Troubled Souls
“The Story of an Hour,” by Kate Chopin, and “A Domestic Dilemma,” by Carson McCullers, contain two examples of troubled women in difficult domestic situations. The two characters and their problems are drastically different, yet hold similar qualities. Louise Mallard, main character in “The Story of an Hour,” lacks love for her husband, and is glad to hear the report of his death because of the freedom the news heralds to her. Emily Meadows of “A Domestic Dilemma” is troubled by alcoholism brought on by loneliness, depression, and neglect. In each story, an internal problem causes conflict, and moves the troubled character towards disaster; however, the nature of these problems and the details of the disasters differ widely between the two stories. Much can be learned not only from how Emily and Louise fail to deal with and are enslaved by their problems, but by what they could and should do to bring about good resolutions.
These two stories were written roughly half a century apart. Set in the late eighteen hundreds, “The Story of an Hour” is just that — the narrative of Louise Mallard’s thoughts and actions for an hour after she hears of her husband’s death. Her first reaction is reasonable, yet not typical, hinting that something is not quite as it should be. Chopin explains, “She did not hear the story as many women have heard the same, with a paralyzed inability to accept its significance. She wept at once, with sudden, wild abandonment…”(par. 3). Soon after, however, Louise’s problem begins to emerge. The reader learns of it at the same time as Louise. “There was something coming to her…” says Chopin; “She did not know; it was too subtle and elusive to name,”(par 10). Louise’s problem is not foreign to her because it is an exterior problem, but, just the opposite, because it is so deep inside her.
“A Domestic Dilemma” is set in mid-nineteen hundreds in the north-east United States, and, also true to its name, is the story of a family with a problem. In Emily Meadow’s case, the problem is obvious to the reader from the moment he or she is introduced to her, “…drinking from a tumbler… In her attitude” –towards her husband — “there was confusion and guilt which she tried to hide…”(McCullers, par. 19). Emily is a drunkard, but refuses to admit this fact to herself or her husband. She undoubtedly knows she has a problem, but is unwilling to acknowledge it, and thus keeps herself from amending it. By her actions he has transformed the problem from an outward lack of a social “matrix” to an inward self-deception (par. 39). She, unlike Louise, knows the wrongness of her problem already, but deceives herself into thinking the problem does not even exist.
So Emily and Louise are unaware that their problems are dangerous when the problems’ first manifestations enter their respective stories. The two do not want to admit their problems, and though they do not look on them as good, they are unwilling to ameliorate them. Louise “was striving to beat it” — her sense of relief and jubilation at her husband’s death — “back with her will,” but was “as powerless as her two white slender hands would have been,”(Chopin, par 11). Emily denies her dependence on alcohol entirely, but within minutes of the denial drinks herself into irrationality (McCullers, par. 23).
One clear difference between the two problems is that one manifests itself primarily as an internal problem, an untimely happiness that reveals far too much of Louise’s heart, the other as an external problem, namely, excessive drinking. It could be argued that Louise’s problem began as an external one, perhaps in some sort of captivity imposed by her husband. Or, Emily’s problem could be depicted as one emerging from her own internal inability to adjust to the separation and isolation caused by her family’s move north. It is clear that each problem is connected both to the character’s own weaknesses and external circumstances. In the end, however, it is through the inaction and mis-action of the characters themselves that each problem damages its character’s life.
Louise quite simply does not have the spiritual fortitude to withstand the “assault” happiness makes upon her. She gives in, dreams of freedom and happiness without her husband, and denies that this attitude is wrong and devoid of love for someone who she knows “had never looked save with love upon her,”(Chopin, par. 14). She tells herself she cannot withstand this impulse, does not ask if it is a “monstrous joy” that has come over her, and tells herself it does not matter whether her attitude towards her husband is right or wrong (par. 13).
Emily certainly feels guilt over her drunkenness. She denies it vehemently, cries over it, and declares herself ashamed (McCullers, par. 68). But she is, unfortunately, successful in her denial. She ends the story in sleep, symbolic of her ignorance concerning her problem (par. 105). Her failure, or, rather, refusal to accept and deal with her problem condemns her to continue it. In a sense, the internal problem usurps the position of the external. If the internal is solved — if Emily acknowledges the reality and gravity of her addiction — the problem as a whole could be dealt with. Through her fear of facing an outward addiction, she creates something far worse inside of her, which, if unchecked, will give every other external problem common to life a foothold into her soul.
The wages of Louise’s sin is death. In an ironic twist, almost as soon as she has given in to joy at her husband’s purported decease, he is restored to life, and the shock, coupled with Louise’s heart condition, kills her (Chopin, par. 21). What could she have done to prevent this tragedy of her soul? the solution is simple yet formidable. Had Louise kept a clear view of right and wrong, nurtured love for her husband instead of hiding her desire to be freed from him, and, when the battle came upon her, controlled her mind and fought back the thoughts and feelings that assailed her, she would have truly triumphed, winning over her own evil. But instead, she found only one moment of “feverish triumph” (and that over nothing in particular) before her death (par. 19).
McCullers does not bring any closure to Emily’s story. Concluding the story after Emily’s actions and choices but before the final outcome points clearly at what is truly tragic. It is not what may happen to Emily in the future that should cause sadness, but what she does to drive herself towards that end. Now it is clear that Emily is not the only one who acted wrongly. Her husband’s self-centeredness keeps him from helping his wife. All his concern and energy goes to dealing with the symptoms of a dirty house and neglected children. He can “dismiss his worries” when the maid is on duty, because he is not worried about his wife, only about what she is doing to harm his family (McCullers par. 42). But Emily is her own person. She cannot be blamed for feeling lonely after her family’s move, but to let that loneliness throw her into depression, and that, in turn, into drunkenness, is wrong. The solution for Emily is similar to Louise’s. If she fights back her depression, acknowledges her drunkenness, and condemns it as wrong, she can bring herself back from the doomed road she is traveling.
Both these characters are pitiable. Louise, though revolting against manly rule, is manhandled by her own passion for freedom! Emily lets herself become depressed and addicted to alcohol, and then is afraid to face what she has made! Men and women reading these stories must be revolted at first by these two women’s slavery to their problems, but would the readers do any better if faced with the same trials? Here is “the rub.” Readers cannot easily condemn Louise and Emily without condemning themselves, and would prefer to justify the characters than condemn themselves. But Louise and Emily are condemned, if not by the Law of God then by the fact that they are destroying themselves. Readers must not cut these characters slack in order to assuage their own consciences, else they become as self-deceived and pitiful as Louise and Emily. Instead, they should learn from these two tragic examples, nip fledgling problems in the bud, and battle those problems that threaten to enslave them.
Works Cited
Chopin, Kate. “The Story of an Hour.” Washington State University. 22 April,
2006.
chopin.html>.
McCullers, Carson. “A Domestic Dilemma.” The Carson McCullers Project. 22 April,
2006. .
Clicking advertisements helps keep this site running. thank you!
