The story of an hour- the journey of discovering the desire for freedom (9đ)

The story of an hour by Kate Chopin written in the late 19th century is an impressive literary piece,
which touches the reader’s heart as well as mind. Although this is just a short story, every word that the
author is trying to describe carries a meaningful massage; they connect to each other in order to
demonstrate the journey of self-exploration of the need for freedom. In this essay, I will clarify this
journey by analyzing the characterization of the main character-Mrs. Mallard.

From the very beginning of this story, it seems that the desire for freedom has existed inside Mrs.
Mallard but she cannot be aware of that. When received her husband’s death news, although she is
reported by his close friend so that “great care was taken to break to her as gently as possible”, the way
she reacts is not as normal as other wives do. She does not ask again as a way to deny this reality, she
just “wept at once, with sudden, wild abandonment, in her sister’s arm” and “went away to her room
alone”. These details appear to imply that this bad news is what she really expects. She does not notice
it at this time, but she can feel this- the freedom is coming to her after her husband died - the freedom
that any women in patriarchal society could not have when they got married.

The demand for freedom is still not expressed clearly. She can feel it but does not know what it is,
what she is waiting for. Through the window, she could see the symbol of new life: “the top of trees that
were all aquiver with the new spring life. The delicious breath of rain was in the air”. If a woman just has
negative feelings toward her husband’s death news, it is impossible for her to have the ability to feel this
beauty. By describing this beauty through Mrs. Mallard’s eyes, the author reveals a hint that implies the
clearer that the journey of self-exploring the demand for freedom is becoming: Mrs. Mallard can feel a
new life is coming to her- the life that she could have self-determination without any dominance of her
husband. Perhaps, the barrier that is trying to prevent her from discovering what she really wants is the
feeling of being a wife. She is still a wife. It is normal for any wife to feel terrible when her partner
cannot stand by her side forever from then on; therefore “a sob came up into her throat and shook her”.

However, the feeling of the need for freedom gets stronger over every moment. At first “it was too
subtle and elusive to name”, but “she felt it”, and then “she was beginning to recognize this thing was
approaching to possess her”. She tries to refuse it, but it is too strong that “she was striving to beat it
back with her will- as powerless as her two white slender hands would have been”. Finally, the need for
freedom is so clear that she has to say it over and over “ free, free, free!”. Three words is what she is
waiting for, and she will fight for what she needs-freedom.

The journey of self-exploring the need for freedom still has some barriers. She wondered “if it were or
were not a monstrous joy that held her”. She sees herself as a criminal when enjoying liberation from
her husband’s death; however, the desire for freedom is so strong that she has to admit that “there
would be no one to live for during those coming years; she would live for herself”. She realizes that life
without the appearance of her husband is what she really wants. This is because in this society, marriage
meant men dominated all the aspects of life and it was impossible for women to have their own
identity, thoughts or purposes; thus, without marriage, Mrs. Mallard can have her own decision in her
life.
 In the end, the joy appears again- her husband is still alive, which also means that the freedom that she
imagines vanishes. However, we cannot deny that, within a short amount of time-an hour, Mrs. Mallard
discovered what she really needed in her life and she is also considered as the representative who
speaks out loud for the rights of women in the late 19th century.

The Story of an Hour: Death as a release (8.75đ)

Before the 1960s rise of feminist movement, Kate Chopin was one of the pioneering authors to raise the
notion of feminine identity through “The Story of an Hour” (1894). Despite being initially rejected, later
the story was rediscovered and positively evaluated for various meaningful themes. In this essay, by
focusing on theme, I would like to evince deep interest in the matter of death as a release for women in
that era.

In just around an hour of the story, readers are exposed to two demises: a false one of Mr. Brently when
he was misunderstood to die in a railroad accident, along with that is Mrs. Mallard’s sudden death when
learning that her husband was still alive. Both these deaths are plausibly interpreted as a path to
liberation for the main character: Mrs. Mallard.

Specifically, firstly Mr. Brently’s death paves the way for his wife to an entirely new life of freedom.
Indeed, the tragic news initiates Mrs. Mallard’s growing awareness of the freedom she will gain without
Brently. After “the storm of grief”, she would rather go to her room without anyone to follow, which
somewhat implies the onset of her awareness about her own life with no one’s interference. Kate
Chopin directs her towards an idyllic spring scene teemed with boundless hope. Mrs. Mallard paid her
attention to trivial details such as appetizing breath of rain which normally went unnoticed. All sorts of
faint sounds are gradually utterly absorbed by her fragile soul. Additionally, the metaphor “tops of trees
that were all aquiver with the new spring life” acknowledges the quiver of shoots resulting from new-
born inexperienced spirit in spring. It may refer to Mrs. Mallard’s tremulous state in spring sense when
experiencing rebirth - a new identity that is revealed later when her real name “Louise” appeared for
the first time in the story instead of Mrs. Mallard. The second metaphorical employment of “patches of
blue sky” represents desperate hope for freedom. Mrs. Mallard was put under gloomy sky of monotony
and now it is getting bluer and brighter about the future of autonomy outside the confine of her
marriage. The spring unfolds Mrs. Mallard’s second chance to come anew and consequently full
possession of the rest lifetime is continuously internalized. Mr. Brently’s death marks a milestone for her
emancipation, and needless to say, a liberation for her “Body and soul free!”.

Representing similar symbolization like Mr.Brently’s, Mrs. Mallard’s sudden dead in the end is viewed as
her path to freedom. Digging deeper into Mrs. Mallard‘s internal mind, it is noticeable that she does not
desire to reappear as a reconciling wife of those old days. The monotonous marital relationship with Mr.
Brently turns Mrs. Mallard from a young woman with “fair, calm face” and “certain strength” into a
woman with “dull stare”. It makes her so disgusted that even thinking about encountering “the kind,
tender hands” and the fixed and gray face of her husband could shudder her. She seemed weary of the
notion that people always enforce personal desire on their partners. No matter how amiable or brutal
their aims are, to her they are all abhorrent actions that she never wants to suffer from any time. Here,
Mrs. Mallard reveals a strong sense of disrelishing the roles of women in marriage: self-sacrificing,
reconciling and indecisive. She walked down the stairs with a sense of self-fulfillment, on the way to the
front door - the door that would turn her life into a new hopeful page. However, Brently’s reverse
becomes a barrier blocking her path to the outside world and takes her back to above roles - women’s
stereotypes in the 19th century. She died on the way to renewal. That may be the treatment of Kate for
Mrs. Mallard since she was so strongly influenced by her female-dominated environment that she could
not conform to women’s socially acceptable prejudice. I personally interpret death as an alternative
chance to free Louise Mallard’s body and soul, an escape from living again with everyday accepted
boundaries. In that era, death may be the only remedy for the weak in general.

In conclusion, with the above mentioned analysis, the theme “death as a release” is successfully built up
through the story with implicit thought-provoking details about women’s identity in the 19th century,
which leaves readers with distinct conceptions about the heated issue.

An Hour of Personal Freedom (8.75đ)

Robert Wise, an American producer, regards theme as something crucial to say between the lines. In
this essay, by highlighting personal freedom, one of the themes in The Story of an Hour, I would like to
argue that Mrs. Mallard’s lust for self-independence is admirable, and is also a hint for a hidden feminist
message; it will illuminate on my viewpoint about how she confronts conflicts, undergoes mental
changes and reveals her true aspiration.

Themes are ideas about reality which is generalized through specific situations inside the work. There
are numerous themes in The Story of an Hour, a short story by Kate Chopin that was first published in
1894, namely about love, death, freedom. However, the theme about individual independence appears
most intriguing to me because I am personally a freedom-lover and an avid feminist.

Mrs. Mallard’s desire for self-reliance is sophisticatedly conjured up by her phenomenal emotional
changes since the news about her husband’s death in a railroad disaster is received. She cries
immediately: what a different reaction from others. Instead of not being able to accept the truth, she
buys it, just like some mental preparation has been done long before. Then she wants some time alone
in her room. Looking outside the window, Mrs. Mallard turns calmer. She notices the spring life touches
gently the tops of trees, a distant song, some bird-singing under the blue sky. From facing the worry of
her sister, she now faces herself with a suspension of intelligent thoughts paving the way for something
else more exciting happens. Gradually but eventually does she acknowledges her future freedom. Since
then, she has said it again and again, the word free:

- Free! Body and soul free!

