Category: Short story

Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’ is a pillar of women’s activist scholarly investigation. First distributed in 1892, the story appears as a mystery diary passage composed by a lady who should recuperate from what her significant other, a doctor, calls an apprehensive condition. This frequenting mental loathsomeness story narratives the storyteller’s plunge into franticness, or maybe into the paranormal. The protagonist’s husband, John, doesn’t pay attention to her sickness. Nor does he pay attention to her. He endorses, in addition to other things, a ‘rest cure,’ in which she is restricted to their mid-year home, generally to her room. The lady is disheartened from doing anything scholarly despite the fact that she trusts some ‘excitement and change’ would benefit her. She must write in secret. What’s more, she is permitted next to no organization—unquestionably not from the ‘stimulating’ individuals she most wishes to see. To put it plainly, John treats her like a kid, calling her small names like ‘blessed little goose’ and ‘little girl.’ He settles on all choices for her and detaches her from the things she thinks about. His activities are framed in worry for her, a place where she at first appears to trust herself. ‘He is very caring and loving,’ she writes in her diary, ‘and hardly lets me stir without special direction.’ Her words are additionally solid as though she is simply parroting what she’s been told, and ‘hardly lets me stir’ appears to harbor a hidden protest. Indeed, even her room isn’t the one she needed; rather, it’s a room that John rejects whatever traces of feeling or madness—what he calls ‘fancy.’ For example, when the storyteller says that the backdrop in her room upsets her, he advises her that she is giving the backdrop a chance to get the better of her and in this way will not expel it. John doesn’t just expel things he finds whimsical; he additionally utilizes the charge of ‘fancy’ to reject anything he doesn’t care for. As it were, in the event that he wouldn’t like to acknowledge something, he announces that it is unreasonable. At the point when the storyteller attempts to have a ‘serious talk’ with him about her circumstance, she is troubled to the point that she is decreased to tears. However, rather than deciphering her tears as proof of her misery, he accepts them as proof that she is unreasonable and can’t be trusted to settle on choices for herself. He addresses her as though she is an unusual kid, envisioning her very own disease. ‘Favor her little heart!’ he says. ‘She will be as wiped out however she sees fit!’ wouldn’t like to recognize that her issues are genuine thus he hushes her. The main way the storyteller could seem sane to John is happy with her circumstance; in this manner, there is no chance to get for her to express concerns or request changes. In her diary, the storyteller composes: ‘John doesn’t have the foggiest idea the amount I truly endure. He knows there is no motivation to endure, and that fulfills him.’

John can’t envision anything outside his very own judgment. So when he confirms that the storyteller’s life is palatable, he envisions that the shortcoming lies with her view of her life. It never jumps out at him that her circumstance may truly require improvement. The nursery dividers are canvassed in the rotten yellow backdrop with a befuddled, ghostly example. The storyteller is appalled by it. She considers the unfathomable example in the backdrop, resolved to understand it. But instead of comprehending it, she starts to observe a subsequent example—that of a lady crawling quickly around behind the principal design, which acts as a jail for her. The principal example of the backdrop can be viewed as the cultural desires that hold ladies like the storyteller hostage. The storyteller’s recuperation will be estimated by how brightly she continues her local obligations as spouse and mother, and her longing to do whatever else—like compose—apparently interferes with that recuperation. Despite the fact that the storyteller studies and concentrates on the example in the backdrop, it never sounds good to her. Additionally, regardless of how hard she attempts to recuperate, the conditions of her recuperation—grasping her residential job—never sound good to her, either. The crawling lady can speak to the two exploitations by the cultural standards and protection from them. This crawling lady likewise provides some insight concerning why the principal example is so disturbing and monstrous. It is by all accounts peppered with misshapen heads with protruding eyes—the heads of other crawling ladies who were choked by the example when they attempted to escape it. That is ladies who couldn’t endure when they attempted to oppose social standards. Gilman composes that ‘no one could move through that example—it chokes so.’ In the long run, the storyteller turns into a ‘crawling lady.’ The primary sign is the point at which she says, rather startlingly, ‘I generally lock the entryway when I creep by sunshine.’ Later, the storyteller and the crawling lady cooperate to draw off the backdrop. The storyteller expresses, ‘[T]here is such a significant number of those crawling ladies, and they creep so quick.’ So the storyteller is one of many. That her shoulder ‘just fits’ into the section on the divider is once in a while translated to imply that she has been the one tearing the paper and crawling around the room from the start. Yet, it could likewise be translated as a declaration that her circumstance is the same as that of numerous other ladies. In this understanding, ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’ becomes a tale around one lady’s frenzy, yet a rankling framework. At a certain point, the storyteller watches the crawling ladies from her window and asks, ‘I wonder if they all come out of that wallpaper as I did?’ Her leaving the backdrop—her opportunity—corresponds with a plummet into frantic conduct, ripping off the paper, securing herself in her room, in any event, gnawing the unfaltering bed. That is, her opportunity comes when she, at last, uncovers her convictions and conduct to people around her and quits stowing away. The last scene, where John swoons and the storyteller keeps on crawling around the room, venturing over him without fail, is upsetting yet additionally triumphant. Presently John is the person who is feeble and wiped out, and the storyteller is the person who finally gets the opportunity to decide the standards of her own reality. She is at long last persuaded that he just ‘claimed to love and kind.’ After being reliably infantilized by his remedies and remarks, she reverses the situation on him by tending to him condescendingly, if just in her brain, as a ‘young man.’ John would not evacuate the backdrop, and at last, the storyteller utilized it as her departure.

Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s “The Yellow Wallpaper” is a great piece of fiction that shows gender inequality and the unfair social norms of the 19th century. Author Gilman used this story to speak for all the women in the 19th century who felt suppressed within their own homes because of the social imposition of femininity that they had to follow. She used her own personal experience with her physician Dr. Mitchell and his ‘rest cure’ treatment to write the story to speak about the cases of hysteria or nervous disorders and how it affected women. Dr. Mitchell’s treatment for nervous disorders was to make patients give up all sorts of activities; including being around their loved ones. The story describes the narrator losing her mental stability because of her husband’s restrictions in the name of “treatment”.

The Yellow Wallpaper tells a story of a married woman suffering from a nervous disorder after giving birth to her child who ends up losing her sanity because of the social imposition of femininity on her. The narrator starts hallucinating a woman enslaved behind the yellow wallpaper of the room she is “locked in” by her husband. Though the narrator does not mention any specific cause of her nervous disorder, the journal entries of her everyday life and her relationship with her husband portray a very clear image of what the social norms were for women in the 19th century. Many literatures, historical and cultural works from the 19th century show how women were imprisoned in their own homes because they were confined under the ‘perfect womanhood’ model. In the article, “Reading “The Yellow Wallpaper” as Post-Traumatic Writing’ by Mahinur Aksehir, the author states, ‘A perfect woman carried out ‘vital’ tasks in the family…a woman is first and foremost a daughter/mother/ wife’”. Since women were oppressed to maintain the ideal model of femininity, they were restricted from any outdoor activity which resulted in women being unable to develop into their own independent conscious self. Women’s lack of opinion and knowledge in society led men to claim that women are “intellectually weak”, “unhealthy” and “underdeveloped”. Because of these labels, in order for a woman to present herself as “healthy” to society, she had to “adjust” to accept these social norms. Women who could not and did not “adjust” themself to follow these stereotypes were considered “mad”. Aksehir also mentions, “considering such women as “mad” degraded women.. crucial facts” (Aksehir 3). By degrading women, men were able to control them and keep them away from gaining any power.

