who is the victim in Chopin's "The Story of an Hour"?

[naphelge]

So I was quite surprised to find very little info on the forum about Kate Chopin's short story: "The Story of an Hour." I was certain it would be a hotbed for feminist critics.

I am currently studying the story as part of a women's lit course, which I am thoroughly enjoying. I had read the story previously, but never gave it much thought, but I must say since reading it a few more times recently and reading with a more critical eye I am quite surprised. The story is very good for its considering its brevity. In fact its brevity is what I think I like most about the story. Nothing in the story is described or mentioned with any degree of certainty and it leaves the door wide open to interpretation.

So my biggest surprise I think is that Chopin, who seems to be an ardent feminist for her time actually paints Mrs. Mallard in a controversial light, making it possible to so despise the "monstrous joy" she greets the news of her husband's death with.

I am thinking this guy must be a wife beater, or must impose severe mental trauma upon her, like Gilman's protagonist in "The Yellow Wallpaper." However, there is actually very little evidence to support any idea that her husband treats her in any way that is oppressive or negative even. It seems like she is overjoyed just to be free from the chains of marriage; perhaps society is the oppressor (considering the story takes place at the tale end of the 19th century, or was written then at least).

I find it curious how many critics are overjoyed along with Mrs. Mallard at her attaining her apparent freedom; overjoyed in fact at the news of her husband's death.

In fact she seems so overjoyed, she seems almost to have an orgasm in her room just thinking about her freedom; especially with the idea that "something is 'coming' to her," and how "whispers" escape her "parted lips." It all seems to be marked quite obviously with sexual overtones and descriptions of double entendres. Her "bosom is rising and falling tumultuously," "her pulses beat fast," her "coursing blood warmed and relaxed every inch of her body," all of which screams out orgasm to me; perhaps it is she I am hearing who is screaming. I wonder if anyone else can chime in here who is familiar with the story and let me know if I am missing something?

It seems strange Chopin goes to great lengths to describe this alone time in the protag's room, but very little is actually said of her husband, and their marriage, except that for some reason she is glad to be "free."

I also read that she is very possibly having an affair with Richards, her husband's friend. The guy seems to also be overcome with joy at the news of his friend's death in the tragic accident. It mentions he was less than careful assuring himself of the truth, which of course in the end turns out to be anything but, and so he obviously acted much too hastily, with some out of control impulse driving him; I thought the prospect of securing his place as Mrs. Mallard's full-time lover does not seem too far fetched. The text does describe that he is "close to her" when her husband can not be; is that a first one should wonder I think.

Mrs. Mallard could very well be suffering oppression of her society and times I guess, but it still does not vindicate in my reading of the story her callus reaction to her husband's death. In fact it could perhaps be read that he is the victim of a still young and fair whimsical wife, unsure of what it is she wants out of life, trying a little of this and a little of that, and looking for the easy way out the responsibilities she assumes based on decisions made.

How tough on the protagonist, or perhaps totally baseless (?) is that reading of Kate Chopin's "The Story of an Hour?"

I would enjoy reading other takes on the story, as well as any corrections or additions to any comments I have made.

cheers,
nap

[naphelge]

something else I was wondering: is it too simple and easy to think of Mrs. M's ascent upstairs, wanting "no one to follow to her" (least of all her husband, but perhaps also Richards, who is left at the bottom of the stairs, and waits patiently for her return), as a mistaken ascent to, well (dare I say), heaven on earth? Then her her decent down the stairs as a "Goddess of Victory," to Richards waiting at the bottom would have to be like a fall from grace or something like that?

It is interesting to think that both Richards and Brently are at the bottom of the stairs (representing a state of fallen grace or whatever), both in contention, although likely Brently would be in the know, for her love and affection, if she is indeed having an affair with Richards.

cheers,
nap

[OrphanPip]

I think you've got some good observations here, but also some that I think are way off base.


So my biggest surprise I think is that Chopin, who seems to be an ardent feminist for her time actually paints Mrs. Mallard in a controversial light, making it possible to so despise the "monstrous joy" she greets the news of her husband's death with.

I am thinking this guy must be a wife beater, or must impose severe mental trauma upon her, like Gilman's protagonist in "The Yellow Wallpaper." However, there is actually very little evidence to support any idea that her husband treats her in any way that is oppressive or negative even. It seems like she is overjoyed just to be free from the chains of marriage; perhaps society is the oppressor (considering the story takes place at the tale end of the 19th century, or was written then at least).