Some may argue that her reaction is a monstrous joy: her husband has just died, and she is here looking
forward to her future freedom; however, for me, how she feels is admirable. It is not the joy when
learning her husband passes away, but joy for the newfound sense of independence after a long time of
unhappy marriage. How can her marriage be satisfying when she has been bent by her husband’s
private will? How can it be when she had thought with a shudder that life might be long living with her
husband, yet the shudder has gone when the news takes place? And how can it be when the doctor says
she dies of the joy that kills, but it is of the killed joy in the last minute indeed? Moreover, it is not a
cruel joy, but the awareness of her aspiration as a human, which is actual being, and as a woman, which
is freedom.

Here comes the hidden feminist message. Chopin suggests that all marriages, even the kindest ones, are
inherently oppressive ("The Story of an Hour: Themes | SparkNotes", 2020). Louise, who admits that her
husband is kind and loving and that she would weep again when seeing his grey face and his tender
hands folded in death, nevertheless feels joy when she receives the news. Furthermore, it takes her a
long while full of her striving to beat it back, abandoning herself before acknowledging her future self-
reliance. She is certain that there is something coming yet unable to name what it is, even fearful when
waiting for it. This poses a question of why a woman in the middle of her youth, with the beauty that
bespeaks certain strength can be that hesitated and can have such terror in her eyes when stating a
proper wish. In addition, why freedom is not her right but just her wish? It is generally believed that
being free is one of human’s rights no matter what gender one has.

As Michael Morpurgo, an English writer, says: Wherever my story takes me, however dark and difficult
the theme, there is always some hope and redemption, not because readers like happy endings, but
because I am an optimist at heart. I know the sun will rise in the morning, that there is a light at the end
of every tunnel. Similarly, Louise may be fear of the strongest impulse of her being, she gradually drinks
in the joy of it and truly feel it. The irony at the end of this story emphasizes Louise’s absolute hope for a
brighter future with days of her own, living for herself not anyone else, and highlights how significant
freedom is in our lives.

A New Life Set In An Hour (8.75đ)

“The Story of an Hour”, written in 1894 by Kate Chopin, is one of the pioneering and influential
compositions issuing the oppression of women. The short story does so by leading readers through the
development in Louise Mallard’s thoughts following the news of her husband’s death. This essay looks
to lavish attention on the role of the exhaustively depicted physical setting, more particularly, the
protagonist’s room, in laying foundation for the moment of epiphany in her.

As Chopin’s pen escorted Mrs. Mallard back to the lady’s room with the company of neither her sister
nor her husband’s confidant, the picture of her private place is gradually revealed. Louise is greeted with
“a comfortable, roomy armchair”. Unusual it is for a newly widowed woman to find comfort and
spaciousness in any image that she comes across. Does this mean that unconsciously, the lady thinks
that her husband’s death grants her a less cramped life, where she need not accommodate any will
imposed on her other than her own, and a more pleasant one, where she is no longer forced, by
prejudice of her time, to play a subservient role? It could be interpreted, furthermore, that “Into this she
sank” presents more than the act of pressing her body into the restful, commodious recliner. The
phrase, simultaneously, refers to how Louise’s mind is beginning to dive into streams of thoughts about
complete freedom which seems close within her reach. Besides a way of escaping from “physical
exhaustion”, there, the woman is lent an exit, for her mind and soul, from confinement as a subordinate
to a man, leading to the path to a brighter future which is symbolized by “the open window”.

Why are both the armchair - representing security and comfort, and the open window - presenting an
unbarred road to inviting life opportunities situated specifically in Mrs. Mallard’s private room, instead
of the more “public” place where the news is broken to her? Kate Chopin might have made such an
intentional arrangement to directly contrast Louise’s real feeling of relief, which can only be expressed
when there is none to observe, to the reaction asked of a woman who experiences such a calamitous
event - the agony that is punctiliously showed to Josephine, Richards and the 19th century patriarchal
society in general.

While her mind steps further into the light of revelation, Mrs. Mallard sits in the closed chamber,
suggesting the prison of marriage where she is shackled, and allows all senses to travel the world
outside the window, as beautiful as a future without oppression. The woman’s eyes embrace a
landscape painting coated in dazzling colours of spring, so immense in both width and height, with the
“open square” and the treetops, opposed to the limited area of her room. She takes in the “delicious
breath of rain” in the atmosphere, which adds an idyllic ambience to the scenery. Occurrence of the
soothing petrichor hints newly ceased rainfall, just as the end of a life revolving around her husband
would gift Louise a chance to enjoy the otherwise extortionate latitude she could not afford. Sounds of
life pours into Louise’s ears in drips, faintly, similar to how the joy of breaking free from chains of a
committed relationship is being kindled. She hears the peddler’s wares, the notes of a song being sung
faraway, and the twittering of sparrows. Does the idea of her deserving freedom resemble all these
aforementioned sounds: having always been there but never paid attention to?

Highlighted in the elaborate painting is the blue stretch of sky, which is employed frequently in literature
to evoke the imagery of uttermost freedom. However, in lieu of appearing in full, it is characterized by
“patches”, showed “here and there through the clouds”. The clouds may be translated into either her
uncertainty that hinders independence from being seen in absolute openness, or the foreshadowing of a
later revealed fact that this picture of full freedom would be brutally torn apart by the arrival of Brently
Mallard.

Without clear enunciations of the ignition of joy stemming from freedom in Mrs. Mallard, in these
paragraphs, Kate Chopin has subtly delivered those meanings implicitly through illustrations of the
surroundings. By adopting a writing technique rich in symbolism to an exemplary level, the renowned
author encourages readers to delve into every word to search for tactfully hidden messages - signals of
changes in the woman’s thoughts as shadows of fear and doubt are gradually being wiped away by the
dawn of clarity.

The story of an Hour – a question of real freedom in marriage life of 19th century (8.5)

In her work “ The story of an Hour”, Kate Chopin has raised the theme of feminism, portraying a typically
repressed wife, Louis Mallard, in a typical middle-class family in 19th century of American, on perceiving
the news of her husband’s death. It is a dramatically sensational process, which implicitly evokes in
readers’ mind a pertinent question: Is there any true freedom in a marriage for women as their men
have?

The story starts with Mrs. Mallard, who has a sensitive heart disease, heard the “veiled hints”
announcement from her sister, Josephine, and her husband’s friend, Richards, about her husband’s
mortal railroad accident. On receiving the news, Mrs. Mallard abandons herself wildly on her sister’s
arm. She then alone went to her room, where her emotional conflict rapaciously occurs, that reveals her
oppressed mental state. After that, Louis Mallard’s heart disease kills her upon coping with the fact that
the news is untrue, that her husband is still alive in ignorance of the false information.

Louis Mallard, or Mrs. Mallard, is described as “young, with a fair, calm face, whose line bespoke
repression and even a certain strength”, the characteristics of her appearance implies her inner
personality, with which the trait of being “young”, hinting a blossoming fire of the youth, is restricted
into a “fair, calm face” that the society of the time demands their women to subscribe to; and the
woman, it takes her strength to oppress herself, to fit in the world she is living in. Moreover, the author
calls the window of the room where Louis sobbingly diminishes into as “the open square”, referring to a
small window of gloomy life in a slammer. This gray atmosphere of Louis’s room is in stark contrast the
outside world. A myriad of colorful adjectives is used to azurely depicts the outside scenes, with
“delicious breath of the rain”, “new spring life”, and “patches of blue sky”. Mrs. Mallard’s perspective
seems to hint her circumstance of being repressed in her own house, being isolated from beautiful
outside world by her heart disease. Furthermore, Louis’s heart disease hintingly uncovers her weak soul
mourning for her sorrowful life. Here appears a vivid disparity with her husband’s status.

