2. Personally, I agree with Chekhov's stance in that it's not the writer's responsibility to deal retribution to immoral characters. I feel writing is more honest in this way; in reality, the good guys don't always beat out the evil villain, criminals escape and go unpunished, and certainly not all sexual escapades are found out by one's partner. I like the fact that the moralizing is left to me and feel the story is left open for a broader interpretation. What if an author who penalizes his characters wrongdoings has strange ideologies or a skewed sense of justice? Would the reader then have to accept it? In any writing, there's always slight bias, but I'd much prefer being presented with the information and be the one in charge of dealing out the justice.
3. If Chekhov didn't want us to understand or sympathize with Gurov, I feel the story would have been a much more boring and meaningless one. I don't think Chekhov necessarily wanted to evoke much sympathy of Gurov from his readers, but in understanding that Gurov was essentially a womanizer, and unfortunately found pleasure in the physical sense with women, us as the reader (or at least me as a guy) naturally sympathizes with him when he finally falls in love after going through the motions with his children and "unintelligent" wife all these years. The point of view, although in 3rd person, seems to shed more light on Gurov's character than Anna's. I think this point of view allows the reader to have more of an accepting view of the whole situation and of Gurov in general; if it was solely told from the eyes of Gurov I think I would have been more harsh on him as a character and sympathized with him less.
No comments:
Post a Comment