Comparisons in The Lady With The Pet Dog Essay

Though the similarities and differences of characterizations in Chekhov and Oatess different versions of The lady with the pet dog are evident, the purpose only becomes clear for the reader when the two versions are read and compared. The stories have different settings, but the characters in the story remain the same. There is Anna, Dmitry, and their respective families.

Both Anton Chekhov and Joyce Oates chose to tell the story using a third-person narrator. This is one of the most important aspects of the characterization because if other characters were allowed to appear more within the story, the reader would have more than likely had a different view of the affair. If Oatess had allowed the reader to know Annas husband more intimately and definitely if the reader could read his thoughts, than the reader may have seen the affair as dirty. The reader only sees that they never really communicate and his love for Anna is never shown within the story, so the reader has no real reason to sympathize with him.

Chekhovs perspective was through the male characters point of view, while Oatess perspective was through the female characters point of view. Chekhov focuses on the male lover, Dmitry, and his thoughts on his affair with the woman named Anna. Similarly, Oates focuses on Annas emotions and state of being on her affair with Dmitry. However, Chekhovs point of view on Dmitrys affair was seen positive and accepted with no feelings of guilt or shame for his actions; while Oatess point of view on Annas affair was negative and unacceptable, displaying emotional chaos and vulnerability. The story was written more effectively through Oatess point of view due to the realistic description of Annas emotions on her affair with Dmitry, than the lack of sensible descriptions of Dmitrys view on the affair written by Chekhov.

Chekhov entertained the male perspective of love while Oatess indulged in the weakening aspect of the feminine side. Chekhov used a limited omniscient narrator who only knows Dmitry inner thoughts and feelings. He reveals the point of view by not including any feminine thoughts and emotions throughout the story, only a mere poetic aspect of Anna. Chekhov tells his story from the eyes of a man looking at a beautiful, smart woman, with a soft voice. He makes her so perfect that you forget that their love was wrong, but innocent. On the same aspect, Oates uses a limited Omniscient narrator who focuses on Anna as being the center of consciousness. She reveals the point by alienating the thoughts to only Anna. The reader is only able to interpret the thoughts and emotions of the lover only through his own words. Oates creates Anna as a simple woman without respect for herself, a woman insane with love. Chekhov and Oatess approach towards their point of views were both convincing and realistic. Chekhovs ability to place all the emphasis on the emotional stability of Dmitry thoughts and emotions give the reader a more in-depth sense of the confusion involved in his situation. Chekhovs use of the third person narrator help enhanced the story. If Chekhov had approached this story from a different perspective, we would not have the full effect of the masculinity involved in the emotional bondage between man and woman. For example, if Dmitrys wife would have been the consciousness of the story, we would have felt her pain and suffering, thus leaving the reader with despise for Dmitry. However, only given Dmitrys perspective we can empathize with his innocent love for Anna. Oatess approach also would not have been as effective if she would have changed her focus to the husband, because she focused on the feminine character, we can feel Annas demented feminine emotions involved in such a sinful act. In the same respect, if Oatess would have given us more emotions and thoughts from Annas husband, we would have been more inclined to feel that what Anna was doing was wrong, not just fate. By moving back and forth between the past and present, Oates uses the plot to illustrate a pattern of Annas instability throughout the progression of the story. Oatess also uses the absence of the lovers name in a sense to focus more attention on Anna. Oates use of the third person narrator creates Anna as a round, dynamic character who changes throughout the story. Once again, if Oates had created this story using an omniscient narrator, we would have the ability to know all and then our opinions on the act of infidelity may have differed. If Oatess would have put more thoughts and emotions on other characters in the story, then the story may have unfolded differently. Imagine the story being told from the husbands perspective, he probably would be full of anger and hatred for Anna, but this story is fuller of love than hatred on both parts. Perhaps if the reader did know the husband feelings about Anna, either good or bad, the story may have taken a whole different turn. But, leaving the characters thoughts out the story, we can only assume that she was acting in fate. Not being able to see the response of certain situations leaves the reader to be sympathetic towards such an irrational, unstable character such as Anna. In comparison, Chekhovs use of names is to characterize Anna and Dmitry and give a more personal approach in understanding the reality of more than one character versus Oates approach at only giving a name to the main character Anna which leaves the reader more at stray about the reality of the lover. Oates uses this approach to indulge our senses in how Anna felt; not including a name only makes the reader more unaware of the personal connection between the two. In addition, the use of the limited omniscient narrator not knowing the inner lives of the other characters in these two stories plays an important role in understanding each of the different perspectives. If the reader is given the opportunity to see the inner lives of other characters, we may have felt differently towards each of the main characters in these stories. In conclusion, the two stories of The lady with the pet dog have parallel points of view. Other than the differences mentioned above, these stories create an emotional understanding of the realisms of life. Both of these authors did an excellent job of telling the tale, they created a sense of actuality from the two different perspectives, masculine and feminine.