In the whole story, the author only mentions the existence of Mr. Mallard, or Brently Mallard twice,
once when his death new arrives, and another on his return home, which coincides his wife’s death. His
absenteeism in the house to travel to places, to be able to freely utilize railway transportation on his
own, contradicts his wife’s situation of extreme repression that coldly haunts the house. Furthermore,
on his return home, Mr. Mallard appears with a glimpse of a free person, with being “a little travel-
stained” and absolutely uninformed of his own death. The contradiction in states of puberty in the
Mallard family indicates a social norm of the 19th century society of America, where women should be
confined to their men’s dictation, while the men are free to explore the world regardless of his wife’s
situation. As a result of such discrimination, marital love is in doubt, with Mrs. Mallard confessing to
herself of just “sometimes” in love with her husband. Even on processing the fatal news, Louis has to
admit a “monstrous joy” that she can finally sense wholistic liberty at that very distinctive moment, as “
there would be no powerful will bending her in that blind persistence with which men and women
believe they have a right to impose upon a fellow-creature”. It seems that this apparent unfairness
triggers a devilish wish of a wife to her husband, or that it powerfully provokes and revives her profound
yet buried dream of being free after being imprisoned for almost of her long life. Contradicting to the
wife’s burdening, dreadful, and burning desire as well as her fragile physical health that is mentioned
consistently in this work, the husband’s crying out for personal freedom is not divulged to ever exist;
besides, it can be interpreted that Brently’s health is in so good a state that he can travel elsewhere. This
striking difference of the couple has clearly emphasized formidable barrier between men’s and women’s
state of mind.
Throughout this work of art, typical marriage with ferocious yet simplified inequality between male and
female figures has been well illustrated in delicate settings. Thus, arises a lingering query of paradoxical
relationship between freedom and marriage love, with cruel joy and oppression.

Hope Is In The Air (8.5)

As one of the literary trademarks of Kate Chopin, every slightest change in the mind of
protagonists is meticulously portrayed and cleverly intertwined into the plotline with colorful and poetic
use of words. Mrs. Mallard of the Story of An Hour is one of Chopin’s memorable dynamic characters
that showcase a fairly rugged slow-flowing stream of consciousness throughout the story. The changes
in Mrs. Mallard’s chain of thoughts correlate perfectly with the changes in her surrounding environment
in the first part of the story, which exudes several hints of hope that is gradually sprouting in her soul.

Most of the nature images depicted at the beginning of the story carry a positive metaphorical meaning.
After receiving the news of her husband’s death, Mrs. Mallard returns to her room, sinks onto a
comfortable chair, and faces an open window.

“There stood, facing the open window, a comfortable, roomy armchair. Into this she sank, pressed down
by a physical exhaustion that haunted her body and seemed to reach into her soul.” (1-2)

Mrs. Mallard’s “room” is likely to refer to her inner world. At this moment, the poor woman struggles to
absorb the news of her husband’s death, her first reaction is to hide in the room or bury herself in her
inner world. The room that should have felt lonely and dark surprisingly comes with an open window.
The image of the window is a common metaphor that may be interpreted in various ways. In this case,
the window probably acts as a barrier that separates the room from the outer world, once it is open, it
brings light and hope into the room and her inner world..

“She could see in the open square before her house the tops of trees that were all

aquiver with the new spring life. The delicious breath of rain was in the air. [...] countless sparrows were
twittering in the eaves.” (1-2)

As spring has long been hailed as a season of hope and revival, the image “the tops of trees that were all
aquiver with the new spring life” gives an impression of a positive change that is approaching the small
town in which Mrs. Mallard resides. The trees have endured a long and harsh winter, like Mrs. Mallard
who has probably endured her marriage. Now they all “aquiver” with a new life, is it a sign of a new life
ahead for Mrs. Mallard?

The appearance of “the delicious breath of rain” fills Mrs. Mallard’s lungs with freshness, signaling the
shower that quenches the thirst in her soul. The raindrops remind the readers of the tears that Mrs.
Mallard sheds for her husband. They pour out of her grief of losing her life partner, out of the dark
clouds piling up inside her soul. After the rain comes the rainbow, what will remain in the aftermath of
her tears? Will Mrs. Mallard see a rainbow after her tears have dried up?
The clouds that are accumulating in the west facing her window may represent the piling grief inside
Mrs. Mallard, her sorrow is flooding, overflowing, and ready to burst. However, on such a gloomy
background, shades of happiness still proliferate.

“There were patches of blue sky showing here and there through the clouds that had

met and piled one above the other in the west facing her window” (1-2)

The image of “patches of blue sky” confirms the appearance of hope that flickers in the darkness. The
blue sky is generally associated with hope and freedom, in this case, there is no exception. Chopin drops
a hint to readers, hope is finally there, adjacent to Mrs. Mallard. Although it just comes in patches, it is
definitely there.

To recapitulate, from just a few images of the scenery outside the window, readers are able to sense a
foreseeable positive change in the protagonist of The Story of An Hour. Chopin’s excellent use of
metaphor in the first part conveys the hints of hope and sets a firm foundation for a series of
movements in Mrs. Mallard’s stream of consciousness in the later part of the story.

Is it “the joy” that kills? (8.25)

Written by Kate Chopin in 1984, the narrative of “The Story of an Hour” surrounds Mrs. Mallard, who
loses her husband in an accident, yet later the husband appears as still staying alive, leading to Mrs.
Mallard’s sudden death in the end. In this essay, by focusing on plot, it will illuminate the actual reason
behind such unexpected passing, which is different from the doctor’s conclusion in the end as “the joy
that kills”.

From the beginning, it is revealed to the readers that Mrs. Mallard is afflicted with cardiovascular
disease, which is also responsible for her death at the end of the story. Upon hearing the husband’s
tragic demise, Mrs. Mallard weeps at once with wild abandonment, accompanied by her sister’s
consolation. As can be observed, her grieving is somewhat unusual, as when women hear of the death
of their husbands, they usually do not agree, and keep stating that it is false. However, it is still a
genuine expression, showing that the marriage between Mr and Mrs. Mallard is not particularly a
horrible or an abusive one. After such an event, the woman retreats to her room alone, sinking into “a
physical exhaustion that haunted her body and seemed to reach into her soul”.

Being on her own, Mrs. Mallard struggles with her grief, before starting to ponder what the death of her
husband brings to her life. From the armchair, Mrs. Mallard looks out of the window, then sees “the
tops of trees that were all aquiver with the new spring life”, “the delicious breath of rain”, “patches of
blue sky here and there”. These images, contrasting with the current scene, seem to suggest a feeling
that she’s been trying to repress. When Mrs. Mallard is quietly sobbing on her armchair, she feels that
something “subtle and elusive” is coming to her. Fearfully, she finally realizes that the feeling is
freedom. After all the tragedy, Mrs. Mallard is so overwhelmed by her feeling of freedom that she can
barely whisper: “She said it over and over under the breath: [free, free, free!]”. Mrs. Mallard even goes
on to the next level as she manages to utter: “Free! Body and soul free!”. From now on, she is no longer
under someone else's authority, even if it was a kind or loving authority: “there would be no one to live
for… she would live for herself”. She will not be repressed even in those subtle ways that can happen in
a relationship, especially in a patriarchal culture, where a husband does have more authority than a
woman, being granted more power, more legal status than women. Noteworthily, the relationship with
her husband is not that of an awful plight. In her description “the face that had never looked save with
love upon her '', she does recognize her husband’s effort to be the good one. Nonetheless, he still
imposes his will upon her, which she can relieve now, without having to worry about what he thinks or
what he wants to do. At last, she has freedom, and the more she thinks about it, the more she enjoys it.

After reaching the climax of the story, Chopin brilliantly introduces the suspense through the last major
event. As Mrs. Mallard floats out of her room on the crest of victory, feeling like she's conquered her
sadness and her new desire for freedom. Suddenly, a totally unexpected thing happens: Mr. Mallard
appears at the door, leading to Mrs. Mallard’s sudden demise. The doctor concludes the story by
attributing her death to heart disease, of “the joy that kills”. Specifically, he assumes that her heart
could not withstand such joy from seeing the return of her husband. However, whereas the marriage
was functional, and not horribly cruel, Mrs. Mallard still appreciates her newfound freedom as she
thinks her husband is gone. Hence, she actually dies, not only of literally a heart attack, but the
realization that she will have to go back into a subservient role where she will not live for just herself,
but she will have to bend her will to someone else, and this robbing of the freedom is what really kills
her.

