The Rory Gilmore Book Club discussion

Here's the place to discuss Kate Chopin's The Awakening. This one's pretty short so it should be a quick read.


A bit about the novel from Wikipedia:

"The Awakening is a novel by Kate Chopin, first published in 1899. Set in New Orleans and the Southern Louisiana coast at the end of the nineteenth century, the plot centers on Edna Pontellier and her struggle to reconcile her increasingly unorthodox views on femininity and motherhood with the prevailing social attitudes of the turn-of-the-century South. It is one of the earliest American novels that focuses on women's issues without condescension. It is also one of the most important novels written by an American woman in the nineteenth century (perhaps second only to Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin in terms of historical and social significance)."

Some discussion questions stolen from the web, very general:

- What is important about the title?

- What are the conflicts in The Awakening? What types of conflict (physical, moral, intellectual, or emotional) did you notice in this novel?

- What are some themes and symbols in the story? How do they relate to the plot and characters?

- Is Edna Pontellier consistent in her actions? Is she a fully developed character? How? Why?

- How essential is the setting to the story? Could the story have taken place anywhere else?

- What is the role of women in the text? How are mothers represented? What about single/independent women?

I am only three chapters into the book thus far, and what I have noticed off the back is how sterotypical Mr. Pontellier seems to be. He seems to fit the "masagonistic male" steretype to me. He expects Edna to stay home with the kids while he goes out and gambles. The he seems irritated when she is not awake when he comes in late at night. That could change when I get further into the story this is just what I have seen from the first three chapters.

This is one of my favorite stories from this era. Now, we may find it a bit predictable, but it was really groundbreaking and controversial at the time.

I only picked this up yesterday and will start it this evening. Have been wanting to read it for a long time and am glad it finally got selected here as I think this group should do it justice in a discussion.

Jessica, I can't say that I liked Mr. Pontellier very much, but I actually feel pretty bad for him by the end. I don't think he was any worse than other men of the era. It did make me appreciate the boundaries that women have broken before me.

I studied this book in my American Lit class earlier this fall. And this book caused a huge sensation when it first came out, but then it was forgotten until the 1960s feminism movement.

I can't really hold Mr. Pontellier at fault. He was just acting in the only way he knew how to act, the way he was taught. So really, it wasn't his fault alone--it was a society wide thing in the upper middle class.

What a multi-level, complicated book. I'm about halfway through and it is fascinating. The South, Louisiana's complicated mix of people (Creole, Cajun, blacks, French, Spanish, whites of all levels) and the cultural expectations of each as an entity and on the part of others creates quite a stew, no? Then the gender expectaions of each of these various sub-cultures and marriage expectations. Wow. I'm sure the writing and language may create problems for some readers but I'm finding it absolutely beautiful.

Dottie I completely agree it's a very complicated book. I think it's very interesting to see what was expected of women in that day and age. Especially when Mr. Pontellier describes his wife as "not a very good mother".
Jessica, I agree, Mr. Pontellier is a stereotypical male in that day and age. I'm not that far in, but he seems to be quite two dimensional.

I'm having some difficulties reading the story (I'm reading in English) so I'm going a bit slow (as usual).

It would be interesting to see what you all think of the other male characters, Robert Lebrun and Alcee Arobin, as compared to Mr. Pontellier. I hope I didn't get the names wrong. I really need to skim this book again to remember everything.

I had problems with Mr. P. but he handled the "saving public image" situation well when Edna purchased and moved to "the Pigeon" house. That name given by the old servant makes me wonder if it came from the servant's cultural background -- was it a term applied to a house where the woman/wife was too forward and out of her husband's control or where the woman ruled when that was not the norm? I would have to go back to pinpoint the servant's background -- Creole or something else.

Robert LeBrun played the typical role of one of his culture -- Madame? who told him to not play with Mrs. P as he would be expected to with the other women who summered at Grand Isle saw that Edna was not part of the role playing that she would take Robert seriously and it could be disastrous for all. Still he played it -- and I think in the long haul he fell out of his role and fell for Edna but knew that it would not work in the light of the mixture of cultures and so tried to "cure" things by retreating to Mexico but could not stay away -- but knew from that one encounter that he could not play it out to the end and so removed himself again. I think I admire him for removing himself but it would have been even better had he realized the warning from the woman friend was not given lightly and should not have been taken lightly.

