"The Lady With the Little Dog" - Anton Chekhov (1860-1904)

3/5/2014

"The Lady With the Little Dog"

"You abuse me for objectivity, calling it indifference to good and evil, lack of ideals and ideas, and so on. You would have me, when I describe horse-thieves, say: "Stealing horses is an evil." But that has been known for ages without my saying so. Let the jury judge them; it's my job simply to show what sort of people they are. I write: You are dealing with horse-thieves, so let me tell you that they are not beggars but well-fed people, that they are people of a special cult, and that horse-stealing is not simply theft but a passion. Of course it would be pleasant to combine art with a sermon, but for me personally it is extremely difficult and almost impossible, owing to the condition of the technique. You see, to depict horse-thieves in seven hundred lines I must all the time speak and think in their tone and feel in their spirit, otherwise, if I introduce subjectivity, the image becomes blurred and the story will not be as compact as all short stories ought to be. When I write, I reckon entirely upon the reader to add for himself the subjective elements that are lacking in the story."

From a letter to Alekseys S. Suvorin in Letters on the Short Story, the Drama, and Other Literary Topics by Anton Chekhov

After reading the excerpt above, please respond to the following prompt:

Why does Chekhov reject sermonizing in his fiction? How does his "objectivity" affect your reading of "The Lady with the Little Dog"?

Part One Expectations (respond to the prompt above): 200-250 words, 2 quotes from the short story, minimal errors in grammar and usage, thoughtful and thorough writing. Please use the assigned "pen name" given to you in class

Part Two Expectations (read everyone's first responses, select two that interest you, and respond to their ideas): 100-150 words EACH, minimal errors in grammar and usage, thoughtful and thorough writing. Please use the assigned "pen name" given to you in class.

3/5/2014 10:30:04 am

Chekhov sees sermonizing as taking away the effort every reader should put in on his or her own. If he spends his time spelling everything out word by word to the audience, it leaves their minds inactive, lifeless, dull, and bland. Chekhov wants the reader to think; he WANTS the reader’s mind to have to wrestle with his texts and extract deeper conclusions on their own.
Chekhov’s objectivity and restraint from sermonizing everything makes the words he says matter that much more to me. Before, the simple juxtaposition of Gurov’s appearances early in the story and near the end, starting with Gurov in middle age but “not yet forty” (Paragraph 4) and ending with Gurov having the revelation that “he had aged so much in those last years” (Paragraph 119). To me, this was merely a nice piece of evidence of time’s hand in the story before. Now that I understand how little Chekhov wanted to steal away from readers, I see that this is his way of taking a stance on the crimes no one sees. They take their punishment out upon us still; while they don’t destroy everything the way caught crimes do, they still whittle away at you in other ways. This simple pairing of lines exemplifies Chekhov’s aversion to sermonizing and how it does not hurt his work in the slightest. Those 12 words manage to make a deep statement in the context of the novel, and their effects upon the reader are incredibly profound.

3/6/2014 02:57:25 pm

Silly writers, making everything as obscure as possible so that we have to dissect every little thing in hope of finding meaning. ...But yeah, I guess that does give the text a chance to be way more meaningful, though it kind of makes it something different for everyone to the point that its messages, in different readers' opinions, are completely conflicting.
Huh. Yeah, the age difference is a cool image when you think about it that deeply. So you're saying that he's indirectly sermonizing a bit, but maybe in such a way that the readers would only interpret this imagery as denouncing adultery if that's what they want it to say?

3/9/2014 08:54:31 pm

Exactly! He purposely gives out certain details in order to give the reader a chance to provide an interpretation they deem fit based on their beliefs. It does create a bit of a conflict as you stated but there will always be a conflict from opposing sides with every issue that rises. It is amazing to hear the different interpretations and ideas people have on matters at hand. Sometimes they influence us to tweak our own from what we glean and other times they simply just make us feel like throwing a brick at that person for reaching certain conclusions.

3/5/2014 11:44:16 am

Chekhov rejects the idea of sermonizing because he does not want to give away his ideas for free. He wants his readers to work for the revelation that comes with discovering themes and motifs. Instead of spoon feeding his readers, he would rather give them a steak to chew on. This can be seen in "The Lady With A Little Dog" in many ways. First off, Chekhov never really gives his view on the relationship. He does not give a clear view on whether or not this affair deserves approval or not, he leaves the decision up to the reader. I think another big point in Chekhov's short story is whether or not the man respected Anna. Chekhov also leaves this up to the jury that is his readers.

