Freedom. This idea constitutes America’s most defining characteristic. John Locke wrote that “all men are naturally in…a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.”[1] 19th century American author Kate Chopin questioned whether this statement is true for all people and presses the United States’ resolve to uphold freedom for its citizens in her short story “The Story of an Hour.” One of her most controversial tales, it challenges the current state and expectations of women in society. In this essay, I argue that “The Story of an Hour” communicates that a woman’s personal freedom should come at any cost. I begin with Chopin’s context and biography, summarize the main points of the story, then proceed to analyze Chopin’s building of credibility through her narrator type. I continue on to note her positioning of life and death themes, her capitalization on her audience’s American mindset, and her use of irony, all the while answering counterarguments along the way. I end by delving into the story’s shocking ending and its multiple interpretations, and finally close with Chopin’s inspirational call to action.

Kate Chopin (1850-1904) wrote “The Story of an Hour” in 1894. Her context played a large role in her writing, specifically with her portrayal of female life in the 19th century. Some of the major events that happened in the U.S. during this time period include the Mexican-American War (1846-48), building tensions in the 1850s that exploded into the Civil War (1861-65), the Emancipation Proclamation (1863), Reconstruction (1863-1877), the rule of industry tycoons, and the Jim Crow Laws. At the same time, many steps were happening in the realm of women’s rights. In 1848, the first women’s rights convention was held in Seneca, New York; it was called the Seneca Falls Convention. One-hundred people signed the Declaration of Sentiments (a forerunner of the 19th amendment), including figures like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Fredrick Douglass. In 1851, when Chopin was just one year old, women’s rights activist Sojourner Truth gave her famous “Ain’t I a Woman?” speech. With the growing movement, Wyoming became the first state to allow women the right to vote and hold office in 1869. In the same year, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony started the National Woman Suffrage Association. This organization later joined with the American Woman Suffrage Association to create the National American Woman Suffrage Association (1890). By this time, Kate Chopin was forty years old. Later, sixteen years after Chopin’s passing, Congress would ratify the 19th Amendment: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex” (U.S. Constitution, amend. 19, sec. 1).[2]

Having established the tumultuous events surrounding her life, “The Story of an Hour” was inspired by Kate Chopin’s own story. Born in St. Louis, Missouri as Katherine O’Flaherty, Kate Chopin is known as “one of the first feminist authors of the 20th century” and “is often credited for introducing the modern feminist literary movement.”[3] After marrying Oscar Chopin, she played the typical role of a housewife until the age of 32, when her life was transformed with the unfortunate death of her husband. Shortly afterwards, her mother died as well. Left alone as the mother of six children and struggling financially, she began her writing career. She took up writing for healing as well as for the income and went on to become a prolific author. Many of her works concerned women’s rights, but they were ahead of their times and met with much criticism. Now celebrated, her writings are believed to be one of the origins of modern feminism. Chopin’s arguably most striking work in this avenue is her 1894 short story “The Story of an Hour.”

“The Story of An Hour” begins with death. A telegram arrives bearing the news of Brently Mallard’s passing in a railroad accident. Josephine, the sister of Mrs. Mallard, and a friend named Richards undertake the job of delivering the message to the widow, who suffers from heart disease. The story revolves around Mrs. Mallard and tracks her emotional journey while processing the news of her husband’s death. Upon hearing it, she shuts herself into her room but during this hour of grief, a life-changing realization dawns on her. Now that her husband is gone, her life is hers alone. Now she is truly free! After reflecting on this discovery, she goes downstairs, where someone is entering through the front door. The person is Brently Mallard himself. Josephine screams; Richards rushes to block him from the sight of Mrs. Mallard, but the story closes with another death. Mrs. Mallard “had died of heart disease --of the joy that kills.”[4]

