The Story of an Hour and The Necklace share many similarities and also many differences; both explore the feeling that both wives harbor towards their husbands and the lack of communication that both wives share. In this essay I will discuss the similarities and differences that the two short stories share with regards to communication.
In Guy de Maupassant’s “The Necklace” is the story of Mathilde Loisel, who resents her “station” in life. Mathilde Loisel is shown to be a vain and ungrateful person who believes that she was born to have a better life. She feels that she has married beneath her, in spite of the fact that her husband is a hard working and dependable man. Mathilde is unable to recognize and appreciate the good things in her life. “She had no fine clothes, no jewels, nothing; these were the only things she loved; she felt that she was made for them. ” The central conflict in this story is between Mathilde’s desire for a life of luxury and the reality of her humble lifestyle. “She suffered endlessly, feeling herself born for every delicacy and luxury.
Throughout out the story the husband is portrayed to be a man with ambition and vision, but even though he posses all these attributes its still not enough for his wife, she still wants more, she has even given up the friendship of an old schoolmate who happens to be wealthy. Monsieur Loisel expects his wife to be thrilled about being invited to such a formal affair, but she agrees to go only after he promises to buy her a dress. The conflict comes to a head when, after a glorious evening of dancing and socializing, Mathilde realizes with horror that she has lost the borrowed necklace.
Mathilde’s internal conflict, between fantasy and reality, leads her into a life of abject poverty. Kate Chopin’s “Story of an Hour” is the story of Louise Mallard, a weak, repressed housewife who is liberated in learning of her husband’s death in a train accident. The conflict in Chopin’s story is an internal one. Louise must choose between repression and self-assertion. Knowing that with the return of her husband, the freedom she has just discovered will be revoked, Louise’s heart is broken, and she dies. Chopin’s use of language ffectively conveys the intensity of the emotions that overcome Louise.
Repetition of the word “free” reveals the exaltation Louise experiences in being released from possession by her husband’s will. The diction aptly portrays the significance, emotionally and physically, of Louise’s transformation. Tumultuously, Louise’s bosom, the seat of passion, rose and fell as the “monstrous joy” possessed her. As the elixir of life “courses” through her once weak heart, Louise’s “pulses beat fast. ” When Louise’s fancy runs “riot along those days ahead of her”, the reader feels the excitement Louise feels.
Through the image of Louise as a winged “goddess of Victory”, her inner strength from triumph over repression becomes palpable. That strength is reaffirmed in Chopin’s use of words that connote potency. Louise has a “clear and exalted perception” of herself. In both these stories, the authors portray two very different yet alike women who have trouble accepting their fate and are trying to reject the life of women of their class. Mathilde Loisel and Louise Mallard are very alike because they dream of something they do not have, then their dreams come true, but destiny plays a fatal role in both stories, and ladies lose everything they had.
In both stories, ladies have caring husbands, whom they do not appreciate . Unfortunately, the endings of both stories are tragic. As you can see Kate Chopin’s “The Story of an Hour” and “The Necklace” by Guy De Maupassant share the same themes which center on role of gender and marriage with special focus on the female characters and their complicated relationship with their husbands. “The Story of an Hour” revolves around the female character Louise Mallard who has been gently told that her husband died in a railroad disaster, news which Richard, her husband’s friend learnt from somewhere.
Since Mrs. Mallard is a heart patient she feels very depressed and seeks to sit in solitude as she learns about her husband Brently’s death. As the story unfolds one learns that Louise Mallard is in fact more “free” and utters the word repeatedly as she realizes that she will be independent from this time onwards. She fantasizes her freedom staring blankly out the window knowing that she would lose control when she sees her husband’s corpse.
“Thor” Is A Superhero Movie Based On Comics
The 2011 movie, “Thor” tells the story of a prince of the planet Asgard who is sent to Earth after betraying his father, King Odin. His power is taken from him, and he cannot return until he proves himself worthy of his power. With the help of his friends, he eventually returns and defeats his brother Loki, who tries to betray him to become king of Asgard. This hero story shows very distinct characters who are heroic and monstrous and they tie in to two articles written in 2010.
The first article talks about ways that a skinny man can get muscular because muscular men are clearly more attractive and wanted by women. The second explains the drop in publicity for women’s sports in the last decade. The values of the hero in Thor and of the women in the movie tie into the issues shown in the above articles. Therefore, Thor is greatly influenced by the events of the year 2010. The importance of strength and muscle in men has been a big issue since the beginning of time, and has increased a lot in the past few years.
Men with little or no muscle are thought to be incapable of fighting, so they cannot protect the people they love. The importance for men not to be skinny is growing, and can be seen in the movie, Thor. The hero in the movie, Thor, is portrayed as being extremely strong and is very muscular. His muscles are shown constantly throughout the movie, and he is shown in one scene with no shirt on, with two women making comments about how fit he is. Unlike Thor, the “monster” in the movie, Thor’s brother Loki is not very built. He is a much smaller guy, so clearly he has to be the one to lose the fight in the end.