3/5/2014 03:11:13 pm

I found your analogy of "instead of spoon feeding readers, he would rather give them a steak to chew on," quite entertaining and agreeable. I think it's better for the audience to actually dig deep into their own personal beliefs in order to get a better feel and a better opinion on what they feel is justifiable or not. The last couple of sentences is also really interesting and true. Chekhov doesn't provide you with the answers because he wants you to figure them out for yourself, giving you an insight of the character's perspective also makes you sympathize with him, which leaves you with a biased opinion at the end of the story.

3/6/2014 02:06:49 pm

I agree with your view of point. You brought out a fact that is not easily identified. The author does not want to give everything out for free. Rather, he desires for the reader to make their own connections and thus, their own conclusions. I also support the idea that the author does not give his opinion or tone towards the relationship. He also doesn’t insight in the characters as deeply. Which would then allow the reader to thinks their own opinions without any influences. Also shaping the end of the story as they wish.

3/8/2014 11:06:06 am

I like the idea that you said about Chekov not wanting to give his ideas away for free, I think that its great that he wants his readers to dig deeper. Instead of coming right out and giving the readers what they want. They have to work for it. Which allows the reader to have their own opinions of the matters that were stated in the story without any influence given from the author himself.

3/5/2014 02:12:13 pm

The reason Chekhov does not believe in “sermonizing” in his fiction is that it would take the experience away from the readers and not be as effective. The point of reading literature is not for authors to tell you directly the point they are trying to make, it is for you to make inferences into what is really being said and take a certain message from it, or several messages. All writing is in some way persuasive, and writers use various techniques to get their points across to the reader.
Chekhov’s “objectivity” affects my reading of “The Lady with the Little Dog” because it leads me to make my own conclusions and form my own ideas based on what is written. For example, I can infer into the details of Anna and Gurov’s relationship by Chekhov’s descriptions. When they go to Anna’s room, we can assume that she is insecure with herself and unhappy as “her long hair hung down sadly on both sides of her face, she sat pondering in a dejected pose, like the sinful woman in an old painting,” (Chekhov 637). Gurov is also conflicted. He feels “annoyed by the naïve tone” Anna uses, but he also must have liked a lot about what is revealed in this scene, as he later claims to be in love.

3/5/2014 03:04:05 pm

I agree with your response. It's not as effective if a reader already knows what s going on and what to expect. I think the idea of analyzing and trying to figure out what the author is trying to reveal within his text makes the literature that more meaningful. It is also quite boring if the author reveals the meaning and the subliminal messages hidden within the text. I feel like sermonizing a text is just like giving away the story to someone who hasn't already read it yet.

3/6/2014 03:15:00 pm

If everything is persuasive, does that mean that nothing is objective?
It's kind of interesting to ponder what happened in the missing parts of the story, or to see what you assume based on the given descriptions like in your example. ...It would be cool to see if the original story had different connotations for some of the words or different amounts of detail when untranslated.
I wonder if Gurov really liked anything that happened in the scene other than Anna being young and awkward and pretty. Did his love, if it can really be called that, even have anything to do with this specific scene, or did his annoyance here weaken it?

3/7/2014 10:53:01 am

Chekhov indeed persuades the reader to infer their own conclusion. Instead of revealing the story as he wishes. Therefore, each individual has the opportunity to make of the story as they wish. As you said, all writers use different techniques to persuade he reader in their story. Either with getting straight to the point, or being indirect. Each author has their own style, but will only be effective if they use it correctly. However, I disagree with you on your preference. I prefer when the author fully elaborates on what's going on to the full extent. I don't like making assumptions, and not knowing whether they are right or not.

3/8/2014 11:08:43 am

I agree with your response because its extremely boring when a writer reveals everything in their writing within the first paragraph. That would not make them a good writer by any means, it's gives the work a little more meaning when readers have to rack their brains to figure out the deeper meaning. Chekhov uses this in his favor to persuade readers to figure out their own conclusion of the story. I like to make my own interpretations and assumptions with what was given to me in the text.

3/8/2014 11:24:24 am

I agree with your stance that sermonizing waters down a message. I can see how this would take away from the reader's experience because they would not have to think about what they read and they wouldn't have to work to get a message. I think it is very interesting as well that you say it takes away from the effectiveness as well. I think that sermonizing definitely gets the point across, but I guess that the process may be more important than the absorption of facts.

3/5/2014 02:26:15 pm

Chekhov feels like everyone already knows what one could sermonize about adultery, so instead of boring readers with that, he just gets on with the story. He also tries to "all the time speak and think in [his characters'] tone and feel in their spirit" to make his stories more unique and interesting.
This objective point of view leaves it to the readers to decide how justified the characters are in their actions, while letting the story focus on themes other than moral values. Instead of being so concerned about how it's really bad that Gurov and Anna are cheating on their spouses, I can look at it as a love story. Instead of just labeling him, Chekhov is letting the readers see if they think Gurov's an awful person for adultery or calling females "an inferior race" or deceiving women or whatever else.
Perhaps the narrator's neutral tone also allows the story's themes to be viewed more deeply. Rather than pondering how "everything that [Gurov] found important, interesting, necessary, in which he was sincere and did not deceive himself, which constituted the core of his life, occurred in secret from others," the narrator could have just said that Gurov was being totally unfair to his wife and had two lives, without being able to get so much into the characters' feelings and motives.

3/6/2014 09:01:33 am

I like your interpretation of why Chekhov doesn’t sermonize. You’re right, after all – we all know what could be said on adultery. Chekhov’s goal was to give readers more to think about while reading; while I’m not entirely sure what (and I’d probably end up playing the classic excuse of “we get to think more about the themes than the fact that Gurov’s doing someone other than his wife”), your interpretation sounds like quite a good one. The argument over whether Gurov’s really so bad for his adultery can be made from either side, though the moral standpoint might have a bit of an advantage. The deeper view of the themes also works well for this sort of purpose, because those seem to be the most important part of the story – or that’s what Mrs. Williams and company have been hammering into our skulls since day one, at least.

3/8/2014 11:29:38 am

I agree with you! In an era when adultery was definitely one of the worst things you could do, Chekhov does not really make a clear judgment on whether or not the relationship between Gurov and Anna is acceptable or not. This definitely forces the reader to think critically and come up with an opinion of their own.

3/9/2014 10:54:44 am

I agree with your statement. Chekhov chooses not to focus on the adultery of the storyline and focus on the charterer development instead as well as its major theme. He allows the reader to decide how to judge the characters based on their feelings and actions which makes the story more interesting. I agree that it can be looked at as a love story; however my first impression was that it wasn’t going to be as romantic as it became towards the ending. That surprised me considering the type of man the main character is. He is someone who has had a multitude of affairs, why was Anna so different than all the others?

3/9/2014 04:38:06 pm

I love how you bring up the neutral tone of the story. I agree with your comments as well, of your explanation of the effects of having the tone not sway too much into either side of a situation. I mean, it truly does let me think of my own opinions with the story and not have the story tell me what to think. It’s very freeing for my mind.

3/5/2014 02:59:45 pm

Chekhov would rather lean away from “sermonizing” his fiction. Chekhov refuses the idea of painting a clear picture for his readers. It isn’t in his interest to create a story that already establishes an exact vision of what is supposed to be discovered. Chekhov would rather have his readers use their cognitive ability to depict certain themes, metaphors, and symbolisms on their own, making them value and appreciate the text more. Sermonizing a text is rather unimaginative, depriving the reader from the ability to analyze and use their own experiences and or thoughts to both relate to the story and come up with a conclusion about what’s going on, on their own. Not only does it lack imagination but the tone and attitude of a sermonized text is dull and monotonous; it lacks the ability of strong imagery because one is not fully committed to bringing the text alive.
Chekhov’s objectivity affects my interpretation and reading of his story by allowing me the opportunity to think beyond the text. For example in paragraph six he mentions that to Dmitri, “It seemed to him that he had been taught enough by bitter experience to call them anything he liked, and yet he could not have lived without the “inferior race” even for two days,” (Chekhov 634). This line makes me ponder the idea that perhaps Dmitri had a fall out with his past relationships, making him more of a bitter, egotistical, and sexist man now. Maybe before his negative encounters with the women in his past relationships, Dmitri was actually more enthusiastic and actually loved women. This vague sentence makes me imagine what his “bitter experiences” possibly could’ve been. Chekhov’s objectivity also allows me to appreciate the text more and take in consideration of the characters perspectives and of my own perspective, or rather of society’s perspective. Another example would be when Anna says, “’It’s good that I’m leaving,’ she said to Gurov. ‘It’s fate itself…Let me have one more look at you…Ome more look. There…she did not cry, but was sad, as if ill, and her face trembled.” This line makes me realize that in our society, and in our own perspectives, we would view this encountering as disgraceful, seeing as the two are being deceitful to their own significant others. However, if you took a moment to think about the situation through their perspective, this relationship was beautiful, spontaneous, and the only thing that actually made them feel alive again.