Before delving into the plot of the story, it is important to note what is read first: the title. “The Story of an Hour” was not always the name of Chopin’s work. Her story was originally called “The Dream of an Hour.” Some readers believe that the original title was meant to show that Mrs. Mallard’s liberating realization was only a dream, revealing the unrealistic and unattainable nature of freedom for women in the 19th century. It is but a fantasy. Though the true reason behind the title change is unknown, I believe that the story’s renaming reflects the hopeful reality of women attaining their rights. Historically, by the time that “The Story of an Hour” was published, the women’s rights movement was already pushing for equality (including the right to vote). Figures like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Sojourner Truth, and Susan B. Anthony were advocating for equality of the sexes. The National American Woman Suffrage Association had formed, and Wyoming had already granted women the right to vote and hold office.[5] With all these exciting steps toward equal rights occurring, Kate Chopin acted as an artist ahead of her time. She saw the potentiality of freedom for women. Her story and the death of her main character Mrs. Mallard, however, showed that greater steps must be taken before women truly had freedom equal to men. The fact that her work is now called a story instead of a dream reflects Chopin’s hope for a future reality (this hope would come to fruition in part with the eventual ratification of the 19th amendment in 1920). In the following, I examine how Chopin invites readers to create that reality.

When observing the elements of the story, it is important to notice how the narrator of the tale tells it in such a way as to support Chopin’s ethos, or credibility. This narrator is noticeably familiar with the Mallard family, since she knows about Mrs. Mallard’s relations and health problems, and she can even access Mrs. Mallard’s thoughts. This expression of “mind-reading” is especially evident when the narrator allows readers to watch Mrs. Mallard’s mental and emotional discovery after her husband’s supposed death. However, the narrator relates the story as an implicit figure without self-consciousness and does not comment on what unfolds. Thus, she proves herself as a reliable narrator and a “straight-ahead talker” because she focuses on recording the events of the story and not the details of her own story. From all of these characteristics (undramatized, mind-reading, uncommenting, a straight-ahead talker, and reliable), readers can identify her as one of the least personal narrators to their audience. Combined with the narrator’s undramatization and uncommenting nature, her impersonality further reinforces the trustworthiness and factuality of her narration. As a result, since readers can trust the narrator of “The Story of An Hour,” in extent, readers are more likely to believe Chopin’s argument through the story because they identify the narrator’s attributes with the author’s attributes. Thus, Chopin cleverly builds her audience’s trust through her narrator type and sets them up to listen to her argument and ultimately her call to action at the end of the story.

However, is the narration alone enough to earn the trust of the readers? It seems to be the only way that Chopin fosters credibility. After all, readers need a strong basis in order to believe what a story says. But I think after a certain point, it becomes the readers’ decision to listen to the story’s message. The author cannot force its audience to read her writing. It takes a step in faith to read a story and believe that the author is sincere with what she is saying (in at least some way). A story is only as effective as its audience’s belief in it.

Having set up her credibility, Chopin is now prepared to deliver her message that women should have freedom equal to men. The first way that Kate Chopin accomplishes her mission is through her positioning of themes in the story. She takes the themes of freedom and enslavement and frames them in terms of life or death. Upon reading the story, a pattern emerges in the text: when Chopin writes a vivid description displaying life, the idea of freedom always follows. Similarly, when the topic of death is brought up, a section about slavery and restraint ensues. For example, freedom follows life after the news of Brently Mallard’s death is announced, and readers travel into Mrs. Mallard’s emotion-wrought thoughts. During this section, the majority of the story is told through untagged direct thought, so readers feel closer to Mrs. Mallard and are invited to identify themselves with her. The theme of life appears when Chopin writes, “She [Mrs. Mallard] could see in the open square before her house the tops of trees that were all aquiver with the new spring life”[6] This scene describes the outside world being reborn, with plant life awakening in the spring warmth. Shortly afterwards, as Mrs. Mallard sits gazing through the window, a word slips itself into her mind: “free, free, free!”[7] Mrs. Mallard realizes her liberation from her husband. She continues whispering, “Free! Body and soul free!”[8] as if in disbelief. In another section, the narration says, “she was drinking in a very elixir of life through that open window.”[9] Immediately, in the following paragraph, Mrs. Mallard prays that life would be long. “Spring days, and summer days, and all sorts of days that would be her own.”[10] Her life finally belongs to her! By repeating this pattern of freedom then life again and again, Chopin trains her readers to associate life with freedom. When paired with the existing identification that readers feel with Mrs. Mallard, she creates a persuasive argument that only freedom can lead to true life.

