English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I chose to do a short essay on this story. I suprisingly like it (usually it's not my kind of reading).

There is a line though that I don't understand...

Here is the whole paragraph, I'll CAPS what I don't understand and hope someone can explain.

"She knew that she would weep again when she saw the kind, tender hands folded in death; THE FACE THAT HAD NEVER LOOKED SAVE WITH LOVE UPON HER, fixed and gray and dead. But she saw beyond that bitter moment a long procession of years to come that would bellong to her absolutely. And she opened and spread her arms our to them in welcome."

2007-06-04 12:12:22 · 5 answers · asked by addicted2stamping 4 in Arts & Humanities Books & Authors

5 answers

I loved that story, but normally don't go for that kind of writing. We just finished studying this in a college lit. class. In the quoted passage, she is admitting not only that she will be sad (despite the initial joy she shows regarding her newfound freedom) for a brief time, but that this moment of sadness forces her to recognize her husband's goodness (humanity). Due to the constraints of the time, she married (as expected) and endured all that this brings; but he was a good and decent enough man. He had not intentionally inflicted pain upon her, as he thought and acted in a way that males do, even though she felt bent and diminished as a wife sometimes does.

2007-06-04 13:02:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Her attitude on marriage in this tale is that this is repressive to a girl's id and freedom. somewhat on the time it grow to be written, the spouse grow to be the valuables of the husband. She could no longer vote. She--maximum everywhere--had no rights to own her own property. She grow to be frowned upon if she worked outdoors the homestead--there have been very few jobs that have been perfect in society's eyes. If the husband grow to be abusing her, she maximum in many circumstances might desire to do no longer something approximately it. And if she grow to be to hunt for a divorce, she could lose custody of her little ones. So this is not any ask your self that marriage is seen as restrictive. to that end, i think this is in all risk because of the fact the narrator is in an unhappy marriage. My wager is that there have been happy and unhappy marriages, yet divorce grow to be no longer likely an option at that element. So human beings had to stay unhappy for existence.

2016-11-04 23:07:14 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

he never looked with anything but love in his eyes. important because most stories by and for women at this time revolved around the question of love. chopin clearly want the reader to know the husband loved her--she loved him and yet that is not the problem. love isn't even the issue. instead, the social constructs at this time are what she needs to be free from.

2007-06-04 13:10:23 · answer #3 · answered by quiet 3 · 1 0

the only way the person looked at her was with love...

ex: I never eat chocolate save the ones with caramel" (which is a lie, I eat anything chocolate!) but do u get it now?

2007-06-04 12:21:16 · answer #4 · answered by tregansmom 2 · 1 0

"Save" means "except" or "other than" here. Is that enough?

2007-06-04 12:17:04 · answer #5 · answered by Goddess of Grammar 7 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers