Yalta
1. Is the story told in the third person point of view, period, or is it told from Dmitri Dmitritch's point of view while at the same time in the third person? What makes you say so?
2. See number (1) above: what difference to the meaning of the story might it make what point of view the story is told from?
3. In the story so far, does one character seem more moral or more sympathetic or more positive than the other (referring to Dmitri and Anna Sergeyevna)? Explain.
4. Why might this story be called "The Lady with the Dog"? How does the dog effect the meaning? Note: we don't hear anything more about the dog than we've already heard.
5. Find a sentence you find important or interesting and say why.
14 comments:
Adressing to question number one, I think the story "The Lady eith the dog" is told from Dmitri Dmitritch's point of view. I say this because the author of the story mainly focus Dmitri. In the story it shows Dmitri's feelings and his thoughts about people and other things. Also the author shows what Dmitri is doing in the story. The character Dmitri is well known than the lady with the dog because Dmitri was first to be introduced in "The Lady with the Dog". I maybe worng though.....
3.) I think Anna seems more moral, sympathetic, and positive. She didn't come to Yulta looking for trouble or an affair. She came to take a break from her husband. She has morals because she tells dmitri how she feels sinful and wrong. She knows she is a good woman and she struggles with her good intentions and sinful ones. He kissed her, she didn't force herself onto him. Dmitri is totally different from Anna. He cheats on his wife, disrespects women, and plays a sneaky life.
Hey Everyone,
I am going to answer number one/two, since they kind of go together. I agree with what Shenese has said. I do think that it is written in third person, but from the point of Dmitri Dmitritch's ideas, thoughts, and actions. He seems to be the focus of the story and it seems as though the story revolves around him. It's almost like he is writing it, but wants to stay anonymous so he gives himself the title of "he" instead. If that makes sense. ;) Therefore, I do believe that this makes a difference to the meaning of the story. Its kind of like when two kids get in a fight, each child has there story of what happened, which could be completely different from the other child's story. He could be saying feelings and actions that he thought meant one thing, but she thought didn't mean anything at all. For instance, when after they eat and they walk side by side and it explains about they talked and could have talked and walked anywhere and they would be happy, this doesn't mean that she felt the same way about it. She might have wished to stop and just leave rather than talking, but didn't want to be rude, so she just followed along. In this case he could have misinterpreted what was happening. I guess it doesn't always have to affect the meaning, but it might depending on what actually happened and what was being told. It could change the meaning, but at the same time might not because each reader might have a different thought as to what the meaning of the story is and for this reason it might be changed or not. At the same time though, the author has their meaning of writing the story and possibly this was the best way of getting it across. I think it really just depends on what the meaning is and which point of view gets the message across better. I hope this all made sense and I can't wait to read more.
In response to number 3, I don't really like either character. Dmitri does not seem to have any morals as far as what is right and wrong in a marriage, he is comfortable having affairs with other women and then is extremely unsympathetic when Anna becomes upset. I don't sympathize with Anna though. I feel if she is going to have an affair she should be fully aware of what she is doing, if she is okay with the consequences, then do it. If she is going to have doubts or regrets afterward she shouldn't have let Dmitri convince her of anything. She is her own person and her actions are her own. I feel Dmitri is a rather cold person, he seems to be looking for something or someone to capture his full attention and interest him, but when he finds out what things are really like he is disappointed. I feel he is searching for an ideal that does not exist.