In the story, the narrator constantly speaks about her husband being very “loving” and “careful” and hardly lets her stir without special direction (Gilman 648) but she finds herself being unable to talk to her husband about her feelings because he portrays himself as a wiser one. The husband in the story doesn’t even let the narrator choose the room she will stay in! He doesn’t allow her to engage in any activity and he does in it such a matter that she believes it’s his loving behavior and he is protecting herself. He sets her daily schedule and tells her what she should do for the day, what to eat when to eat, and sleep. He also prevents her from participating in any intellectual activity that would need her to use her conscious mind. This brings back the concept of men degrading women and controlling them. Even though the narrator is educated, she is prevented from expressing her creativity. As her husband knows that her writings will give her some power to be independent, he convinces her to focus on her domestic life and that any sort of creativity is bad for her case of hysteria. The narrator believes her husband is taking care of her and is being “protective” so that she gets better soon. He also threatens her by saying that she needs to get well soon, and if she fails he will send her to Weir Mitchell who is even worse and strict. The narrator writes in her journal that the physicians in the society have power over the patients and there is nothing one can do about it. In the article “The Helpless Angel in Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s The Yellow Wallpaper” by Chalak Raouf, the author mentions a term that was used for Victorian women; “The angel in the house”. This term was used to define and identify women’s roles and duties in society. Women were called “angels” to signify their roles at the time; sacrificing themselves for their families. Angels are said to be sympathetic, self-sacrificing, graceful, pious, and pure. An ideal woman was expected to be sacrificing, passive, powerless, and pure just like an angel. The word ‘house’ in the term was used to limit the space for women’s activities. The article also states “The narrator in The Yellow Wallpaper is one of these women or one of these helpless angels who were kept at home and prevented from having any kind of creativity that embraces her talents. He uses his language to convince her that she is made for domestic life and any type of writing is going to be bad for her condition”. From this quotation, it can be seen that John, the narrator’s husband uses his language to make her feel guilty about how much he’s doing for her and how she should not question any of his actions because he is doing it for her good. Her husband’s supposed “protection” eventually leads her to feel imprisoned and lost.

Charlotte Gilman used her writings to speak about unspoken issues like the absence of happiness in women’s lives in the 19th century. She talked about the unfair roles of the patriarchal society and masculine dominance. The Yellow Wallpaper was written to show how women were locked within their own homes where they weren’t even allowed to use their creativity or talents. Living in an environment where there was no freedom or happiness led to women feeling suicidal or as the story states, “trying to break free”. The narrator’s husband has full control over her and makes her think she truly is incapable of doing anything on her own. He treats her like a little child and not his wife. He calls her names like “little girl” or a “little goose”. He doesn’t give her the slightest of freedom or let her make the smallest decision like choosing her own room. Her husband locks her in a room that once used to be a nursery for children. The narrator writes in her journal “It is a big, airy room, the whole floor nearly, with windows that look all ways, and air and sunshine galore. It was a nursery first and then a playroom and gymnasium, I should judge; for the windows are barred for little children, and there are rings and things in the walls. The paint and paper look as if a boys’ school had used it.” (Gilman 649). Analyzing the description of the room, it can be concluded that she was locked in a nursery for kids whereas she wanted to stay in the room downstairs. When the narrator tries to talk to her husband about this matter, he shuts her down. On top of that, by saying he has to whitewash the room and they are only here for a few months, he makes her think that moving would make him uncomfortable even though she is the one who is not comfortable in the room she is staying in! This shows how much power the husband has over his wife. In the article “Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s The Yellow Wallpaper: An Assertion of Gender Equality and Liberation” by Dr. G Priya, it is said, “John’s diagnosis and treatment of the narrator serve to control her speech.. private journal”. (Priya 4) John does not let her have any power over their family or even in her own life. He makes all the decisions for her and doesn’t take her seriously when she tries to talk to him. She tries to talk to him about the wallpaper as it was affecting her mind negatively but he laughs at her and shuts her down because the patriarchal society of that time believed women are incapable of making their own decisions. Since she can not talk to her husband freely, she finds comfort in writing secretly in her journal.

Again, the Yellow Wallpaper portrays the struggle of a woman who is emotionally vulnerable as she not only has a nervous disorder but she also has limitations on how much she is allowed to do. Her husband’s “rest cure” restrictions on her ultimately drive her to madness. The repeated theme in this story is how a woman feels oppressed in this male-dominated society and how negativity it affects her. In the writing, “Women’s Liberation: The Effects of patriarchal oppression on Women’s Mind’ the author Naheed Qasim writes, ‘The narrator wanted to bring together her loss and achievement through her writing. Her artistic creativity is hampered by her husband. He did not allow her to write which is a great barrier in terms of her emotional recovery. She thought she can avert her mind from her nervous breakdowns through writing but her husband and sister-in-law’s constant surveillance prevented her from doing so.’ (Qasim 390). The narrator says how her nervous troubles are very depressing and nobody would believe how much effort she puts into just getting ready for the day (Gilman 649). The narrator believes if she starts writing again, her condition will get better but she gives up hope of getting better and writing again because she fails to make her husband understand her feelings. She tries to talk to him multiple times but he shuts her down every time. Her husband also cautioned her to change her habit of story-making because it will lead her to have excited fancies which is why she can’t use her brain or write anything. She also thinks her husband will never understand how much she suffers from being locked up and not being able to write because he “knows” there is no reason for her to suffer and that “satisfies” him.

Having nothing to do in the house, and being locked inside a room the narrator starts overthinking and hallucinating. She starts staring at the yellow wallpaper of her room which she despises very much. She starts seeing dim shapes outside the pattern which gets clearer to her every day and she believes she’s the only person who can see them. (Gilman 652) At this point in the story, the narrator beings to see the reflection of her own misery as a woman creeping behind the wallpaper who wants to break free. She also starts believing her life is getting more exciting as she starts fantasizing about the wallpaper even more. She looks at patterns, she looks at the color and she waits for the woman to come out. She feels happier because she starts taking control of her life even though it’s through her imagination. After a few weeks, she notices that the woman starts creeping during the day as well. She feels surprised and mentions how “most women do not creep by daylight”. (Gilman 654) This part of the story signifies how women feel oppressed to follow rules during the day so there is no freedom for women at this time of the day. The narrator stays up the entire night & sleeps during the day which is also another symbol of how she feels free at night and during the day she feels tired and depressed as she has to obey the restrictions her husband set for her. The narrator adds that she sometimes sees more than one woman who tries to shake the wallpaper and tries to break free. Through this metaphor, it can be presumed that she sees more than one woman because there are many women like her who are suffering within their homes because of the restrictions given by their husbands. These women are locked up in their homes just like the narrator of this story. Women were locked up and were prevented from speaking their minds, or even doing anything that uses their brains because men believed these women are not capable of making decisions, nor did they know what is good for them and for society.

The story ends with the husband fainting after seeing his wife’s condition. He faints because he realizes that she is not under his control anymore and he won’t be able to control her again. Her act of getting her freedom is considered as her going “mad” because she finally frees herself from her husband’s restriction and society’s norms. In the article, “The Helpless Angel in Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s The Yellow Wallpaper” author Raouf mentions, “Mills also states that “those women who rebelled against the social.. mentally ill” (Raouf 135). The narrator in this story is one of those rebellious women because, behind her madness, her resistance appears.

Charlotte Gilman’s story reveals how the women in the 19th century suffered because of the experiences and restrictions they had to overcome. Society tried to set patriarchal beliefs in the minds of women by calling them the ‘Angel in the House’. This term made women believe their role in this society is to be mothers and housewives only. This false belief led to many women feeling confined, demonized, and deprived of their rights. The Yellow Wallpaper not only reveals the suffering of one woman who feels imprisoned in her own house but it also reveals how these experiences were common for all women including Gilman herself.

