He tells us a narrative, to which there is no existent decision, and so ends it. What makes his “ The Lady with the Dog ” of import plenty to lodge in an anthology like ours? To reply the inquiry, one has to brood on Chekov ‘s authorship manner. There are three sorts of beauty in Chekov ‘s authorship: the beauty of utmost brevity, the beauty of true description and the beauty of non-judgment. It is these beauties that mark Chekov ‘s authorship unique and unforgettable. The uniqueness makes Chekov ‘s plants stand out among other great pieces of literature. Without exclusion, “ The Lady with the Dog ” besides becomes popular with its beauty of utmost brevity, true description, and most significantly, non-judgmental stoping.
Chekov displays his utmost brevity by set uping merely four chapters for “ The Lady with the Dog ” . There are merely 6731 words in the English interlingual rendition of the short narrative. Without much length, Chekov writes a sad narrative about two alone Black Marias of Dmitri Gruvos ‘ and Ana Sergeyevna ‘s bumping into each other by opportunity at the sea, how the secret love between the two stands the trial of going, and how the they struggle at the terminal in happening a solution for their hereafter. It is easy for the reader to detect Chekov ‘s true description in the non-judgmental stoping. Toward the terminal of the narrative, Chekov narrates how defeated and incapacitated Ana and Dmitri feel after passing “ a long while taking advocate together, talked of how to avoid the necessity for secretiveness ” ( Chapter 4 ) . The supporters hug each other in a Moscow hotel, inquiring “ ‘How? How? ‘ And it seemed as though in a small while the solution would be found, and so a new and glorious life would get down ; and it was clear to both of them that they had still a long, long route before them, and that the most complicated and hard portion of it was merely merely get downing ” ( Chapter 4 ) . Chekov raises the inquiry “ How? ” without an reply for a intent: he leaves the solutions to the readers and asks them to happen the solutions for Ana and Dmitri. There have been great treatments on Ana and Dmitri ‘s relationship such as “ Would their relationship last if it were allow unfastened? ” Some says yes because the age of the two characters could help them in go oning a long term, perchance really successful, relationship ; some say no because the illicitness of the matter foreshadows the short term of the relationship ; others argue that the supporters ‘ relationship may or may non last because Ana and Dmitri have to confront the world in seeking for something better in their life, but they do it in a incorrect manner. Their partner may non digest the treachery and stop up disassociating them. Another solution may be they will merely go on to see each other sporadically and allow their household life return to normalities.
That Chekov ‘s ends the narrative without a decision, along with his utmost brevity and true description has made this narrative unforgettable and permanent. It sticks in anthologies of universe literature. Director Joseph Heifitz made it into a film with the same name in 1960 with great success. The film ranks among the chef-d’oeuvres of Soviet movie art. “ The Lady with the Dog ” will stay in the universe literature for many old ages to come.
Question 3: My Interpretation of “ The Metamorphosis ”
My reading of “ The Metamorphosis ” is of two creases: utmost selfishness and utmost altruism. On the one manus, I believe Kafka is seeking to knock human selfishness and uncaring through how Gregor ‘s household reacts to his difficult work, transmutation from usefulness to uselessness, from convenience to burthen, and from physical impairment to decease. On the other manus, I believe Kafka is developing a parallel subject of one ‘s utmost altruism taking to tragedy through Gregor ‘s exclusive focal point on work and household to the extent of disregarding himself. Kafka efficaciously conditions the reader into denouncing the selfishness and sympathising utmost altruism at the terminal.
Gregor ‘s household ‘s utmost selfishness is shocking and should be denounced. They merely care if Gregor has income for them to populate a nice life. Once Gregor has lost the ability to work and even go a “ bug ” , they are cold to him and acquiring sick of him by seting him a room full of things they do non necessitate. No 1 enters his room except his sister Grete who brings nutrient to feed him twice a twenty-four hours. A twelvemonth or so, Gregor ‘s wellness deteriorates, but on one in the household thinks of taking him to a physician. Gregor, the past breadwinner of the house dies from no medical intervention and detached household. The message in Kafka ‘s work echoes one lesson: Be sort to those who are non convenient and utile any more. As in our society, people tend to care and love those who are still convenient and utile ; nevertheless, they tend to handle senior citizens or debatable veterans and the similar worse. Those who like to inquire ” ” What ‘s in it for me? ” demand to alter their attitude when and if they read Kafka “ The Metamorphosis ” .
