 |
| Photo credit |
After reading Anton Chekov's "The Lady with the Pet Dog" and Joyce Carol Oates version, what are your thoughts about two versions of essentially the same story? Which version do you like better? What is the point of Oates retelling the story? Are the differences in Oates' version significant? Explain in a thoughtful response (and by thoughtful, I mean do a nice job of explaining yourself and using examples when you can).
I actually enjoyed reading both stories. I did like Anton Chekov's version a little better than Joyce Carol Oates' because I found Oates' version a bit more confusing. At the beginning of Oates' "The Lady With a Pet Dog", I was confused as to which man she was referring to when she said lover. She seemed to switch back and forth extremely quickly between husband and lover that I had a hard time distinguishing who she was talking about. For example, when the narrator said, "He drove her from Nantucket, where they had met, to Albany, New York..." I was confused as to who drove her. (250) Was it her husband or her lover? Throughout this paragraph, I still was mixed up between the husband and the lover. I straightened it out a little when the narrator talked of Anna at the beach house with the man who had a blind son. I realized this was her lover. When the story jumped to different spots, I was confused at which man the narrator was talking about. I still liked this story due to the love story with a twist. I believe I enjoyed Chekov's version better because I could follow the plot better. I found it easier to distinguish between the husband and the lover. I also liked Chekov's ending better. Chekov ended with a mystery, but it also seemed as if there could be another story to follow. It lead into the beginning of another story where the author could continue. I liked this way of being left hanging on to the story, and what would happen next. In Oates' version, I did not like the ending as much. I thought Anna seemed a bit crazed at the end and did not leave me with the same feeling of wanting to read more. This could be because I had already read the other version. It still left me with a question of what was she smiling at, but I still enjoyed the start of a new beginning in Chekovs' version. The one twist I did like about Oates' version included the blind child and the dog. I kind of liked how the dog was not specifically hers, but the title revolved around the drawing that Anna's lover made for her. Also, there was something about the blind child in Oates' version that made me like Anna's lover better. I felt more sympathetic toward the character, and it seemed like this character was more caring and thoughtful than in Chekov's version. All in all, I enjoyed both versions, but I liked Chekov's "The Lady with the Pet Dog" a little more than Oates'.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading Chekov's version of this story better. I think I enjoyed it more because I felt like I got more of the entire story of how the couple came to be and what exactly was happening. It gave me a background to go off of when reading Oates' version. It helped it make sense whereas if I would've read Oates' first, I probably would've been confused.
ReplyDeleteI think the point of Oates retelling the story was to give the story from the woman's perspective because in Chekov's version it only tells the story from the man's point of view.
I do think the differences in Oates' version are significant. While the plot of the story is pretty much the same, in Oates' version it gives more of a background on the woman's relationship with her husband which we didn't get from Chekov's version. It also tells more about her strong feelings toward the other man. I think these added elements help give the story more meaning and understanding to the reader.
I definitely like Chekov's version of the story better. I like that the story was narrated as a complete outsider. It gave perspectives of both people rather than mainly Anna's perspective in Oates' version. I think that the point of Oates retelling the story was so the reader's could get a different perspective on the situation. It was kind of hard to tell what Anna was thinking in Chekov's version sometimes because it focused a little more on what Gustov was feeling and thinking. I definitely think the differences in Oates' version are significant. It gave me a completely different picture of what happened between these two people. In fact, at the beginning of Oates' story I thought that Anna had been with another lover in addition to Gustov. That is another reason why I was not as fond of Oates' version because it was confusing. Oates gave insight as to what Anna was thinking during all of this and I am glad I read both of these stories because it really gives you more of a full picture of what went on since you get the perspectives and stories of both Anna and Gustov.
ReplyDeleteI liked Chekov's version better. Oates portrayed the characters a little differently, and the emotions were more intense. Anna was totally freaking out, and she was making me feel anxious, too.
ReplyDeleteI think Oates' purpose for retelling the story was to get Anna's perspective. She gives us a lot more insight into how Anna feels.
I think Oates makes some interesting changes. The fact that she wrote it en medias res gets us really caught up in Anna's emotions right from the beginning. The non-chronological order makes things seem a lot more hectic, and we can better experience Anna's internal turmoil as she tries to sort things out. Even though this made me feel too anxious, I think Oates did a good job of showing us how Anna felt.
I skimmed the story, I shan't tell a lie. I did enjoy the first one better though. The second was a little misleading because I rarely knew who "him" was referred to. Was it the husband or the lover? I feel like the first one was more informative because one always knew who was being talked about. Also, since I read the first one first, I was constantly having to refer to it when reading the second one. I did enjoy reading them though. Or skimming through them at least.
ReplyDeleteI never read Chekhov's version of the story. I was absent the day it was assigned and when I asked someone about the homework, they said to read "Lady with the Pet Dog," that there were two stories, and that it was about perspective. I found Oates' version in the index and thought that the perspectives of the wife and mistress were what was meant by 'two stories.' So... yep. That being said, I can only imagine the story was retold in an American setting with American names and activities was to let the American readers better sympathize with and understand the story and characters.
ReplyDeleteAlso, would it have been too much to name the stupid characters? It was constantly saying "he said" or "she thought" and it was very confusing. Given there are four characters, and that they very much resemble each other (the women especially), it was very confusing. I don't know if this was something Chekhov did and Oates was emulating him, but it was honestly more confusing than effective in any literary sense.
DeleteI enjoyed Chekov's version a bit more, because I find that stories which tell a story from two or more perspectives are easier to understand. However, reading both stories allows Anna's perspective to come through a bit more, although it seems a little bit more confusing. When the story is narrated by an outsider, in Chekov's version, the reader gets a little more insight into multiple characters, while you only see what Anna sees about them in Oates' version. The differences in Oates' version are significant. In Chekov's version, she remains kind of a mystery, but in Oates' version, you learn about her relationship with her husband. I think that's important in order to understand her character and place in the story. Overall, reading both perspectives allows for a better understanding of the story.