To conclude, “The Story of an Hour” presents such a clever narrative by Kate Chopin through the plot
where it lays out the foundation on which Mrs. Mallard is known-her heart disease. As the readers look
further into the narrative, the story offers a deep understanding of what most women were going
through in the late-nineteenth century in terms of them being recognized synonymously with their
husband and never as an individual with rights.
 The theme in Hills like white elephants (8.75)

“Hills like white elephants” is a short story typical of Earnest Hemingway’s Iceberg theory. This story is a
long confusing dialogue that the readers have to decode and draw their own conclusions. In this essay,
by focusing on the theme, I would like to argue that the metaphor of hills, white elephants and the
bamboo bead curtain shows the disparity in the perspective about engagement in the relationship
between men and women.

To begin with, the reference to hills and white elephants shows the discrepancy in perspectives of the
man and the girl about abortion and their love. The hills represent the belly of a pregnant woman while
a white elephant symbolizes an unwanted gift of which value is outweighed by the cost of its
maintenance. Moreover, the word “elephant” could stem from the metaphorical English idiom “the
elephant in the room” which refers to a controversial problem that everyone knows but no one wants to
discuss. In the story, the image of hills and white elephants is used as a symbol of the unborn baby as
well as the commitment in a relationship which is unexpected and unwanted by the man. For him, it is
more of a burden, a liability that he is unwilling to take. “They look like white elephants,” she said. “I’ve
never seen one,’ the man drank his beer.”. Undoubtedly, the man does not want to open a conversation
about the possibility of keeping his child. He constantly induces the girl to have an abortion by
emphasizing that its process is of no worries: “perfectly simple”, “perfectly natural” and “ It’s not really
an operation at all”. After using guilt tripping and love as leverage over her body “I love you now, you
know I love you”, the American man wants the girl to take full responsibility for the abortion “But I don’t
want to do it if you don’t really want to” and thus he can get away with the committed relationship.

Considering the bead curtain as a symbol, it is considered as the barrier of two characters resulting from
the disagreement about abortion and the nature of happiness. The real curtain “made of strings of
bamboo beads, hung across the open door into the bar” firstly appears as a minor detail of landscape.
Figuratively, the beaded curtain separates Jig, a sensitive girl who observes and touches the beads from
the American, who only acknowledges the drink advertisement and pays no more attention to the
curtain than the hills. “The girl looked at the bead curtain. ‘They’ve painted something on it.” she said.
“What does it say?”. The girl is unable to read the sign on the curtain since it is written in Spanish, which
makes the allusion of incomplete association between the man and the girl with regard to language and
communication. In the third appearance of the curtain when “the warm wind blew the bead curtain
against the table”, it indeed becomes more significant in the picture. Also, the sentence used to describe
the curtain is placed in the middle of the dialogue, implying that the unseen curtain is preventing the
couple from communicating and understanding each other. The girl wants to keep the baby believing
that it will cause no difference in the happy relationship they currently have. Meanwhile, the man is
urging her to get an abortion with the argument that it is the only thing that bothers them, making them
unhappy. The curtain is continually mentioned until the end of the story as an important part of the
picture. Just like that, the conflict between the girl and the man never disappears.

In conclusion, by using numerous symbols throughout the story, Hemingway finds his own way to talk
about abortion without mentioning it directly. The two characters are portrayed with different reactions
to unexpected pregnancy reflecting different outlooks on happiness and commitment of the two
genders when they are in a romantic relationship.

The meaning of some symbolism in “Hills like white Elephants” (8.5)

“Hills like white elephant” is a Hemingway’s magnificent work which best exemplifies the Iceberg Theory
through the coversation about “abortion” of two main characters. Throughout the story is the indirect
dialogue of Jig and an American that makes the audience have to divine the topic that they were
discussing. In this essay, by focusing on the theme of the story, I would like to discuss the relevance of
the settings to the choice of the couple.

First and foremost, it can be inferred from the story that the symbolism of the white elephant, the train
station as well as the bamboo bead curtain all lead us to conceptualize the predicament of the couple in
deciding whether the girl should have an abortion or not. At the beginning of the story, Jig continuously
stares at the line of the hills and says "They look like white elephants,". The white elephant firstly
symbolizes a possession which is considered as a burden for the owner since the cost to maintain it is
fairly high; therefore the owner may feel it useless. However, to other people, it is still priceless. In the
story, the white elephant can simply be seen as the unborn child, who is extremely meaningful for Jig
but not the American. As in English, the elephant here also can be related to the idiom “An elephant in
the room” that is used to define an issue that everyone finds it uncomfortable to discuss, so they opt for
avoiding to mention it directly. It can be easily recognized that the couple hold their conversation
without a direct indication of abortion when they just mention it as an “operation”: "It's really an awfully
simple operation, Jig”, "It's not really an operation at all", and "They just let the air in and then it’s all
perfectly natural". Last but not least, the white color of the elephant also can be considered as the
innocence and purity of the unborn child, who is the main reason of the couple’s confusion. Besides, the
white color of the elephant also represents a new life, a change in the couple's journey no matter what
choice they choose.

Another symbol I would like to analyze is the train station. From my point of view, this is the most
impressive symbol in the story as it manifests the contradiction in terms of two choices related to
abortion.It can be said that, among two sides of the train station, one is described as “were fields of
grain and trees along the banks of the Ebro. Far away, beyond the river, were mountains'' which appears
to be the girl’s fertility and the fruitfulness of a woman's body after procreation. Contrary to the field,
the other side is portrayed as “no shade and no trees”, which can be implied to be the dissipation and
the death of the unborn child as well as Jig’s lack of vitality after the abortion.

The bamboo bead curtain is also an interesting symbol in the story. “A curtain, made of strings of
bamboo beads, hung across the open door into the bar, to keep out flies.”, it seems that the curtain
represents the obstacle which separates two main characters since they have contrasting mind-set on
abortion. The most impressive appearance of the bamboo curtain is when the girl says "They've painted
something on it", "What does it say?", the man later replies “"Anis del Toro. It's a drink.". It can be
inferred that between Jig and the American somehow has slight a deficiency of connection in terms of
language when the man tends not to comprehend what Jig actually wants to say and vice versa.
To sum up, through “Hills like white elephants” and The Iceberg Theory, Hemingway has successfully
conveyed the hidden message which is the distinctive reaction of the two protagonists toward the
unexpected pregnancy as well as the great dilemma of making final decision about abortion through a
variety of symbols in the story namely the white elephant, the train station as well as the bamboo bead
curtain. Besides, basing on the opened-ending, the author also let the reader freely determine the result
of the couple’s conversation about whether they should keep the child or not.

Conflicts in “Hills Like White Elephants” (8.75)

“Hills Like White Elephants”, a short story written by Ernest Hemingway, depicts a conversation between
an American man and a young woman called “the girl” while waiting for a train to Madrid. Although the
story follows a traditional plot pattern, it is not recounted in a classic manner and may mislead
numerous first-time readers into missing the unstated dramatic tension hidden behind. In an attempt to
convey the underlying subtext of the story, this essay focuses on analyzing both external and internal
conflicts taking place between the lines, which help push the story to the climax and contribute to the
remarkable success of this literary work.

One external conflict that takes place in the story is the conflict between the characters and the
natural surroundings. First, the white hills together with the absence of shadow on one side of the
station may symbolize fertility, a new beginning, or the girl's thoughts of possibly keeping her unborn
baby. On the other hand, the dry brown countryside may represent sterility, or the intention of
terminating the pregnancy. Second, the contextual conflict is also illustrated through the deliberate
setting of the railroad tracks running parallel, which particularly contribute to a conflict within the
relationship of Jig and her boyfriend, marking the tension between the girl’s desire to keep the baby and
the man’s intention to continue their relationship without it.

Logically, the aforementioned conflict in the setting also leads to another external conflict among the
characters themselves. It is the debate between the girl and her American boyfriend over whether or
not to abort their baby that provokes the central conflict of the story. In fact, one basic conflict
prevailing among Hemingway’s stories is the conflict requiring two people to make a balance between
their own demand and their shared relationship. Significantly, Hemingway draws a marked distinction
between the man’s rationality-oriented language and the woman’s emotion-oriented one. To elucidate,
when the communication starts, this conflict occurs in the disagreement over who has and has not seen
white elephants. After Jig compares the hills to white elephants, the man immediately refuses to ever
“seen one” and counters her imaginative discourse with his language of reasoning. Furthermore, the
distinguishing feature between the two main characters’ language is also exemplified through
Hemingway’s tactful use of the key word “know”. To illustrate, the frequency of the word “know” could
essentially indicate the dominance of the man’s language over the girl’s. For instance, with the sentence
“I know you wouldn’t mind it, Jig”, the man successfully expresses an imposition idea and internalizes
his girlfriend’s feeling of the trivialization of the operation. He repeats “I/You know it’s perfectly simple”
twice as the normalization of the abortion act; however, he still utilizes hedging language “I wouldn’t
have you do it if you didn’t want to”, which signifies an inherent act of manipulation in his language use.
It could be deduced that the American man attributes the full responsibility of post-abortion to his
girlfriend, regardless of his continual reassurance for companionship and security.