‘The Yellow Wallpaper’ by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is a popular literary painting of critical analysis, mainly for feminine gender studies. It focuses on some inequality in the marriage between John and his wife. This tale explains the deterioration of the physical and mental condition of ladies in the nineteenth century, as clinical prescription allows negligence. Gilman created a notably effective fictitious story based totally on his non-public experience of melancholy. The purpose of this tale is to sentence the sexual politics which make clinical prescription viable.

This is a story about a wife and a husband who lease a mansion in the country. The husband is a health practitioner, whilst the wife is affected by intense mental illness. The husband believes that the country air will do her some good.

She is kept in the attic of the mansion in a large room with yellow wallpaper. There are home windows facing each path, but all of the home windows are barred, making it seem as if she is a prisoner. It is noted that it becomes even more dysfunctional in the direction of 3 months.

While the husband works within the town, the wife grows crazier and crazier, looking in the wallpaper for eyes and motion. She thinks that she sees ladies in the back of the pattern of the wallpaper. To readers, it may seem as if all the women who are also trapped in relationships like her own, are trapped within the yellow wallpaper, and for the wife, making her feel as though she is not alone and not the only one going through this.

On their last day at the residence, the wife locks the door and refuses to depart. When the husband opens the door, the spouse reveals that she does not want to move at the back of the wallpaper, claiming that she is now one of the girls behind the wallpaper, proving that she is her own person who no longer wants to be trapped who no longer needs him and wants nothing other than her own life. The husband faints and she symbolically steps over his body to freedom.

This tale is about the progression into craziness, but also freedom. The husband represents society and authority, which often disregard notions of liberation and imagination. In reality, the husband frequently talks to the wife as if she was a little girl, showing how women were not seen as anything other than someone who cannot take care of themselves and needs a man, and that because she was “in need of a man” he took advantage of that.

As the tale progresses, the wife and photos she sees at the back of the wallpaper begin to merge collectively, showing how they are coming together to support her. She claims she saw figures transferring around at the wallpaper, however, that could have simply been her shadow from the moonlight, but to her, it was all the other women who were also “trapped within the wallpaper”. Either way, it paves the way for her to sooner or later grow to be a woman in the back of the yellow wallpaper.

In phrases of the usage of yellow in this story, it works because of the variety that the color can come to represent yellow is an energetic coloration that we often use to symbolize life and power. However, it may also be used, in particular, if diminished, to represent grievance, harshness, and cowardice. The yellow shows how she wants to be free and wants her own life but how her husband will not allow it because he wants the power and wants her to be diminished and need him.

As this tale is from the late 1800s, it exhibits what numerous ladies at the time were going through. Women had not been given the right to vote, let alone make enough cash to help themselves. Many of them felt trapped, as though in the back of the wallpaper.

In literature, women are often said to be compliant and weaker than men. In the 19th century, girls have been suppressed and controlled by the person of their husbands and different guys. Charlotte Gilman wrote ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’ to show the adversarial social regulations that are imposed on ladies within the nineteenth century.

Imagine living in a world where society is conceived to be perfect, but it is quite the opposite. In a dystopian setting, it analyzes realistic outcomes that are extremely unpleasant. Novels tend to be relatable and believable, creating an impact that causes the reader to feel a deep connection in the modern era. Commonly, dystopian novels have a ruling government that aggressively seeks to overpower and influence everything in order to put an end to rebellions. The government’s ultimate goal is to try to dehumanize people as much as they can. Through Kurt Vonnegut’s well-known novel “Harrison Bergeron” and Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s “The Yellow Wallpaper”, both writers explained that they had opposing forces trying to control civilians by appointing their identities and roles.

Gilman set the story in the 19th century when discrimination and inequality still existed, whereas Vonnegut’s novel was set in the future. Within both of the short stories, “Harrison Bergeron” and “The Yellow Wallpaper”, the two main characters were negatively affected due to prescribed gender roles and restrictive societal norms. It goes without saying that stereotypical gender roles are one of the most important issues that we are facing today. Gender roles are known to be social roles encircling a field of behaviors and attitudes that are perceived as acceptable and appropriate for people based on their A.H 2sex. Through Gilman’s perspective in “The Yellow Wallpaper,” gender roles placed women in a disadvantaged position in the past. Female was considered unsophisticated and uneducated, whereas men were superior and dominant. This was exemplified by the mere fact that the narrator was kept anonymous throughout the novel despite being the protagonist.

Throughout the novel, the narrator is illustrated as both a wife and a mother who is suffering from postpartum depression, however, her neurologist husband diagnosed her with hysteria. As a result of her husband’s conclusion, the narrator develops an obsession with the complex details of the wallpaper on her bedroom wall. Initially, the husband was described as a man that did not acknowledge the possibility of his wife having a mental illness in spite of the numerous attempts that his wife made to explain this possibility to him. For instance, in agony, she states “John laughs at me about this wallpaper” (Gilman 803), indicating her awareness of the foolish image she portrays to her husband. In this case, it would be absurd for her to hold a conversation with him regarding the topic of her mental illness, much less persuade him to change his diagnosis of her, especially because he is, as described by the narrator, so wise and educated (Gilman 806). In relation to this story, “Harrison Bergeron” also faces a similar issue, although this short story reflects gender roles in the coming times. The short story focuses on a community in which its government aims to achieve equality among its citizens.

The specific irony throughout the story was that those who appeared to be more knowledgeable than the rest were burdened with handicap bags to slow their abilities. As well, those who seemed more appealing, such as the ballerinas, were forced to wear a mask to conceal their beauty in order to be on a similar scale of beauty in comparison to others. Readers could examine two characters through a feminist lens: A.H 3Hazel Bergeron and Diana Moon Glamper. Harrison’s mother, Hazel Bergeron, was perceived as having “average intelligence” (cite), which is defined as being incompetent and unable to expand her thinking on an intellectual level. In contrast, her husband, George, was deemed brilliant as his intelligence was labeled as being greater than normal. However, not all women are portrayed as being disadvantaged or vulnerable. To be specific, Diana Moon Glampers represents a powerful and authoritative person, however, it is important to note that she did not identify as a woman. Rather, this character took on the role of a military leader that is regarded as masculine. Her authoritative position as a Handicapper General allows her to have ownership of a gun, which is not associated with feminine qualities. Overall this character contradicts the anti-female theme of this story.

In conclusion, it is important to recognize that gender roles have been a prevalent issue – both in the past, and present, and as written in Harrison Bergeron, it can be assumed that they will remain in the future as well. Men are deemed superior to women, and identifying as a male has many benefits and advantages that are lacking for females. (Tamana)There is a huge arrangement of enthusiasm for restrictive social norms as a result of the job that standards can play in supporting practices that are viewed as hazardous somehow or another, in ‘Harrison Bergeron’ and ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’ prohibitive social standards influence both of the fundamental characters negatively. at the point when an individual surrenders their basic beliefs and peculiarity to acclimate with what the social standard is, the individual can impact others around them. In the story, Harrison removes his impairments and it impacts the individuals around him to do likewise, for example, the ballet dancer and the A.H 4performers. In the two situations, when the individuals are presented with another pattern they wound up being constrained to pursue, along these lines making a domino impact. “‘If I tried to get away with it,’ said George, ‘then other people get away with it-and pretty soon we’d be right back to the dark ages again, with everybody competing against everybody else. You wouldn’t like that, would you?’.” (Vonnegut),