Alcee Arobin was a cad but he was a delightful one -- and he seemed to be more open and aware of the right/wrong stnaces of the interactions between the levels of the varying cultures. I think he fell in love with Edna to a great degree but he kept his awareness of that not being possible in any real sens. I think he was also aware of Edna and Robert and both of their understandings and misunderstandings of their relationship or non-relationship.

As I said -- a complicated book. A delightful reading experience. I also h ave some thinking to do on Acedia as related to The Awakening as many of the "symptoms" opf Edna's unease within her marriage and in her life generally ring very true to the effects of acedia and/or depression. And that takes me back to Virginia Woolf's works once again.

SPOILERS



I never thought that Arobin fell in love with Edna. To me he seemed to be in it just for the fun -- like Robert did in a way, but Robert knew he was going to overstep the boundaries when flirting with Edna so he withdrew, something Arobin never seemed to worry about. But then again, I read this a few years ago so I might think differently when I reread it.

Dini wrote: "SPOILERS"..........

Dini -- as to this -- I could as easily change my mind to your view when I revisit the book. I'm sure I will revisit it as it offers so much for reflection on m any levels that it invites re-reading.

Oh how I love this book! But I'm only 2 chapters into this reading.(I read it about 15 years ago). Look forward to posting when I can catch a break!

Look forward to your thoughts on this one, Alison, especially as you've obviously held it in a favored place.

Dini posted this question--

- How essential is the setting to the story? Could the story have taken place anywhere else?

I have never been to the part of the country where the book takes place, but I thought that the setting gave the story a magical feel. I was reminded a little bit of the movie, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, because of the setting. I guess I was visualizing humidity throughout the whole book, and the humidity cast a dreamy and sensual light on everything for me. So to answer the question, I don't think the story could have taken place in just any setting. I think the seasons and the decade were as equally important as the location, too.

*Spoilers*

First of all, I found the writing beautiful. The setting and the characters were extremely well described. I tend to judge books based on the writing and how they make me feel, not whether or not I agree with the message. So in that way, I loved this book, and it has stuck with me.

However, I am very pro-marriage, so Edna's thoughts and actions didn't sit well with me. I think that the society as a whole during that era was mistaken in the way it viewed marriage and the roles of men and women. Edna shouldn't have married Mr. Pontellier in the first place, or felt like she had to. Although I saw him as a relatively decent man, he had the prejudices and expectations toward women common for his time. For example, I found it interesting that young men like Robert and Alcee were free to flirt with married women without their husbands caring at all. That is obviously just a tragedy in the making.

Speaking of tragedy, the end of the novel was highly unsatisfying. I am assuming that Edna allowed herself to drown in the sea; is that what you all consider to have happened? It was very frustrating to me that Robert gave Edna a taste of himself and then drew away again. I hate it when men play with women's hearts, or vice versa.

*SPOILER*

Kathleen--
I think it's safe to say that Edna did drown. I guess it's possible that someone saw her and rescued her, but that's not what I imagined. Who knows, maybe Victor came to her aid, and she fell in love with him as well!

Also, I don't blame Robert for anything that happened to Edna. He shouldn't have falled in love with a married woman in the first place, but she did seem to encourage him and even seek him out. I guess I considered Edna to be the one that was playing with hearts. He did seem to have some self-control, in that he tried to remove himself from the situation. Overall, I tended to like all of the male characters better than I did Edna.

Kristi wrote: "Jessica, I can't say that I liked Mr. Pontellier very much, but I actually feel pretty bad for him by the end. I don't think he was any worse than other men of the era. It did make me appreciate ..."

Yeah I got a little farther into it and now I am starting to like him better. Thata was just my first impression.

Robert is just like a fickle child. I think he covets (hope this is a good word) older women, but he has no desire of making a serious commitment.

Edna is kind of a victim as well in my eyes. I thought about the title a lot. Edna is asleep in her marriage, a marriage that is for her, quite loveless. She is forced in a corset, not only fysically. She needs a love affair to break free from that corset, to be able to breath again. That's my thought on it anyway. I think she did drown, because she couldn't be restrained again. Or am I thinking to far now?

Spoilers ahead!

I just finished the book, and I may be back with more detailed comments later, but I want to say this : I hated how the ending was so vague! If a main character drowns herself in the end, I don't want to be left wondering "Did she die or not?" It's a pretty important fact as far as the storyline and character development goes and shouldn't be left so vague. Maybe this makes me a very un-modern and un-intellectual reader, but I like to know for certain what happens.

