"He stood amazed at Josephine's piercing cry; at Richard's quick motion to screen him from the view of his wife...When the doctors came they said she had died of heart disease--of joy that kills" (Chopin, 268).
After my first reading of, "The Story of an Hour" I did not understand the last line of the story completely. I assumed Louise had died from the shock of seeing her husband alive. But now I'm not sure that she ever even saw her husband at the door. If it is true that she died of joy, then I think she died on the way down the stairs from the excitement and joy of being a free woman.
This made me think of the question of whether she was weak or not. I think she was mentally strong and physically weak. I think she was mentally strong for a few reasons. Most likely she was married off to Mr. Mallard by her father. Because of the way she feels about her marriage, like the fact that she only sometimes loved Brently and felt controlled or trapped, points to this. Being in an unhappy marriage took a toll on her, but she did it. Also when confronted with the death of someone so close, even if you didn't fully love them, is startling. She survived that shock. So I would say she is mentally strong.
I think she is physically weak only because of her heart problem, which we do not know the cause of. It could just be something she was born with, and no fault of her own. This problem of a weak heart and her over excitement ultimately kills her.
I also think that Chopin is making a commentary on how great it is for a woman to be free. How important it is that women be allowed the rights of men. From what I have heard about times overs 100 years ago (since this was written in 1894), women were rather subservient to the men. Women had a set place in the relationship, they took care of the house and did not work. (I think this drove a lot of women mad). Louise' reaction to her husbands death is ironic, because one would think, as the other characters did, that she would be crying in sadness over his death. But the tragedy of his death is quickly replaced with her realization that being able to make decision for herself and live for herself is what she has always secretly wanted.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Pauls Case
"The carnations in his coat were drooping with cold...their red glory over...It was only one splendid breath they had, in spite of their brave mockery at the winter outside the glass. It was a losing game in the end, it seemed, this revolt against the homilies by which the world is run" (Cather, 214).
Like the red carnation, Paul has his, "one splendid breath," his spending spree. I believe what we saw of Paul's life leading up to this point was his revolt against "normal" life. He was always an outsider, maybe because of his appearance, or maybe by his choice of actions. Paul cannot live in their world--he has a need for the high fashion of the theatre life, and his tastes are more suited for the wealthy, elitist class that can weekly afford to go to the theatre. Paul's refusal to accept his ordinary life is what ultimately leads to his suicide.
I think many of us have been guilty of being bored in school, or have wished we had money and fancy things. However, we do not let our desires rule us; we do not let our imaginations become our lives. There is a line between fantasy and reality that Paul cannot grasp. Maybe the world was not fair to Paul because they did not understand them. I think it is certainly possible that, had Paul been living in our time, he would have been diagnosed with a variety of conditions. He would have been treated differently. But in this story, real life is too much for Paul. His father, teachers, and classmates do not understand him. I think Paul needed help, but because no one understood him, he was treated like everyone else, which in Paul's case, was a mistreatment. The normal rules and punishments were the wrong thing for Paul and they pushed him further away from reality.
Like the red carnation, Paul has his, "one splendid breath," his spending spree. I believe what we saw of Paul's life leading up to this point was his revolt against "normal" life. He was always an outsider, maybe because of his appearance, or maybe by his choice of actions. Paul cannot live in their world--he has a need for the high fashion of the theatre life, and his tastes are more suited for the wealthy, elitist class that can weekly afford to go to the theatre. Paul's refusal to accept his ordinary life is what ultimately leads to his suicide.
I think many of us have been guilty of being bored in school, or have wished we had money and fancy things. However, we do not let our desires rule us; we do not let our imaginations become our lives. There is a line between fantasy and reality that Paul cannot grasp. Maybe the world was not fair to Paul because they did not understand them. I think it is certainly possible that, had Paul been living in our time, he would have been diagnosed with a variety of conditions. He would have been treated differently. But in this story, real life is too much for Paul. His father, teachers, and classmates do not understand him. I think Paul needed help, but because no one understood him, he was treated like everyone else, which in Paul's case, was a mistreatment. The normal rules and punishments were the wrong thing for Paul and they pushed him further away from reality.
Monday, September 17, 2007
I came into class thinking that this was a fun story, but one without a point, which bothered me. I was hoping there would be something enlightening to learn about this story; something I missed. However, I left class feeling the same way as when I entered.
What I did gain was the sense that Mark Twain (I will always call him Mark Twain because of the fond memories I have of reading Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer as a child and thinking the author's name was Mark Twain) was an amazing story teller; his use of specific dialect and story style are enthralling.
I love the frame tale or story within a story set up. I have read many books like this and it always leaves me amazed when I realize that the story is really about someone telling a story. For me this happened at a certain point in "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County."
What I did gain was the sense that Mark Twain (I will always call him Mark Twain because of the fond memories I have of reading Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer as a child and thinking the author's name was Mark Twain) was an amazing story teller; his use of specific dialect and story style are enthralling.
I love the frame tale or story within a story set up. I have read many books like this and it always leaves me amazed when I realize that the story is really about someone telling a story. For me this happened at a certain point in "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County."
Just as Wheeler is telling his story, he gets cut off, "And-- [Here Simon Wheeler heard his name called from the front yard, and got up to see what was wanted.] And turning to me as he moved away, he said: 'Just set where you are, stranger, and rest easy--I ain't going to be gone a second" (Clemens, 275). It was at this point that I realized I'd forgotten I was reading a story within a story. The use of this device by Twain captures the reader, in the same way a twist ending might in a mystery story. For me, this and the dialect made the story worth reading, even though I was unsure of the whole point of the story.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Opinions/Thoughts on, "An Occurence at Owl Creek Bridge" by Ambrose Bierce
I'm not sure how much I can add to this discussion, but I will try. Most of what I think has already been said, but I will state my opinions/thoughts.