While Thor uses his strength in battle, Loki must resort to using magic and tricks in order to defeat his enemies. In the first battle between Thor and the enemies of the Asgardians, the Frost Giants, he is able to defeat hundreds of giants using just his strength, which is represented by his mighty hammer. The hammer is a symbol of Thor’s strength and without it, he does not have the strength to fight. When Thor gets exiled from Asgard for not obeying his father, his father casts a spell on the hammer, making it unavailable to him until he proves to be worthy of its strength.
This is also a representation of weights that men use to build muscle when they work out. Without training and lifting weights, these men would have no muscle, and would not be fit and strong. In turn, they would not be able to protect their loved ones. Without his hammer, Thor is weak as well. He cannot fight and defeat any enemies, so he cannot protect his family, friends and kingdom, until he gets his hammer back. When he finally proves himself worthy of possessing the mighty hammer, Thor is able to get back into the kingdom of Asgard and save his family, his friends and his people.
In the final battle between Thor and his evil brother Loki, Thor uses his hammer to defeat Loki and save the kingdom. Loki must resort to trickery in order to try to defeat Thor. However, since Thor is stronger, he obviously wins the battle. He then also uses the hammer to break the bridge between Asgard and the other planets, cutting off access to Asgard from Jotunheim, the planet of the enemy Frost Giants. Therefore, the man with the muscle defeats the skinny, and therefore weak, man and is honoured by all the people of his kingdom.
It seems that the only way for a man to win over the heart of a woman is to show her how strong he is. Men with muscle seem to be more attractive to women, and this is very clearly shown in movies, advertisements and commercials. Media is constantly encouraging thin men to “bulk up” in order to win over the heart of the girl. Thor is also the character that ends up with a love interest in the story. Everything works out perfectly for the stronger man. Men with muscle are apparently the only men capable of getting a girl, so obviously Thor, who is the biggest and strongest character, ends up getting the girl.
Needless to say, he does this by showing her how strong he is, and how capable he is of protecting her and keeping her safe. She watches his battle with a guard of Asgard, whom Loki sent to kill Thor so he could not destroy his plans of defeating Asgard and becoming King. By giving his life for his friends and his love interest, Thor becomes worthy of the mighty hammer again, and is able to save his friends and the girl. After proving his strength to the girl he loves, Jane, he tells her that he must leave to protect Asgard, but will come back for her.
So, along with being able to single-handedly save a kingdom, Thor also wins Jane’s heart. Once again, the muscle man is the winner. One of Thor’s best friends and warriors is a woman, named Sif. She is a good warrior and goes with Thor into all his battles. However, she is never the hero, never does anything special. The second article talks about the lack of publicity for women’s sports. Less than two percent of sports coverage is devoted to women’s sports, which is much less than the 8. 7% recorded a decade ago.
Women are allowed to play sports, and still play a significant part in the sports world, but they are not featured for their athletic abilities, but rather for scandals that happened on the playing field. It is very clear that women in sports are much underappreciated. Men try to make it seem like they are giving women many equal opportunities by letting them play in national leagues and giving them minor coverage, but women never get to do anything special; never get any special treatment like men do. This can be seen in the movie, Thor.
Sif is a very good warrior and can take on any man, but never gets the chance to do much, because the men are always the heroes. They allow her to fight with them and take her on all their adventures and battles, but she never does anything special. Thor is the one who gets all the attention because he is the strongest and the most heroic, but the women in the movie are either the ones being protected, unable to protect themselves, or the ones who tag along but never get their chance in the spotlight.
The drop in coverage of women’s sports is clearly reflected in the movie, Thor. Movies are reflections of the events of the society in which they were produced. Today’s society puts importance on men and strength, but strong women don’t seem to be present. It seems like men get all the spotlight and women are just tricked into thinking that they are getting what they deserve and that they are being treated equally. Also, more importance seems to be put on strong men, and men who are considered weak are not accepted as much as stronger men.
This is very evident in movies especially, including Thor. Women play either the hero’s love interests or the damsels in distress who need to be saved by the strong hero. The small men are either the evil characters or the characters that don’t matter much. The most importance is put on the strong, fit men, who are always considered the hero. This is very clearly shown in Thor, within the plot and its characters. Therefore, Thor was greatly influenced by the events and issues of the year it was produced in.
The Paul Robeson – Jackie Robinson Saga And A Political Collision
Dr. Ronald A. Smith, a historian and Professor Emeritus at Penn State University analyzes Jackie Robinson’s appearance, and impact before the House Un-American Activities Committee in light of anti-American messages made by the entertainer and former Rutgers University All-American football superstar Paul Robeson.
