STORY OF AN HOUR

· Clarification

· 3 ways to name

· Spouses last name is tradition marriage

· Marriage as economic

· Choose

· Physical description

· Window

· Monstrous joy

Before I start, I want to make a small clarification:

Since this is a short story and a lot of information is not detailed or implied, we can speculate about many aspects of the female oppression represented here, and the setting of the story. I'll hypothesize that this takes place in the nineteenth century, the era of the author.

I want to start by quoting 3 sentences and focus on the way the protagonist is called.

"Knowing that Mrs. Mallard was afflicted with a heart trouble, great care was taken to break to her as gently as possible the news of her husband's death."

"Louise, open the door!"

"… at Richard's quick motion to screen him from the view of his wife."

These 3 different uses of calling the protagonist are a subtle way to portray female oppression. Notice how she's called by her spouse's name at the very beginning of the story, before we even know her first name. Then as the story continues and her husband seems to be dead, we learn her name is "Louise". And finally, once her husband comes back to her life, she's referred to as "wife" again, breaking her heart in the process. These 3 ways of naming her match the protagonist's stages throughout the story: oppression by the use of her husband's last name (Mrs. Mallard), freedom with her real name (Louise) and oppression again by the use of her role (wife).

Now taking her spouses last name was one of the many traditions in connection with marriage. But by doing so they also became their property. Marriage was never meant to be about love. The original meaning of marriage was possession. Marriage was designed to give women economic security; to pass on the responsibility for the woman from the father to the husband. Thus, a woman's self was lost in marriage, losing the name they were given since birth.

Back then Marriage was considered a sacred institution and the husband was generally the one and only head of the household. Society glorified the roles of wives and mothers, who had few legal rights in reality.

In order to get to CHOOSE, you need at least 2 options. 'Theoretically' they existed: getting married or NOT getting married. But considering the weight that the marriage institution had in the nineteenth century, women didn't have any other option than to get married.

Who would risk ruining her reputation and her familys to go against this tradition?

We don't know what kind of background Louise had. Maybe she was from a wealthy family or maybe she was poor. If she was, marriage was her ONLY option to survive, to have access to socio-economic stability. And if she was from an aristocratic family, marriage was STILL compulsory from the pressure of living up to that society standards, otherwise her family would've been judged by society and the upper class. And in THAT period of time, being seen as rebellious and uncommon could have ruined a few connections and business opportunities. So, a daughter must do as she was told for the sake of the family's reputation. Not to mention women WERE used as exchange money to make a family's business grow, or to please others with political or economic connections.

Another evidence of the oppression the main character might have felt is her physical description:

"She was young, with a fair, calm face, whose lines bespoke repression and even a certain strength. But now there was a dull stare in her eyes…"

She had repressed her feelings and her face was clear evidence of the life she had endured. She had become an appendix of her husband's and the news of his death is her key to freedom.

And a clear example of this is that the first thing she notices after her initial outburst, a consequence of her husband's dismissal, is an open window. That's a very metaphorical way to convey the idea of freedom.

"She could see in the open square before her house the tops of trees that were all aquiver with the new spring life."

She becomes "Louise", a woman aware of her desires and dreams of being freed from the ties of marriage. She begins to look forward to her new life, without her husband, and starts to enjoy widowhood as a rebirth.

She longs for the possibility of making her own decisions, of pursuing her will.

And it's curious because her husband was not abusive, on the contrary, he loved her and was good to her as we can ascertain/check in the fragment

"And yet she had loved him—sometimes. Often she had not."

But nevertheless, marriage had turned into a prison for her at some point in her life. We don't know if both were forced to marry one another, or if she had stopped loving him at some point, or if she had ever loved him in the first place, or if she even chose him.

Just the day before, Louise shuddered at the thought of never being able to escape from that prison, a perfect example of her frustration with her life. She tries to fight back her feelings of joy because she understands that this newfound joy might be considered "monstrous".

"It was only yesterday she had thought with a shudder that life might be long."

"She did not stop to ask if it were or were not a monstrous joy that held her."

But in the end, it's this "monstrous joy" what kills her. The story ends with her abrupt death. Louise cannot conceive the idea of abandoning her newfound freedom, returning to her life with her husband, where she will be required to bend her will to his. She dies of the disappointment of seeing her husband and realizing her dreams are extinguished. It seems that the only way out to her continued oppression is death or the dissolution of her new identity. We might think that death represents freedom for her, especially if we think that it is socially unacceptable for a woman to rejoice over her husband's demise.

FIFTH CHILD

Nature vs. Nurture

Ben shows signs of apathy since he was a child. (Cat/dog)Harriet and David reject him first. Animosity.Parallelism with Amy.Environment (neglecting from the doctor staff).John as a nurturing figure.Neglecting that comes from focusing on Ben.