I find it curious how many critics are overjoyed along with Mrs. Mallard at her attaining her apparent freedom; overjoyed in fact at the news of her husband's death.

This tension is probably where the strength of this story derives from. Her husband definitely doesn't abuse her, there is a sense though that the marriage is perhaps generally one of convenience.

I don't think we're meant to despise her joy, it's not like she is actually reveling in her husband's death as much as she is celebrating the freedom she has gained. You have to remember that at this time a widow wasn't just free of the constraints of marriage, but also gained a certain social acceptability to conduct business and own property, a big deal for a woman. A widow, in the scale of rights of women, was somewhere above a married woman while still being below men. An unmarried single woman couldn't enjoy the same social status as a widow.


In fact she seems so overjoyed, she seems almost to have an orgasm in her room just thinking about her freedom; especially with the idea that "something is 'coming' to her," and how "whispers" escape her "parted lips." It all seems to be marked quite obviously with sexual overtones and descriptions of double entendres. Her "bosom is rising and falling tumultuously," "her pulses beat fast," her "coursing blood warmed and relaxed every inch of her body," all of which screams out orgasm to me; perhaps it is she I am hearing who is screaming. I wonder if anyone else can chime in here who is familiar with the story and let me know if I am missing something?

It seems strange Chopin goes to great lengths to describe this alone time in the protag's room, but very little is actually said of her husband, and their marriage, except that for some reason she is glad to be "free."

Yes, I think it's fair to read sexual undertones into that. What I would connect it to would be the spring imagery earlier in the story. It all connects to the opening possibilities that are birthed for her.


I also read that she is very possibly having an affair with Richards, her husband's friend. The guy seems to also be overcome with joy at the news of his friend's death in the tragic accident. It mentions he was less than careful assuring himself of the truth, which of course in the end turns out to be anything but, and so he obviously acted much too hastily, with some out of control impulse driving him; I thought the prospect of securing his place as Mrs. Mallard's full-time lover does not seem too far fetched. The text does describe that he is "close to her" when her husband can not be; is that a first one should wonder I think.

Here I have to disagree, his nearness is physical not emotionally, I think we're just meant to understand that he is standing near her when he delivers the news. There is absolutely no suggestion of a sexual interest between them, nor does she even pay any particular attention to him in the story. I also think it wouldn't mesh with the language of opening possibilities and freedom.


Mrs. Mallard could very well be suffering oppression of her society and times I guess, but it still does not vindicate in my reading of the story her callus reaction to her husband's death. In fact it could perhaps be read that he is the victim of a still young and fair whimsical wife, unsure of what it is she wants out of life, trying a little of this and a little of that, and looking for the easy way out the responsibilities she assumes based on decisions made.

Her reaction isn't callous though. She does cry, and does admit to loving him at times. We have to understand that often marriage in that time was a business agreement more than something of love. I think it's particularly a bias created by 19th century sentimentalism that created an idealized image of married couples having to be devoted and in love with each other. Why should a woman who had to marry a man to avoid starvation or life on the street be obligated to be head over heels in love with her husband? Moreover, it's not that she is happy he is dead, she is happy to be free.


omething else I was wondering: is it too simple and easy to think of Mrs. M's ascent upstairs, wanting "no one to follow to her" (least of all her husband, but perhaps also Richards, who is left at the bottom of the stairs, and waits patiently for her return), as a mistaken ascent to, well (dare I say), heaven on earth? Then her her decent down the stairs as a "Goddess of Victory," to Richards waiting at the bottom would have to be like a fall from grace or something like that?

It is interesting to think that both Richards and Brently are at the bottom of the stairs (representing a state of fallen grace or whatever), both in contention, although likely Brently would be in the know, for her love and affection, if she is indeed having an affair with Richards.

No I think it is intentional, as is the awakening of her sense of freedom in her own room, and you should also pay attention to the descriptions of the weather. It is a very short story and I feel that Chopin has carefully laid out the setting.

[prendrelemick]

I suspect you already know this, but Chopin's title for the story was The Dream of an hour. It was published as The Story of an Hour as late as 1969. I think the former title slightly alters the context of the time she spent in her room for us.

[naphelge]

I don't think we're meant to despise her joy, it's not like she is actually reveling in her husband's death as much as she is celebrating the freedom she has gained.

Moreover, it's not that she is happy he is dead, she is happy to be free.