Yo
Tonight, I will be answering questions 1 and 2. I think throughout the section we've read so far, all the points of view have been from Dmitri. My evidence to back this up is he does the following things: gives his opinion on women as a whole, gives his opinion on the lady walking the dog, gives his opinion about his wife. Notice that there is a theme of opinions. None of these opinions have been given from the Anna, the only other character presented in a physical sense. The fact that none of her opinions have been presented on any topics or aspects brought up throughout the story so far suggests and proves that the opinios and commentary are coming only from Dmitri. I agree with Shenese and Ashleigh's statements about Dmitris feelings and thoughts. Relating to question 2 asking what could this say about the story as a whole, I think because Dmitri's opinions are the only ones being portrayed and because they are so blunt and forward, they stick out to the reader and almost force the reader to look at Dmitri and perhaps the whole story with a negative connotation. However, the fact that there is love present (in the hotel room and outside for example), it is not all completely negative. It might be just Dmitri's attitude that is negative about a lot of topics that present themselves in this story. I haven't necessarily received a negative view of Anna so far, but because of this point of view from Dmitri, I have definitely gotten a negative vibe from him and his opinions on women and other aspects.
Hope this helps!
Mason
Hello,
I'm answering question two but I thought I should get across what my feeling about the narrative is first (question one). I think the story is told from both Dmitri's view and in the third person view. Now answering question two, I think the "dual viewpoints" have a huge effect on the story because when a story is only told from the third person there is almost no insight to what any of the characters are thinking. In this way, it is sometimes hard to connect to the characters and further, it is sometimes even hard to "get into" a story when there is no personal insight. Though as readers we are not omniscient within the story of "The Lady with the Dog," adding Dmitri's perspective gives us as readers further insight to what is going on. For example, though the part of the story that mentions Dmitri's feelings toward women is mostly in the third person, when Dmitri is sitting and listening to Anna Sergeyevna, he claims (in his view point) he is bored. Though that is just a small and somewhat insignificant example, I feel overall, having some "omniscience" (so to speak), we as readers find an easier time processing and following along in the story.
For me, I find stories, especially this story because it is vague in parts, easier to follow in first person. I think the first person narrative is an effective writing tactic because it allows for an easier connection with the characters. Sometimes stories are so difficult to understand because we never really get the full picture. When the author is writing the story, he or she has full insight to his or her own characters. I find the first person narrative helpful because we get to see a piece of what the author is thinking as well as the character.
Thanks
Why might this story be called "The Lady with the Dog"? How does the dog effect the meaning? Note: we don't hear anything more about the dog than we've already heard.
I think that so far in the story there is nothing to identify with this women. She is plain and (in my opinion) boring. So to me I feel that feeling when I read this that I have after I have gone to a party where I meet a lot of people but I can not remember their name. I find myself saying to a friend "you know that girl with the freckles" or "that boy whose fly was undone the whole party and laughed so loudly." And I think that is why this story is called "The Lady with the dog." because (ths far) I have no way of describing her other than I know she is a women/lady and it was odd that she had a dog with her. That is how I think of her- surface and at face value.
I think the idea of the dog is interesting however. I feel dogs are 'man's' best friend. Is the dog representing a companion? Could the dog be a symbolic element for the absence of a man he Annes life? Or could it just be the tool that helps describe this dismal women?
in response to 1:
I think this story is written in the third person but has some parts that could be changed to the first person and it would not make any difference. For example on the first page it says, "It seemed to him that he had been so schooled by bitter experience that he might call them what he liked." Here, we are able to get into the character's thoughts and it might as well say "It seemed to me" and the same point would get across. However, the story is written in the third person. What I've read so far is entirely in the third person but the writer could alternate between first and third by making a very change in word choice.
In the story so far, does one character seem more moral or more sympathetic or more positive than the other (referring to Dmitri and Anna Sergeyevna)? Explain.