Chopin further reinforces this connection by tying death with imprisonment. On page two, the reader views Mrs. Mallard’s process of realization. The widow realizes that grief will overcome her when she sees her husband at his funeral. But at the same time, she revels in the fact that, “There would be no powerful will bending hers in that blind persistence with which men and women believe they have a right to impose a private will upon a fellow-creature. A kind intention or a cruel intention made the act seem no less a crime as she looked upon it in that brief moment of illumination.”[11] The pattern appears again. A funeral is linked to the thought of an imposed will “bending hers.” Death is associated with slavery. Chopin adds a hint of irony to the story through the fact that Mrs. Mallard’s freedom (or life) comes only through her husband’s death. However, Chopin’s intentionality in the placement of life and death contributes to her argument that women must receive their freedom and rights.

Despite this interpretation, it seems excessive to say that Mrs. Mallard was enslaved by her husband. Marriage does not necessarily mean one’s rights are taken away. After all, Mrs. Mallard’s husband treated her well. The text itself says, “She knew that she would weep again when she saw the kind, tender hands folded in death; the face that had never looked save with love upon her, fixed and gray and dead.”[12] She had a loving relationship with a kind man. How was her freedom restricted? Was she not free already?

To Chopin, Mrs. Mallard’s freedom was restricted. Her character did not have full liberty because a will, even though a kind one, was imposed on her. There was a mental and emotional aspect to Mrs. Mallard’s restricted freedom. Mentally, she could not think and speak freely as her own person, since, at the time, men dictated women’s beliefs as the representative of the family (for example, in voting). On the emotional level, Mrs. Mallard was dependent on her husband as the provider of the home. She could not feel independent; there was no self-empowerment, no control over her own life. Framed in terms of timing, her restricted expression of her beliefs occurred over the span of years or months with her husband (and before with her father). At the same time, her emotional dependence developed alongside her marriage to Brently Mallard. In the hour after learning of her husband’s death, however, Mrs. Mallard broke free of both mental and emotional limitations with her sudden realization that she could now live for herself. “She said it over and over under the breath: “free, free, free!””[13] She would be truly free! But then with the appearance of her husband, a physical element came into play. Brently Mallard represented the restrictions of her past coming back upon her. The slow “death” of self with the mental and emotional suppression ended with an instantaneous physical death. With a twist of fate, these restrictions took an irreversible toll on Mrs. Mallard’s body, ending the story in tragedy.  

Mrs. Mallard’s limited freedom is reinforced symbolically by her very name: Mrs. Mallard. An essay analyzing “The Story of an Hour” writes:

Louise lives as Mrs. Mallard in life and dies as Brently Mallard’s wife, as she is called Mrs. Mallard in the very first sentence of the story and “his wife” (538) at the very end of the story. The only time when she wins her own name back is the moment when she has achieved her “self-assertion which she [has] suddenly recognized as the strongest impulse of her being” (537), and this is the time she has gained her self identity.[14]

The character’s first name, Louise, is revealed only after her liberating realization that she is “Free! Body and soul free!”[15] Her identity finally opens up when she finds her freedom. Louise is literally the one part of her name that is unadulterated by patriarchal influences. With this symbolism, Chopin brings up the issue whether women truly have their own identity without personal freedom. In Louise’s specific situation, she could not fully follow her desires as the wife of Brently Mallard. And that was the difference. It is important to finish the quote above concerning her husband’s funeral. “fixed and gray and dead. But she saw beyond that bitter moment a long procession of years to come that would belong to her absolutely. And she opened and spread her arms out to them in welcome.”[16] Ultimately, Louise Mallard needed to own her life “absolutely;” as Brently Mallard’s wife, she could not.

One critique of the imposed will concept is that no one can live without being affected by other people’s wills. No one has total and absolute freedom. A paper titled “Fatal Self-Assertion in Kate Chopin's ‘The Story of an Hour’” writes:

But even if we grant this point of view, where can we go where the presence of other people does not “impose” some conditions upon us that limit our freedom? There are only two places on earth that meet this specification: an uninhabited spot or the grave. If we have friends, it is assumed that we hold values that are in concord with theirs, and that we do not act in such a way as to violate friends or their principles. Even if we do not have friends but just live in society, there are laws and mores which, out of mere civility, we follow as a condition of being acceptable members of society.