In addition to the external conflicts, the author also develops internal conflicts within the mind of the
main character - Jig, who is constantly unsure of her intention when struggling with the man’s
arguments. The first indication of her inner conflict is revealed at the moment she admits the hills “don’t
really look like white elephants”, given that she has previously stuck to that imaginative comparison.
Moreover, Jig also attempts to avoid the conversation with her boyfriend by “looking at the ground the
table legs rested on” instead of confronting the conversation. Additionally, Hemingway’s use of the
word “fine” is also actively employed in Jig’s words: “Then everything will be fine”, or in her description
of her condition in the story’s ending: “I feel fine”. Thus, her response can be understood as an effort to
adjust the man’s assumption throughout the story that her pregnancy is seemingly an illness. According
to this view, Jig finally rejects her man’s promise to unconditionally love and protect his lover. This
moment of epiphany, hence, ironically settles Jig’s internal conflict. It initially dawns on her that even if
she has the operation, their relationship would never return to how it used to be. In other words, the
girl’s realization of this fact gives her autonomy over the American man.

To recapitulate, albeit both the external and internal conflicts of the plot are left unresolved in the
ending, it is undeniable that Ernest Hemingway has skillfully created compelling and well-organized
conflicts throughout the story, driving his readers to continuously experience the dramatic and thought-
provoking oppositions from the beginning till the end.

Powerful effects of setting in “Hills like white elephants” (8.75)

Ernest Hemingway is revered as the reigning king of twentieth-century American Literature. He always
leaves profound impressions on bookworms for his distinct flair and endlessness in depth integrated in
each work of art. “Hills like white elephants” is not an exception. With simple, direct and unadorned
prose, he lets the readers assimilate into the characters and interpret the story themselves. In this essay,
by focusing on setting, I would like to argue that the setting of the story plays a pivotal role in depicting a
seemingly peaceful but turbulent conversation of the main characters.

The story takes place in a station in Spain, where Jig and her boyfriend are stopping by and waiting for
an express from Barcelona to Madrid. The fact that the station is between two lines of rails forecasts
that they are on the verge of separation. Jig and her boyfriend are just passers-by, while the bus station
is a resting place that never holds anyone. Passengers come and go as if they never belong to here, it is
somehow similar with the way Jig and her boyfriend have spent many passionate nights together but
doesn't seem to belong to each other. Faced with the decision whether to take the surgery or not, Jig
becomes more cautious as this would decide which fork she would take, to follow him to somewhere
the “simple operation” is carried out or go home as nothing has happened. A tense atmosphere can be
felt when their conversation seems to go nowhere, which is even more specifically depicted when they
sit in a secluded place with empty surroundings where “there was no shade and no trees”.

Another highlight of the story when it comes to setting is the “line of hills”, which Jig describes that looks
like “white elephants”. In ancient times, white elephants are seen as rare animals, and owning a white
elephant is considered a blessing for peace and prosperity. Nevertheless, it is also conceived as a burden
to anyone who receives this present without being able to maintain it. There must be reasons for Jig to
mention the image of white elephants. She thinks of the baby in her body. Is not baby a priceless gift
from God to parents? Why in her case the baby is not welcomed and is treated as an object that could
be discarded as long as she “let the air in”. The innocent child suddenly becomes a burden to those who
are not ready for the great and precious parenthood, and she feels guilty for it. Hemingway's pen really
makes us gasp for the heartbreaking metaphorical image.

One more noticeable point that cannot be ignored when analyzing the setting of the story is the detail of
the bamboo bead curtain. To certain cultures, the curtain has always been a symbol of boundaries and
separations. Here we witness disagreement between Jig and his boyfriend, not only in terms of language
but also their ways of perceiving lives. While Jig insists on keeping their child, her boyfriend deliberately
refuses his responsibility as a parent. The child, who has not yet been born, unintentionally becomes a
curtain separating his parents, an obstacle that prevents them from coming to a complete decision for
both. When the story between the two seems to reach a dead end, this curtain unconsciously turns into
an indestructible wall, signaling a relationship that is at risk of collapse. However, the string has a deeper
symbolic meaning than expected. David Gilmore points out that the way Jig "took hold of two of the
strings of beads" implicitly confirms she is a Catholic, and holding the two strings of beads is a form of
prayer. We cannot say for sure what Jig is praying for, but what we can tell is that she is hoping for a
harmonious home life where she is not imposed by anyone. Unfortunately, her wish seems not to be
achieved.

In short, it is undeniable that the setting produces miraculous effect in portraying the peaceful but
contradictory conversation of the two main characters. Instead of using flowery language, Hemingway
has chosen himself a very unique approach to highlight the messages he wants to convey. Thus, each
reader can transform themselves into a critic, an analyst and a forecaster to the developments of the
story. It is the reader who decides the answer to the question of the story that remains open.
 The Great Gatsby, and Its Failures in Criticizing the American Dream (8.75)

Scott R. Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby is widely considered one of the most quintessential works of
contemporary American literature, and has remained a fixture among required reading lists in English
Literature classes worldwide. The novel is also renowned for its damning criticism of the nature of
capitalism, the class system in the U.S., and most prominently the myth of the American Dream - which
asserts that an industrious person could attain greater wealth and higher social status purely through
hard work and determination. Fitzgerald maintains throughout the novel that the rags-to-riches,
meritocratic and distinctly American notion of success more resembles starry-eyed ambition than a
viable goal. However, this essay contends that this criticism of the American Dream is by no means
perfect, for it contains glaring deficiencies, many of which could be read as reinforcements of the very
ideology which Fitzgerald seeks to denounce. This essay will critically examine The Great Gatsby’s two
major flaws using character analysis: the novel’s unsympathetic, one dimensional portrayals of working
class characters; and the passionate manner in which Gatsby is described.

Tyson (2006) posited that Fitzgerald’s most conspicuous failing in the book is its highly apathetic view of
the working people, most prominently represented by George and Myrtle Wilson. Their struggling
business in the hopelessly squalid Valley of the Ashes represents a complete failure to compete in the
market - the only venue by which the American Dream could be achieved. Thus, the couples are perhaps
the most perceptible embodiment of the impossibility of the American Dream present in the novel,
apart from Gatsby. However, George and Myrtle’s portrayal were scarcely as sympathetic as those
extended to the eponymous character. George was described as a husk of a person, “spiritless” and
“anemic”, whose only signs of life emerged only when customers came within his sights. He also bears
the signs of a stereotypical image of a member of the uneducated working class: God-fearing, hopelessly
foolish, and who harbors an uncontrollable propensity for violence. A similar pattern could be seen in
Myrtle, whose physical description was rendered with disgust, expressed through descriptions of her
“surplus flesh” which she carries “sensuously”, and a face with “no facet or gleam of beauty”,
recognized as human only by her apparent “vitality”. Her attitude throughout the story was described as
promiscuous and obnoxious, her relationship with Tom seen as parasitic and opportunistic. Knowing
this, readers could still reasonably reserve some sympathies for the couple, due to their victimization
status. However, this is hampered by the consistently negative portrayal of the two characters across
the length of the novel, which depicts them as little more than manifestations of unlikable stereotypes.
As a result, what little sympathy readers have left, as Tyson posits, may took the form of pity that these
two “did not have what it takes to ‘pull (them)selves up by (their) bootstraps’”, instead of a genuine
understanding of their predicaments (2006).