It is clear to me that Anna is the more moral character and I feel utterly sympathetic for her. She was sick of her husband and wanted to get away from him. She didn't know exactly what she was getting herself into, and she couldn't say no to the temptation of another man. She found herself caught in the trap after it was too late and tried to ignore the little voice in her head telling her it was wrong even though she definitely knew that it was not the moral or right thing to do. After the act, Anna feels awful and her eyes fill with tears. The quote "I am a bad low woman" supports the fact that she feels utter remorse and guilt for what she has done. This shows that she has morals and is aware that what she has done is wrong. Whereas Gurov has absolutely no respect for women and cheats on his wife without a second thought. This makes him seem like the one who has a total lack of morals. However, it did strike me that perhaps Gurov would respect women more if they didn't give themselves up so willingly. He feels that they have no intelligence beyond they're beauty, and maybe the way women act around him gives him reason to think this. Maybe he would respect women more if they didn't rely simply on their beauty and their ability to sleep with men all the time. Maybe Gurov is ultimately looking for a woman who cares and a woman who he can talk to and a woman who isn't as easy as he wants. I could be completely wrong but it is just a thought. It also upset me that he got annoyed when Anna was upset, but then comforted her in a way that suggested that he actually did care and wanted to listen to her. I went a little off topic but as I was writing I became unsure of who was the lesser person morally. I can almost see where Gurov is coming from.
Hello! I will be commenting on #4 because the title interests me.
My first thought is that the title has something to do with the ambiguity of her character. She seems like the kind of person with a vague personality and as long as you know her, you never really understand her. So far, it seems to me that she is sort of a simple character with few cares and thoughts. (except the conflict about her husband towards the end of the reading) So I feel like there is almost no better way to classify her than simply "The lady the dog."
Also, I feel like the type of dog she has is important. The book said it was a Pomeranian, which makes her seem even more foolish to me. Perhaps I feel this way because Dmitri feels this way, but I don't really think her having a Pomeranian says anything about her being a down to earth, enjoyable person. Some say that a dog's owner often resembles their dog (or vice versa??). Therefore, I think we should consider the type of dog it is. To me, it is not a dog that says anything impressive about her.
Other than that, I'm not really sure what to make of the title. Hope everyone is having a nice night!!
Hakuna matata!
I will be answering question 4.
Going off what Miles and Kacie both said I think that the dog is critical in understanding the woman. However I think it is even more critical in understanding Dmitri's impression and understanding of the woman. The first question addresses if this short story was written in first or third person narrative, however i think more importantly it should be noted that it is written through the focal point of Dmitri. Hence, what he senses, we read. The fact that this woman is purely the Lady with the Dog (in the title) shows Dmitri's "title" for who they are to him. The final sentence of section one reads "There's something pathetic about her, anywy," he thought , and fell asleep." This shows how he thinks about her much more materialistically than humanely. Further more by categorizing her Anna loses any individuality, such as the type of dog, how they met etc. and she becomes the Lady with the Dog on his list of ladies of whom he has been unfaithful to his wife with. Therefore while what Miles said about the dog symbolizing something about her, it is more of a insight into Dmitri than it is about Anna, and Kacie's comment about the dog's individuality having connotations is obviously important but the fact that these connotations are seemingly lost to Dmitri is truly the fascinating detail.
Pall
#3
I would say that sergeyevna is more moral, or at least more aware and feeling guilty of being immoral, (referring to paragraph 30 to half way through 35) but other than that one instance, i would say that both are equally sympathetic, positive, and moral towards each other, if you could even apply those adjectives to them. However, Dmitri does not seem concerned with morals, which i found interesting, so i don't think it's quite fair to call him immoral. Can you apply adjectives to someone who doesn't believe in that adjective?
Hello,
Referring to question four, I think the lady with the dog is very important to the meaning. In the early stages of the story the dog is what makes this lady unique. The story says "no one knew who she was, and every one called her simply the lady with the dog." The lady's early discriptions show her as very ordinary and constant in her life. The same beret and always walking alone. As the story progresses I look to see the lady of the dog become less of a flat character and more of a round character. She is definitaly flat in the first few lines.
Hi everyone.
So my answer isgoing to be short because in all honesty I don't know how to elaborate on this. However I am reffering to question 4.
In my opinion Dmitri is the Dog and Anna is the lady. I wish I knew how to elaborate on this however my mind is completely twisted when I try to think of how to form the words. So could someone please help me?
Thank you!
Post a Comment