The statement abridges that George accepts that the most ideal approach to life is through fairness and not the ‘Dark Ages’ since he is mentally programmed. This isn’t accurate because, to be all equivalent, we would need to dispose of rivalry and anything that features our disparities. Society resembles a jail cell, detaining individuals as a result of the ethical contracts that they don’t impart to the remainder of the world. The ethics that society can’t help contradict are rejected and disregarded, shaping a dull open way that lone a couple of individuals are eager to take. Individuals in the general public are adapted to deduction in a specific way, this manner making a hindrance to innovativeness and society’s run-of-the-mill traditions. In ‘The Yellow Wallpaper,’ Charlotte Perkins Gilman clarifies that society will power individuals to detain themselves on account of the social norm. Jane isn’t permitted to convey what needs to be because John thinks it is ludicrous and he prefers not to have her compose even a solitary word. Jane wants to sneak her inventiveness around evening time when John isn’t anywhere near, constraining herself to consistently strain her actual uniqueness. John’s rules choke Jane day and night, compelling her to detain her emotions and conceal her actual character from the remainder of the world. Jane feels that she ‘is as plain as can be’ (Gilman) for she isn’t permitted to indicate to humankind her maximum capacity in view of society’s contorted ways. John speaks to the male society, all in all, A.H. 5 causing Jane to envision herself as the lady caught behind the backdrop on account of his severe guidelines. The ‘frightful yellow wallpaper’ symbolizes society’s detestable, degenerate, contorted methods for choking out ladies of their actual characteristics. The unreasonable guidelines of being viewed as lower than men abide in Jane’s psyche as she realizes that John isn’t letting her be the inventive individual that she was destined to be. All in all, prohibitive social Standards give requests in the public eye, however, in this circumstance, social norms confined both primary characters contrarily in ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’ and ‘Harrison Bergeron’. (Rahaf)As stated before, prescribed gender roles and restrictive societal norms affected the two main characters of “Harrison Bergeron” and “The Yellow Wallpaper” negatively. Prescribed gender roles In “The Yellow Wallpaper” were that gender roles placed on women caused a disadvantage in society, females were considered unsophisticated and uneducated, whereas men were superior and dominant, and in “Harrison Bergeron” those who seemed more appealing, such as ballerinas were forced to wear a mask to conceal their beauty in order to be on similar scale of beauty. Furthermore restrictive societal norms in “Harrison Bergeron” was that George accepted that the ideal way to live is through fairness since he is mentally programmed. As well in “The Yellow Wallpaper” society will power individuals to detain themselves on account of the social norm, the main character had to sneak around to express herself, and with reasons, it is clear that restrictive societal norms and prescribed gender roles affect the main character negatively.

The belief of valuing a human’s life may be inherent and unequivocal by most people. Nevertheless, there are people in the world that do not acknowledge the importance of one’s life and choose to be careless over the fact and proceed to take advantage of anyone, regardless of the consequences. These types of people were either taught not to value humanity at birth or elect to treat others as objects or use them as pawns to further their own personal gain. In the short story “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been” by Joyce Carol Oates and the film Smooth Talk, a girl named Connie is assaulted by one of these kinds of people. However, it is left unclear what truly happens to her at the end of the story and the film is open to interpretation by the readers or viewers. The recklessness displayed by Connie’s actions and demeanor leads to her becoming terrorized by a psychopath named Arnold Friend.

According to Merriam-Webster, a psychopath is a person who has an egocentric and antisocial personality marked by a lack of remorse for one’s actions, an absence of empathy for others, and often criminal tendencies. Arnold Friend is initially introduced into the story as a figure that Connie is somewhat interested in initially in a precarious way. Arnold is an older man who offers to take Connie and rid her problems and messy life that she seems to be wrapped up in. He is profoundly different from the boys Connie knows, which fascinates her. Yet, the mystery surrounding Arnold quickly vanishes as he begins to threaten Connie and press her for sexual favors. Joyce M. Wegs shares her interpretation of the story, saying Arnold symbolizes Satan. He is often found in disguise and the distortions in his face and behavior indicate his true intentions and the fake personas (Wegs). During their encounter, Arnold Friend tells Connie, “But I promise it won’t last long and you’ll like me that way you get to like people you’re close to. You will. It’s all over for you here, so come on out. You don’t want your people in any trouble, do you?” (Oates 8). He thought of her more as property rather than a human begin. Arnold Friend’s physical traits also help to portray him as Satan. Several allusions are made to the irregularity of his feet. As said in the story, “He almost fell. But, like a clever drunken man, he managed to catch his balance. He wobbled in his high boots and grabbed hold of one of the porch posts” (6). Satan is notorious for having a cloven hoof, which is found in many folklore and popular culture. Having similar physical characteristics to Satan shows a distinct connection. Attempts to seduce Connie are seen many times throughout the story. He achieves this by appealing to her interest in radio talk with which she treatures. Connie notes that as she talks with Arnold, the more he sounds like a radio personality. If the Devil wishes to accomplish his goal of seduction, he must be able to allure his victims with a similar interest. In Connie’s case, that language is personalities displayed through the radio. Arnold Friend’s representation of the devil hits its peak when he destroys Connie’s fearlessness and she desperately runs in her house and proceeds to cul up in a corner of the house, holding the phone (8). Connie is so scared of Arnold Friend’s dark nature that she makes no effort to call someone for help and essentially becomes paralyzed by her fear.

The story was originally written based on true events about a serial killer named Charles Schmid, who was known for trying to exploit girls and proceeding to kill them afterward. Schmid was becoming popularized based on these killings and was at his peak in the 1960s. Oates was inspired by the victims of Charles Schmid and she chose to write a short story from the view of one of those victims. Similarities between Friend and Schmid are apparent as they are both master manipulators who create false personas to get close to their victims and strike when their guard is down. Oates says in an interview, “The Pied Piper mimicked teenagers in talk, dress, and behavior, but he was not a teenager—he was a man in his early thirties. Rather short, he stuffed rags in his leather boots to give himself height” (Bovsun). Many similarities in appearances can also be seen between the two. Friend and Schmid both used makeup to give the illusion of being younger than he actually was, stuffing their shoes with cans to give the appearance of being taller, and even paint an artificial mole on their cheek. Both men try to find a way to connect to the girls who become their victims. Arnold Friend tries to seduce Connie by going to her house. Charles Schmid had his girlfriend’s friend come on a date with them to a secluded spot in the desert and Schmid goes on to rape and kill her whole his girlfriend sat there silently. In the story, Arnold tells Connie that he going to “come inside you where it’s all secrets” and drive Connie to a “vast sunlit reaches of land” (9). These predatory tactics show just how similar these two men are and how their reasoning is identical. Oates based Arnold Friend off of Charles Schmid to emphasize the comparison between the two and ultimately how this affects Connie’s life.

The ending of a story can leave a drastic impact on the true meaning behind a story and the reason for writing it. The ending determines the kind of story the author wants to tell and can either propel a story over the top or dimish it almost completely. This example can easily be seen when comparing the short story “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been” and the film Smooth Talk. Smooth Talk initially is supposed to be based on the short story; however, it becomes apparent that although many similarities persist, the two stories are overall very different due to the ending and theme behind it. The two stories are based on two different interpretations of things such as some points of the plot, character personality, and most importantly, the ending. The short story is inspired by the horror story of The Pied Piper of Tucson but it changes in the film, becoming about a teenage girl’s problems growing up and the issue of having to face them. Connie’s unfortunate downfall comes at the hands of Arnold Friend as his intentions begin to look for clear. Arnold talks to Connie in a way that charms her in a vindictive way that shows the true devilish nature of Arnold Friend. As Arnold talks to Connie he says, You’re cute. Don’tcha believe me, or what?” (3). He specifically makes these remarks to entice her into liking Arnold and deceive her into believing he is not dangerous. Though it is uncertain for sure, Connie is raped by Arnold Friend and eventually killed by him. The story teaches a lesson about the consequences of behaving crudely in public and the repercussions of disobeying one’s parents. Alternatively, Smooth Talk explores Connie’s life in a deeper manner and chooses to analyze the broken relationship between Connie and her family rather than Arnold Friend. The film does a poor job imitating the interaction between Arnold and Connie, unlike the story. Arnold does proceed to rape Coonie, however, he allows Connie to return home alive. Connie says in the story, “I don’t want to see you here again ever” (Chopra). The ending is seen to be more hopeful for Connie rather than a horror story originally intended and portrayed by Oates. Smooth Talk is less effective than “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been,” because the focus of the story changes. The film chooses to focus on Connie’s consequences and how a girl should live her life. This makes the film lose all credibility.