As a contrast to this portrayal of the working class, Mr. Gatsby was the subject of idealization
throughout the story, depicted as a man with an “extraordinary gift for hope, a romantic readiness”
which Nick boldly claims to be singularly unique. The lionization was expounded upon through detailed
descriptions of Gatsby’s heroic feats, undying passion for Daisy, and lavish generosity. He was also
depicted as a gallant but not aristocratically sophisticated, as instances of awkwardness - most
prominently expressed in the tea party with Susie - made him a more relatable character for readers.
This praise took precedence over his criminal activities, which are numerous and wide-reaching in their
effects. Gatsby was an alcohol smuggler during the Prohibition; bribed numerous officials; and was
implied to be the ringleader behind a bond scam, which sells overpriced but low-yield bonds to
unsuspecting working-class people residing in “small towns”. Perhaps Gatsby’s gravest offense was his
complete apathy towards Myrtle’s death in a deadly automobile accident, in which he is complicit.
Despite being fully informed of such actions, Nick evades questioning the legality and impact of his
friend’s actions throughout the story. In fact, following the deadly accident, Nick suggested that Gatsby
evade responsibility entirely (‘You ought to go away," I said. ‘It's pretty certain they'll trace your car.’). In
other words, through this lens, Gatsby is a victim of the American Dream not through his own undoing -
as it arguably is, but the blame itself is shouldered by the American Dream itself, as it is responsible for
engulfing him in a frenzy to get ahead despite all costs.

There is little doubt that The Great Gatsby presents a lurid account of the corruption and filth which
belies Jazz Age America, thereby exposing the emptiness of the American Dream. However, as this essay
showed, Fitzgerald’s breakdown of the myth remains ineffectual for its unsympathetic view of the
downtrodden, and the overt lionization of a deeply corrupted man. For this, Fitzgerald have arguably
presented a defanged version of the American Dream, one which may still appeal to more readers, and
one which may be likely to produce ever more Gatsbys.

Daisy Buchanan: a product of classism and a victim of a male chauvinistic society. (8.25)

“The great Gatsby” is the must-watch movie for everyone. Based on F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel with the
same name, it has received highly critics when successfully embodying the spirit, the failed dream and
the harsh reality of society in America in the “Roaring Twenties”. One of the characters, Daisy Buchanan,
portrayed by Carey Mulligan, is depicted vividly as a product of classism and a victim of a male
chauvinistic society.

Firstly, Daisy is a product of classism in American society. It can be portrayed in a triangular relationship
among Daisy, Gatsby, and Tom. The noble and gorgeous Daisy loves Jay Gatsby but then breaks her
promise to marry Tom Buchanan, “the heir to one of America's wealthiest families”, an extremely
wealthy man in the upper class. Compared to Gatsby, “a penniless youngman” with “humble
beginnings”, Tom is the more suitable husband because he can let Daisy live in the lap of luxury. Even
when Gatsby is extremely rich, Tom still has been seen as the preferable man to Daisy because he
represents the elité of the old money while Gatsby is a newly rich West Egg man who makes fortune by
shady businesses.

Classism is also presented in how Daisy copes with the death of Myrtle Wilson. Myrtle always wants to
run away from her social class and her poor husband. As Tom’s mistress, Myrtle’s wish is temporarily
satisfied, but she ends up dying in a traffic collision caused by Daisy. However, Daisy lets Gatsby take the
responsibility, and flees away with Tom without saying a word. “She (Myrtle) was in the wrong, running
out on the road. Sweetheart, you have nothing to worry about...We’ll go away. Just go away, get out of
town.” Not only Daisy but all of them also want to run away. Tom dismisses his nefarious relationship
with Myle, pushes the guilt to Gatsby, and Gatsby, who once said "Running away wouldn't be
respectable", is also blindly planning to escape with Daisy. What about the poor Myrtle? After all, she is
just in the lower class, living for rich men’s amusement and dying in oblivion. Even the police, the
symbol of citizen security and human rights, could not find justice for Myrtle, because, ironically, the rich
have always been able to “smashed up things and people and then retreated back into their money and
their vast carelessness”, where justice could not reach.

Secondly, Daisy is a victim of a male chauvinistic society. The movie takes place in 1922, after women
successfully fought for their right to vote and demonstrated their place in American society.
Consequently, Daisy should have been an ideal image for the independent woman in a new world.
However, Daisy is a passive girl who lives dependently on her careless cheating husband, Tom, and his
mansion. When Daisy gave birth, Tom “contented with other affairs” and “God knows where with God
knows whom”. However, she has never wanted to leave Tom. Aside from her love to Tom, more
importantly, being deeply rooted in Daisy is the gender discrimination mindset. When her daughter was
born, Daisy wept: “I'm glad it's a girl. And I hope she'll be a fool. That's the best thing a girl in this world
can be. A beautiful little fool.” For her, the world is no place for women and if they want to survive,
beauty is their weapon, not intelligence.

Besides Daisy, there are only two supporting female characters: Myrtle Wilson and Jordan Baker. One
wants to escape her poverty by desperately being a mistress of Tom. One seems to represent the new
women of the new century but turns out a sneaky girl that wins by cheating. Other female characters
appear in lavish and rowdy parties as who are immersed in sensuousness and wealth, or in an
underground bar as erotic dancing girls. None of them ever proves a gender-equal society when women
are either a sparkling ornament attached to men’s wealth (Daisy and Jordan) or a sensual toy to satisfy
men’s pleasures (Myrtle and other female characters). Women in the 20th century, despite being
recognized for their rights and status, continued to encounter discrimination and stereotypes. As a
result, they had to change their nature to fit for the times.

In conclusion, the character Daisy Buchanan has managed to leave many pondering the readers. She can
be irresponsible and cowardly but she is still miserable because of the bondage of classism and male
chauvinism in American society. This is not only the truth about America in the early 20th century, but
also the common situation for women around the world, from past to present.
 Racial and Cultural Prejudice in “Mr. Know-all” (8.75)

William Somerset Maugham (1874 - 1965) is considered as one of the most popular authors of his era.
Various writers such as Anthony Burgess, Ian Fleming, or George Orwell conceded that Maugham’s
masterpieces were their source of inspiration to produce their own works. Among numerous short
stories of him, “Mr. Know-all” is tremendously impressive when displaying the prejudices among people
in the post World War I society. In this essay, by focusing on the theme, I would like to argue that racial
and cultural prejudice are two main issues that the author unfolds in the story.

Prejudice has been a deep-rooted problem for centuries. It occurs when people put negative thoughts
on others just due to their unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling. For instance, at the time of King
George, the citizens of Britain’s colonies were issued British passports; however, they were
discriminated against and considered as socially inferior British. In “Mr. Know-all”, the narrator shows
his negative impression on Mr. Know-all when they even have not met each other yet: “I was prepared
to dislike Max Kelada even before I knew him.” He “did not at all like Mr. Kelada” due to illogical reason:
Mr. Kelada seems to be a resident of Britain’s colonies rather than a “British to the backbone”. To be
more specific, Mr. Kelada’s name is not familiar in the UK, but popular in the UK’s colonies: “When I was
told the name of my companion my heart sank…. I should not have looked upon with less dismay if my
fellow passenger’s name had been Smith or Brown.” The narrator even asks “tactlessly” and directly
whether or not Mr. Kelada is English. He is also unsatisfied with Mr. Kelada’s luggage: the suitcases with
“too many labels”, the “too big” wardrobe, or Mr. Kelada’s toilet things such as hair wash and
brilliantine do not belong to Britons. Furthermore, the narrator ridicules that “Mr. Kelada was born
under a bluer sky than is generally seen in England” since his appearance (“short”, “dark skinned with a
fleshy, hooked nose and very large lustrous and liquid eyes”) cannot be seen in the British. The narrator
even calls Mr. Kelada “Levantine” or “good mixer” instead of his name. “Levantine” is usually used to call
people of mixed Arab and European blood. This indicates that the narrator casts doubt on Mr. Kelada’s
nationality and does not consider Mr. Kelada as a true Englishman even though he has a British
passport. Discrimination against Mr. Kelada is also clearly displayed through the repetition “I did not like
Mr. Kelada” many times in the story.