Humans have limitations to their freedom by having relationships or by living in society. It is almost impossible to escape some amount of “imposition.” Let us look back at the text again. “The Story of an Hour” says, “she saw beyond that bitter moment a long procession of years to come that would belong to her absolutely.”[17] The word “‘absolutely’” carries a lot of meaning. It evokes the idea of no limitations and total lack of restrictions. The paper on self-assertion interprets the term as such: ““Absolutely” is a loaded word, further evidence of her [Louise’s] extreme and unrealistic egotism in preferring her own company exclusively.”[18] While not quite so extreme, absolute ownership of one’s life implies at least some measure of naivete or false understanding of reality. If Louise is seeking to do her own will in all circumstances without limitations, she must live an isolating lifestyle. One can only have total freedom with total isolation (or with death). It is unrealistic to think otherwise.

Hearing this counterargument, I do agree that no one has total freedom. But I believe Chopin was attempting to emphasize the point that only freedom leads to true life and was using the pairing of “enslavement” and death for dramatic effect. It is important to remember that “The Story of an Hour” is not a recording of real life. Some elements are exaggerated and dramatized in order to communicate a point. Of course, marriage or an imposed will does not necessarily take away a woman’s ownership of her life. However, if the wife is not recognized as a fellow intelligent, moral, independent being, then problems arise. She must not be seen as less than the man simply because of her sex. 

But this desire for total independence seems too individualistic. What of her relationships with others, including her husband? Does Mrs. Mallard really want to deny all attachments and prioritize herself above all else? Her narrative of autonomy actually furthers the masculine-derived philosophies of the self, which advocate for the individual as a free, rational, and autonomous being. The individual ought to be an agent who chooses and acts according to his own desires. These philosophies come from a male perspective; these thinkers are primarily privileged, white, middle-aged men. With such originators, Chopin may be (unintentionally) perpetuating the patriarchal, masculine ideas of what the self is. For example, one dominating framework in Western philosophy is “homo economicus.” This utilitarian paradigm “uses reason to rank desires in a coherent order and to figure out how to maximize desire satisfaction with the instrumental rationality of the marketplace.”[19] Basically, the individual rationalizes his decisions by choosing maximal satisfaction of his desires. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states,

these conceptions of the self minimize the personal and ethical import of unchosen circumstances, interpersonal relationships, and biosocial forces. They isolate the individual from its relationships and environment, as well as reinforcing a modern binary that divides the social sphere into autonomous agents and dependents.[20]

If Louise wants to own her life “absolutely,” this desire could undermine the feminist goal of the author. Louise neglects considering other circumstantial and relational factors and chooses to act as a lone atom, fitting the masculine paradigm of the autonomous versus the dependent. Louise is categorized as one of the dependents but strives to be autonomous. This very binary makes her subservient to the masculine idea of the entirely independent and rational self.

The counterargument above argues that Louise is too individualistic by wanting sole control of her life and that her desire for autonomy is, in itself, anti-feminist. But who can say what is or is not feminist? Who can say this does or does not belong to the patriarchy? Just because a man thought of the autonomous self does not mean that the idea is patriarchal. He does not own the concept. He cannot say that this idea is his alone and anyone else who wants to be independent is perpetuating a patriarchal framework. Individualism belongs to no one party; it is a right for everyone. It is oppressive and patriarchal in itself to say that the principle of being independent belongs to men. The movement of individualist feminism “argued since the eighteenth century that women should be seen as equal to men not because of their feminine qualities but as independent moral and intellectual human beings.”[21] The concept of autonomy is free for anyone to follow, feminist or not.

With this desire for independence equated with life, Chopin frames the results of inequality in terms of death. Since Mrs. Mallard dies after her husband is discovered to be alive, the ending shows that death is better than a life without freedom, because a person’s happiness and will to live depends on their freedom. Since Chopin was an American author, most of her readers would have been from the United States. Thus, Chopin strategically bases the story’s reasoning off of her audience’s American mindset that all people have three essential rights: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”[22] Americans believe that a person must have freedom and the ability to find joy. Chopin uses these unalienable rights to transcend gender and appeal to her diverse audience as not just a woman, but as a fellow American. She incorporates these elements of freedom and happiness as essential components in the story’s unfolding. Mrs. Mallard’s only experience of joy in the story is after the death of her husband. She thinks, “Spring days, and summer days, and all sorts of days that would be her own. She breathed a quick prayer that life might be long. It was only yesterday she had thought with a shudder that life might be long.”[23] Notice in the text that Mrs. Mallard found no joy in life when she was subjected to her husband’s stronger will. With freedom (and thus happiness) gone, the American right of life, loses meaning for Mrs. Mallard. But when her husband’s power was lifted in his death, she prayed for a long life. Only with the key element of freedom does Mrs. Mallard obtain happiness and a new purpose in life.