The Fifth Child allows us to think whether nature or nurture determines a child's personality and if it's possible to change a child's personality through nurturing them.

Though Ben's character seems to suggest that nature creates some problems that cannot be explained or solved. When we compare him to the other children of the family, it demonstrates that nurture is still vital, particularly for children who are naturally better adjusted.

In this story Ben plays the part of the black sheep of the family. He is different from his well-adjusted siblings. Theyre compassionate, well-behaved, and happy with their lives, and that shows how they've been raised. However, Ben—who was raised in the same environment—seems to lack an essential empathy, killing a dog, a cat, and inflicting pain on his siblings with no remorse.

This comparison exposes the nature of Ben, which is drastically different from his siblings. Perhaps Ben is naturally troubled, and his siblings are naturally good. But Ben has been the focus of discontentment since he was in the womb—Harriet's pregnancy was very difficult, as she was in constant pain.

From the very beginning Ben was never wanted. He was an unplanned child, who was born during a difficult time for the family regarding their financial problems.

"Harriet found herself thinking, I wonder what the mother would look like, the one who would welcome this—alien."

"One early morning, something took Harriet quickly out of her bed into the baby's room, and there she saw Ben balanced on the window-sill. It was high—heaven only knew how he had got up there. The window was open. In a moment he would have fallen out of it. Harriet was thinking, What a pity I came in…and refused to be shocked at herself."

Theres a clear animosity towards the fifth child. He's called names by Harriet all the time (alien, goblin, hobbit, monster, creature), and his siblings start fearing him, along with the rest of the family. So maybe Ben's problems are likely caused more by nature than by his family environment. But we cannot conclude that his personality is due to nature alone. Nurture is important to raise healthy and happy children.

Let's take Amy, for example. We can see certain similarities. Both were rejected at first by their parents and family.

"Sarah feels the need to hide little Amy behind a blanket because the sight of her upsets people."

But as she grows up, everyone seems delighted with her.

"Amy, adored by all now, tries to show Ben affection, but she, too, can tell that something is off about Ben."

So, what could have been the change? Perhaps it was due to the love and caring Amy seems to have by the rest of the family and her parents. Because just like Ben, originally everyone was shocked and disappointed since she was a special kid in an already big family. Sarah's family was going through many problems, yet they still managed to overcome them with the help of Dorothy, who didn't aid them with monetary help, but with her presence and humanity.

So nurturing is an essential part of kids' development. But aside from the family circle, the environment is also crucial, and in Bens case, he was ignored all his life by people who should have detected and tried to find out more about his unusual behaviour, such as Dr Brett and the school staff. Both entities kept denying any problem with Ben because they dont want to get involved, leaving Harriet with few options.

Nurture doesn't come only in the form of motherly love. David had the same amount of responsibility in the matter, even if the story is placed in the last part of the last century and the values and roles of parents might have been more divided back then. David, although he was the "provider" or the family, had participated in the raising of his children by playing with them and engaging with other activities. But with Ben, he explicitly erased himself from the picture and I quote:

"We have no children Harriet. Or, rather, I have no children. You have one child."

"He's a little child," she said. "He's our child." "No he's not," said David, finally. "Well, he certainly isn't mine."

Leaving all the responsibility to Harriet. And this behaviour definitely affects Ben, it's what finishes severing his ties with his dad, forcing him to grow up with no father figure and seek another one in John. The child was so starving for affection and recognition that he was left at home with this random person from outside his family circle.

And speaking of John, he's another example of nurturing, although an unorthodox one. John is not the ideal role model for a child. He's not even invested in the idea of acting like one for Ben. His motives are mostly financial, but he still accepts Ben for who he is. The group of John's friends (outsiders themselves) accept Ben, calling him teasing but affectionate names like Dopey, Dwarf and Hobbit. Ben enjoys the way this indicates that he is a part of the group. Later, in secondary school, Ben also finds satisfying companionship with a group of other outcasts, taking on the role of leader and turning the Lovatt home into a sort of clubhouse for them. These relationships show that Ben is capable of family-like bonds when he is accepted and understood, contrary to the way his family rejects him for his otherness.

So, he was capable of a certain degree of insertion in society, and it was mostly for the fact that he was accepted for who he was, unlike his family who never did. And by focusing all her attention on trying to nurture away his issues, Harriet neglects her other children, especially Paul. inattention to her other children affects them deeply.

"After a day with Ben I feel as if nothing exists but him. As if nothing has ever existed. I suddenly realize I haven't remembered the others for hours. I forgot their supper yesterday. Dorothy went to the pictures, and I came down and found Helen cooking their supper."