Many critics have given their interpretations that differ from the original story in many ways. Not all of these, however, are believed to be correct and thus lose validity. Greg Johnson is one of the interpreters of the story. He interprets the story as a “feminist allegory” and suggests that women surrender to male domination and are forced into sexual acts. Greg Johnson says, “… suggesting that young women are “going” exactly where their mothers and grandmothers have already “been”: into sexual bondage at the hands of a male “Friend” (Johnson 206). This can be disproven by the fact that Connie is sexually enticing men and it eventually leads to her becoming assaulted by Arnold Friend. Mike Tierce and John Micheal Crafton are also critics that argue Arnold Friend as a messiah figure and base their case off identifying him with Bob Dylan. Tierce and Crafton say, “Rising out of Connie’s radio, Arnold Friend/Bob Dylan is a magical, musical messiah; he persuades Connie to abandon her father’s house” (Tierce/Crafton 207). This is disproved by the interaction of Arnold and Connie outside her house. Arnold says, “‘If the place got lit up with fire, honey, you’d come runnin’ out into my arms, right into my arms an’ safe at home—like you knew I was your lover and’d stopped fooling around’” (7). Arnold threatened to burn the house if she did not come out and no messiah figure would resort to intimidation and threats like that. She came out because Connie did not want her house to burn down and potentially die in the process.

The ending of a story can leave a drastic impact on the true meaning behind a story and the reason for writing it. Connie’s disregard for her actions and conduct results in her being threatened by Arnold Friend, an apparent psychopath. Arnold’s criminal representation of Charles Schmid causes his attitude toward young girls to be vengeful. In the end, this leads to Connie falling victim and meeting her tragic end. Although many other interpretations of the ending exist, such as Arnold being a messiah and Connie be forced into sexual bondage, these are evidently not supported well. Connie is brutally raped and killed by Arnold due to flaunting her assets and unfortunately being targeted by Friend as a result. It is important to keep in mind family and parents’ sayings to be kept safe and steer clear of dangerous people. Connie did not follow her parents’ wishes and it ultimately led to her downfall.

Perrault’s “Blue Beard” and Carter’s retelling of the same work is both very different, but it also can have similarities. The use of Nickerson’s retelling named “Strands of Bronze and Gold”, as well as Brontë’s “Jane Eyre”, will also be compared to the original and Carter’s “The Bloody Chamber”. This will show how different variations of the same type of events, can have different impacts and meanings depending on who is writing the tale. Also, just because something is connected to or based off another, doesn’t always mean it needs to follow a strict guideline or theme.

First of the major differences between Carter’s retelling and Perrault’s story, is the detail. With the original, the wording is very clear and to the point, not adding anything to the tale that would take away the idea and moral of the tale. While with the Carter’s story, there is quite a lot of detail that goes into getting the reader to be immersed in what is written. Such elements include, but not limited to: the train and how it moves, his scent and how it affected her, the sky, or scenery, and its array of beautiful coloring. Being immersed into a book, you can get a better idea of how a character feels and the reason behind what they do and when can become clearer. While a direct approach to writing is good, and doesn’t leave room for nonsense, the level of involvement from those reading can be low if it is not easily followed.

Another difference between the two tales is what happens with the forbidden room and wife. With “Blue Beard”, the wife was curious as to what was out of reach, and so was impatient to find what she wasn’t supposed to. On the other hand, in “The Bloody Chamber”, the wife was trying her best to get to know him better. She was the young mistress of this estate, didn’t know a lot about her new husband, and was quite eager in her attempt to gain his heart and attentions, in a sense. It was more about learning and being curious about him, not as much as going to what was forbidden. She had also not purposely chosen that particular room to enter, as she let the keys fall to the ground from their designated ring and then chose a key at random from the pile. She thought that going into his private area would help in getting to know the real him, and not just what he portrayed to everyone (Carter).

The appearance of the husbands is another dissimilarity between “Blue beard”, whom had a very blue beard, and “The Bloody Chamber”, where the husband is said to have black curls (Carter). The townspeople and neighbors surrounding the estate were so put off by the sight of the man with a blue beard they refused to be seen by him or go onto his property until he was gone from it. However, the same could not be said about Carter’s tale, where there is little to no mention of the surrounding people, except for the estate workers. In fact, when anyone else is mentioned, they show no fear or dislike, as he is quite normal looking. So the man with the blue beard looks more like a monster than the black-bearded man, although both carry on with the same acts of disposing of their wives.

While in Perrault’s story, it is left a little unclear if the wife would have joined the multitude of his previously alive wives if she did not look in the closet, or upset him, but with Carter’s it is very clear what he intended to do. By giving the new wife the ruby-imbedded choker, the husband marked what he envisioned to do with her from the very beginning. Although it does appear he liked to obsess over the wife a time before he did indeed kill her in the way he intended.

In Carter’s book “The Bloody Chamber and Other Stories”, it shows that with a different perspective, females can be shown as not so weak. It also shows that they are able to not only defend themselves, but also land a devastating hit. Example is that in the book “Blue Beard”, it is the brothers that come to the rescue of the wife and slay the man. While in “The Bloody Chamber”, the mother senses something is instantly wrong with her newly wedded daughter and come to the rescue to slay her captor. A different example is “The Werewolf” in the same book, with the girl given a hunting knife by her mother and knowing how to use it to defend herself, to which she does. Feminism is a big part of some of Carter’s tales, the need to show that it isn’t just males that can do the rescuing, and the blind male in “The Bloody Chamber” isn’t pushed aside. He gets an equal chance at saving and even gets the girl in the end.

Comparing the two previously mentioned tales to other retelling of “Blue beard” such as “Strands of Bronze and Gold”, there is quite a few differences between these as well. In Nickerson’s tale, the main female is not the wife, but instead the goddaughter who goes to live with a wealthy, and slightly unstable man who has become her guardian. She indulges in any and all wealth he provides to her on a regular basis, both jewels and exotic clothing. It is later found out he disposed of his previous wives, all whom had bronze colored hair, the same color as the goddaughter. While this story is also quite detailed and can be described as slow-paced, it does show other aspects of history, although not always accurate. The wealthy godfather had bought and kept slaves for a variety of reasons, and although the goddaughter tried to sympathize with them, she was still a naive child. Another great retelling is “Jane Eyre” by Brontë, although at first glance it is not easily spotted. In Brontë’s version, the lady goes into the home of a wealthy man, who also hides a dark secret. She ends up marrying the gentleman only to then discover what he is hiding a, very much still alive, wife. After finding out, she escapes the situation, only to return a little time after to him.

In all tales discussed, the females all got bit of an idea or feeling of what was happening or sensed a few red flags. Whether that is before they discover the dark secret, or during, said discovery. Although looking into the reason behind the uneasy feeling would often be a good idea, as stated in Perrault’s first moral in “Blue Beard”, curiosity does not always lead to good and happy endings.

The males all got comfortable and did not take too much effort to hide any of their actions in the end. It was evident that the husband in Carter’s book knew instantly when he got home, his wife had been in the room. He just sat there in despair, almost like he was not quite ready to kill her yet. It was possible that while he enjoyed the kill, the husband like to play around with his wives and lovers first. This is of course what led to them being ‘defeated’ in the end. They also all had an obsession that they needed to see through, with Carter’s story, the husband kept a private museum of the interesting ways he could kill a person. He also was intrigued by not only her innocence and the chance to take that away and claim it, but also her ability to play the piano (Carter).