3/6/2014 10:30:28 am

I very much enjoyed reading your post. I thought it was nice and clear and well thought out. I agree with the point made by your observation of Anna and Gurov’s farewell. Something that should technically be negative (an affair) is made into something that can be interpreted freely by the reader and not held down by any constraints. At the same time, he allows Anna and Gurov’s relationship to progress as it would in real life, and not as it would in a fairy tale. It is more cynical than a typical, long romance novel, and the audience may even question the authenticity of the pair’s love for each other.

18 link

3/10/2014 09:06:29 am

Yo forreal doe that was really beautiful on the real. Like I feel you on that point, and agree. If there was no imagination or contribution even on the readers behalf to interpret what they feel happened or what the author meant by something then it would be boring. I love reading things with a bunch of meaning without completelty handing over what the author was saying exactly. I could forreal look at this short story and be all like "Hol up lemme think bout this on some real". It's real cute and thought provoking when the author does this.

3/5/2014 03:50:42 pm

Anton Chekhov certainly does not favor the idea of sermonizing. Chekhov believes that the reader should insert their own input in his stories. If he unmasked everything, there would no longer be an image to create. Such as in page 636, “Gurov often stopped at the pavilion, offering Anna Sergeevna now a soft drink, now ice cream. There was no escape”. Chekhov does not emphasize what he means by “no escape”. As a reader, I believe that once they have unrevealed each other’s charms, it will be impossible to not fall in love with one another. I also admire the way the ending was written, “and it was clear to both of them that the end was still far, far off, and that the most complicated and difficult part was just the beginning” (645). The author did not reveal how their love story ended. Even though it is his creation, it provides the reader an opportunity to turn this story into their own. The reader will then make their own conclusions, letting their imagination wander to the farthest extent. I liked Chekhov’s opinion on sermonizing. It engages my personal experiences, thoughts, and beliefs into a story that was very much meant to be carved as my own.

3/6/2014 08:55:05 am

I like the point you made about how there was no escape for Gurov. It goes along with what I had said in my own post – the reader is tasked with coming up with their own idea of what it means. While I probably would have made a point about how at this point he could not escape the karmic retribution which was coming for him in the form of his aging, your opinion seems quite reasonable as well. The ambiguous ending was another good point to mention – I believe that these sorts of endings enhance stories much in the same way you said it did for you. The lack of finality allows everyone to think their view was the right one without fighting over it; we can simply all agree to disagree.

3/6/2014 09:22:48 am

I agree with your point about the ending leaving a lot of room for the reader to imagine the possibilities. It is certainly good for readers’ intellects to have such a wide berth to think for themselves. The ending of “The Lady with the Little Dog” makes the reader summarize in their head what Gurov and Anna have already been through and realize this is not all there is to the story. This also furthers the point that a short story leaves little room for an author to control every tiny detail and that they must be “objective” to write anything meaningful.

3/16/2014 08:55:00 am

I definitely believe that the reader must put their own input into a work or else it holds no substance. I can look at a picture and say nice or i can really look into it and create my own idea to what it means. Chekhov wants the readers to try and create their own idea of his stories

3/6/2014 02:30:01 pm

Chekhov's use of "sermonizing" is to trigger the readers imagination and to indulge more into the writing itself. There's a lot of literature that simply hands the reader every part of the story and doesn't leave any curiousity or wondering or fill in the blanks rather of parts of the story. It left me with personal questions myself such as did her husband or his wife ever discover their affair short after. Since Dmitri did come to the theatre where he could be seen meeting with her later after her husband left for a moment. Or also what left him so insensitive to her while she cried and it simply would annoy him half the time. His impatience with females would explain why he moves on so often so what is this fear that his wife instills in him to make him stay? All these questions are results of sermonizing which is gets the reader to indulge more into the text and makes Chekhov's work more appreciated.

