Because Plato valued reason and logic above anything else, he would have much to say about the sentence reporting that Louise showed “not a glance of reflection, but rather indicated a suspension of intelligent thought” (Chopin). Plato would probably criticize the author who happened not only to come up with the idea that a human being could cease having accurate and objective understanding of what was going around but also offered this idea to the potential readership. So the sentence under discussion shows underestimation of the crucial importance of understanding the reality properly. Plato would surely state that in every situation a reasonable person must preserve keen mind to pursuit the truth of life. Plato would consider Louise a woman who has nothing to do with the basic principles of logic because facing the news of her husband’s death she finds herself in the situation which needs sober mind to accept the reality, to reappraise it according to the new circumstances in order to be able to move forward in finding her philosophical predestination. Instead of this Louise seems to be overwhelmed with emotions. Plato would even connect her death with her inability to make reasonable assumptions. Otherwise she could be able to think logically and knowing her husband’s schedule and habits she would understand that he was far from the scene of the accident. So the news of his being alive wouldn’t be a shock for her and she would survive thanks to logic and reason.
Because Aristotle highly valued artistic craftsmanship, he would be especially interested in the first sentence of the story: “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” (Chopin). Aristotle would highly appreciate this introductory sentence as one of the components of the success of the whole story because it perfectly prepares readers to the ironic turn of the last sentence and demonstrates the author’s artist talent. So Aristotle would like how K.Chopin managed to state the difference between readers’ expectations about the protagonist and the plot of the story and the real development of the events. With such an opening paragraph all readers and other characters of the story expect Louise to be a very loving wife who can’t live through her husband’s death. All Louise’s nearest and dearest are concerned about how to bring her such sad news. The readers also sympathize with her from the very beginning. There isn’t even the slightest idea that in fact she can’t live through her husband’s survival. Aristotle would call this the author’s undoubted craftsmanship. Aristotle would also approve that this sentence shows Chopin’s focus on human feelings and actions, which should be one of the primarily goals of any writer. Moreover, he would probably mention that this sentence is consistent with all the other paragraphs of the text, which makes it a highly crafted complex unity.
Because Horace believed that characters in literature should be believable and realistic, he would probably be interested in the narrator’s comment that Richards, Brently Mallard’s friend, “had only taken the time to assure himself” of the truth of the report of Brently’s death by waiting for “a second telegram”. Richard then “hastened to forestall any less careful, less tender friend in bearing the sad message” (Chopin) to Louise. Horace would mention that in this particular case a believable and realistic character of Richard is created by depicting him as a bit twofaced man. And as it is known twofaced human nature is a commonplace in society. On the one hand, Richard is upset because of his friend’s death and refuses to believe in it. It seems real because it’s typical of a human being psychologically not to accept bad news and try to make sure that it is only a mistake. So does Richard. But on the other hand, it is also typical of a human being to feel some kind of satisfaction when seeing other people’s sufferings. Richard seems to be the same. That’s why he hurries to deliver Louise the news about her husband’s death. He wants to see the reaction. Richard’s personality combines both humane and inhumane traits. The audience like such sophisticated characters. So Horace would say that the given sentence shows K. Chopin’s strong intention to imitate real life and contemporary standard of behavior in her story and to create true-to-life characters satisfying readers’ expectations.
Because Longinus exalted – and exulted in – spiritual transcendence and transformation, he would probably comment on the report that “a little whispered word escaped [Louise’s] slightly parted lips. She said it over and over under her breath: “free, free, fee!” (Chopin). Longinus wouldn’t probably condemn Louise’s overwhelming joy because of her husband’s death and the required opportunity to feel free and sublime. According to Longinus, who praises spiritual transformation so much, the end justifies its means in the case with Louise. Now she is deliriously happy, free, strong and powerful again. She is longing to welcome “a long procession of years to come that would belong to her absolutely”, to her new better being. Her husband’s death is the only means for her spiritual transcendence and transformation. Longinus would stress that the desire to feel happy and free as Louise does is presupposed by basic human nature, leads to transcendence and builds social reality (Evans 34). Longinus would consider K. Chopin a sublime writer and a good person because the text serves as a reflection of the writer’s character (Evans 35) and K. Chopin managed to help her protagonist to achieve sublimity at least for a short period of time. Longinus would also suppose that Louise’s personal triumph should encourage the readers not to be afraid to set their personal goals and to remember about their potential. And only a great author can induce such thoughts in the readership.
Works cited
Chopin, K. The story of an hour. Web. Accessed August 28.
Evans, Robert S. Close readings. 3rd ed., Montgomery: Louiseville, 2010. Print.
