|
Post by Dominique on May 18, 2009 4:30:07 GMT -5
I can't quite remember having any reaction to Edna, either liking her or disliking her in this section. I read it awhile ago so it's gotten a bit fuzzy now.
I thought this conversation between Edna and Madame R was interesting:
"Edna had once told Madame Ratignolle that she would never sacrifice herself for her children, or for anyone. Then had followed a rather heated argument; the two women did not appear to understand eachother or to be talking the same language. Edna tried to appease her friend, to explain. "I would give up the unessential; I would give up my money, I would give up my life for my children; but I wouldn't give up myself. I can't make it anymore clear; it's only something which I am beginning to comprehend, which is revealing itself to me." "I don't know what you would call the essential, or what you mean by the unessential," said Madame Ratignolle, cheerfully; "but a woman who would give her life for her could do no more than that - your bible tells you so. I'm sure I couldn't do more than that." "Oh, yes you could!" laughed Edna."
To me it means that Edna isn't willing to give up who she really is, the essence of herself or who she's become. Not for anyone, even her children. She distinguishes this from her actual life. Madame R doesn't comprehend this distinction, perhaps because she has already given up the essence of who she is for her children, or because children have always been a large part of who she is, maybe even the concept of them before she had them since she's so motherly. The story links back to this again at the very end.
I liked this quote too:
"It sometimes entered Mr Pontellier's mind to wonder if his wife were not growing a little unbalanced mentally. He could see plainly that she was not herself. That is, he could not see that she was becoming herself and daily casting aside that fictitious self which we assume like a garment with which to appear before the world."
|
|
Isa
Administrator
Posts: 6,995
|
Post by Isa on May 23, 2009 8:26:50 GMT -5
It's funny because I couldn't help but notice how differently I felt reading "The Awakening" for the second time. The first time, I was overwhelmed by Kate Chopin's beautiful prose and sensuous images; this time I was more focused on the character of Edna, I'm not sure why that is...
In this last section, I thought it was interesting to see all the steps Edna is willing to take to liberate herself, including moving out of her house and having an affair with Alcée. At first I was shocked that she would let herself get seduced by Alcée when she so clearly is in love with Robert, but then I realized that it was just part of the process of taking a hold on her life.
As much as I disliked Robert in the first part of the book, I was later on able to recognize that he'd done the honourable thing by moving away from Edna when he fell in love with her. Even when he comes back he avoids her, probably fearing where it might lead if they were to meet again. He obviously would not want to destroy the reputation of the woman he loves, and through that we can see that his ideals are clearly more conventional than Edna's. When they finally meet again, Robert admits that he had sometimes dreamed of making her his wife, which is a very traditional view of love that has nothing to do with Edna's wild, unrestricted passion.
When Robert leaves, Edna realizes that she's trapped - the freedom she was craving for scares Robert away and she is left feeling all alone. Her only other option would be to go back to the life she's given up and hates. Part of me was disappointed to see that Edna would feel that way. For all her talks about being able to find herself and not wanting to be somebody else's possession, she can't seem to live without Robert. I'm still not sure exactly what was the message Kate Chopin was trying to convey through Edna's suicide: is it that in the end, it was just impossible for the Victorian woman to be free?
|
|
Bina
First novel published
Posts: 2,472
|
Post by Bina on May 24, 2009 9:30:02 GMT -5
Robert clearly doesn´t know how to think outside the context of Victorian ideals so I think anything between him and Edna would be doomed anyway. Somehow I never really got the feeling that Robert was an "undying" love for her, enough to not be able to live without him. It felt like he was too symbolical a character, that he presented what Edna couldn´t have in Victorian society but she was willing to go against it for someone who wouldn´t because of Victorian morals. But I had that problem throughout the book, every character seemed to scream what they stood for so that they didn´t seem real enough, if that makes sense.
I´m not sure about the ending either. Edna´s suicide could show that she wasn´t willing to compromise her newfound self and death was the only way to do this because every existence in this society would´ve restricted her somehow, but I agree with you, Isa, that she did just that by depending on Robert´s feelings for her.
|
|
Isa
Administrator
Posts: 6,995
|
Post by Isa on May 24, 2009 17:56:01 GMT -5
I think I know what you mean dorothy, about the characters being such strong "typecast" (not sure if it's the appropriate word, but you know what I mean!). Madame Rotignolle is THE perfect Victorian wife and mother, Mademoiselle Reicz is THE strong, independent spinster, Léonce is THE typical high-class Victorian husband, Alcée is THE debonair scoundrel... There's very little room for any grey areas.