Nevertheless, this interpretation may be flawed. It seems cold-hearted and too absolute to say that Mrs. Mallard only felt joy when her husband was dead. The point of the story, however, is to stress the need for women to have their rights. Chopin was living in the midst of the fight for women’s suffrage. Though not a political activist, she wrote about what she was experiencing as a woman herself. Her writings were inspired by the reality for females at the time (late 1800s to early 1900s). However, Chopin uses intentional exaggeration to call attention to issues that must be changed. The story represents the struggle for female freedom. For Mrs. Mallard as a story character, it was so unattainable that only a husband’s death could allow a woman to be her own person. While not as extreme of a situation for readers, freedom (as that of males) was still out of reach for women. “The Story of an Hour” highlights these circumstances and invites readers to perhaps change them for the better.

After strengthening the audience’s growing conviction that freedom is crucial for life, Chopin carefully prepares for her powerful finale. When analyzing the last scene of the story, readers can conclude several things. Different clues are given in the story’s final sentences: “It was Brently Mallard who entered…. He stood amazed at Josephine’s piercing cry; at Richards’ quick motion to screen him from the view of his wife. When the doctors came they said she had died of heart disease -- of the joy that kills.” With this unexpected last line, Chopin ends “The Story of an Hour” with a dramatic flourish.

The ambiguity of this ending may raise many questions in readers. The ending is intriguing. What is “the joy that kills?” Taken literally, one interpretation could be that Mrs. Mallard was so overjoyed to see her husband alive that her heart could not take the full extremity of the emotion. The shock from Brently Mallard’s appearance overwhelmed her weak heart, causing her death. Perhaps this approach is too literal though. How could she be happy that her husband was gone, but then happy that he returned? This inconsistency is not explained under the lens of literality.

One reason why it might appear that Mrs. Mallard was happy to see her husband is because of the doctors’ diagnosis. The omniscient narrator stays silent as to what Louise was actually feeling and thinking at the time of death. Instead, the audience must rely on what the non-omniscient doctors report. The physicians, who represent the masculine world outside, impose their patriarchal narrative onto Louise’s death. Thus, readers could think that Louise was happy, but Chopin leaves the question whether Mrs. Mallard was actually overcome with joy.

Another interpretation analyzes the line about “Richards’ quick motion to screen him from the view of his wife.”[24] Blocked by Richards, did Mrs. Mallard ever see her husband? The answer that she never saw him would be reinforced by our earlier reasoning that if Mrs. Mallard did glimpse Brently, she would not have been joyous faced with the loss of her freedom. But instead, she died feeling joy. The only time Mrs. Mallard experiences joy in the story is after her liberating realization. Therefore, we must assume that Mrs. Mallard died due to a sudden, new thought about freedom, which triggered her fatal joy.

But perhaps this interpretation may be assuming too much. If Mrs. Mallard’s newfound freedom created joy for future life, how could it kill her so she could not have lived in any case? Under this approach, when Brently Mallard was alive, his wife would have died. If Brently Mallard had been dead, his wife would still have died, since she would have had her new realization either way. Instead, it could be the case that Richards was not quick enough to block Brently Mallard from sight and Mrs. Mallard actually did glimpse her husband. Then, the shock of seeing him alive could have led to her heart attack. In that case, “the joy that kills” would be meant ironically. This view is supported by another analysis called “Feminine Self-Assertion in the ‘Story of an Hour’”: “Louise truly dies of the shock caused by the unwelcome and unexpected return of her husband, but the doctors, typical representatives of the patriarchal society, have claimed that Mrs. Mallard has died of ‘joy that kills.’”[25] This ironic interpretation is an alternative and more likely take on the story’s closing, given that other underlying ironies exist in the work.

