Mikael Blog 2

Question 2 raises an interesting question that is often found in the world of literature: is it better to be right or happy?  In our modern day and age, we've become accustomed to certain truths of a story; the good guys prevail, the bad guy get theirs, and justice is repaid.  In "Lady" the lines of good and evil are slightly more blurred than usual.  The standard way of thinking that we have gotten used to depicts that Gurov and Anna should be exposed for their transgressions.  Chekhov could have easily ended the story in this sense, but the reader has to ask themselves: Do I want it to end how it was meant to end, or how I want it to end?  Gurov and Anna's continued affair at the end of the story is one of the more realistic conclusions that you can find.  They not only aren't caught by either spouse, but they continue their passion without any thought of an ending in my.  The ending is antonymous with what we have been raised to expect, but the implications are no less effective.  Chekhov was attempting to portray real life.  The fact of the matter is: sometimes the bully always wins, sometimes the bad guy gets away, and sometimes the cheaters aren't forced to come clean.  Even if I don't care for the ending sometimes, I'd rather have it be true than something thrown together to make me feel better.

In regards to question 3, Chekhov gives the appearance that he is merely informing the readers (us) of Gurov's reasoning behind his actions, not defending him.  If a man was beating his wife, you could bring certain circumstances to light without giving him a true excuse.  Chekhov portrays Gurov's wife to be cold to him, while at the same time showing the suavity of the husband himself.  While these paint a picture of what led Gurov to pursue extramarital relationships, they don't necessarily exonerate him from the actions.  With the inclusion of his failed marriage, he becomes more than the standard archetype of "the cheating rat bastard husband".  As always, point of view is very important in any piece, and doubly so in this story.  The use of third person takes away the personal slants that would have been implemented if it was told through the eyes of Gurov himself.  What we are given (hopefully) is a truthful portrayal of Gurov, His motives, and His characteristics.

When it comes down to it, we can read into the intentions of Anton Chekhov all day and guess what he was trying to accomplish.  Personally, I'm satisfied by adhering to the words of Mark Twain: Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a morale in it will be banished, persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.