Against my personal interests, I awkwardly found myself rooting for Peyton. I was happy for him when he made it back to his wife; I like happy endings. It was a rude, yet interesting surprise when I found he had actually died, and was imagining the whole thing right before his death.
Bierce creates a crafty story by using his three part set up. The time shifting element is a favorite of mine. I am a big fan of Pulp Fiction, and got excited when it was brought up in class. I think telling stories out of sequence adds an element of surprise, which can only increase the readers fascination, respect for the author, and desire to continue reading.
Against my personal interests, I awkwardly found myself rooting for Peyton. I was happy for him when he made it back to his wife; I like happy endings. It was a rude, yet interesting surprise when I found he had actually died, and was imagining the whole thing right before his death.
Bierce creates a crafty story by using his three part set up. The time shifting element is a favorite of mine. I am a big fan of Pulp Fiction, and got excited when it was brought up in class. I think telling stories out of sequence adds an element of surprise, which can only increase the readers fascination, respect for the author, and desire to continue reading.
Meaning in, "The Other Duel" by Jorge Luis Borges
Some of the first thoughts I had after reading "The Other Duel" by Jorge Luis Borges were, what's the significance of the title? And, why is there a defined winner at the end?
With the first question in mind, I began to scan back over the story. What did Borges mean by the other duel? It was at this time I began to notice a lot of comparing and contrasting between the two protagonists as well as the men or soldiers in general (page 142). This paralleling of characters was done in a way that would represent their character, what kind of men they were, what kind of thoughts they had, and how you might judge them further or define them as human beings, whether good or bad. To me, this suggested that the title was a play on words. The other duel is dual, which the online dictionary defines as, "of, pertaining to, or noting two. Composed or consisting of two people, items, parts, etc. Having a twofold, or double, character or nature."
I think the whole story, has to do with the dual nature of men. Both protagonists may not be ideal heroes or role models, but if you look back through the story, the better choice, or “better man” seems to be Cardoso. On page 142, Captain Nolan makes an interesting statement, “You’re going to run a race…may the best man win.” The first time, I read these words as cliché, and meaningless. However, after a second, third and fourth time I began to wonder if there was more in this simple phrase. This lead me back to my second question, why is there a defined winner in the end? One could read this as meaning that Cardoso is the better man.
In order to further this claim I went back and re-read the beginning of the story, noticing that Cardoso loses to Silveira in everything else prior to the “death race”. The feud is said to have possibly started over, “a bareback horse race during which, Silveira, who was stronger, had bumped Cardoso’s horse off the track,” which sounds like cheating. Then, look at the way the truco game went down. Cardoso tries every trick, only to be scoffed at and beat by Silveira, who, after winning, thanks Cardoso for the “lesson”. When Silveira sees Cardoso courting a girl, he, out of spite, begins courting the girl himself, and takes her to his home, releasing her after a month so she can go crying to Cardoso, who, at this point, sees the girl as tainted by his enemy.
That is Silveira’s style, that is his nature. Someone like Silveira might claim he deserved all of these victories. But anyone with sound morals can see he is a cheater and a bad sport. He does not know how to win with honor, and so in the end, in death, Cardoso is the winner, the “better man”.
With the first question in mind, I began to scan back over the story. What did Borges mean by the other duel? It was at this time I began to notice a lot of comparing and contrasting between the two protagonists as well as the men or soldiers in general (page 142). This paralleling of characters was done in a way that would represent their character, what kind of men they were, what kind of thoughts they had, and how you might judge them further or define them as human beings, whether good or bad. To me, this suggested that the title was a play on words. The other duel is dual, which the online dictionary defines as, "of, pertaining to, or noting two. Composed or consisting of two people, items, parts, etc. Having a twofold, or double, character or nature."
I think the whole story, has to do with the dual nature of men. Both protagonists may not be ideal heroes or role models, but if you look back through the story, the better choice, or “better man” seems to be Cardoso. On page 142, Captain Nolan makes an interesting statement, “You’re going to run a race…may the best man win.” The first time, I read these words as cliché, and meaningless. However, after a second, third and fourth time I began to wonder if there was more in this simple phrase. This lead me back to my second question, why is there a defined winner in the end? One could read this as meaning that Cardoso is the better man.
In order to further this claim I went back and re-read the beginning of the story, noticing that Cardoso loses to Silveira in everything else prior to the “death race”. The feud is said to have possibly started over, “a bareback horse race during which, Silveira, who was stronger, had bumped Cardoso’s horse off the track,” which sounds like cheating. Then, look at the way the truco game went down. Cardoso tries every trick, only to be scoffed at and beat by Silveira, who, after winning, thanks Cardoso for the “lesson”. When Silveira sees Cardoso courting a girl, he, out of spite, begins courting the girl himself, and takes her to his home, releasing her after a month so she can go crying to Cardoso, who, at this point, sees the girl as tainted by his enemy.
That is Silveira’s style, that is his nature. Someone like Silveira might claim he deserved all of these victories. But anyone with sound morals can see he is a cheater and a bad sport. He does not know how to win with honor, and so in the end, in death, Cardoso is the winner, the “better man”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)