Blog 2, Due 9/15 (that's 11:59 Sat, to you)

Choose two of the following questions. Don't forget to comment on at least two other responses (other than your own, of course):

1. Anton Chekhov argues in “Morality in Fiction” that combining “art” with moralizing makes for bad art. This stance is basically the paradigmatic opposite of the fairytale. What do you think about this assertion? Is fiction an effective and dynamic framework to teach lessons, or do you think moralizing spoils artistic value and/or enjoyment? Use a few concrete examples (they don't have to be from what we read; they can be any short story, novel, film, etc.)

2.  Do you think you would have appreciated “The Lady with the Pet Dog” more or less if Chekhov judged his characters or showed them either being penitent for their "sins", caught by their significant other(s), or suffering the consequences of their actions? Or, do you appreciate it more in the sense that the moralizing is left to you as the author simply develops his characters rather than judging them (this is much like Question 1, but it of course asks you to respond directly to what we're reading than more generally).

3. It’s easy to see why Chekhov might have wanted to allow Gurov alone to reveal himself and his situation to the readers: he didn’t believe fiction is the place for moralizing, and he wanted readers to perhaps draw her own conclusions. Beyond that, though: Do you think he wants us to sympathize with Gurov? Simply understand him? What do you make of point of view in this story, and how does it affect your understanding and opinion of Gurov?

4. If you read both versions (and yay for you, for you're bound to learn much more about how point of view works if you do), discuss the ordering of events (plot stuff). Which seems more effective to you? Effective how? Is one more emotionally arresting than the other? More logical? Less so? (i.e., is the organization of events/highighting of particular moments and places related or parallel to the uneven and highly emotional state of the female protagonist?) 

5. Again considering both versions, which do you prefer, and why? Do discuss point of view here, but you can, of course, discuss other elements (since Question 4 asks you to look particularly at plot and plot sequencing, don't discuss that here if you also answered #4). Do you find one interpretation of the affair more insightful than the other? More entertaining? More emotionally wrenching? 

6. Why do you think Oates might have offered up her revision of Chekhov's masterful story (it's considered such, btw, whether you enjoy it or not :)) On the whole, what do you think her story accomplishes or is meant to accomplish that Chekhov's doesn't?  Why do you think she felt the female perspective needed to be developed? 

7. Read one of the "Perspectives" offered on these stories (Brennan or Chekhov himself).  Quoting from the essay, summarize it briefly and explain how/why/where it informs your interpretation of the story(ies) and/or helps you better understand authorial motivation for writing them.