Foreshadow

Shocking revelations and plot twists in a story are needed to keep the audience from boredom. In most cases, subtle hints or foreshadowing are thrown here and there, serving as portents of such surprises. However, the audience rarely pays attention to these little details; they tend to focus on the big picture rather than specifics. This makes the effects of the revelations and surprises appear greater than they would otherwise have been. Only upon a closer analysis of the story do these foreshadows become evident. In “The Story of an Hour” by Kate Chopin and “The Three Strangers” by Thomas Hardy, the structure of these stories paved the way for the surprises in the end to become necessary outcomes of what happened and to become essential factors
For first time readers, the arrival of Mr. Mallard came as a huge surprise; however, it definitely was predictable. The fact that Mr. Mallard was alive should not have been a surprise, because his death was never confirmed officially. The bearer of the news, Richards, “had only taken the time to assure himself of its truth by a second telegram.” Mrs. Mallard and every one else in the story were quick to jump into such conclusion even though the messenger was clearly unreliable. Also, in the beginning, the story mentioned, “that Mrs. Mallard was afflicted with a heart trouble.” This was an indication of her future death. Because of her weak heart, she was unable to handle the intense emotions that followed her husband’s return. The sudden shift in her emotion from great enthusiasm to utter disappointment led to her unfortunate death. After much thinking, Louise was joyed with the idea of “no powerful will bending hers” and freedom. Such a pleasant idea was destroyed in a matter of seconds, upon the sight of Mr. Mallard fully alive. The structure of this story included a lot of hints in the beginning followed by a “shocking” surprise in the end: Mr. Mallard was alive. This surprise was necessary to show how much Louise really wanted freedom from her repressive
Unlike the two previous instances, this surprise was not as foreshadowed, but it still became a reasonable explanation for the events in the story. There was no mention of relationship between the strangers. Up until this big revelation, no one knew why the third stranger acted the way did. The third stranger “stood before them (the guests) the picture of abject terror – his knees trembling” even though he was not guilty of anything. It was strange how during the first interaction between the people and the third stranger he was very frightened and nervous, but during the second encounter “his (the stranger’s) trepidation had in a great measure gone.” When he was arrested, he “seemed enlightened,” which was an unusual reaction of someone who appeared to be guilty of a wrongdoing. Later on, it can be inferred that his reaction was just a ploy to help his brother escape. He even withheld the information of his relation with the first stranger, until after his brother had escaped. The third stranger’s odd actions shifted all the suspicion of the crime towards him. Accordingly, the structure of this story comprised of questionable and confusing scenes that preceded a suitable closure. This unexpected fact became an essential factor in the triumph of the first stranger, who represented the common people, over the second stranger, who embodied unfair