write your personal thought about the story of an hour, support it with valid argument
Answers
Answer:
In “The Story of an Hour,” independence is a forbidden pleasure that can be imagined only privately. When Louise hears from Josephine and Richards of Brently’s death, she reacts with obvious grief, and although her reaction is perhaps more violent than other women’s, it is an appropriate one. Alone, however, Louise begins to realize that she is now an independent woman, a realization that enlivens and excites her. Even though these are her private thoughts, she at first tries to squelch the joy she feels, to “beat it back with her will.” Such resistance reveals how forbidden this pleasure really is. When she finally does acknowledge the joy, she feels possessed by it and must abandon herself to it as the word free escapes her lips. Louise’s life offers no refuge for this kind of joy, and the rest of society will never accept it or understand it. Extreme circumstances have given Louise a taste of this forbidden fruit, and her thoughts are, in turn, extreme. She sees her life as being absolutely hers and her new independence as the core of her being. Overwhelmed, Louise even turns to prayer, hoping for a long life in which to enjoy this feeling. When Brently returns, he unwittingly yanks Louise’s independence away from her, putting it once again out of her reach. The forbidden joy disappears as quickly as it came, but the taste of it is enough to kill her.
Explanation:
please follow me and thanks mark me as brainliest
“The Story of an Hour” at first reminded me of “A Very Short Story” in the way that it leaves out details that that the reader needs to fill in the gaps and easily understand the plot of the story. It’s this “Swiss cheese” effect that makes the story so interesting; by allowing the reader to “plug in” his/her own details the story takes on varied connotations. An example of this is the beginning paragraph where the reader gets the impression that this woman is going to be extremely upset that her husband has died in a train accident. The people closest to her have gone to great lengths to cushion the blow of her husband’s death; however, we are not given any details as to the relationship they had in the past or any relevant information. By doing this the author allows the reader to form his/her own false interpretation of how this woman is going to react. We see this technique used early into the story and we, as readers, are strung along until we hear the woman utter the words “free, free, free” which really throws the reader off the track he/she expected to follow. The rest of the narrative begins to twist the story to the exact opposite of what the reader was waiting to have happen. We find a woman who instead of being upset and heart-broken over her husband's death is experiencing complete joy over the death of another human being. Which, of course, now gives us the impression that she has been mistreated in this relationship and that, perhaps, this death is for the best. All this makes the reader justify the way the woman reacted, but in the end it's Mrs. Mallard who dies upon seeing her husband alive and well. This ending definitely conjures up some questions that are difficult to answer.