I believe that the irony of “the joy that kills” not only represents the warring interpretations of what is happening, but also underscores the conflict of emotions occurring in Louise Mallard. Already experiencing a jumble of feelings after hearing about Brently’s accident, she likely experiences a tumult of emotions with the arrival of her previously dead husband. Before Brently returned to the house, some of these feelings included grief (“She wept at once, with sudden, wild abandonment, in her sister’s arms.”[26]), exhaustion (“Into this [armchair] she sank, pressed down by a physical exhaustion that haunted her body and seemed to reach into her soul.”[27]), fear (“There was something coming to her and she was waiting for it, fearfully.”[28]),  rejuvenation (“she was drinking in a very elixir of life through that open window.”[29] ), and triumph (“There was a feverish triumph in her eyes, and she carried herself unwittingly like a goddess of Victory.”[30]). But with Mr. Mallard’s sudden, unexpected appearance, Louise’s already excited heart overreached its emotional limit. Brently’s arrival probably caused Louise shock at his living presence, guilt from rejoicing in his absence, disappointment with her lost freedom, and more. The conflict of emotions within Louise overwhelmed her weak heart, taking her life in the process.

As seen through its ambiguous ending and raising of questions, “The Story of an Hour” holds complex layers of irony as a whole. The essay on feminine self-assertion continues on to say,

It is indeed ironic that when Louise has “breathed a quick prayer that life might be long” (537), her life lasts for only a brief and short hour, that when Louise hopes to live her own life and to enjoy her own freedom, her awakened longing is abruptly terminated, that the story starts with the false death of Brently Mallard, but ends with the real death of Louise.[31]

These ironies serve to emphasize the struggle between life and death and freedom versus enslavement, as seen in the prior arguments about the thematic elements in the story. They also further support the interpretation that “the joy that kills” is meant ironically and not literally.

Given these elements in play, the paper takes its analysis one step further by saying,

Thus even Louise’s death is symbolic. By Louise’s spiritual journey for feminine liberation, Chopin clearly suggests that any woman seeking for ideal feminine selfhood and freedom is innocent, naïve and idealistic in a hostile patriarchal society that certainly does not allow any feminine self-assertion for the time being. Thus the fate of Louise’s selfhood and freedom is bound to be doomed.”[32]

In other words, the story suggests that feminism at the wrong time only ends with failure. The male-dominated society in the 19th century smothers any “feminine self-assertion;” it is foolish to believe otherwise.

On the other extreme, feminine self-assertion is criticized in a paper by Lawrence I. Berkove, called “Fatal Self-Assertion in Kate Chopin’s ‘The Story of an Hour.’” The article argues that Louise Mallard was sick in body and mind and that Chopin’s real goal was to subtly critique the impossible dream of an egotist through her use of irony. It interprets and condemns Louise as self-absorbed and unrealistic, since she wanted sole control of her life without any will imposed upon her. It writes that this foolish desire is the reason why Louise died. The paper states: “Given her dissatisfaction with the best that life has to offer her and her unrealistic expectations of absolute freedom, therefore, there is no other option for Louise except death. The conclusion of the story follows logically upon Louise’s specifications of her deepest wishes.”[33] Louise is described one-dimensionally as a physically and emotionally sick woman whose heart “had no room for anyone else,” who was “losing control of her mind,” and who (rightfully) died due to her “self-assertion” (i.e. her delusional dream for absolute independence).  Furthering this critical interpretation of Louise’s death, the article’s last lines conclude: “In “The Story of an Hour” Chopin projects with delicately incisive irony what would happen if an immature and shallow egotist were to face the earthly consequence of an impossible dream of her afflicted heart.”[34] In other words, the ending of “The Story of an Hour” justly closes with the death of its main character. Louise’s passing is a direct result of her egotistical desire to own her life absolutely.

Both interpretations of Louise’s self-assertion and death, however, may be ironic in themselves. The former does not give enough credit to Chopin as an author, while the latter is rather harsh and unsympathetic to Louise. While I agree that “the joy that kills” is meant ironically, I do not think that Louise’s death is demonstrating the moral that feminine self-assertion is doomed. I also disagree with the second article’s view that Louise is egotistical for wanting to own her life absolutely. I do not think Louise’s death is simply a logical outcome of “an impossible dream.”