By putting their attention on their naturally troubled child (and failing to change him) David and Harriet failed to nurture their other four children, spoiling their good natures they were born with, destroying their family. By nurturing only one child, they end up isolating their other children and pushing all of them away. This irony encapsulates Lessing's dark view of nature and nurture: while nature can doom a troubled child, nature can't necessarily save a sweet one, so it's best to nurture children strategically.

The Crucible

· Setting

· Theocracy

· Flawed system

· Reputation

· Fragmented system (black or white)

· Lies and terrorism

· Biased system

· Manipulation

· Lost faith in institution

This story takes place in Salem Massachusetts during the 1600. The Puritans had travelled from England and stablished themselves in America in small communities and had strict rules and beliefs, mostly related to their religion, as they were feverish believers.

Puritan society required that its members follow strict norms of social order. And for these reasons they organized themselves under a theocracy. Meaning, a government system ruled by divine guidance.

Its a deeply flawed system.

The fact that religion has so much weight in this system implies that people will be judged based on their Christianity and beliefs. On many occasions we see other characters asking to recite the 10 commandments.

"Do you know your commandments, Elizabeth?"

"I sure do. There be no mark of blame upon my life, Mr. Hale. I am a covenanted Christian woman."

In this pseudo- legal system reputation had a key role. You were judge based on your quality as a Christian. If someone was not a part of the church or did not attend every Sunday, they were thought to be a witch, or at least dishonorable.

"I have trouble enough without I come five mile to hear him preach only hellfire and bloody damnation. Take it to heart, Mr. Parris. There are many others who stay away from church these days because you hardly ever mention God any more."

Proctor actually preferred not to go to church because he disliked Reverend Parris; Proctor was not entirely sure of Parris's true intentions. Although, others were bold enough to confront the court and converse with the judges about how they felt.

And because their community required unity, so any form of individual thought was dangerous for that person's life. Like Coreys wife, Martha, who got in trouble with the judges for have been reading strange books. This seemingly inoffensive act was used against her as evidence to accuse her of witchcraft.

Also their mindset was very fragmented in two beliefs. People believed you were either with them, or not; guilty or not guilty. As Danforth (deputy governor) says:

"A person is either with this court or he must be counted against it, there be no road between."

John Proctor is used to prove that one is either with or against the court. The court wants Proctor to confess of witchcraft in order for him to live, but he is reluctant to do so. He is hanged because he stood up for his moral rights, and he does not say what the court wants to hear from him, a confession.

This system was based on lies and terrorism. We can prove this in the last act of the play before they hang Proctor.

"It is mistaken law that leads you to sacrifice. Life, woman, life is God's most precious gift; no principle, however glorious, may justify the taking of it . . ..it may well be God damns a liar less than he that throws his life away for pride."

In this scene we see that Hale wants to convince Christians to lie and confess to crimes they did not commit in order to save their lives.

We see throughout the whole play that people shout false accusations to save themselves. And everyone is aware of this, even the political and religious authorities.

But the value of peoples testimonies is biased and chaotic. It doesnt follow any pattern. And anyone can say whatever they want since the legitimacy of their words would be approved according to convenience and simply arbitrariness.

"Why do you never wonder if Parris be innocent, or Abigail? Is the accuser always holy now? Were they born this morning as clean as Gods fingers?"

"We are what we always were in Salem, but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom, and common vengeance writes the law!"

Certain people had immunity to accusations, such as Parris and his girls, despite them being caught red-handed performing a ritual and even admitting it did happen.

And by giving too much power to people, they might take advantage of it; from Abigail trying to get rid of Elizabeth during the trials, to Putnam and his greediness for lands and seek for "revenge" against the midwives whom they believe killed their children. The trials provided a legal space for the expression of anger and frustration. If your neighbor once sold you a pig that died soon after you bought it, and that neighbor stands accused of witchcraft, you could bring up the dead pig as possible evidence.

And like I said before, reputation was a core element to be believed. If you lost it, your word would lose its value. We see Abigail manipulating and abusing her power during the trials, but the moment shes exposed, her reputation is soiled and shes forced to leave.

"A man may think God sleeps, but God sees everything, I know it now. I beg you, sir, I beg you—see her what she is . . . She thinks to dance with me on my wife's grave! And well she might, for I thought of her softly. God help me, I lusted, and there is a promise in such sweat. But it is a whore's vengeance."

And since religion is the other half of this political system, its vital that it never gets shattered, otherwise people who stop believing in the institution can turn against it. And thatsParris biggest fear, that a similar riot occurs in Salem now that people with social influence, likeRebeccaandProctor, are scheduled to hang. He begs to postpone the hangings because he knows that will break the little faith the villagers have in them.