|
|
|
Post by Dominique on May 25, 2009 3:40:24 GMT -5
I interpreted the ending as she no longer sees herself as the possession of any man, not her husband and not any lover, but she is still tied to her children and restrained by responsibility to them. I got that impression from when she said to Robert: “I am no longer one of Mr. Pontellier's possessions to dispose of or not . . . If he were to say, 'Here Robert, take her and be happy; she is yours,' I should laugh at both of you.” And from all the talk about thinking of the children and as she was swimming out "She understood now clearly what she had meant long ago when she said to Adele Ratignolle that she would give up the essential, but she would never give up herself for her children... She thought of Leonce and the children. They were a part of her life. But they need not have thought they could possess her, body and soul."I guess I thought that because she suddenly felt so responsible for them and bound to them she could not be who she really was. So instead of choosing to leave them and her husband behind or to go back to her family she chose to give up her life instead because it was the only way she felt she could remain herself. So like she said she would give up her life for her children but not who she really was. Does that make sense? I understood what I thought about it at the time but I'm confusing myself a bit by trying to explain it! But I agree, what it came down to is she couldn't stand to be posessed by anyone. Isa, I agree with what you said about Chopin saying it was impossible for a woman like Edna in the Victorian age to be free, even if she could eradicate the feeling of being owned by a man, she could never get away from the being bound to her children. I don't think Robert owned her though, he might have been able to at one stage but I think the way she laughed at him when he suggested that sort of conventional view put a stop to that. This is such a complicated and multi-faceted book! I really enjoyed it though!
|
|
Isa
Administrator
Posts: 6,995
|
Post by Isa on May 25, 2009 5:30:51 GMT -5
It does make sense Dom, and I think that's how Kate Chopin intended it to be (about not giving herself up for her children), but I still don't get all of it. It's like at the end of the novel she wakes up and suddenly her children are important to her Sounds more like an excuse than anything else because it seems to me to be a very selfish gesture (well, I guess you could argue that suicide always is) to leave them behind with no mother... But it is a fascinating novel and my criticism mainly goes towards the character of Edna, not towards the book itself. I think it's hard for us to truly understand how she might have felt, no matter how familiar we might be with the Victorian era. And she's such a complex character, I don't know that she'd be much happier if she were to live right now. She might be like some of these women who go from men to men, acting careless but deep down still feeling lonely and longing for that stable relationship. Seems to me like she's got a Type B personality disorder!!
|
|
|
Post by Dominique on May 25, 2009 5:52:12 GMT -5
You're right, it is a bit strange. It says at the beginning of the book that she's not a very motherly person and then all of a sudden because Adele says "think of the children" she kills herself? I think something more about the children needed to be worked into the story to make it make a bit more sense.
I saw Edna a little bit differently, in that Robert and yearning for Robert and all of that was part of her journey towards independence and that in the end she made it clear she might choose to be with someone but that in no means meant they owned her and that she rejected such conventional thinking.
But that said, she behaves as though Robert would be the answer to all her problems for most of the book. She does seem like someone who would never be happy. Because after all, are any of us free from responsibilities and the feelings of our family and loved ones? Responsibility is a part of life. But at some time most of us have desired to be free of it, or not wanted to be "owned" by someone or whatever and I think that's part of the reason this book has had continued popularity.
|
|
Lu
Administrator
Posts: 5,469
|
Post by Lu on Jul 6, 2009 13:50:44 GMT -5
It's funny because I couldn't help but notice how differently I felt reading "The Awakening" for the second time. The first time, I was overwhelmed by Kate Chopin's beautiful prose and sensuous images; this time I was more focused on the character of Edna, I'm not sure why that is... That happened to me as well. I loved The Awakening but I actually feel like I missed many things...reading this thread helped me to appreciate the book more. I'll definitely reread it one day! The setting by the seaside, in the heat adds a depth of sensuality to the novel that a lot of similar stories (eg Madame Bovary) really lack. I think the imagery to do with the setting was really well written. In regards to q 2. I think it could be said that the stifling heat and the sensuality of the water impacts on and alters Edna slightly. An example of this is when the female characters unbutton the tops of their dresses, which is a definate relaxation of Victorian norms. Kate Chopin did a great job describing the setting, and I agree it's very sensual. The parallel with Madame Bovary is really interesting. While I was reading the first part I kept asking myself how and if the tone of the story would change when they were back in New Orleans. I think Edna's affair with Alcee sounded really different from her relationship with Robert...but I'm not sure that's only due to the change of setting. I've got a few questions: How do you feel about Edna at this point in the story? Are you rooting for her, do you think she's being selfish...? I'd say I'm rooting for her because she's trying to realize who she is but I think she's being selfish and she's annoying sometimes. I could understand Leonce as well. I didn't like Robert at the beginning but then I understood his caracther better and I ended up liking him, more than Edna. I've finished the books days ago but I'm still confused about the ending.
|
|