Anyway. Until then I liked the book pretty well; the writing has a lovely atmosphere and Chopin can portray lots of emotions and developments with few words. I don't particularly approve of Edna's actions - I'm all for finding yourself and not tying yourself to social conditions that suffocate you, but what she did was a little extreme. Then again, I didn't get the feeling that Chopin was advocating her behaviour as a good example. It was more a description of what can happen when a person lives many years in a dream-like existence without any idea of what they really want from life, then awaken to realise it, and the people and society around them don't support or understand them. It's a tragic story to me, not one of empowerment or finding a solution to the dissatisfying situation.

I started skimming this book again after my first reading around 3-4 years ago, and halfway through the book so far my general impression is the same as when I first read it. I agree that the writing is beautiful, you get the sense of the atmosphere and the characters' feelings.

It seems Edna's real awakening happened when she first went swimming by herself in Grand Isle, which made her feel exhilaratingly independent. I was trying to find clues whether or not her "awakening" had anything to do with Robert, whether she would have felt the same about her situation had Robert not been there. So far the answer seems to be no, that her restlessness stemmed from inside of her and not merely caused by Robert's influence.

Re: Mr. Pontellier, I agree that he was just acting the way the society that he lived in in that era expected him to behave. In a way he and Edna are the same, they married, lived together and had children because it was what respectable people do. It was even said that he let Robert become close to Edna because "the Creole man is never jealous". I wonder if things would've been different if he hadn't reacted that way towards Robert's flirtations to Edna.

Why do you think Edna is attracted to the motherly Mademoiselle Ratignolle? Because she is so different from her? I understand her admiration for Mademoiselle Reisz is because of the lady's dedication to her art, but I'm still trying to figure out her fascination toward Ratignolle.

The last question: I think it's because Madame Ratignolle is so different from her, yes. I get the feeling that Edna, who feels so unfulfilled in the role of a wife and mother and discontent in her life, is fascinated by someone who can find fulfilment and contentedness in the same things. And Mme Ratignolle seems genuine in it, unlike many women who probably just pretend and do as they've been taught, and Edna herself wants to be genuine and find fulfilment (though in different things) but doesn't know how.

That's just my feelings, of course, how I interpreted it.

Mme Ratignolle and Mlle Reisz are actually quite interesting as two entirely different poles to whom Edna feels drawn - and she doesn't manage to be what either of them represent.

SPOILERS



I've finished my second reading of the book (well, skimming mostly) and I might have to revise my previous statement about Robert not being the main influence behind Edna's awakening. Edna herself said it was Robert who had "awakened her from slumber" the previous summer, and now it seemed to me she would not have undergone so drastic a change if not because of her love for Robert and her desire to be with him.

Amanda wrote: "I think our final exam question was something along the lines of "was Edna's decision in the end noble or selfish?" I think I came down on selfish, but I remember really having to sit and think about it."

I think it really was selfish, because Edna was at the point where she wanted to be herself. She could not possibly be herself if she had to sacrifice herself for her children, so the only way she could be herself was in death. It's a Catch-22 situation, really, because if she did what she wanted she would hurt her children, but if she chose to protect her children she would lose her own identity.

Amanda, I thought your experience in reading the book is very interesting. As for me, I used this book for my undergraduate thesis but even after reading it numerous times in the past, when I read it now I found some new things that I didn't see before.

SPOILERS



The introduction to my copy of the book (from Bantam Classics) offered an interesting insight on Edna's awakening. It said that very little actually changed within Edna after her awakening, and some of her changes were in fact regression. Her strong feelings for Robert mirrors her early infatuation with the tragedian. She married Mr. Pontellier to "close the portal upon the realms of romance and dreams" but she later rejected him in favor of them. The pigeon house was like another version of the summer house in Grand Isle.

For me personally, Edna's awakening had a childish aspect to it. She seems to be running away from everything without any clear plan, without an idea of the consequences of her actions. When her children asked her what would happen after she moved to the pigeon house, she only said "the fairies would fix it all right". She also didn't offer much of an explanation on her conduct to her husband. Mme Ratignolle was right when she said Edna seemed to her like a child who acts without any reflection.

In the end, I agree with what Katri said, that Chopin was not trying to set Edna's behavior as a good example. To echo what Dottie said, it is indeed a multi-layered, complicated book.

I agree about Edna's awakening being rather childish in some ways. Somehow she never progresses beyond the early stages of rebellion to actually think about how she wants to live her life and then do it. I also found that scene very telling where Mlle Reisz feels her shoulderblades "to test the strength of her wings". Edna seems like someone who may have ideas of what she wants but not enough strength to do anything constructive with it.

