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.

Blog Post # 2 ~ Kendra

Question 1: I think Chekhov's stance on morality in fiction is a little bit too strong, because fiction really is a great place for lessons to be placed, I think if you come away from a story and nothing touched you then whats the point of reading the story in the first place? In one of my favorite book series, Halo, an angel is sent to earth in a town that is over run by demons and other baddy types, but she falls for a human, it goes through this whole illicit love affair and soon enough she wind up in hell. It's a fantastic metaphor for punishment just like in fairy tales. Also alike to fairy tales, at the end she is rescued by the Archangel Michael "her brother", signifying a second chance. Anyway what I'm trying to get at is that the story would have fallen flat if it was just about the Angel and her human making kissy faces at one another and then the story ending. The lesson made it a deeper read, something a much prefer to skimming over the top of a situation

Question 2: I think I enjoyed Chekhov's version of "The Lady with the Pet Dog" just fine, only it was a superficial sort of appreciation for the story, because the story itself was superficial, it didn't go deep enough for my tastes. But that's not to say I would have enjoyed it better had they gotten caught, because I'm a hopeless romantic, I feel like fiction is just exactly the place to have these kinds of love affairs, because you can make up extremely wild circumstances and place yourself into them without hurting anyone. But please, at least give it an ending, the weird cliffhanger where the reader knows that this affair is just going to continue but doesn't know the outcome is too much, at least for me, I like a nice wrap up at the end because it makes me feel nice.

2nd post by zach

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.

Blog Post #2: Sydney Thiessa

Question 1:
I agree with Chekhov's assertion that "combining art with moralizing makes for bad art". I think that it's the audience's duty to decide what they take from art, what they believe it means, and what they think that the art teaches them, rather than having the moral spelled out to them. Therefore, I think that moralizing does spoil artistic value and enjoyment. If an audience is forced to make their own decisions about a piece, then it makes them value the piece more. Even if a piece has a specific idea that is supposed to be portrayed, it gives more perspective for the audience if they have a different point of view, and also allows for moral growth. Of course, this is usually more affective for adult audiences, as children would need more of an obvious approach. I recently watched a film called Little Children, in which an affair was also shown, like that of "The Lady with the Pet Dog", and had no real resolution to the affair. I easily appreciated the film in that respect because I could draw my own conclusions, rather than have them made for me by the director.

Question 2:
I think I would have appreciated "The Lady with the Pet Dog" less if Chekhov judged his characters or showed them either being penitent for their "sins", caught by their significant other, or suffering the consequences of their actions. I personally liked the ending of the story, with no real resolution to the affair. If any of the above situations happened, Gurov would not have come to a place of realization.  Gurov had plenty of affairs before, but this is the only affair that caused him to feel compassion, when he would only have been logical in the preceding affairs. I also think that Anna Sergeyevna would be even more unhappy in her life if any of the above situations occurred. And yes, I appreciate it more in the sense that the moralizing is left to me as the author simply develops his characters rather than judging them. This affair was necessary for both characters to grow psychologically, or else they wouldn't experience anything that would challenge their judgement.

Blog Post #2: Colton Quick

Question 2:

 I feel like I appreciated (as much as I could) “The Lady with the Pet Dog” the way it was. I never found myself wishing that Chekhov should have judged his characters or had them suffering in any way over their actions. I feel this way because it allowed me to come up with their own sort of story as they went along, making the read more fun. For instance, at the end of this romance story we are left to wonder what came of the affair. Did they eventually get caught in their infidelity? Or do they live happily ever after, so to speak. Setting up opportunities for the reader to create their own stories for characters within fiction is what makes the story engaging; at least to me. Having the chance to formulate my own opinions of the characters as the story went along kept my mind busy during its dry parts, preventing me from just stopping the reading all together. Also, it gabe me the ability to formulate my own ultimate ending for the fate of Gurov and the Ladys’ relationship; this is the type of fiction that keeps me engaged to the end, I do not like being told how I should think of a character, that just gets boring.

Question 5:

 I prefer the Checkhov version of the story because I feel it is more powerful. It is the portrayal of the male point of view that makes it this way for me. The reason for this is because the male character in this version experiences a redirection of character so to speak, whereas in the Oates version the female point of view does not know what it wants until the very end. In the Checkhov version the male knows what it wants from the very beginning, it wants the affair for no more than just pleasure; near the end though an almost 180 degree turn around is seen. No longer does the male (Gurov) want the affair just to get some, rather he realizes that it is truly love that keeps drawing him back. That is what makes this version powerful, it turns the association of an affair with lust to that of a search for true love. It is usually hard to see an affair as anything but immorality, but this version has a way of making the term seem something different; this is what made it impactful for me. I still think affairs are wrong though.

Blog Post #2 Kathryn Boyle

2. I think that I would have enjoyed "The Lady with the Pet Dog" by Chekhov less had there been more emotion or consequences in regards to the characters. I am never really a fan of stories when they involve adultery, because of the drama and emotional distress put onto the characters who are being cheated on. When I read a story I tend to get very involved in it, so when there are stories where a woman or man finds their spouse is cheating on them I feel the same stress and heartache as those characters. Therefore with Chekhov's lack of emotion from the characters and the lack of appearance from the significant others, I was able to purely judge the characters for what they were, sinners, and not feel bad for either side.

4. Both versions of "The Lady with the Pet Dog" had an interesting sequence of events, because neither gave much background of the characters' lives before the affair. I thought that Chekhov's version had a more effective plot due to the fact that it was logical and orderly. He explains the affair and its events in chronological order, where as Oates seems all over the place. One event in particular stuck out to me as showing why Chekhov's version was an easier read; when the two lovers meet once again at the theater. When reading Oates version it almost seemed to me that the character, Anna, had been imagining that she had seen her lover at intermission just by the way it was described, with no background on the whole affair. However, Chekhov's version gives the events of the affair, the departure, and the reunion in order so it was much easier to grasp.

Blanca's "The Lady with the Pet Dog Dog" Blog Response

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.)

A: Personally I disagree with what Anton Chekhov has to say about this topic. Mixing "art" with moralizing makes the bowl more interesting and diverse. It's both entertaining and relative to the everyday person. I'd have to say that fiction is the best place to add moralizing ideas, considering that most fairy tales already include moralizing ideas in today's modern society. Mainly those fairy tales that are more modern like the renewing of "Beauty and The Beast" into the book and movie "Beastly". In "Beastly" we are reminded of "Beauty and The Beast" in a modern way, yet we are also taught that appearances aren't everything and that you must always see the best in someone because even if they are as handsome as Matt Bomer and have the body of Ryan Gosling and are as sexy as Timothy Olyphant they might be uglier than Michael Jackson's nose job . Or for the guys: even if they are are cute as Mila Kunis, have the body of Megan fox or are as sexy as Angelina Jolie they might be uglier than Amy Winehouse on crack on the inside. BTW I love both Michael Jackson and Amy Winehouse but they both went too far on somethings, I think we can all agree on that. What we must find in someone is a personality like Robert Downey Jr.'s persona of Iron Man or Tina Fey. 

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).

A. I think that I would have appreciate this work less because I like different and that is something that is definitely shown in Chekhov's "The Lady with the Pet Dog" where he let's me, the reader, do all the judging for him. I prefer a book that is sort out of context, if you will, this story ends with the reader wanting more and that is something that I am definitely a fan of.