In conclusion, a lot of different stories can be based on a single thing, moral, or idea, and still be showing vastly different angles. It is shown that although all the stories have the same small connection to Perrault’s fable, and it is clear that they are based off, they don’t all follow the same path exactly. As long as the story follows a consistent line, and doesn’t add excessive amounts of detail, it can be not only easily to read, but followed along with. Whilst curiosity is an important part of all the stories mentioned, it would be wise to be careful as to what you do with it. This does not always mean bad things, as curiosity can save you from instances and harmful situations further on in life. It also goes to show that people are not always how they appear to be, some can have a mask, and it’s the terrible self they are hiding that should be feared.

Works Cited:

1. Carter, Angela. The Bloody Chamber and Other Stories. 1st ed., Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1979.
2. Perrault, Charles. Histories, or Tales of Past times: Blue Beard. 1697. Translated by Robert Samber,
3. 1729. Course Readings, University of Newcastle.
4. Nickerson, Jane. Strands of Bronze and Gold. Alfred A. Knopf, 2013.
5. Brontë, Charlotte. Jane Eyre. Smith, Elder & Co., 1847.

There are multiple pieces of evidence that point towards the fact that Connie had quite literally met Satan. There are too many for it to be a coincidence; not only were there numerous counts of imagery that pointed toward Arnold being Satan himself, but he was also performing actions that limited Connie’s sense of individuality. Not only was Satan capable of knowing things that only she and people very close to her would have known, but he was able to perform actions that hurt Connie physically without even having to touch her. Any other theory about Arnold being something such as a serial killer or it just being a dream is just too unrealistic.

The first piece of evidence that points towards Connie meeting Satan is Arnold and his behavior. Arnold’s behaviors show things that point toward him being Satan. Take for example, when Oates writes, “He wagged a finger and laughed and said, ‘Gonna get you, baby,’. This could mean that he’s Satan and looking to get Connie for his own nefarious purposes. Another piece of evidence that points towards, Arnold being Satan is, “’This here is my name, to begin with, he said. ARNOLD FRIEND was written in tar-like black letters”. His name is literally an analogy for “An Old Fiend”. Wanna know who else is an old friend? Satan. Go figure. The last piece of evidence that points towards Arnold’s behaviorism being Satan is when he states, “He ain’t coming. He’s at a barbecue.” Arnold knows exactly where her parents are, and this information wouldn’t be available to any normal human.

The second thing that points towards Arnold being Satan is his physical features. “ There were two boys in the car and now she recognized the driver: he had shaggy, shabby black hair that looked crazy as a wig and he was grinning at her.” Satan is known to manifest himself in the everyday world, and his creepy grin isn’t exactly helping his case. Another piece of evidence that points toward him being Satan is “He was standing in a strange way, leaning back against the car as if he were balancing himself.” Satan is known to have hooves, and this guy was standing pretty weirdly. Could this perhaps be the face of mercy itself? The last piece of evidence that points towards Arnold being Satan due to his physical features, is when Oates writes, “And his face was a familiar face, somehow: the jaw and chin and cheeks slightly darkened because he hadn’t shaved for a day or two, and the nose long and hawklike, sniffing as if she were a treat he was going to gobble up and it was all a joke.” I mean, if Lucifer himself is gonna manifest inside the earth, he would probably make himself as attractive as possible. Though being attractive is something super subjective, a sharp jawline and a bit of stubble never hurt anybody ;).

The final point that leads towards Arnold Friend being Satan is the constant symbols that Oates throws into the story. Oates writes, “’Now, these numbers are a secret code, honey,’ Arnold Friend explained. He read off the numbers 33, 19, 17 and raised his eyebrows at her to see what she thought of that, but she didn’t think much of it.” These are biblical verses that point towards the devil and Satanism. This is too much of a symbol for this to be a coincidence. Going back to the first paragraph, Oates writes, “She looked at that name, ARNOLD FRIEND.” This is once again symbolism that points towards Arnold Friend being Satan. The last piece of evidence that points towards Arnold being Satan is, ‘My sign.’ And he drew an X in the air, leaning out toward her. They were maybe ten feet apart. After his hand fell back to his side the X was still in the air, almost visible. The fact that Arnold drew an X in the air and it stayed there for a while may or may not point towards the fact that he isn’t human. I don’t know about you, but not many people have the ability nor the motivation to draw random People in the air when they’re about to kidnap a girl.

Though people may claim that he could have just been a serial killer, there’s just way too much Satanist imagery to ignore. When Arnold is talking to Connie, he writes, ‘Listen: Betty Schultz and Tony Fitch and Jimmy Pettinger and Nancy Pettinger,’ he said in a chant. ‘Raymond Stanley and Bob Hutter—’. He knows the name of everybody at the barbeque. I highly doubt anyone has the persistence or ability to find out the name of everyone in her family and everyone that she knows. Oates also writes, ‘Sure you saw me before,’ he said. He looked down at his boots as if he were a little offended. ‘You just don’t remember.’ He could be referring to a police sketch after he killed someone, but he is most likely referring to how people have seen the face of Satan before. He also says, “’Yeah. Sitting around. There’s your sister in a blue dress, huh? And high heels, the poor sad bitch—nothing like you, sweetheart! And your mother’s helping some fat woman with the corn, they’re cleaning the corn—husking the corn—”. He knows exactly what’s going on at the barbecue right now, and even know someone that Connie herself doesn’t remember. That isn’t possible by a serial killer or a dedicated stalker.

There are multiple pieces of evidence that point towards the fact that Arnold Friend is Satan and is interested in Connie for his own nefarious reasons. The symbolism, physical features, and behaviors are too much to ignore when it comes to how he can be Satan. People may claim that he’s a serial killer, however, it’s more likely that he’s Satan himself due to the sheer amount of information that he possesses and how interested he is in Connie. Nobody is able to tell the present in another place, and there’s no way he could have been stalking her for so long that he remembers all of her relatives and their names. Arnold Friend is quite literally Satan.

“Women”, is a word associated with a nurturing persona; in modern times, a symbol of perseverance and strength. However, the opinion on women has been shaped throughout the years with both negative and positive connotations. Although the perspectives changed, many still oppress women, finding them inferior to men. The short stories, “The Yellow Wall Paper”, written by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and “The Story of an Hour”, written by Kate Chopin, both written in the 1800s, similarly use the depiction of authoritative characters, specifically their family, to convey the message of the oppression and standards held against women in previous time periods. Through the restrictions of freedom, constraining environments, and an authoritative outlook on women, the reader notices the undermining of females.

The two short stories convey elements pertaining to women and the oppression of their freedom. “The Story of an Hour” discussed the relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Mallard, who, in this story, are husband and wife. Within the writing, Mrs. Mallard described her feelings as if her wings were clipped while in marriage with her husband. When she became aware of his apparent passing, it resulted in Mrs. Mallard excelling through a series of vast emotions. Moreover, she felt a sense of freedom when she no longer had to condemn herself under the reign of Mr. Mallard. The following story states,

There would be no one to live for during those coming years; she would live for herself. There would be no powerful will bending hers in that blind persistence with which men and women believe they have a right to impose a private will upon fellow creatures. (Chopin 1)

Despite a possible loving bond between the pair, Mrs. Mallard experienced relief when her husband’s passing became apparent. She felt liberated from a force, which would no longer suppress her and her views. Nonetheless, Mrs. Mallard understood she could finally live for herself. She would not need to accommodate herself into the confined shell whilst becoming the “perfect wife”. Consequently, the short story “The Yellow Wall Paper” also emphasizes the authoritative depiction of a husband, John. In this narrative, the main character seemed to have mental conditions prompting her husband to assist her. Forbidden from exercising her mind in any possible way, John’s assumptions of his wife’s feelings led him to patronize and dominate her, all while under the impression that he was “helping” her. Furthermore, the narrator was unable to express her own opinions and was often condemned due to her “nervous condition”. For instance, the text states, “You see he does not believe I am sick… If a physician of high standing…assures friends and relatives that there is really nothing the matter with one…what is one to do” (Gilman 1). Since he was respected in their community, his word tramped over her own; meaning her emotions and belittlement were dictated by how John understood her condition. Moreover, this short story expressed how she lacked both freedom and existentialism, relating to Mrs. Mallard as mentioned in “The Story of an Hour”.

