The Passive, the Active

The two short stories “My Heart is Broken” and “Prue” obviously deal with female protagonists and the events surrounding them. Therefore, these stories can be interpreted through feminist literary analysis, which focuses on how women are represented in literature in relation to a patriarchal society. Despite their similarities, “My Heart is Broken” and “Prue” have some differences when viewed from a feminist perspective. While “My Heart is Broken” portrays a rather passive female protagonist, “Prue” illustrates a more active and stereotype-breaking protagonist.

One interesting point of comparison between these stories is looking at how patriarchal society is represented in each story. In “My Heart is Broken,” Mrs. Thompson mirrors the male-dominated society. Mrs. Thompson claims that Jeannie got raped because she “took a walk in the bush that way” and “had them all on the boil.” Her attitude resembles that of a patriarchal society, which blames the victim for rape. Moreover, Mrs. Thompson reinforces traditional feminine values, including cleaning up the home and being happy with a caring husband. Mrs. Thompson tells Jeannie that “you could have cleaned up your home a bit” and questions Jeannie for not being happy with “a good, sensible husband working for you.” Through Mrs. Thompson, the patriarchal society is manifest from the beginning to the end of the story. However, in “Prue,” the male-dominated society only appears in a single paragraph where Prue, the female protagonist, complains about her name. Prue, or Prudence, reflects the traditional value that a woman should be always prudent about her actions. The story is more centered on Prue as a person rather on the male-dominant society that Prue is subject to.

The two female protagonists respond differently to the stereotypes of a patriarchal society. Jeannie in “My Heart is Broken” occasionally defends herself from Mrs. Thompson’s accusations, but she does not claim that Mrs. Thompson’s views are totally wrong. For the most time, Jeannie remains passive towards Mrs. Thompson, although she voices her own opinion at the very end. On the other hand, Prue explicitly rejects the stereotypes of a male-dominated society. She does not complain about most things but readily complains about her name, a symbol of gender stereotype. Prue also calls her marriage a “cosmic disaster” and “regards sex as a wholesome, slightly silly indulgence.” She does not even seem to take gender stereotypes seriously. From the male-centered view, Prue is not prudent at all.

The two protagonists also differ in where they find satisfaction. Jeannie reveals that “If he’d liked me, I wouldn’t have minded,” which means that Jeannie would have been satisfied if the rapist had liked her. Her words are surprising from the traditional view, as shown from Mrs. Thompson’s attitude. Traditionally, raped women feel shameful at the fact that they are raped. However, Jeannie does not care about her virginity or shame, but focuses on the relationship between her and the rapist. But Jeannie’s view is still passive because her heart is “broken” by a man. Her very statement that her heart is broken, though not identical to the patriarchal view, proves that she depends on men’s love to be satisfied.

On the other hand, Prue finds satisfaction from her own actions. Prue’s independence from men is evident when Prue regards Gordon’s marriage proposal as “reasonable.” Gordon states that he has another lover but wants to marry Prue in a few years. If Gordon had said this to Jeannie, Jeannie would have been unsatisfied because Gordon does not love her. Prue’s attitude towards Gordon’s proposal shows that Prue’s satisfaction does not rely on Gordon’s love. Furthermore, Prue is satisfied from her own actions because she “steals” Gordon’s possessions. She is satisfied not because she is “struck” by Gordon’s memory from the stolen objects, but because she “takes” and then “forgets” his possessions. Prue obviously plays an active role; she acquires satisfaction for herself.

To conclude, the two protagonists are different because one is passive and the other is active. Jeannie, the passive protagonist, reacts to Mrs. Thompson in a passive manner and depends upon men for satisfaction. Contrary to Jeannie, Prue defies traditional stereotypes and constructs her own satisfaction. While Jeannie is “feminine,” Prue is “female.”

World Literature #1: The Student

After reading “The Student” in class, I noticed that this story was reputed as “the perfect short story.” I was shocked. Nothing notable happened in the story. A young man walked through an unfavorable weather, went to the widow’s garden, preached the story of Saint Peter’s denial, and realized something delightful. As a person who usually skims through the plot, I did not like this story much. I even doubted whether “The Student” is a short story. A story had to have some kind of conflict, which gives some “content.” However, this “perfect short story” lacked that conflict. There were some descriptions, but they were not conspicuous enough.

When I read “The Student” again, new things came into my mind. I read carefully to decipher the hidden messages between the seemingly useless descriptions. The idea that Ivan Velikopolsky could be an immature person interested me. I noticed that "Ivan," the name of the protagonist, appears in the whole story only once. The actual name of "the student" only appears when necessary— when the author introduces him. In other cases, the protagonist is addressed as "the student." I thought that the repetition of "the student" suggests the protagonist's immaturity. After all, a student is in the process of learning, so a student is immature compared to his teacher. This immaturity becomes clearer when the experienced woman Vasilisa is contrasted with the student. The author introduces Vasilisa as a woman with a lot of life experience just before the protagonist starts his story. The immature student preaching an experienced woman is ironic; this situation includes the element of humor that Chekhov claimed to be inside his stories. Investigating one characteristic of the protagonist through a careful reading was enjoyable.

I also thought about the overall mood of the story. Is the story pessimistic or optimistic? It might be pessimistic, considering the description of the setting. A cold wind blows “inappropriately” from the east, and the forest is “cheerless, remote, and lonely.” That negative situations “had existed, did exist, and would exist” reveals a pessimistic attitude towards life. On the other hand, this story could be interpreted as optimistic because of the hopeful tone near the end. After telling a biblical story to the two widows, the student receives an insight about the relationship between the past and the present. Then his life becomes joyful, happy, “enchanting, marvelous, and full of lofty meaning.”

Determining the mood of the story is complicated by the author’s detachment from the protagonist. The protagonists’ change of mood is obvious. He first thinks that life would not become better even though a lot of time passes. But he changes his mind, as his eyes turns from the west to the east, that life has some hope. However, the message of the story is formed by the combination of the protagonist and the author. Because the author’s attitude toward the protagonist is not revealed, I cannot conclusively say that this story is pessimistic or optimistic. Chekhov signals the protagonist’s musing with the phrase “the student thought” and “it seemed.” The revelation at the end is only the protagonist’s, not the author’s. The author may agree with the optimism, but believe that the student’s revelation is wrong. The author may also think in a pessimistic way. It is up to the readers to interpret this story in their own way and formulate their own impressions.

“The Student” is very real, but it is not real as well. The succinct sentences and direct expression makes the story seem like the epitome of reality. But the story leaves a large space for interpretation. This space is not completely blank because the author inserts some hints between the lines. However, this space contains infinitely many possibilities. Perhaps Chekhov wanted the readers to experience the irony of realism itself—transcendence within reality.