In addition to racism, cultural prejudice is also indicated in “Mr. Know-all”. The cultural differences
between the narrator and Mr. Kelada lead to his prejudice “he was certainly the best hated man in the
ship”. To be specific, Mr. Kelada is against the narrator’s standards of a gentleman. The narrator believes
that a gentleman should not be pushy while Mr. Kelada takes it as a compliment when people in the
ship call him Mr. Know-all, “even to his face”. Mr. Kelada keeps telling the narrator “where to put the
card” when he plays patience while a gentleman also should not be dogmatic according to the narrator’s
viewpoint. The narrator also thinks that a gentleman should keep quiet during the meal and should not
be talkative and argumentative, while Mr. Know-all is chatty regardless of topics. “He talked of New York
and of San Francisco. He discussed plays, pictures, and politics.”

The author does not name the narrator for a purpose: the narrator can be anyone at that time.
Prejudice against citizens of Britain’s colonies exists after World War I as a matter of course. The
narrator can also be any of us in the modern society. Many people have a tendency to be biased against
those who do not share something in common with them leading to unfair judgment instead of
exploring their true characteristics.

In conclusion, “Mr. Know-all” succeeds in raising two problems including racial and cultural prejudice.
The narrator’s discrimination against the name, appearance as well as differences in culture results in his
false impression on Mr. Kelada. Therefore, a moral lesson is indicated is that we should leave behind
prejudices to realize the good quality of each other instead of judging a book by its cover.

Prejudice in “Mr. Know-All”: Looks can be deceiving (8.5)

First published in 1924, “Mr. Know-All” is a short story by William Somerset Maugham. Set in an ocean
voyage, the story centers around the encounter of the narrator with a cabin mate – Mr. Kelada, whom
he dislikes on the grounds of appearance and personality. In this essay, by focusing on characterization, I
would like to prove how the theme of prejudice manifests itself through a snobbish Englishman’s biased
lenses.

The prejudice is conceived as the name of the narrator’s companion, which happens to be not so British,
becomes known. As stated in the beginning, the narrator judges whether someone is his compatriot just
by the name – Smith or Brown, which are popular in Britain. His disappointment with the name shows
how ignorant and intolerant he is of others’ roots, as the family name becomes the standard of
Britishness. Therefore, given his pride in being British, the narrator regards those without such names as
inferior.

Due to his aforementioned aversion to mixed-race Britons, the narrator comes to dislike even the
seemingly ordinary features of Mr. Kelada’s appearance. He hates Mr. Kelada’s luggage because of the
labels and the huge wardrobe trunk. Those should be normal preparations for a long trip, yet they
become the reason for the narrator’s hatred towards his companion. He even goes further as to dislike
Mr. Kelada’s flashing teeth, which is supposed to be a sign of good hygiene. All those views from the
narrator’s side show that he is desperately backing a flawed mentality.

The biased judgments of the narrator turn more pronounced as he and Mr. Kelada encounter in the
smoking room. When approaching the narrator, despite revealing his British side, Mr. Kelada still
receives this question in return: “Are you English?”. The question, which the narrator himself deems
tactless, shows that deep down, the narrator looks down on his companion for not being perfectly
British. He continues to challenge Mr. Kelada’s Britishness, supporting his subjective perception with
what he sees: the long black sleek curly hair, non-native fluency in English, exuberant gestures. British
people, as commonly known, are characterized by colored hair and quiet behavior that serves to
maintain formality. All these features sharply contrast with what Mr. Kelada displays. Consequently, the
narrator defies even the power of the passport, which he believes would reveal the true origin of Mr.
Kelada if more closely inspected. The phrase “a bluer sky than generally seen in England” is used to
imply his companion’s Middle-Eastern ancestry, where it is often sunny as opposed to a cloudy, smoggy
Britain.
As the dialogue progresses, Mr. Kelada shows his patriotism, which again, is unreasonably detested by
the narrator. A desirable trait is now considered not worth cherishing just because of someone’s ethnic
background, since the narrator feels the Union Jack loses dignity when flourished by a man that is not a
pure-blooded Briton. This inability to accept others’ cultural heritage is clearer as the narrator
disapproves of Mr. Kelada’s friendliness. Accustomed to British formality, he feels strongly offended
when addressed without “Mister”. Such is the hatred that his dislike for Mr. Kelada is repeated.

The narrator’s prejudice is not limited to his interactions with Mr. Kelada. It is also demonstrated when
he observes how his companion interacts with fellow cabin mates. As a sociable person trying to
organize all the social activities on the ship, Mr. Kelada is viewed as execessively interfering to the point
of being “the best hated man on the ship”. So disgraceful is his apperance that he is insulted with names
like “Mr. Know-All” and “Levantine”, which are derogatory remarks for his argumentative nature and
Jewish background respectively. Once more, the narrator shows his extremely low tolerance of others’
culture and ethnicity.

Luckily, the narrator’s biases are corrected thanks to the discussion about pearls with the Ramsay.
Presented with his field of expertise, Mr. Kelada is involved in a bet which he should win about Mrs.
Ramsay’s pearl chain’s authenticity. However, he deliberately loses after realizing how uncomfortable
Mrs. Ramsay is about her secret affair. This shows how thoughtful he is, which contrasts with his
loquacity at the beginning of the conversation. In view of this, the narrator’s aversion to his companion
subsides “I did not entirely dislike Mr. Kelada”.

In summary, the characterization of Max Kelada has shed light on how prejudice can breed groundless
aversion towards others. In other words, Maugham’s presentation of Mr. Kelada has cemented the
work’s key moral: “Nothing should be judged superficially”.

The racial prejudice in “Mr. Know-all” (8.75)

Mr. Know-all - written by William Somerset Maugham, revolves around the main character (Mr. Kelada)
and the discovery of his personality traits through the account of the narrator. In this essay, by focusing
on the direct characterization of Mr. Kelada, I would like to raise an argument that the narrator fails to
portray good traits of this main character because of his racial prejudice.

First and foremost, the narrator’s racism is illustrated right from the beginning of the story through his
formation of negative judgments towards Mr. Kelada before their meeting “I was prepared to dislike
Max Kelada even before I know him.” The initial assertion about the preparation to dislike Mr. Kelada
seems to make clear that the narrator has a prejudiced strict position towards Mr. Kelada. The moment
he hears the unfamiliar name, his heart sinks and he might think that his cabin mate is not a real British,
but rather a native of a British colony. These kinds of feelings may be attributed to the narrator’s deep-
rooted prejudice towards non-British citizens, to whom he considers himself to be superior.

Second, the prejudice develops with the intensification of the story, when the narrator meets Mr.
Kelada and continuously states that he does not like Mr. Kelada, trying to find fault with everything Mr.
Kelada does. The appearance of Mr. Kelada in their encounter is marked with “a smile that showed a
row of flashing teeth”, and he sits down on the opposite side without permission, indicating that Mr.
Kelada is quite a confident English gentleman and that certainly annoys the narrator. Additionally, on
closer examination of Mr. Kelada’s appearance and exceptional speaking fluency, the narrator confirms
his previous suspicion that Mr. Kelada is not a British though he has already known that his fellow
passenger gets a British passport.

Mr. Kaleda was short and of a sturdy build, clean-shaven and dark skinned, with a fleshy, hooked nose
and very large lustrous and liquid eyes. His long black hair was sleek and curly.

This point is considered to have negative impacts on the narrator’s later demonstration of Mr. Kelada’s
characteristics since his judgments are likely to be subjected to the racial prejudice. As the meeting
progresses, Mr. Kelata starts to show off his expertise in every field of knowledge: “He talked of New
York and of San Francisco. He discussed plays, pictures, and politics”. Moreover, Mr. Kelada’s sociability
is meticulously spotted by the storyteller through a vivid description of his active participation in social
gatherings:

He ran everything. He managed the sweeps, conducted the auctions, collected money for prizes at the
sports, got up quoit and golf matches, organized the concert and arranged the fancy-dress ball. He was
everywhere and always.

Unfortunately, Mr. Kelada does participate in these gatherings without slight realization that his
presence is a source of discomfort to everyone, and that is the reason why from prejudiced views of the
narrator, he is “chatty”, annoying and then “the best hated man in the ship”. The sarcastic name “Mr.
Know-all” (used by the narrator to call his fellow passenger), along with numerous times when the
narrator asserts that he does not like Mr. Kelada, superbly illustrates that Mr. Kelada’s good nature is
not well demonstrated because of subjective judgments from the eye of a British colonizer. Should the
storyteller be more objective and open-minded during this encounter, the chances are that he may see
more “positive qualities” from Mr. Kelada, acknowledging that Mr. Kelada is truly nice, knowledgeable
and he just wants to socialize with everyone.