Just as the men jeopardized the women’s freedom, they additionally played a role in enforcing constraints. Each story encapsulated the idea by displaying how each husband implemented their ideology, in turn limiting the women. In “The Yellow Wall Paper”, John restricted many activities the narrator participated in, such as writing in her diary, which appears as a harmless hobby. In the narrative, it states, “There comes John, and I must put this away, – he hates to have me write a word” (Gilman 3). This quote displays how the narrator was intimidated by the proclamations John made. She often took his words, generally commands, seriously. Another example, prominently described in the narrative, relates to John refusing to let the narrator exit her room. This caused women to be fixed in the room for most of the day. Gilman depicts this in the quote, “…it would be the heavy bedstead, and then the barred windows, and then that gate at the head of the stairs…” (Gilman 4). This suggested the woman remained in a setting where leaving was not an option. Elements including the windows and the gate propose the main character was not present in a free-willed environment. Similarly, in the narrative “The Story of an Hour”, it is apparent that Mr. Mallard too placed constraints on his wife. However, Mrs. Mallard felt a mental constraint of becoming the “perfect wife”. She underestimated how much of her life she must give away in hopes of pleasing everyone. Though a specific limitation towards Mrs. Mallard was not mentioned, the reader may infer a present constraint through her actions. The following states, “…a little whispered word escaped her slightly parted lips. She said it over and over under the breath: ‘free, free, free!’” (Chopin 1). The quote implies that Mrs. Mallard felt liberated as she released herself from her husband’s limitations. As previously stated, this related back to the feeling of freedom which arose. Furthermore, the limitations placed on Mrs. Mallard and the narrator from “The Yellow Wall Paper” affected how characters were portrayed within each story.

The authoritative tendencies of commanding figures in each piece of writing affected the woman by displaying a parental relationship towards them. The main characters of each story were, in a way, belittled by imperious figures. The story “The Yellow Wall Paper” portrayed the main male persona, John, referring to the narrator in ways in which a father would treat his child. John addressed his wife in an authoritative nature, leading to the inference of having a “parental” relationship. In the narrative Gilman wrote, “What is it, little girl?’ he said. ‘Don’t go walking about like that you’ll get cold’” (Gilman 9). John refers to the narrator as a “little girl” and displays a tendency of instructing her in ways a parent would in regard to their child. In addition, statements such as “Bless her little heart!” (Gilman 10) disparage the woman. As previously mentioned, the usage of “little” gave the narrator a childlike persona, in turn implying her husband had control. Comparably, the second short story authored by Chopin depicts an authoritative nature between Mrs. Mallard, Josephine, and Richards. The characters wanted to shield Mrs. Mallard from the truth. In an attempt to release the devastating news as gently as possible, they instead involuntarily harmed her. As writing proposes,

“Knowing that Mrs. Mallard was afflicted with heart trouble, great care was taken to break to her as gently as possible the news of her husband’s death. It was her sister Josephine who told her, in broken sentences…”. (Chopin 1)

Good intentions were preconceived by Richards and Josephine; nonetheless, refraining to expose life-changing information, stretched into the realm of authority over emotions. Another example referencing an authoritative perspective involved Josephine insisting on barging into Mrs. Mallard’s room. As stated by the author, “Louise, open the door! I beg; open the door – you will make yourself ill” (Chopin 2). This quote describes the protective nature Josephine displayed toward Mrs. Mallard. In this case, similar to a parent caring for the safety of their child, Josephine was frightened for the safety of her sister. Likewise, though each of the authoritative figures in the stories intended to better the situations, they instead negatively affected both women.

As mentioned in both, “The Story of an Hour” and “The Yellow Wall Paper”, insufficient freedom, limitations, and an authoritative power over the women in the stories related to ways in which women were oppressed. Each writer conveyed the message of how the oppression of women related to the commanding personas in their lives. Though each wanted to help, the supporting characters began to subconsciously harm the women. Women today slowly break stereotypes that were once placed upon them. They emerged out of the oppression as a phoenix from the ashes. Standing strong and in unity, women exceeded all expectations and exhibited independence from those who oppress. As Susan B. Anthony once said, “No man is good enough to govern any woman without her consent”.

Mankind has made so many advancements and created a lot of developments with innovations like the television. However, as young children plug into the television set instead of enjoying being outside or interacting with one another, some might think about whether we are without a doubt moving forward and progressing or if it is actually creating regression. This idea is put to test in the short story, “The Pedestrian”. The story provides what could be our possible future. The main character feels isolated and lonely due to the fact he is not hooked to technological advancements like everyone else. Ray Bradbury has chosen to make a statement on the consequences of these improvements. To further provide an explanation for the short story, a man named Leonard Mead goes for walks every night by himself. The year is 2053, and Mr. Mead is the only person walking near his home. He never sees any other person out strolling during the many hours that he strolls. He lives by himself and has no wife or family, so it is a tradition for him to walk each and every evening. It is by no means stated explicitly in the story, however, it can be thought that he is the only walker in society. He chooses not to accept the ways of the new world and because of this, he eventually gets arrested and is forced to be dealt with in a clinic because a police officer thinks that something is mentally wrong with him. This is Ray Bradbury’s way of making a statement about the consequences of innovations. In ‘The Pedestrian,’ it shows how the main character feels isolated and lonely because he is not hooked on technological advancements like everyone else. Ray Bradbury has chosen to make a statement on the effects of these improvements. Through imagery, characterization, and symbolism, he shows that the advancements in technology create isolation and an anti-social society.

The first literary device that is used to elaborate on the theme of isolation and an anti-social society is the use of imagery. Bradbury creates a frightening world filled with the “grey phantoms” of people’s lives that are controlled through the use of technology. Since people are controlled by technology, the author generates this image in his reader’s minds that they are just like ghosts. For example, on the first page of the story, the author says, “sudden gray phantoms seemed to manifest upon inner room walls where a curtain was still undrawn against the night, or there were whisperings and murmurs where a window in a tomb-like building was still open”(Bradbury 1). This evidence depicts Meade’s view that all the people in the “inner room walls” were thought of as ghosts by Meade. The only real human in the story is Mr. Leonard Mead. That is why the description of a graveyard town is used. Another example of imagery in use is when Meade walks by the cottages and homes. Bradbury uses specific words to help readers have a picture in their heads of what he believes is a “graveyard” neighborhood. This piece of evidence says, “ And on his way, he could see the cottages and homes with their dark windows, and it was not unequal to walking through a graveyard where only the faintest glimmers of firefly light appeared in flickers behind the windows” ( Bradbury 1). When Bradbury says this, it represents how this dystopian society is affected by automation. The imagery used clearly displays his negative view of this new technological era. When he says, “the faintest glimmers of firefly”, he is referring to televisions and how they are creating a “graveyard” feeling because everyone is sucked into them and not interacting with others.