Gregor ‘s utmost altruism is sympathetic and should be recognized with regard. He does non kick before and after his metabolism. Bing the fiscal anchor ( breadwinner ) of the household before his metabolism, he works and works to supply everything for the household but himself. After his metabolism, he does non detect and kick about his new quandary. He does non demand anything, and he does non shout, cry or go agonised. He still acts like before: loving music and picture and household, and avoiding conveying o problem to others. Even when his sister despises him by go forthing his room fleetly without stating anything to him, he still does non kick. He merely does non to be other ‘s load. He finally dies in the room which the household usage as a dumping country, neglected and disgraced. What a sad narrative of a hard-working, altruistic human psyche! He does non merit to be treated severely and no boy or girl should hold to populate and decease on such a ignored and discredited magnitude! In our life, we frequently see people like Gregor who are workaholic and caring for their household. They should hold our highest regard ; meanwhile, they should love themselves a litter more so that they are non wholly lost in this universe full of people like Gregor ‘s household members.
Kafka ‘s message on utmost selfishness and utmost altruism is challenging and far making. Gregor ‘s calamity is brought by his household ‘s utmost selfishness and his ain extreme altruism ; hence, we should avoid the extremeness and dainty those around us with compassion, attention and love no affair they are still utile and convenient to us or non ; meanwhile, hard-working and altruistic people should love themselves more than earlier to maintain their self-respect and battle back unjust intervention from utmost selfish households, friends and co-workers.
Question 5: My Favorite and My least Favorite
Born in China and exposed to Russian literature at an earlier age, I had an easy clip reading Anton Chekov ‘s “ The Woman with the Dog ” . Acerate leafs to state, it is my favourite. I like it because of its heart-beating description of the nature, sad-but-beautiful love, struggle of single verse societal norm, and stoping without decision. For least favourite, my ballot goes to “ Hedda Gabler ” by Norse dramatist Henrik Ibsen. I dislike “ Hedda Gabler ” merely because I loathe the chief character of the playa”ˆHedda Gabler for whom I sum up with a series of words that could be violative to Hedda Gabler lovers: covetous, toxicant, monstrous, heartless, clannish, moonstruck, immoral, chesty and cruel.
On my favourite: “ The Woman with the Dog ” is, to me, a great work. First, in Chekov ‘s pen, the great nature is such a beautiful thing that draws two lonely souls together. I am profoundly touched by the scene where Ana Sergeyevna and Dmitri Gurov sit mutely on a stone by the seaboard. The description is huffy, seeable and heart-felt with “ Yalta was barely seeable through the forenoon mist ; white clouds stood motionless on the mountain-tops. The foliages did non stir on the trees, grasshoppers chirruped, and the humdrum hollow sound of the sea lifting up from below, radius of the peace, of the ageless slumber expecting usaˆ¦ in these charming milieus — the sea, mountains, clouds, the unfastened sky — Gurov thought how in world everything is beautiful in this universe when 1 reflects: everything except what we think or do ourselves when we forget our human self-respect and the higher purposes of our being. ” ( Chapter 2 ) This is dauntingly beautiful. Whoever that fails to experience the beauty of this description had better read it a twosome of times. The last sentence foreshadows Gurov ‘s love to Ana. His psyche is touched softly with the nature when Ana is sitting with him. Pure love! Second, I love the true to life description of Chekov on Ana ‘s struggle with herself and the societal norm. After holding personal businesss with Dmitri, Ana said “ I am a bad, low adult female ; I despise myself and do n’t try to warrant myself. It ‘s non my hubby but myself. I have deceived. And non merely merely now ; I have been lead oning myself for a long clip ” ( Chapter 2 ) . Ana is contending with the societal norm of royal to marriage when she feels her love for Dmitri is sincere. It is really good said by Ana who comes from a little town and has been isolated for so long. Last but non least, I love the stoping of “ The Lady with the Dog ” . It does non offer a solution to Ana and Dmitri ‘s secret love because there is non a definite reply for their relationship. Chekov leaves the replies to the reader intentionally. The reader can propose different stoping for this narrative. I would propose they continue to see each other until one twenty-four hours they find they are non really compatible, and so they return to the world and return to their original matrimony because, after all, it is easier to fall in love, but it is hard to populate in harmoniousness with each other for a long clip.
“ Hedda Gabler ” happened to be my least favourite. I dislike it because of Hedda Gabler who is, to me, a toxicant, barbarous, chesty and moonstruck adult female. She mirrors some adult females I met in my life, which makes me abhor her more. That Hedda Gabler is toxicant, monstrous, barbarous, bloodless and arrogant is proved through doing others around her submissive, painful and suffering. She bullied her Thea and Lovborg by firing their babe ( the manuscript ) every bit good as gives Lovborg a handgun to kill himself “ attractively ” . To her hubby George, she is apathetic and detached ; to Juliana, her hubby ‘s aunt, she is average. Hedda ‘s transgression is more than I can compose approximately. A list of her defects can travel on, and on and on. I compare and contrast Hedda with some of my ex-girlfriends and I can barely assist naming my ex-girlfriends “ my ex-Hedda ‘s ” ! This is the epiphany I got from reading “ Hedda Gabler ” . Thank you, Ibsen. I like you, but I hate Hedda. I do non desire to run into another Hedda in my life. If it is inevitable for me to run into another Hedda, I will non fall into her use once more.