Please give me comments on this second part of my Essay on Kate Chopin, based on "The Story of an Hour."
This story is much more then a story of an hour. It the story of an unsatisfying marriage, a woman who was longing for more in life and longing to finally be able to do her own bidding as shown in the lines, “ There would be no powerful will bending her.” Chopin admits that she did love him, at one point or another, but for the most part the marriage was a suppression of her true desires. If this were so then Oscar’s death would have been a relief of the chains that bound her.
The story end with Mr. Mallard walking through the front door, having been far from the accident, he was not dead after all. Upon seeing her husband, Mrs. Mallard’s aliment takes its toll and she dies. In real life Kate’s husband did indeed die and so I think Mr. Mallard walking back in is a symbol of the children she had with Oscar. They are a reminder that even though Oscar is gone, she will not be free of him until she is dead. The heart disease could be her love for her children that kills her because it is they that will not let her be free now. Or to put is as simply as Chopin did, they are, “the joy that kills,” in the story of her life.
This is a great start to an analytical essay based on this brilliant short story. However, the biggest comment that I would make about it is that the second paragraph could exploit the final sentence, and the terrible irony of the ending of this story, much more.
Let us remember that the liberation that Mrs. Mallard has experienced has been internal and not external. Her feelings of joy and freedom are something that only she and the reader are privy to. The only other people in the story, such as her sister, observe Mrs. Mallard taking refuge in her room to cope with the grief at having supposedly lost her husband. As a result, therefore, when she finally leaves her room, only to have the shock of meeting her husband, who is, after all, not dead as she supposed, they interpret her death as a result of her heart disease and of "joy that kills." However, we as readers know that this conclusion is terribly ironic, because she did not die of "joy that kills" but of great shock at the thought of having to return to the state of enslavement that her husband's "death" made her realise was restricting her life so massively.
Commenting on the irony and unpacking the ending of the story would greatly improve this essay. I hope this helps, and good luck!