Smith argues that for symbolical grounds, the federal government reached out to Jackie Robinson so he can assist in getting rid of Paul Robeson from his function as a black leader. Using a relative analysis of both Robinson and Robeson early lives, Author Ronald Smith affirms that they spearheaded change from different paths. Smith illustrates how Jackie Robinson was willing to cooperate with white society for the purpose of positive racial goals and Paul Robeson wanted improvement own his own terms, not necessarily those suggested by white society.
Nonetheless, Smith insists both Robinson and Robeson fought for equal rights in their respected ways. In this informative and well written essay, The Paul Robeson-Jackie Robinson Saga and Political Collision, Ronald A. Smith (following his Ph. D. at the University of Wisconsin, he spent 28 years at Penn State teaching sport history and researching intercollegiate athletics) illustrates how a collision arose between Robinson and Robeson, Significantly because of Robinson’s desegregation of baseball under white terms and Robeson’s stand for human rights under free political terms.
This essay takes us through a clashing journey of two outstanding and prominent African American men, who shared core values and beliefs of equality from a different ideology and spectrum. This essay is skillfully crafted and organized to assist us with understanding the time-line and its relation to the life of Paul Robeson and Jackie Robinson.
The time-line takes us through the Jim Crow era, the crucial 1920’s and 1930’s, the impact of World War II, and the desegregation of baseball. Furthermore, Smith uses historical evidence to portray how the federal government skillfully orchestrated actics to set up one of the biggest showdown between two heroes before a committee. This was evident in the reading “At the time of HUAC hearings on communist infiltration of minority groups, Robinson was leading the National League in batting with a . 360 avg communist infiltration of minority groups, Robinson was also the top vote getter in the annual all-star balloting in his league. It was not unexpected that HUAC would ask a black of Robinson’s public exposure to testify against another prominent black. ” (P. 19).
Hence setting up a stage for a clash, and putting Robinson in an inedible dilemma, whereas if he refused to testify he risked being labeled a communist sympathizer, and if he testified the segregationist could use his statements to deny discrimination in America. Despite the fact that Smith attempts to be impartial in this essay, by laying down numerous acclamations, alongside trailblazing feat established by Robinson and Robeson; he does however seem to elaborate predominantly on the negative reputation and debunking of Robeson.
Although there’s overwhelming acclamations by the author towards both “performers”, it seems to me that in an essay of non-partisanship, there are hints of Smith leaning towards Robinson’s ideology. Smith writes “Robinson was more realistic and pragmatic, and he fared far better socially and financially than did Robeson” (P. 23), which makes me wonder, how does Robeson, a man that faced oppression, dead ends, and a system of limitations acquires an unrealistic and illogical label.
Smith failed to mention that a peaceful mind exceeds social acceptance and financial freedom. Smith thoughtfully presented us with a flurry of no holds barred information in this essay, somehow exposing some more than others. Nonetheless, the gloves were off, whether he was talking about Robinson’s non-confrontational demeanor “Even if they don’t accept us, we are doing our part and, if possible, making the way easier for those who follow.
Someday some Negro player will get a break. We want to help make that day a reality. (P. 15), Robeson’s loud hollering about injustice and support of Communist Russia during a fragile era, or the federal government flagrant tactics, Smith managed to exposed and relate all these characteristics in this essay. Although this essay was written in the summer of 1979, shortly after Robeson death and about 7 years after Robinson’s demise, they would’ve been charmed by Smith’s ability to associate being a prominent public figure and seizing the moment to voice their views.
According to Smith, Robeson took advantage f his notoriety as an Actor/Singer and embrace Russian ideology while bashing America’s segregationist society, as stated “I would say in Russia I felt for the first time a full human being, and no colored prejudice like in Mississippi and no colored prejudice like in Washington and it was the first time I felt like a human being, where I did not feel the pressure of color as I feel in this committee today” (P. 11), this added extra pressure from the International community towards America.
In contrast, Smith exemplifies how Robinson aligned his notoriety tactically to break barriers “Robinson was more willing to compromise with white society for a time to accomplish positive racial goals and his own advancement” (P23). Either way you flip the coin is a win-win situation, whereas both voices were being heard. Furthermore, this essay relates to discussions held in class and it illustrates how African Americans were discriminated and treated less than human.
It gave me a better sense of how Russians views of African Americans were different than those of Americans. My perception of the Russians and beliefs about their communist beliefs completely changed after reading how different Robeson was treated, for the first time he felt like a human and not a color. I believed that if Americans were so cruel to their own, what was to expect from the rest of the world at that time.
Reading this essay contributed greatly to a better understanding on how society treated African Americans then and how much African Americans have accomplished now. In conclusion, this article is overwhelming; nonetheless, Smith manages to correlate the intangibles that both men share throughout the article by comparing and contrasting their lives. Furthermore, the article was successful with interpreting and deciphering the trials and tribulations both faced to reach a common belief despite their acknowledged differences.