I do find her taking pleasure and joy, because it can be argued whether her tears are brought on by pain or joy, which acting with "wild abandonment" seems to imply a carefree whimsical reaction rather than something sombre causing distress, in the news of her husband's death quite a disturbing reaction that implies a lot in a story that offers little in the way of substantial details guiding the reader in their interpretation. It seems sure that Chopin wrote this story with the desire to introduce more ambiguity than a concrete position on an issue, such as a woman's right to feel satisfied with her husband's death because it delivers her to freedom. If her husband's death signifies the freedom she so desperately seeks, then how can she not be revelling in her husband's death. It is one in the same thing.

There seems very little in the story to support the idea that Mrs. Mallard is an oppressed wife, or even unloved or uncared for, never mind mis-treated. History will certainly tell us how very possible it is that she was oppressed, but not with conclusively, and not with any indication to what degree. The idea that her emotions erupt from years of oppression can only be assumed. Now what of we assume she is a master manipulator and she manipulates men for her own gain, for an easy ride through life. Perhaps in her whimsical nature she has grown tired of Mr. Mallard and is ready, or has been ready to move on for some time to some thing else. Perhaps Richards was a mere distraction for her, of which she has also grown tired of. Chopin makes a point of mentioning in this story that Richards is close to her, not her sister Josephine, but Richards. The guy who can not seem to get out of the news office fast enough with the dreadful news. The kind of news, it strikes me that true friend would dread delivering and take every precaution to be certain of its truth if for no other reason than to stall having to be the bearer of such sad news, which it turns out he did not do diligently enough, and second welcome the opportunity to collect his thoughts and mull over how best to delivery such tragic news.

"He had only taken the time to assure himself of its truth by a second telegram"
Again I have to think in such a short, short story every word potentially carries meaning, and thus the fact the narrator tells us that Richards had "only" taken the time to assure himself of its truth, which of course it is not the truth. What is his big rush to get over to the Mallard's with tragic news?

He "had hastened to forestall any less careful, less tender friend in bearing the sad message."
For me this is a very awkward sentence that is very ambiguous. Trying to paraphrase on a literal level the closest meaning I come up with is:

"He hurried to prevent/hinder/obstruct a careless, and not so tender friend from having to bear the sad message," which does not make sense because he is the one who rushes out of the news office with the intelligence hot off the wire. Sure Josephine is the person who tells Lousie about her husband, but Richards is the "bearer" of "the sad news," not the "preventer/hinerer/obstructor" that the word "foestall" seems to hint at, but does not quite work. It is also important to realize the narrator, whom many, including myself is a female sympathetic to the female plight of general oppression, bvut thus regards Lousie to be a "less careful" and "less tender" sort of friend.

I have not had the chance to check the OED, but Websters 1913 dictionary mentions that "forestall" could also mean "to monopolize" or "to engross," both of which work for my reading.

"He had hastened to monopolize/take advantage of a friend less careful, less tender by bearing the sad news"
or

"He had hastened to bear the sad news to a less careful, less tender friend with whom he was engrossed."
Granted both sentences need to be re-worded to work, but they still convey clearer meaning than Richards hastening to prevent a less careful, less tender friend in bearing the sad news (of which his intention to deliver is the purpose of his hastening out of the news office).

So for me it seems Richards is a huge question mark here, and the fact that Chopin takes the time and effort to mention:


"Her husband's friend Richards was there, too, near her,"
creates quite a bit of potential tension between her husband, Richards, and Mrs. Mallard, and that Chopin did not likely just mean to mention that he was present and standing nearby, but rather "near her." I am sure fights have erupted from similarly worded sentences from which some one got the wrong impression one way or another. If Richards is such a non-player in Mrs. Mallard's life then why does Chopin waste words and time to write him in. He adds nothing to the story otherwise. If the story said that joesephine had told her sister the news, with no mention of Richards whatsoever, I do not think it would impact the story one bit, unless one analyzes the potential meaning Richards' character plays, which I am sure goes further than simple messenger. Even after relaying his message he sticks around and seemingly just hangs out downstairs, for who knows how long (we know in the end an hour, but for Richards waiting he does not know how long Louise intends to spend alone time in her room), but he seems ready to wait, for whatever reason.