I definitely think Edna's choice in the end is selfish. I can't see anything noble about it. It's not any sort of a great triumph for women's rights that she goes and drowns herself, and neither is it any other noble sort of sacrifice or atonement for past or present wrongs. She just lacks the strength to go on on the path she has chosen.

It's still a very interesting book, but I feel a bit confused by those who hail it as a great feminist work or something like that.

Katri said: It's still a very interesting book, but I feel a bit confused by those who hail it as a great feminist work or something like that.

Katri -- I beleive to understand that evaluation of the book requires a strict concentration upon the time in which the book was published and some level of study as to the differences between that time and the time when one reads the book. I also believe that in ANY age -- yes, even now in 2010 -- one will find women who when they find a book such as this -- or Woolf's A Room of One's Own or Lessing's The Golden Notebook or French's The Women's Room -- will respond to it viscerally. There are women who know these needs but cannot move to meet them -- and some of these will stay stuck and others may, unfortunately, act upon the ensuing despair as did Edna.

I'm not unaware of the historical situation etc. What I meant is that Edna's approach is not particularly constructive or much of a solution to a problem, and I don't even find her problems are all that great in terms of a problem of women, it's more a problem of human beings that it can be difficult to do in your life what you really want to do and that social expectations can bind you down. A man of her social class would also be frowned upon if they stopped doing their duties and spent their time on nothing but painting and going around the town; the only specifically female thing about Edna's situation is that the duties she forsakes are those of wife and mother rather than those of a family father who should make a living etc. But I felt the situation she was in was largely a personality issue rather than a gender issue. It doesn't make it any worse a book, it just puts the focus somewhere different.

Of course the time it was written in, Edna's being a woman probably made her behaviour particularly condemnable in eyes of the public, but I still don't feel the book is a very strong analysis of women in society and their problems, it's more just an example of Things People Do. Which is no less worthy as literature, of course.

To compare it with another work from about the same era, Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House, where the main character also ends up leaving her husband and children (though remaining alive), there it was a lot more obvious to me that Nora's problems were because she was a woman and had been kept ignorant and naïve because of her sex and therefore made mistakes when trying to do good; and her solution, though radical, showed her trying to work with her problems and thinking about them, and trying to find a new way for herself to live her life as a woman and a human being; not just giving up as soon as the first taste of rebellion begins to feel bland like Edna does.

Wow this is a great discussion, but so much to talk about! I hate it when I come in at the end b/c I am so overwhelmed with so many talking points.

I will just add that I definetely think Edna drowned in the sea. But I felt the sea was a metaphor for the solitude that she was seeking. I felt like she wanted to be able to wander aimlessly again, as in the meadow when she was a child. She didn't want to feel constricted or oppressed, she just wanted to give into the sea and be carried away.

The one sentence was written twice...once at the beginning and once in the end..about the seductive voice of the sea....

Found it! "The voice of the sea is seductive, never ceasing, whispering, clamoring, murmuring, inviting the soul to wander in abysses of solitude."

What do you guys think the sea represents? Why do you think Edna was so concerned with solitude?

Hmm... I guess Edna was so into solitude as a reaction against what was expected of her by everyone around: to devote herself to family and husband, to be a good member of the society and visit all the important ladies and receive visits etc. Because that was too much for her, she sought as much solitude as possible instead.

The sea... I have to think about it, but I definitely feel a certain wonderful sensation of freedom whenever I'm in the water - carried by a great big force powerful than any human beings or societies, and swimming in it with the force of my own body. I could very much relate to Edna feeling a freedom and an awakening in the water. But it also symbolises that eventually she doesn't have her own strength to go through her chosen path, but lets the more powerful force take her and engulf her.

And that's interesting about the repeated sentence, I didn't notice that!

Now that you mentioned the repeating sentence, Alison, I think it was also mentioned in the introduction in my copy as another example of Edna's actual regression. The novel begins with her being enthralled by the sea, and ends with her letting it take her away.

Re: the feminist/not feminist discussion --

Edna's decision in the end to let the sea take her away was meant to show that it was her decision, and not that of her husband or any of the men in her life. For once she had full control of her actions, whether it's deemed selfish or not - what she wanted was to be free, and she accomplished that in the end. As far as what that might say about the women's movement in a historical sense, if you look at any movement in history you will see there has been sacrifice. I'm not necessarily debating that Edna's actions were noble, but her actions did open the eyes of readers at the time of publication and since. The question is who is in charge of a woman's actions? Women were considered property at that time, and Edna clearly made a decision about how she felt about that by carrying on relations with other men; but she also made a decision about how she wanted to be in the world. Did she want to be a part of a world where women are meant to be property, or did she feel it would be better to not be a part of that binding society? She chose the latter, but the important part about that decision is that she chose it for herself.