Instead, I believe Chopin had a greater vision for her story than a tale about a woman’s impossible, failed journey towards freedom. I think she was teaching women to seize their opportunities at the moment. Chopin was not endorsing the death of her character. She was not trying to show that Louise’s dream was futile, nor that her death was just. I believe that her goal was to prevent the tragic ending, if possible. Louise did not have to die; she could have changed her situation by communicating her thoughts and emotions regarding her liberties to her husband. Louise could have expressed herself earlier, at the time of the restrictions to her freedom. Unfortunately, and fatally, she chose not to speak up until after her husband’s supposed death. When describing Louise near the beginning of “The Story of an Hour,” Chopin writes, “She was young, with a fair, calm face, whose lines bespoke repression and even a certain strength.”[35] Louise Mallard’s strong repression of emotions during her marriage with Mr. Mallard had fatal consequences.

Chopin’s lesson is to not wait until it is too late. Louise’s true feelings only revealed themselves after the news of Brently’s death. Mrs. Mallard was partly to blame for her situation; she was not totally powerless to express her feelings about her lack of freedom. Perhaps this tragedy would not have happened if Louise had been strong in standing up for what she thought. If she stood firm and expressed what she really wanted, maybe the story would have ended differently. Through the story’s ending, Chopin challenges her readers to change Louise’s story and learn from the character’s journey. As an author, Kate Chopin asks her audience to stand firm and take ownership of their right to independence. Then, perhaps, the world’s story about women might change.

Chopin uses Louise Mallard’s fate as a lesson to express what you really think and feel. Now with readers ready to act on their beliefs, Chopin defines that belief for them. Her goal, in the end, was to persuade readers that women must obtain their rights no matter the price. Mrs. Mallard’s cause of death was a clever way to convince people of this obligation. Since Mrs. Mallard died after her husband was discovered to be alive, the ending shows that death is better than a life without freedom because a person’s happiness and will to live depends on his or her freedom. Because of her husband’s life, only death held true freedom for Mrs. Mallard.

But that does not have to be the case for her readers. All of the story’s elements (building the author’s ethos, framing freedom in terms of life and death, drawing on American ideals, symbolizing identity with the name Louise, and the poignant ending) fuel Chopin’s call to action: to achieve what Louise dreamt of. Louise was the visionary who experienced an epiphany; her realization opens the eyes of her audience. But unlike Louise, readers can actually achieve that liberty. They can turn that idea into reality for themselves. Thus, Louise’s literary death sparks an actual movement toward women’s freedom.

Those writings about Louise in “The Story of an Hour,” in conjunction with Kate Chopin’s other writings, had a profound impact on the real world. Fifty years later, critics started to understand the importance of Chopin’s writing. Her greatest support was found in Per Seyersted’s 1969 biography. He wrote, “[Chopin] broke new ground in American literature.”[36] This statement heralded the widespread influence of her works. Numerous scholars and feminist critics have written about her and her stories in many countries and languages. Now, Kate Chopin is widely regarded as an essential American author.

Overall, Kate Chopin challenges the status quo of women in the 19th century through “The Story of an Hour.” In it, Chopin fights for female freedom even in the face of death. The story’s ending fuels that argument, prompting the audience to action.  Through the journey of the main character’s thoughts and her eventual death, Chopin calls readers to speak up and stand firm in their beliefs; they should obtain their freedom as Louise envisioned. In order to support her claim, she layers different elements in the story to allow her audience to see her vision of feminine freedom and empowerment. Her tactics include the intentional naming of her short story, a narrator type that builds her credibility, her orientation of life and death themes, unifying her audience through appealing to their American ideals, implementing irony, and heightening the story’s dramatic closing. Transcending her 19th century context, Chopin calls her audience to turn her character’s dream into a story of liberty. That dream became a reality with Kate Chopin at the forefront of what was to come.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Literature. “Kate Chopin.” Accessed December 22, 2017.                                               americanliterature.com/author/kate-chopin.

Berkove, Lawrence I. "Fatal Self-Assertion in Kate Chopin's "The Story of an Hour"." American             Literary Realism 32, no. 2 (2000): 152-58. Accessed February 24, 2021.
            jstor.org/stable/27746974.

Boriçi, Florinda. “Kate Chopin: Beyond Local Color to Feminism.” Journal of Educational and            Social Research 4, no. 2 (April 2014).            mcser.org/journal/index.php/jesr/article/view/2841/2803.

Britannica. “25 Decade-Defining Events in U.S. History.” Accessed January 16, 2021.            britannica.com/list/25-decade-defining-events-in-us-history.