I took quite a bit of time explaining think Richards might bring more importance meaning to the story than as just a sympathetic friend, so I'll cut my blathering off here for now.


broken sentences; veiled hints that revealed in half concealing
This sentence about secrets and half-truth that leads to Richards' intro into the story is what initially got me thinking that something beyond what is so obviously presented exists between Mrs. Mallard and Richards.

cheers,
nap

[OrphanPip]

I do find her taking pleasure and joy, because it can be argued whether her tears are brought on by pain or joy, which acting with "wild abandonment" seems to imply a carefree whimsical reaction rather than something sombre causing distress, in the news of her husband's death quite a disturbing reaction that implies a lot in a story that offers little in the way of substantial details guiding the reader in their interpretation. It seems sure that Chopin wrote this story with the desire to introduce more ambiguity than a concrete position on an issue, such as a woman's right to feel satisfied with her husband's death because it delivers her to freedom. If her husband's death signifies the freedom she so desperately seeks, then how can she not be revelling in her husband's death. It is one in the same thing.

No I disagree, the narrator tells us that she at times loves her husband, and that it is a feeling of freedom that is bringing on the joy not any malicious or whimsical celebration of her husbands death. There's no reason to think the narrator is trying to deceive the reader. I don't think it is quite the same thing, celebrating freedom that comes after the death is not the same as celebrating the death itself. And the narrator tells us the tears are from grief. Her joy is something that comes after her grief for her husband's death.



There seems very little in the story to support the idea that Mrs. Mallard is an oppressed wife, or even unloved or uncared for, never mind mis-treated. History will certainly tell us how very possible it is that she was oppressed, but not with conclusively, and not with any indication to what degree. The idea that her emotions erupt from years of oppression can only be assumed. Now what of we assume she is a master manipulator and she manipulates men for her own gain, for an easy ride through life. Perhaps in her whimsical nature she has grown tired of Mr. Mallard and is ready, or has been ready to move on for some time to some thing else. Perhaps Richards was a mere distraction for her, of which she has also grown tired of. Chopin makes a point of mentioning in this story that Richards is close to her, not her sister Josephine, but Richards. The guy who can not seem to get out of the news office fast enough with the dreadful news. The kind of news, it strikes me that true friend would dread delivering and take every precaution to be certain of its truth if for no other reason than to stall having to be the bearer of such sad news, which it turns out he did not do diligently enough, and second welcome the opportunity to collect his thoughts and mull over how best to delivery such tragic news.

Again I have to think in such a short, short story every word potentially carries meaning, and thus the fact the narrator tells us that Richards had "only" taken the time to assure himself of its truth, which of course it is not the truth. What is his big rush to get over to the Mallard's with tragic news?

For me this is a very awkward sentence that is very ambiguous. Trying to paraphrase on a literal level the closest meaning I come up with is:

"He hurried to prevent/hinder/obstruct a careless, and not so tender friend from having to bear the sad message," which does not make sense because he is the one who rushes out of the news office with the intelligence hot off the wire. Sure Josephine is the person who tells Lousie about her husband, but Richards is the "bearer" of "the sad news," not the "preventer/hinerer/obstructor" that the word "foestall" seems to hint at, but does not quite work. It is also important to realize the narrator, whom many, including myself is a female sympathetic to the female plight of general oppression, bvut thus regards Lousie to be a "less careful" and "less tender" sort of friend.

I have not had the chance to check the OED, but Websters 1913 dictionary mentions that "forestall" could also mean "to monopolize" or "to engross," both of which work for my reading.

or

Granted both sentences need to be re-worded to work, but they still convey clearer meaning than Richards hastening to prevent a less careful, less tender friend in bearing the sad news (of which his intention to deliver is the purpose of his hastening out of the news office).

So for me it seems Richards is a huge question mark here, and the fact that Chopin takes the time and effort to mention:


creates quite a bit of potential tension between her husband, Richards, and Mrs. Mallard, and that Chopin did not likely just mean to mention that he was present and standing nearby, but rather "near her." I am sure fights have erupted from similarly worded sentences from which some one got the wrong impression one way or another. If Richards is such a non-player in Mrs. Mallard's life then why does Chopin waste words and time to write him in. He adds nothing to the story otherwise. If the story said that joesephine had told her sister the news, with no mention of Richards whatsoever, I do not think it would impact the story one bit, unless one analyzes the potential meaning Richards' character plays, which I am sure goes further than simple messenger. Even after relaying his message he sticks around and seemingly just hangs out downstairs, for who knows how long (we know in the end an hour, but for Richards waiting he does not know how long Louise intends to spend alone time in her room), but he seems ready to wait, for whatever reason.

I took quite a bit of time explaining think Richards might bring more importance meaning to the story than as just a sympathetic friend, so I'll cut my blathering off here for now.


