when she said “there is no one to live for those coming years; she would live for herself. There would be no powerful will bending hers in that blind persistence with which men and women they believe they have a right to impose a private will on a fellow-creature”.
Even though she was somehow sick death was not something she wished for herself. She wanted to live and enjoy the absence of the only person who had some control over her.
But one might argue that her death will give her a perfect resting place where she will not have to be bothered by the response of people at every action she takes. As the saying goes “there is more sleep after death”. Literally, she is free to sleep all she wants and bother about nothing. This argument is meant for those who believe we live, die and life ends. On a religious line, I will argue based on what the scripture says about life and death. It is in the scripture that, “whatever man sow he shall reap”. It is unto every man to answer to God when his soul departs. Looking at things from this line, her death will pose other challenges for her as she has the obligation of reaping the fruits of her actions in this life. If she lived a righteous life she has freedom but if not it is left for you to judge for yourselves.
Personally, I will say she was free at last and will forever be but, the freedom she was looking for is not the kind she got.
I agree with you saying that she was free at last, because I think death gave her freedom. It can be one of the freedom she is looking for, because after she died, she has nothing to worry about the people who still alive like her family. I once heard a Christian friend told me that freedom beings after death, I can’t say it’s true but if so, it mean that she is free.
The doctor said that she died of the joy that kills saying that because she saw her husband is still alive and she is too happy and her heart couldn’t withstand it. But I think she died because she felt despair of her freedom and she couldn’t/don’t want to believe that her husband is still alive.
I agree with you, Emmanuel, that she was “free” but it was not the kind of freedom that she wanted. In the phrase, “of the joy that kills”, I felt it meant she was so close to her “freedom”, seeing husband put a stop to that joy. Yes she loved her husband but I feel it was that “I’m suppose to love him because he is my husband” love instead of that genuine love. Seeing herself “free” in the sense where she doesn’t have to answer to anyone and living freely to do as she pleases was just the kind of freedom that she needed or was looking for, not death. For example, when you move out of your parent’s house you have that “freedom”. Would you want to die to have that freedom??
I totally agree with your statement that Mrs.Mallard was free at the end of the reading. From what we have read, we can interpret that she was leading an unhappy life with her husband, and that she no longer wished to be in that life. Seeing her husbands death made her view her life from a different perspective, maybe one of happiness, at a certain cost. Personally, I say that she did obtain “freedom,” but at the cost of both her husband and herselfs death.
On the other hand, even though I see the reasoning behind your argument, I don’t think that religion should be brought into the argument to make a point. Every reader interprets the story in their own unique way, and religion has nothing to do in the case of whether we believe that Mrs.Mallard obtains “freedom” or not.
well said Emmanuel. although this not the kind of freedom she was seeking for, she at last find her freedom in death. however, i think that she did gain the type of freedom she wanted even though it did not last. ones would feel crushed at the news of their husband/wife death, instead she felt relieved. she had the chance to breath again, feel again and enjoy her life in the absence of her husband. unfortunately, as she discovered her husband was nowhere near the accident and he was well alive, she was shocked and died of a heart attack. therefore, i would say she some what gained her freedom thru death because in her situation death is better than having to live a hopeless life
I agree that ever since she was married to Brently Mallard that she wasn’t the same that everything she used to love ( the bird and singing ) was both taking away from her so it seemed like she was miserable. Her freedom was taking away by marriage, as in these times the man ran the relationship and the woman was always to stand by his side. In the beginning where she found out that he was dead, it was like a weight lifted off her chest and she could finally breath again. She was again enjoying life but this was short lived. At the end when she finally saw her husband again, she was in shock and her previous heart troubles couldn’t take it. After when she died, she did gain freedom but it wasn’t the type of freedom she was expecting.
I totally agreed with everyone about she get her freedom in death, although thats not the type of freedom she’s looking but at least she got released and no need to face her husband again..she end her miserable marriage eventually.