Even today there are debates as to what makes this or that or this other thing feminist. Katri brought up Edna vs. Nora in Henrik Ibsen's A Doll House. Here are two women who handle things differently in their relationships, but both could be seen as feminist in their actions. Just like today - is the woman who chooses to stay home and raise children more, less or the same sort of feminist than the woman who chooses to follow her career? It's all relative.

SPOILERS

I really enjoyed Edna allowing the sea to take her, as El said, she had the control of her actions. She could now swim and had already 'beaten' the sea and conquered it the time she managed to come back to land after being too far out, so her demise this time was utterly of her own choosing. Yes it was selfish, but does it matter?

That being said, I got so fully immersed in this novel I was shocked at the abrupt end. I wanted more but wasn't disappointed with what occured.

I agree with El's statements and I might also ponder if Kate Chopin herself was forced to make sacrifices...sacrifices that paved the way for other female authors. She wanted to write Edna honestly, and from what I've seen, this book was not well-received because of it during her lifetime. It wasn't til later that people finally began to get over the shock of Edna's actions and begin to see this novel for what it was.

I couldn't agree more about choice (and said as much in my review). The beauty of being the stay-at-home mom now vs. the career mom, or a little bit of both, or neither...whatever your situation is...for the most part the modern woman gets to decide (in most cultures). So I guess you could be a stay-at-home mom of 15 kids and wash and iron all of your husband's clothes every night and STILL be considered a feminist, if you're doing exactly what you want to do.

I came to this discussion late but really enjoyed all the thoughtful comments/criticisms/compliments about the book. I read this a year or so ago and absolutely loved it--I agree that it is beautiful, haunting and provides lots of room for thought. I, too, felt a bit unsatisfied at the ending but not, perhaps, as unsatisfied as I would have thought. Maybe it is "unsatisfying" for the readers because it may be argued that Edna had such an unsatisfying life and that her "ending" was not as satisfying as the life she would have wished to live if she had been free...? I agree that this was meant to be an eye-opening book and that the censure was to be placed upon society's expectations rather than any one character.

For other books following the women-confined-by-society line, consider
Lolly Willowes : Or the Loving Huntsman and Excellent Women

El wrote: "Re: the feminist/not feminist discussion --

Edna's decision in the end to let the sea take her away was meant to show that it was her decision, and not that of her husband or any of the men in h..."

Hmm. I know one can interpret things that way if one wants, but I've never warmed up to that. Perhaps it's because (also for personal reasons which I'd better not discuss here) I'm absolutely unable to see suicide as a tool for something great and as anything else than a loss and a tragedy. I would have had so much more respect for Edna's choice if she had left to live on her own. To me the choice she made was a sign of weakness and made the story a personal tragedy but not any kind of a noble sacrifice for the cause of feminism. What sort of a choice of your own it is if you simply give up and stop living, rather than try to find your own way of living?

I don't think the comparison between woman who stays at home vs. woman who makes a career applies here. Both of those women are making active choices about how to live their life. Edna is just choosing not to live it.

I view her story in terms of that scene where Mlle Reisz tests her wings: her wings are not strong enough. And that makes it a tragedy of how difficult it can be to rebel against society and find yourself if you don't have a passionate enough motivation or enough force of personality. I'm not saying the story doesn't touch me; it does, definitely. But it does it on a very different level than the supposed feminist content or the idea of noble sacrifice in the end. To me it's a personal tragedy where the social conditions (woman's role in society and family) play a role in the events but aren't the main thing the story is about.

Sorry to go on so much about it, I just find it rather disturbing that this sort of choice would be elevated as feminist and liberating behaviour. Maybe it's my aversion to seeing suicide used as a tool rather than a personal tragedy. I think the book meant it to be a tragedy, not a liberation. That's how I personally read it, anyway. Of course it's a book which leaves much to the reader's interpretation and thoughts, so it can be experienced in many different ways.

Katri wrote: "El wrote: "Re: the feminist/not feminist discussion --

Edna's decision in the end to let the sea take her away was meant to show that it was her decision, and not that of her husband or any of the..."

