Art & Identity in New Orleans

One thing I found immediately interesting at the start of The Awakening was that Kate Chopin began the novel through the point of view of Mr. Pontellier, Edna’s husband, rather than beginning with Edna herself. Firstly, Chopin sets the tone of the novel with her humorous style of writing as well as the multi-cultural setting, but Mr. Pontellier’s character and limitations is also quickly explained in a few lines. The scene begins with his neighbor’s parrot making a racket and subsequently destroying the peace of his morning. However, he can’t do anything about this, as page 1 says, “The parrot and the mockingbird were the property of Madame Lebrun, and they had the right to make all the noise they wished. Mr. Pontellier had the privilege of quitting their society when they ceased to be entertaining.”

Already, the rules of this world are being established. By setting up the scene in this manner, I think Chopin is pointing a massive finger at how little control Mr. Pontellier actually has in the novel. This certainly becomes an issue in regard to Edna, whom he believes he controls yet actually has no sway over. Even on page 3, the reader can understand how he thinks of Edna from the line, “looking at his wife as one looks at a valuable piece of personal property which has suffered some damage.” While I personally hate this line on so many levels, it perfectly explains Mr. Pontellier’s feelings towards his wife from the beginning. I also believe that by setting up Edna and Mr. Pontellier’s relationship this way, she is actually crafting a tragedy out of Mr. Pontellier’s character.

I don’t doubt that Mr. Pontellier loves Edna. On page 7, Mr. Pontellier is very disappointed that Edna is too tired to speak to him on his return from the hotel, thinking, “it [was] very discouraging that his wife, who was the sole object of his existence, evinced so little interest in things which concerned him, and valued so little his conversation.” This is certainly something I’d call a very self-centered sort of love, but I still think of it as love nonetheless.

And even later in the novel, when Mr. Pontellier is talking to the Doctor, I think he is actually very concerned about Edna. He clearly cannot understand what has caused her to change so much and really does want to know what is the best thing to do for her (and perhaps because her new character has more inconveniences for him). After this, Mr. Pontellier leaves for a business trip and is away for the rest of the novel, during which Edna’s situation spirals out of what she can handle. Because of how the story ends, the reader is forced to infer how the aftermath of Edna’s suicide must play out. While I do think Edna’s situation was horrible and reflective of the pains most women had to go through in order to conform to society, I can’t help but also think of how this would affect Mr. Pontellier.

I do think the end of the story was a bit of a surprising twist, and perhaps was influenced by the expectations upon Chopin at the time, but I also believe Mr. Pontellier can be seen as both the villain and the victim in the end. He cannot connect with his wife on a level that satisfies them both, partly due to his own selfish nature and in part because Edna does not feel like she can communicate with him, but I think the relationship’s tragic end is also a representation of a tragic love story between two people who “should” be in love, yet can’t understand how to do so in a way that suits them both. This is also part of Edna’s awakening, as she begins to think about what she truly wants in the way of love in desire, something that she ultimately seems to concede that she can’t have.

Chopin also seems to be playing with thematic elements of hopeful dreaming and the archetypal story that a woman should fall totally in love with a man, know exactly how that feels and what it means, and suddenly understand everything about herself and the world. On page 26, after Edna falls in love with the tragedian, she “was overtaken by what she supposed to be the climax of her fate.” I think this nuance in the novel is a criticism on society’s romantic notion of how “love will solve everything” and that to be in a loving relationship is an immediate solution to everything. Edna herself confesses that she can find no fault with Mr. Pontellier’s devotion as her husband, yet the reader can understand that she’s missing something that he cannot give her; the most tragic thing about it being that he seems to want to.

There’s also a frustrating angle in the novel in which Edna seems to see the world through this romantic notion, yet other characters in the world can see beyond the “rose-tinted glasses” and understand, in some cynical sense, that love and marriage do not necessarily coincide- like in chapter twelve, where Robert and Mariequita comment that the lovers must not be married. Even during her suicide, one of Edna’s last thoughts is that by talking to the Doctor, she might have been able to see things differently, but ultimately she gives up on any hope and allows herself to drown, which I think is an act of giving up on the notion of a tangible love entirely.