ReplyDeleteI like Chekov's version of the story better. I felt like there was more to story and I also felt like I understood it more. Oat's version was good, but it is told differently and from a different perspective. I was expecting it to be a lot similar and it wasn't. It was kind of difficult to keep up with who she was talking about because at some parts she was talking about her lover, but he husband at the same time. I think she retold the story though in the woman's point of view because you get more of a look on how she felt opposed to the man's view. Women see things differently from men and showed that by writing from Anne's view. I think that is why some of the differences are significant as well.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed both versions of "The Lady with the Pet Dog" because they were essentially the same story just told from different perspectives. I read Oates version of the story first, and I became confused because it only gave perspective of Anna and her thoughts. I thought she often changed from her husband and lover which confused me and made it was hard to follow at times. I also thought that Oates verson was more hectic because it was not in chronological order. Overall I think I enjoyed Cherkov's version of the story better because it was mostly told through the perspective of Gurov, and I liked him as a character. I also liked that Cherkov's version was more real in the emotions of both characters. I could feel how Anna and Gurov were feelings. I think the purpose of Oates retelling the story was to get the perspective of Anna and show how she really felt. It was nice to get the opposite points of view from each couple between the two stories.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed Chekov's version better for a few different reasons. For one, I felt that this version was much less confusing about the plot and what all was going on. The Oate's version tended to be jumpy and at times I didn't know exactly who the speaker was referring to or who was being addressed. However, I liked Oate's version because it was being told from Anna's perspective and considering she was the one going between to lovers, it was important to hear the story from her side of things. From then, reading Chekov's version made sense because not only did i have the perspective of Anna but also Gustov's so because of the Oate's version i could have a much better understanding of the Chekov's version. Because of the differences in Oate's version, which I believe were significant, it gave a background story of Anna that is important to already know going into the Chekov's version.
ReplyDeleteI personally liked Chekov's version of the story better. I felt that is was better detailed and explained more that Oates' version. But I did enjoy both of them. I liked the way that Chekov wrote in perspective. He focused both of the characters rather than just more on one. The basic idea of the stories is the same. but, if you get nitty gritty with everything, then they are different. I like to just look at the over all. So to me, they are the same. Oats really focused more on the woman's perspective in her story. She looked at the story siding with the woman. On the opposite side it things, Chekov seemed to write more about the man. Oats difference are significant to the change of the story.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I preferred Chekov's version because it was less confusing. His narrator explained things exactly as they happened and in chronological order, and that is really easy for me to understand. Oates, however, told the story out of order, starting in the middle. It was hard for me to tell when the narrator was talking about her husband and when she was talking about her lover. I also felt that it was much more emotional in Oates' version. She was constantly freaking out about what was happening between the two of them and how unfaithful she was being. Her freak-outs were kind of annoying to me because she wouldn't do anything to fix what she was doing. If she thought she was doing something wrong, she should have ended the affair or gotten a divorce.
ReplyDeleteI only really skimmed. I do know they were both given from different perspecitves and since I looked at the first one more I think I liked it better. From what I've kinda asked around it was other people's favorite too. The perspective of that one was given by an outsider which I feel can give a great effect on any story. It is interesting to see what they might think instead of the actually characters. I think the point of having the two was just to see how great of a difference there is from two points of views on the same story. Even though it is the same exact thing, thoughts of characters are different and a complete stranger can have a totally different perspective than Anna did. With that, I don't have a lot else to say since I didn't fully read them.
ReplyDeleteI've never read a a story, or two stories in this case, where each main character's opinions, thoughts, and perspectives are exploited. The fact that the two sides of the story can be told is a genious idea though because of how the entire story can be told. Parts can be picked and chosen from each side and the full story can be fitted together. This love and tragic story for instance shows how Dmitry longs to see her and doesn't even mention his wife while Anna thinks about Dmitry, yet still is with her husband all the time. Personally I like Oates' version better because there is more conflict between the fact that Dmitry randomly shows out of nowhere and you can feel the instant tension and shock when she sees him. Also it goes farther in the story. The point of retelling the story is so that the reader can view how both characters feel about the whole situation. Dmitry longs to see his "lover" and doesn't really think of his wife while Anna still makes love to her husband, yet thinks of Dmitry as a lover too. I believe that the differences in Oates version aren't too significant because it is the same story. However, the fact that it is in fact a different perspective makes the story as a whole more interesting. Also with the two stories, Oates's version goes past where the first met again and also the settings are different.
ReplyDeleteI liked Chekhov's version of the story better than Oates' version. I liked that Chekhov's version was told from the man's point of view and I thought it seemed a little easier to follow and more romantic. I did not like Oates' version as well because it was told from the woman's point of view. It seemed a little strange to me and not as easy to read. I got confused at some points in that version. The point in Oates retelling the story was so that the reader could understand how the woman in the story felt. In Chekhov's version, we understand that the man is crazy about Anna but we never truly know how Anna feels about him. It was interesting to see how crazy Anna was about the man in Oates' version. She seemed a little weird to me such as when she would "draw the razor more deeply across her arm" (259). She seemed to be a little obsessed with the man but at the same time confused about her feels and about what she wanted. She was very emotional. I think the differences in Oates' version are pretty significant. It was the same story but felt like a different one. I liked reading from the man's point of view because I felt like it was more meaningful, in my opinion. It was more relatable. It was interesting to read both stories and see the story from both lovers.
ReplyDelete