3/9/2014 10:48:36 am

I agree that Chekhov’s work is more appreciated because the reader is more indulged in the text due to his use of sermonizing. As a reader you get to question the choices made by the characters without being told why they did the things they did. Yes, it may be an obvious answer such as they did it for love, yet still that answer is something you conjured up yourself. Chekhov allows the reader to come to his of hers own conclusions about the story or plot. This leaves the reader curious, like you said and using their imagination to interpret the story. This freedom is very appealing to the reader and is one of the reasons Chekhov is as successful as he is.

3/8/2014 11:03:25 am

Chekhov sees sermonizing as a way of handing out his ideas for free. He wants us as readers to work to discover his hidden themes and messages he laces through his writing. He also doesn’t want to bore us. This idea is played in the short, “The lady with the little dog” instead of coming out and saying that the two characters admitted adultery, he skips the boring details and dives right into writing. We, as readers had to read between the lines to get the underlying message. He uses juxtaposition to make his writing more complicated, with Gurov in his middle age but “not yet forty”. And snappy imagery, “her long hair hung down sadly on both sides of her face”. His simplistic style of writing gets to the point without getting too attached to the characters he creates.

3/9/2014 04:24:42 pm

I agree and love your explanation of how Chekhov sees sermonizing as “handing his ideas for free.” Going along with this metaphor, just handing out your idea just cheapens them. It makes your ideas forced, disposable, and have make them seem like they are just existing just because they have to and not because they need to.

3/9/2014 10:44:02 am

Chekov rejects sermonizing in his fiction simple because he wants the work to speak for itself. He wants the reader to form their own opinions about each of the characters. This includes questioning their reasoning or logic. The reader should put their own beliefs and opinions onto the characters rather than him blatantly stating what he thinks through the text. “How can I justify myself? I’m a bad, low woman; I despise myself and am not even thinking of any justification. It’s not my husband I’ve deceived, but my own self!” For example in this quote, Anna is clearly at a loss by her behavior and regrets her mistake. It is up to the reader to understand her frustration and judge her according to how they feel she should be judged. Chekov wrote in a way that didn’t critique the characters infidelity even though Ana’s character does. The way he wrote the fiction affects the story in a more appealing way. There aren’t any fundamental beliefs being forced onto you. “But at home it was impossible to talk of his love, and away from home there was no one to talk with.” (Page 40). Although Ana is disgusted by her infidelity, he is not which is a way to show both sides of the story without forcing you to believe that cheating is wrong or not.

3/9/2014 04:01:45 pm

Anton Chekhov objects to sermonizing his work because he doesn’t want to make that the focus, pushing lessons down our throats; he seems to want to just tell us a story. He sees this as pushing as forced lessons because they plainly are and shoving such morals into a story takes away from the sensitive format of a short story. They are plainly “forced lessons” because we all have all heard them over and over again. Since we all them, what’s the point to inorganically add the lessons to a story that’s better off without them? Examples of Chekhov not sermonizing in a perfect opportunity to sermonize were in pg 641 “Those words, so very ordinary, for some reason made Gurov indignant struck him as humiliating, impure” and pg pg 645 “and it was clear to both of them that the end was still far, far off, and that the most complicated and difficult part was just the beginning.” Anton Chekhov had the perfect opportunity have gone into a rant about morality and adultery and repeat the insight that has been known of all of human history, destroying the effectiveness of the short story for the sake of some trivial lesson, but instead he paves them as just simple detail.
Reading a non-sermonized short story had effected my experience reading “The Lady with the Little Dog” as I now the story is more open to interpretation. Not for what Chekhov believes in but what I believe in.

i forgot my number

3/9/2014 05:03:00 pm

Chekhov is basically suggesting that there is no real eed for religion to declare right or wrong because people should already know that--which is the main reason why he is rejecting sermonizing itself. As a writer he must think and speak like them unbiasedly, without subjectivity or judgement. He wants to leave the color of the opinions to the readers themselves--so he gives them a canvas with a penciled sketch, and lets the readers paint their colored interpretations.