I guess what I'm saying is that what it means to be a feminist is a relative thing. Whether or not I agree with Edna's decision in the end or consider it to be or not to be feminist isn't really the issue. I brought it up as an argument for why The Awakening is considered by many to be a feminist text. I don't consider porn stars or strippers to be feminist but many do. It's not something one can really argue. I agree that Edna's actions in the end were not exactly noble, per se, but she made a decision based on what was right for her. Trust me, I also have an aversion to suicide and do not consider it an answer to a situation.

Katri wrote: "Edna is just choosing not to live it."

But it's still a choice, and that's what it makes it profound whether we agree with it or not.

Katri wrote: "To me it's a personal tragedy where the social conditions (woman's role in society and family) play a role in the events but aren't the main thing the story is about."

It absolutely is a personal tragedy, but I disagree in that I do believe the social conditions actually are the main part of the story, albeit in a roundabout sort of way. :) Perkins's The Yellow Wall-Paper is also a personal tragedy about the social conditions of the time.

But by that logic, one can say that any random action is feminist if it's all a relative thing. I don't see how giving up is feminist. She's acknowledging she doesn't have strength to try to live any kind of a live for herself, how's that feminist? I'm sorry, I'm just really not seeing this point of view no matter how I try. I can intellectually wrap my brain around the idea that somebody could think that way, but I don't actually understand the thought.

I really found the ending very dissatisfying. I nearly threw the book to a wall when I read it, too (I recall someone earlier said doing something similar). Of course it could be that if Edna had actively gone away, the book would have been criticised even more, but still... That doesn't make me like it any more.

It does resonate me on an entirely different, emotional and personal development level. But I'm really not seeing the feminism in it, in any interpretation of feminism that I can understand. I mean, I see it in the fact that the social conditions were restricting to Edna, but I don't see it in her choice. It's more like "If women aren't allowed to live their life as is right to them, and they wake up to it too late and have already lost the ability to form and use their own will, the result will be just giving up and dying because they don't know how to live a life". Which is a profound point in itself (and on the other hand applies to all people in situations where social conditions restrict their life choices), but doesn't make Edna's actions noble.

Katri, perhaps it would be easier to look at Edna's unorthodox views of femininity and the decisions she made in relation to those views. She was raised to believe a woman was meant to be a bearer of children and the property of her husband, and nothing more. She disagreed with those common beliefs of the time and did things that were considered highly inappropriate in her society. That is feminism. Let's leave the ending of the story out of the picture for now. :)

The fact that Chopin wrote vivid descriptions of sexuality at the end of the 19th-C also shows how ahead of her time she was as a female writer. Women were not encouraged to enjoy their sexuality still at that time - the idea was to breed, and intercourse should be for nothing but to breed. Chopin used Edna as a vehicle against that line of thought.

This book inspired a whole new set of women writers as they were encouraged to see the "glass roof" of literature had been broken. Certainly Chopin was not the first woman writer to go above and beyond what was expected of women writers, but she was one of the most important.

I think all of the above points, whether one agrees with them or not, show what makes The Awakening fall in the category of feminist literature. It might not be Simon de Beauvoir or Betty Friedan or Gloria Steinam, but for 1899 I think it's fair to say it was considered pretty darn close.

Yes, perhaps it is not Edna's final actions that are the "feminist" aspect of the book but rather the overall story in terms of bringing to light feelings about society's confining of women's lives. Perhaps Edna was not meant to be a "role model" although I do agree that an alternate conclusion could have been more useful/encouraging to women of the era/promoting feminism.

I think the point is that Edna was trapped--in a way that we can't even imagine now because opportunities for women have change drastically in the past 111 years. I don't think living on her own was a choice for Edna. She most likely had no way to support herself. I don't think anyone applauds her for choosing to end her life. I think we're meant to see the tragedy in not being able to choose.

Alison wrote: "I think the point is that Edna was trapped--in a way that we can't even imagine now because opportunities for women have change drastically in the past 111 years. I don't think living on her own w..."

I believe you've nailed it, Alison. I think that we would be mistaken to believe that the situation in which Edna lived no longer exists anywhere (yes, still, even in this day in the USA there are some realtaionships and situations which by whatever combination of circumstances these situations still exist). Yes, ending one's life is not a good choice -- but it still happens more often than we might be comfortable acknowledging. And yes, choice is the point. Being able to make one's own decisions and choices even when in a relationship/marriage. Choices made freely by the person themselves -- whether male or female.

Yes, good point, Dottie. Opportunities have changed for most women, but definetely not all.