To summarize, the fact that everyone and everything is controlled by the advancements of 2053, Mr. Mead is lonely and feels separate from the rest of his community. In his feeling lonely, he expresses with the use of imagery. Similar to imagery characterization also emotes the same feeling and emotion Mead.

The second way the author uses a literary device is in the form of characterization to elude the theme of technology creating isolation. The way that Mr. Meade is perceived by readers all throughout the story is dispirited. The way that readers can assume that Meade is clearly sorrowful because of this new world of advancements, is through the words that the author uses to express Meade. A perfect example of this is when Bradbury says, “he was alone in this world of A.D. 2053, or as good as alone….” (Bradbury 1). The words displayed in this quote show how this new world makes Meade feel. It is obvious that technology takes a toll on the emotions and feelings of life Mr. Meade. Another way that it is shown that Mead feels alone is when he walks and whispers at the windows of people’s houses because he is lonely and everyone else is too busy watching television. The quote says, “Hello, in there,” he whispered to every house on every side as he moved. “What’s up tonight on Channel 4, Channel 7, Channel 9”(Bradbury 1)? Only a lonely person would go from house to house and talk to the house as if they would respond. Due to people watching television he feels isolated and left out which then is what leads him to talk to houses. To sum up, characterization puts more emphasis on how Meade is affected by this advanced world that is taking over his community. In a separate way, symbolism also emphasizes this same theme.

The last literary device used in “The Pedestrian” to show the theme is symbolism.

Mr. Meade is the largest and most important symbol in this story. Meade doesn’t accept this new society and he does the precise opposite of everyone else which in turn makes him divided from the rest of the people around him. Further, It is the author’s notion that people have misplaced their creativity and crave to be original or think. Meade however doesn’t and this is shown when the story says, “ What is it now”, he asked the houses, noticing his watch.” Eight-thirty P.M.? Tim for a dozen assorted murders? A quiz? A revenue? A comedian falling off stage”(Bradbury 1)? This quote is Mead almost being sarcastic towards the people who just watch television. He’s judging them because they are choosing to not interact or use their imagination. In doing this, he ends up dissociating himself from the rest of the people around him. His separating because he realizes how bad technology can be is why he is the biggest symbol in the story.

The next symbol in this story is Leonard’s house. Leonard’s house is a symbol of knowledge and realization because it is the only home where it is not lit up by the lights of a television. On the last page of the story it says, “They passed one house on one street a moment later, one house in an entire city of houses that were dark, but this one particular house had all of its electric lights brightly lit, every window a loud yellow illumination, square and warm in the cool darkness” ( Bradbury 4). The fact that Mead`s house was lit up by lights and not dim except for the light of television shows that he is defying the norms of society. In doing this he makes his house a symbol of his defiance. Again, his refusing to try and fit in causes him to be left out of a society which is the theme of this story.

In the story, “The Pedestrian”, written by Ray Bradbury the usage of imagery, characterization, and symbolism as literary devices help acclimate and show the theme of how technology can negatively impact the world through separation and less social interaction. Bradbury being different than everyone else because he did not want to involve himself with technology made him very lonely and isolated. Because he defied social norms, he did become a symbol however, it was a symbol of loss and sadness due to not fitting in.

To conclude, even though technology can be good, it is obvious in this story that all these new advancements create regression, not progression.

The dissimilar reader’s perception of Curt Lemon’s death and the soldiers hearing voices in the forest have had Tim and other soldiers falter in translating what had happened during the events when they had just happened versus when he narrates them.

Throughout the book, you see the soldiers question their sanity, but never confront the question directly. They always answer it by telling a story from their perspective. This is shown when Tim O’Brien describes the blowing up of “almost beautiful” and his ascension into the air as the sunlight lifts him and eventually sucks him high into a tree. This aids in giving the reader a better insight into the comprehension capacity of the soldiers in Tim O’Brien’s platoon. The language and perspective of the soldiers when expressing themselves show the universal understanding among the soldiers, those who aren’t here simply don’t understand the unity of being away from home and the perspective of life that it provides. There is indirect mention in regards to the internal battle of belief when Mitchell Sanders discusses the story of the jungle talking to a group of soldiers. He makes a statement that Tim O’Brien “won’t believe” the story that he is about to tell him.

The story of the jungle is perceived as predominantly, if not entirely, false to the dissimilar reader. This possibly extends to Mitchell Sanders, as he tries to convince Tim O’Brien that the story is true, yet is acting dismissive to whether or not Tim believes the story he is about to tell. Tim notes this after hearing a “sigh” like sound coming from Mitchell’s throat. Tim understands this as Mitchell trying to act as if Tim not believing him would not matter to him and that he didn’t care, but the truth was that “he did care”. He wanted Tim to “feel the truth” probably just as he did. Yet, during all this, Mitchell “seemed sad”.

In the description of the events in the jungle, the language used gives good insight into the overall perception of the Vietnam soldiers from the American soldiers. When the Vietnam natives are referred to with derogatory or offensive names such as “dink” (derived from dinky) and “gook”, it gives the understanding that they (the American soldiers) view the Vietnamese as inferior. This gives the reader a sense of irony, as throughout the chapter ‘How to Tell a War Story’ their experiences are always spoken from the sound of sympathy and victimhood. When emphasizing the severity of the seemingly occurring sounds of the “cocktail party”, the element of skepticism is in the language chosen in describing the situation as a whole. Mitchell starts off his sentence with the hidden disclaimer “It’s crazy, I know but…”, and then uses “actually” to legitimize the experience.

For most of the war experience, it is delineated in a fashion that can be perceived as fiction, and to the divergent reader, in a separate world altogether, but when the ‘fourth wall’ dimension is broken, the soldiers’ understanding of reality is revealed. Aided by pre-existing knowledge of the American soldiers’ perception of the Vietnamese (inferior), the reality shown makes the realization starker. The sounds of a “hoity-toity” party and the uncivilized now “civilized” leads them to conclude that where they are isn’t “civilized”, but they are in “Nam”, where civilization is just a mere remembrance of where they used to be, and where the reader is possibly reading from.

Proceeding in Mitchell Sanders’ story, the soldiers hearing in from the jungle call in enemy movement, “a whole army” they claimed. The US army proceeds to bring in “arty” (artillery), armed “gunships”, and fighter aircraft, napalming all directional walks of the “ridge”, making apparent “jungle juice” out of it. They then proceed to set the area ablaze. When the soldiers are then asked to explain the call for the attack, they remain silent. They couldn’t express themselves. This relates to a similar discussion from an analysis, written by Alex Vernon in his ‘Salvation, Storytelling, and Pilgrimage in Tim O’Brien’s ‘The Things They Carried’’; he discusses the possibility of Tim, the character, and O’Brien, the author… whether this communication of the war experience is sufficient for quieting his own demons. The translation for this text is if the communication would suffice to express what the soldiers had to endure and possibly if they can even communicate their experience which would make them struggle to speak their truth.

The chapter ‘How to Tell a War Story’ is a constant reminder from the author Tim O’Brien that the only truth is in the words of fictional characters. This also includes the character Tim O’Brien, as he is named after the author, but is just as fictional as the others. The authenticity of the experiences solely relies on the reader’s interpretation of the text and how it was written. The name of the chapter is a reminder that no matter the intensity of the chapter’s influence, all experiences are of fictional origin.

In conclusion, the soldiers’ descriptive perspective is a great source of understanding how they utilize scenic descriptive words in a need to communicate their perception of traumatizing events. We also gain insight into the method of giving unconventional descriptions of typically terrifying events to get the reader to understand the callus that was built by the soldiers. The author Tim O’Brien used a fictional version of himself, which only helps reinforce the moral of ‘How to Tell a True War Story’, which is that the truth is what you make it out to be.