Chopin, Kate. “The Story of an Hour.” Accessed December 22, 2017.            americanliterature.com/author/kate-chopin/short-story/the-story-of-an-hour.

Hicks, Ted. “A State of Perfect Freedom.” Accessed February 24, 2021.
            johnlocke.org/landing-page/a-state-of-perfect-freedom/.

History. “Women’s History Milestones: A Timeline.” Accessed January 16, 2021.            history.com/topics/womens-history/womens-history-us-timeline.

National Archives. “Declaration of Independence: A Transcription.”            archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript (accessed December 22,            2017)

National Archives. “Women’s Rights Timeline.”            archives.gov/women/timeline#event-/timeline/item/petition-for-universal            suffrage (accessed December 14, 2020)

The Kate Chopin International Society. “Biography.” Accessed January 19, 2021.            katechopin.org/biography/#assessments.

Trott, Katherine. “Towards Emancipation? Woman in Modern European History.” Accessed            January 16, 2021. hist259.web.unc.edu/relational-feminism/.

Wang, Xuding. “Feminine Self-Assertion in “The Story of an Hour.” Tamkang University.            moodle2.units.it/pluginfile.php/134756/mod_resource/content/1/Essay%20on%2           0Chopin.pdf.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Feminist Perspectives on the Self.” Accessed February 24,            2021. plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-self/#DynaRelaSelf. 

[1] “A State of Perfect Freedom,” Ted Hicks, Accessed February 23, 2021, johnlocke.org/landing-page/a-state-of-perfect-freedom/.   
[2] U.S. Constitution, amend. 19, sec. 1
[3] “Kate Chopin,” American Literature, accessed December 22, 2017, americanliterature.com/author/kate-chopin.
[4] “The Story of an Hour,” Kate Chopin, accessed December 22, 2017, americanliterature.com/author/kate-chopin/short-story/the-story-of-an-hour. 
[5] “Women’s History Milestones: A Timeline,” History, Accessed February 24, 2021, history.com/topics/womens-history/womens-history-us-timeline.
[6] Chopin, “The Story of an Hour.”
[7] Chopin, “The Story of an Hour.”
[8] Chopin, “The Story of an Hour.”
[9] Chopin, “The Story of an Hour.”
[10] Chopin, “The Story of an Hour.”
[11] Chopin, “The Story of an Hour.”
[12] Chopin, “The Story of an Hour.”
[13] Chopin, “The Story of an Hour.”
[14] Xuding Wang, “Feminine Self-Assertion in “The Story of an Hour,” (English Department, Tamkang University), 117.
[15] Chopin, “The Story of an Hour.”
[16] Chopin, “The Story of an Hour”.
[17] Chopin, “The Story of an Hour.”
[18] Lawrence I. Berkove, “Fatal Self-Assertion in Kate Chopin’s “The Story of an Hour,” American Literary Realism 32, no. 2 (Winter 2000): 152-58, jstor.org/stable/27746974.
[19] “Feminist Perspective on the Self,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Accessed February 24, 2021, plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-self/#DynaRelaSelf 
[20] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Feminist Perspectives.”
[21] “Towards Emancipation?” Hist259, Accessed February 24, 2021. hist259.web.unc.edu/relational-feminism/.         
[22] “Declaration of Independence: A Transcription,” National Archives, accessed December 22, 2017, archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript.
[23] Chopin, “The Story of an Hour.”
[24] Chopin, “The Story of an Hour.”
[25] Xuding Wang, “Feminine Self-Assertion in “The Story of an Hour,” (Tamkang University), 117.
[26] Chopin, “The Story of an Hour.”
[27] Chopin, “The Story of an Hour.”
[28] Chopin, “The Story of an Hour.”
[29] Chopin, “The Story of an Hour.”
[30] Chopin, “The Story of an Hour.”
[31] Wang, “Feminine Self-Assertion,” 115.
[32] Wang, “Feminine Self-Assertion,” 115.
[33] Berkove, “Fatal Self-Assertion,” 154.
[34] Berkove, “Fatal Self-Assertion,” 158.
[35] Chopin, “The Story of an Hour.”
[36] “Biography,” The Kate Chopin International Society, accessed January 18, 2021, katechopin.org/biography/#assessments.