This sentence about secrets and half-truth that leads to Richards' intro into the story is what initially got me thinking that something beyond what is so obviously presented exists between Mrs. Mallard and Richards.

cheers,

I think it is just foreshadowing on Chopin's part, remember that it opens with a statement on Mrs. Mallard's heart condition. I really think it is stretching the reading to think there is some adultery occurring behind the story. Richards' description as her husband's friend, at least, associates him more closely with Mr. Mallard, and he is just assuming the social mores of a friend by acting gentlemanly towards Mrs. Mallard. The mention of his only checking once is just to foreshadow the ending, or else we would wonder how Richards made the mistake.

[naphelge]

Well I first off appreciate you taking the time to let me argue my points that are shaping themselves into an essay as we speak.

the narrator tells us that she at times loves her husband, and that it is a feeling of freedom that is bringing on the joy not any malicious or whimsical celebration of her husbands death.
I am not thinking her joy is born of maliciousness as much as callousness, but I have not yet dismissed the idea of malice bahaviour, but that would seem, to me anyway, to imply some sort of intention or having a hand in her husband's death. But I read her to be a whimiscal, young woman uncertain of what it is she wants in, but just satisfied that she is now free of her responsibility as a wife. Sort of like a child that wants a dog, gets a dog, and soon regrets the dog b/c they need to take responsibility. I guess I am saying she married without much thinking about the implication of marriage, and now just desires, craves to be free of the whole thing, which her husband's death provides her, and she is elated.

The fact that:

she had loved him--sometimes. Often she had not. What did it matter! What could love, the unsolved mystery, count for in the face of this possession of self-assertion which she suddenly recognized as the strongest impulse of her being!
reads so childishly irresponsible to me. There is no hint whatsoever of grief in this passage. "What did it matter!" really seems to sting, like, as long as she gets what she wants everything else, death and all does not matter. Of course it is possible she was oppressed, perhaps, but I am still not convinced that she would be right to act so "less tenderly" but we are told she is "less tender." Her own description of her husband, however, refutes all such claims. Perhaps it is oppression encouraged by society that is weighing down on her, but irregardless she is obviously elated to finally have gained possession of some long awaited reality, for whatever the reason it can only be speculated b/c in Chopin's wisdom she opens doors which she never closes.

There's no reason to think the narrator is trying to deceive the reader.
I really have to disagree here. I also do not think the narrator is intentionally deceiving the reader, but the more I re-read parts of the story, the more glaringly awkward and contradictory some of the sentences appear; almost like a warning to question all that seems obvious, and especially if it makes any claims to be the truth or hint at the truth.

I don't think it is quite the same thing, celebrating freedom that comes after the death is not the same as celebrating the death itself.
I agree, I am not so certain she is totally void of moral ethics, but it is not a month, or even a week or two after her husband's death she finds satisfaction basically in his death (his loss = her gain yeah?), it is mere moments after being told the news. There is certainly something amiss there for me.

And the narrator tells us the tears are from grief. Her joy is something that comes after her grief for her husband's death.
I agree the narrator talks of the tears she shed in "wild abandonment" in the same breath they mention "the storm of grief being spent," but I guess I am already questioning the narrator's limited understanding, or misunderstanding in fact of Mrs. Mallard's reaction. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it must be a duck...if she cries and displays an outpouring of emotion immediately after hearing the news of her husband's unexpected death, then it must be tears and emotion of grief, right? Well that's what our morals trick us into believing.

I really think it is stretching the reading to think there is some adultery occurring behind the story.
I am now convinced there is no good reason for Richards in the story unless he lends some potential importance beyond simple messenger of sad news. Chopin is deliberately writing a story that is brief and scarce with details, in order to likely create the greatest degree of ambiguity to create maximum, potential tension (that directly translates into interest for writers and their literature). It is very possible I am stretching things, but it is just screaming at me that Richards' presence in the story deserves more attention and has more meaning than what is made blindingly, yet awkwardly obvious. as more than simple moral support.

Richards' description as her husband's friend, at least, associates him more closely with Mr. Mallard
What purpose does to write in a character that is closely associated with Mr. Mallard?? Writers write with intention, which is seldom understood by their writers (my opinion), so for me there needs to be a purpose for Richards' character, and a reason why he is the hastened bearer of the apparent sad news, and why he needs to be more closely associated with Mr. Mallard.

It is ironic that it is Richards' hasty, carelessness that results in Lousie's death, getting her hopes up that she was free, and then realizing she is not.