Last but not least, towards the end of the story, the storyteller completely changes his attitude towards
Mr. Kelada through the pearl accident despite his previous strong prejudices. In one discussion about
whether the pearl chain is genuine or imitated, though experienced about pearls, Mr. Kelada admits his
mistake and loses money to Mr. Ramsay. From the one-hundred-dollar banknote which has been
pushed under the door, we can see that the narrator starts to realize the truth about his fellow
passenger. He is gradually aware of the fact that Mr. Kelada’s speculation about Mrs. Ramsay’s chain is
not wrong, but he opts for the loss with a view to saving the lady’s marriage. Through this important
realization, readers easily notice a huge transformation in the opinion on Mr. Kelada’s personality, from
“I did not like Mr. Kelada” to “At that moment I did not entirely dislike Mr. Kelada”. No matter how late
it is, the ultimate change in the attitudes towards Mr. Kelada and the bravery to eliminate the barrier of
racial prejudice at last have helped the narrator truly appreciate the good nature of the main character.
In summary, the narrator’s journey to exploring the real personality traits of the main character (Mr.
Kelada) experiences many ups and downs. On this journey, it is only when the racial prejudice is
removed that Mr. Kelada’s inner beauty is demonstrated in the most complete way.

“Mr. Know All” Through Biased Lenses (8.5)

The way a story is unfolded influences how it is perceived. For instance, when first-person point of view
was employed to tell “Mr. Know All”, the narrator’s prejudiced opinions affect readers’ perspectives.
However, using the restricted observation, William Somerset Maugham could regulate the flow of the
plot, thus allow the epiphany to leave a lasting impression on readers, and to reteach a lesson. This
essay will further elaborate on the use of first-person point of view on the narration of this short story.

As one of the most prominent disadvantages in first-person perspective is the absence of impartiality,
readers are deceived into believing the incomplete picture by the narrator. Since the storyteller holds
racial and cultural discrimination, he portrays Mr. Kelada in a negative light. In fact, he repeats he “did
not at all like” Mr. Kelada several times in the story. Mr. Kelada is an English gentleman, despite not
acting like one, much to the narrator’s dismay. Mr. Kelada does not have an English-sounding surname
or an English-like appearance, not to mention his manner of speech and action does not match that of a
gentleman, to the point he is doubted to have lied about his heritage, all of which contribute to an
unfavorable image of Mr. Kelada. In addition, he is the insufferable Mr. Know All that “knew everything
better than anybody else” and is pushy and argumentative to the point of persuading everyone into
agreeing with him. On the contrary, Mrs. Ramsay is considered to be “a very pretty little thing, with
pleasant manners and a sense of humor”, along with a rare demeanor that she possesses. From the
depiction of the two characters, it is evident that the intention of the author is to make readers
unconsciously visualize them based on the partial viewpoint of the narrator.

Nonetheless, Maugham still employed the first-person point of view in order to reveal the truth in a
dramatic way and to convey his message of “Never judge a book by its cover”. In an argument on
whether the pearls on Mrs. Ramsay are real (which is conveniently his field of expertise), Mr. Kelada is
expected to follow his ideas until he has convinced every one of his opinions like he usually does.
Surprisingly, contradictory to his perpetual description as aggressive and inconsiderate, he is the only
person (aside from the narrator) to notice Mrs. Ramsay’s silent yet desperate plea. And while he
struggles not to act like his usual self, he manages to stop himself from exposing her infidelity, and
accepts the consequences of his action, including a hundred-dollar note and a shattered pride. The
moment of realization does not only disclose the respectable character traits in Mr. Kelada, but it also
unveils the secret that Mrs. Ramsay – the seemingly lovely lady, is unfaithful to her husband. Had a
more objective point of view been used to tell this story, readers might have anticipated the epiphany,
hence, it eliminates the surprise element and reduces the impact of the lesson that the author is trying
to express. As a result, the choice of employing first-person point of view has a significant role on
influencing the perception of both the narrator (as he confesses he “did not entirely dislike Mr. Kelada”)
and the readers.
In conclusion, although each point of view has its own merits and demerits, Maugham had successfully
exploited both benefits and detriments of first-person perspective in order to control the progress of
“Mr. Know All” as well as to deliver the lesson of not judging a person by their appearance.

Setting in “Mr. Know-All” (8.5)

“Mr. Know-All” is a short story written by William Somerset Maugham – an English playwright, novelist
and short story writer of repute during the 1930s. Overall, the story centers upon the disharmonious
relationship between two major characters: the narrator and Mr. Max Kelada, aka “Mr. Know-All”, on an
ocean voyage. In order to fathom the reasons behind the narrator’s unfavorable attitudes towards Mr.
Kelada, it is essential to probe into the setting of the story. Hence, in this essay, by focusing on setting, it
will illuminate on the role of physical setting and time setting in rationalizing as well as embellishing the
relationship between these two characters.

To begin with, it is apparent that physical setting contributes to the antagonism between the
narrator and his travelling companion – Mr. Kelada. In detail, the story occurs on a passenger ship sailing
from San Francisco to Yokohama, which indicates that it is in international waters. Passengers on the
ship, hence, could come from the four corners of the globe. The ship symbolizes the world with people
of different origins, from diverse backgrounds, cultures and races. These differences render people
prejudiced against others; indeed, the characters in the story, despite being distant from their native
societies, still hold their cultural and racial prejudices. To elucidate, the narrator’s hatred for Mr. Keleda
is based solely on racial differences. From the details such as “prepared to dislike Max Kelada even
before I knew him”, “ when I was told the name of my companion my heart sank”, “less dismay if my
fellow passenger’s name had been Smith or Brown”, it could be stated that the narrator has animosity
towards his companion with no reason other than his name “Kelada” which suggests non-English origin.
Furthermore, the ship is a confined space which precludes the narrator from avoiding Mr. Kelada. In
other physical settings such as on land, it would be easy for the narrator to avoid Mr. Kelada. However,
on a ship, it would be impossible: “shared a cabin with him”, “ate three meals a day at the same table”,
“could not walk around the deck without his joining me”, “impossible to snub him”, “he was everywhere
and always”. Kelada’s overly sociable manner irritates the narrator and even induces the intense hatred
for him: “he was not wanted”, “he was certainly the best hated man in the ship”. The narrator even
visualizes himself, in his own house, kicking Mr. Kelada downstairs and slamming the door in his face,
which expresses the narrator’s antipathy towards Mr. Kelada. Thus, physical setting helps create and
intensify the conflicting relationship between the narrator and his voyage companion.

Besides physical setting, time setting is another aspect that elucidates the antagonistic
relationship between two main characters. To be specific, from the statement “The war had just
finished” and the publication of the story in 1924, it is clear that “Mr. Know-All” takes place shortly after
World War I. The role of this time setting is twofold. First, it explains the meeting between the narrator
and Mr Keleda. In the aftermath of the war, transportation worldwide was congested and inconvenient:
heavy passenger traffic, hard accommodation, “put up with whatever the agents chose to offer”, “could
not hope for a carbin to yourself”. The narrator would prefer a single cabin; however, the circumstances
result in his unexpected meeting and cabin sharing with Mr. Kelada. Second, it gives an explanation for
the narrator’s irrational hatred towards Mr. Kelada. In detail, after World War I, during the reign of King
George, Britain was a powerful empire ruling numerous colonial countries. Citizens in the colonies were
issued with British passports, yet were considered second-class citizens and despised by Englishmen.
This explains why the narrator, probably British (he says he would prefer a companion named Smith or
Brown), feels snobbish and superior to Mr. Kelada, who, in his opinion, comes from one of British
colonies: “a gentleman from Alexandria or Beirut”. The narrator also dislikes Mr. Kelada for his
appearance, manners of speaking and “exuberant gestures” which are “nothing English”. He,
additionally, uses the word “Levantine” and “oriental smile” to describe Mr. Kelada, which suggests that
the narrator has prejudice against his cabinmate for his origin in British colony.

To recapitulate, William Somerset Maugham successfully puts “Mr. Know-All” in an appropriate

physical and time setting that elaborates the antagonistic relationship between the narrator and his
cabinmate – Mr. Kelada. This setting not only makes the story more appealing but also fosters readers’
deep understanding of it.