Blog Post #2: Roxy

Technology hates me. I'm posting this from someone else's phone, so maybe it will finally publish.

Question #1:

Moralizing is sometimes only effective through storytelling. For example, children do not usually have the capability of reasoning outside of provided examples, specifically in the case of right/wrong, good/bad, etc. However, I believe it possible to take that a step further, and argue that even adults take away more value from a moral tale than a "lecture". People inherently learn by example, and a story presents a "safe" opportunity for them to experience aspects of life that they have yet to experience, or are even afraid to experience. As for spoiling artistic value, I think that's very subjective. Granted, a story free of moralizing perspective may leave open interpretation for the reader and thus spawn "creativity" or whatever else, but at the risk of sounding entirely cynical, I don't believe that the majority of individuals are so artistically inclined that they would be able to invent and project meanings not already thought of by the author. The...published...author. My favorite example of this is most likely "Crime and Punishment" by Dostoevsky. The entire tale is essentially moralizing, and yet the artistic and entertainment value is unarguable. Then of course, there's also Wilfred. Greatest show ever!

Question #3:

From a strictly psychological perspective, Chekhov's story represents a truth unknown to many regarding the biological actions and feelings of men and women in romantic relationships. Years of clinical studies have yielded results proving that men are in fact the "romantic" ones in relationships: they fall in love more quickly, and stay in love for longer, but recover well from break-ups. Women, on the other hand, fall OUT of love more quickly, and take longer to fall in love, but take longer and harder recoveries after break-ups. Researchers state that the reason for this is that women are seeking a "provider" for their offspring, while men are trying to "spread their seed". Now, how does this relate to Chekhov's tale?

The fact that Chekhov allowed Gurov to reveal himself to readers through an objective point of view allows for the reader to draw conclusions based upon a single scenario presented to them instead of perhaps associating a moralizing tale with other similar scenarios they are already aware of, which may perhaps allow readers to view Gurov and his situation outside of concrete judgements society places upon such relationships and such individuals such as Gurov.