World Literature: Feminism seen through Alice Munro's "Prue" and Mavis Gallant's "My Heart is Broken"

Mingyu Kim
121015

World Literature: Feminism seen through Alice Munro's "Prue" and Mavis Gallant's "My Heart is Broken"

Feminism in literature saw its rise during the 19th century as the feminist movement emerged as an important social movement. The first wave, as the movement's beginning is commonly called, started from the 19th century and spanned for nearly a hundred years until around 1960s. The first wave mostly emphasized rights and equality, mostly politically. The second wave, lasting from around 1960s to late 19th century, highlighted the social and cultural equality of women, especially regarding social expectations about women. The third wave, which began in the late 19th century and is still in effect, mostly emphasizes the portrayal of societies' perception of women rather than actively displaying as in the first wave the social limits and violations of women's rights.

Feminism can clearly be depicted through literature in a variety of ways, as seen in the different waves of feminism. Mavis Gallant's "My Heart is Broken" (1961) and Alice Munro's "Prue" (1981) are both short stories that reflect that feminist movement--they both possess very similar elements yet the stories are expressed by each author in very different perspectives.

In Mavis Gallant's "My Heart is Broken" (1961), the contrast between social expectations and personal interests are explicitly shown. Therefore, this story would fit into the second wave feminism. There is Mrs. Thompson, who is the more traditional women of the time and believes that women should stay at home, stay out of trouble, and fulfill her duty as a loyal wife. And in contrast to Mrs. Thompson, there is Jeannie, who seemingly desires a freer role in life and possesses personal interests. From what the readers learn about Jeannie, it seems that she is also quite open minded about having casual relationship with men as seen in her relationship with the German at where she previously lived. Though it is rather clear from a feminist standpoint that Jeannie is the more desirable and modern woman who challenges the traditional beliefs, it would be unfair to conclude that Jeannie is the enlightened ideal woman who every feminist at the time lived up to be since Jeannie was still greatly influenced by the traditional beliefs of the time as well. How Jeannie sadly states how she thought "they all liked me" and how she wouldn't have made the fuss had the rapist "at least liked her" shows that Jeannie is only used to being loved and admired by her husband Vern like a pretty flower.

Alice Munro's "Prue" (1981) was similar to "My Heart is Broken" in that they both highlight social expectations about women and how women respond to them. However, "Prue" is much more subtle in depicting this as a clear conflict between social expectations and personal interests is not shown. This makes sense in a third wave feminism story like "Prue" because by this time, the focus has already shifted away from the necessity of basic rights and social equality, and the urgency of the matter has also died down to a degree as well so the depiction of the story need not be as radical. The narrator tells the readers that Prue is a very likeable person. But looking at how nonchalant Prue is about her relationships leaves the readers wondering whether Prue truly meets the social expectation by being casual as part of her own natural personality or if she herself has adapted to the social expectations to become accepted. The narrator states that Prue "hated to be thought suspicious" but this is probably because she believes that to be thought suspicious is not a socially desirable trait. Prue is definitely similar to Jeannie in that she is very open about having sex and maintaining casual relationship with men. But Prue seems to be much more mature or at least much more aware of the social expectations of her role.

As I read the two stories, I felt that "Prue" came to me much more personally than "My Heart is Broken." Granted, "My Heart is Broken" did depict the conflict of views much more explicitly so it was naturally easier to understand the feminist element. However, I felt that "Prue" came to me as something more than just a feminist depiction as everyone, to some degree, feel the social expectations on their shoulders and strive to meet that standard. It's part of a survival strategy. Personally, when I endure a failure of some sort, I learn to get over it by being casual about it. Once you tell yourself repeatedly that it is not a big deal, it gets into your head. Eventually, I'm able to make jokes about my failures and laugh with my friends about it.

World Literature: Anton Chekhov “The Student”

Mingyu Kim 121015

World Literature: Anton Chekhov “The Student”

“The Student” is a short story that keeps getting better and better every time one reads it. At first glance, the story feels rather mundane and unremarkable—a student of the clerical academy preaches to two widows about Apostle Peter and is struck by a sudden epiphany that the past, the present, and the future are all intertwined in an “unbroken chain of events.” It is certainly not a story which a typical reader can feel a strong connection to on the first read. Yet, for some reason “The Student” is considered the epitome of short stories and is often deemed the “perfect short story” by many scholars. Why?

“The Student” is a work that requires further exploration in order to fully appreciate its sophisticated theme. Furthermore, it is a controversial story because its open ending allows for various interpretations. I personally found “The Student” to be rather uninteresting in regards to the story itself but I do admire it as a work of literature. The story is surely not purported for mere entertainment but rather serves to provide a perspective on a particular attitude held by the Russian society at the time or perhaps even on the philosophy that the past, present and future are related.

                  The first time I read this story, I didn’t know what I read. It was unlike any short story I had ever read before. There was no evident plot nor was there a clear conclusion. The story begins with the student, Ivan Velikopolski, preaching about Apostle Peter to the two widows he had just met and ends with the student in an intangible epiphany. Throughout the story, one of the most important scene open for interpretation is the meaning of the tears of the old woman, Vasilisa. If the tears were as the student had thought from the connection to Apostle Peter, his epiphany may have been considered valid. However, otherwise, Ivan's so-called epiphany would have been a false epiphany as he failed to understand that his perception of the world as an educated elite differ greatly from others.

Rereading helped me get a grip on the general flow of the story but it was the historical context of Russia at the time and also characteristics of Anton Chekhov that allowed me to get a greater understanding on the story. In the year 1894, in which the book was written, Russia was experiencing a transition from the reign of Alexander III to the reign of Nicholas II. The reign of Alexander III, during which I suppose the short story would have been written, was a period defined by three keywords: Russian Orthodoxy (religion), Autocracy, and Nationality. Russia in 1891-1892 also suffered from a terrible famine along with a cholera epidemic that swept across the nation. In other words, it was a time of oppression, a time of destitution, and a time of crisis. Anton Chekhov was an atheist during a period which everyone was forced to accept the Eastern Orthodox Church—it seems obvious that Chekhov was not an ardent supporter of the autocratic regime that was in place at the time. I took these factors into consideration to reach the conclusion that the ultimate message of the story leans towards cynicism rather than optimism. He wouldn't be appealing for optimism as it would become a propagand for the Russian regime-something Chekhov wouldn't want.

Through this story, I personally think Anton Chekhov intended to criticize the student, Ivan Velikopolski, for his limited view of the world. Though it seems that Ivan is not from an affluent family, he did receive education at the clerical academy which usually for the elite. It would seem that this type of upbringing influenced Ivan greatly as he is only able to view the world from his perspective—from the perspective of a student with an elite upbringing. The student preached his ideals and knowledge, believing that it applied to everyone. I think Chekhov wanted the readers to acknowledge and view the world from a broader perspective.