People will do what they want, and they will pursue their passions because they are passionate about it. They will disregard the ideas that reject their passion, including the ideas of religion and what is good in their book and what is bad.

It really effects my understanding of TLWLD, because there are many ways of interpreting the story because of the purposeful lack of this "subjectivity" that allows great leg-space for the reader's own interpretation. To put it simply, Chekhov simply wrote about these characters and handed the readers information. However, it was the readers (or at least, mine after reading the above given passage) that justified the actions of the characters. It was not the author, evidently, who justified their actions. Cool stuff :)

3/9/2014 09:03:33 pm

When I hear the word sermon, it reminds me of a boring church service where the preacher tells you what is and is not acceptable in the eyes of God. Frankly I do not want to sit in a sanctuary like that or even pick up and read a book of that nature because I might have a different view and understanding based on past or present experience. It leaves nothing to the the imagination of the audience. Checkov simply refrains from using such approach to give the audience a chance to think; as if their thoughts matter. He restrains on giving his own opinion on certain things to keep the audience wondering.

3/9/2014 09:08:53 pm

The previous entry was a reply to "i forgot my number"'s post. Sorry

182

3/10/2014 08:59:21 am

YOU RUINED EVERYTHING !

3/16/2014 08:47:22 am

Chekov doesnt like to sermonize because it doesnt give the reader the effect Chekov wants. He wants to make you think and find out what he meant by yourself. He is not going to sit there and spell it out for you. If he did, would you really understand? As many people say, catch a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

3/16/2014 12:11:44 pm

Chekhov doesn’t believe in sermonizing because it takes away from the readers overall reading experience and it isn’t really the most effective way of telling a story. Sermonizing leaves no room for the reader to make their own inferences and opinions on the novel. Without sermonizing, reading literature is much more enjoyable. The objectivity that Chekhov uses in “The Lady with the Little Dog” affects the way it is read and the conclusions that can be drawn from it. The details that Chekhov makes available to us about Gurov and Anna’s relationship can be further inferred upon when reading. We as readers can assume certain things like on page 637, “Her features drooped and faded, and her long hair hung down sadly on both sides of her face, she sat pondering in a dejected pose, like the sinful woman in an old painting.” Chekhov doesn’t come flat out and say that Anna is sad, but this can be inferred from the passage.

3/16/2014 03:12:27 pm

"And Anna Sergeevna began coming to see him in Moscow. Once every two or three months she left S., and told her husband she was going to consult a professor about her female disorder--and her husband did and did not believe her" (643). As a reader I like to infer and create my own interpretation of what the author is saying. I like to let my imagination run wild. By reading the quote stated in the beginning I begin to question myself and create a whole lot of scenarios based on the last line "and her husband did and did not believe her" (643) but mostly I question myself about what he meant by it. It gives me a chance to interpret and brew an explanation of my own. This is why I feel that Chekhov subjects to objectivity because he wants his audience to fill in the pieces themselves.

Comments are closed.

"The Lady With the Little Dog" - Anton Chekhov (1860-1904)

Virtual Classroom Week Schedule
Mon: Youtube AP Lit Lecture
Tues: Poetry Blog Part 1
Wed: Youtube AP Lit Lecture
Thurs: Poetry Blog Part 1 con't
Fri: Poetry Blog Part 2
Once a Week: MC PPC

Blog Post Rubric

Archives

Categories

"The Lady With the Little Dog" - Anton Chekhov (1860-1904)

Virtual Classroom Week ScheduleMon: Youtube AP Lit LectureTues: Poetry Blog Part 1Wed: Youtube AP Lit LectureThurs: Poetry Blog Part 1 con'tFri: Poetry Blog Part 2Once a Week: MC PPC

Blog Post Rubric

Archives

Categories

Virtual Classroom Week Schedule
Mon: Youtube AP Lit Lecture
Tues: Poetry Blog Part 1
Wed: Youtube AP Lit Lecture
Thurs: Poetry Blog Part 1 con't
Fri: Poetry Blog Part 2
Once a Week: MC PPC