ePortfolio--not during Spring 1 2020

We will not be depositing during Spring 1 2020.



Put your Word doc or docx on your desktop and eliminate your name and the professor's name from the inside of the document itself and the file name.

Go to your ePortfolio and log in.

Click on ENG 102.

Click on Assessment-- Inquiry and Problem Solving

Find the "choose file" button, then click it to browse.

Upload the document and then you should see the file name.\.

Go to the bottom of the webpage and click Complete and Submit.

Excellent essay on a play

EXCELLENT RESEARCH ESSAY ON A PLAY

K A
ENG 102
11/18/18

Essay 2

Shakespeare's “As You Like It”, suggests a politically conservative, authoritarian society with a small mixture of progressive thinking through the use of characters such as Duke Senior and Orlando (Amaya, Fink 101 Blog). Although some would say Orlando is trying to fight the system, his motives appear to be purely motivated for personal gain, not radical change. 

In the play, Orlando struggles to climb the social ladder as his brother, Oliver, hinders him at every step. The hierarchy runs deep, due to “the courtesy of nations, allows [Oliver his] better, in that [Oliver is] the first-born” (Shakespeare I.1.4). Orlando wants a proper education and to be a gentleman, qualities necessary in the conservative society. The conflict escalates to the point where the two brothers are almost ready to fight. According to Farrar, these scenes can be interpreted as either a “son of an aristocrat…. Claiming the privilege due to a man of his pedigree,” or a spark of resistance to the hierarchy “within Elizabethan society” (371). Both of these possibilities foreshadow the political tension brewing within the backdrop of the play. A small family feud becomes of paramount importance when it involves members of the aristocracy since it affects everyone involved. For example, Adam, Oliver’s servant, decides to warn Orlando of the danger his older brother poses to him and convinces him to flee to the Forest of Arden. Orlando is swayed by Adams gesture, and “shows a nostalgia for ‘the antique world’ in the form of a servitude based on ideal loyalty rather than serving for profit” (372). Adam’s motive may be confused with a progressive ideology; however, the reality is that he is a servant willing to offer his fortune in exchange for a better master. Adam is still under servitude regardless of how kind Orlando is to him. This scene further reinforces the motif of banishment that occurs throughout the story. Duke Senior and his followers were the first to be exiled by Duke Frederick. As the story progresses: Celia, Rosalind, Orlando, Adam, and even Oliver, experiences this phenomenon. The play incorporates this motif in to drive the plot. Exile is what started the conflict and drove the characters towards the utopian Forest of Arden. Without it, there would be no separation between the city courts and the country forest. 

When Orlando decides to challenge Charles the wrestler, Charles is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Charles tells Oliver how he is “loath to foil him, as [he] must for [his] own honor if he come in” (I.1.12).  Charles is of the lower class and Orlando, despite everything, is still a member of royalty— beating him would be a slap to the royals and yet losing would mean losing his honor. As a result of this autocratic society, Charles has no choice but to ask Oliver for permission to beat his brother for fear of retaliation by the courts.
            Frederick is a dictator who will pull out anything that threatens him by the roots. He first banishes Duke Senior, dividing the city as conservative and the forest as progressive. Frederick also banishes Duke Senior’s daughter Rosalind with a reason of, “let it suffice thee that [he] trust thee not” (I.3.46). Duke Frederick has no reason to banish Rosalind other than the fact that her father is Duke Senior. Rosalind had no fair trial as Duke Frederick was the judge, jury, and executioner. In addition to Rosalind, Oliver also suffers at the hands of Frederick who “abruptly seizes his lands turns him out to the forest to find Orlando” (Farrar 374). Politically, Oliver did nothing wrong, yet with merely a wave, Frederick has the power to take away everything Oliver owns.
            Duke Senior is the most progressive character of them all. He considers his subordinates to be “co-mates and brothers in exile” (II.1.54), treating them as equals, unlike Duke Frederick. Not only are humans seen as equal, Duke Senior also sees the deer as being “poor dappled fools, being native burghers of [the] desert city” (II.1.54). The irony of the situation is that while the Duke laminates over the poor fate of the animals, he still readies himself for a hunt. Duke Senior loves the “absence of the court’s pretentious gaudiness and ritual observances” (Farrar 368), preferring a community with more openness. Duke senior’s idea of equality is forgoing “hierarchical observance and laud egalitarian principles” (Farrar 367). The duke is tired of the fake flattery that he received from the courts and the pretense of courtesy that had to be maintained for someone of his status. He prefers the “chiding of the winter’s wind…. [that] is no flattery” (II.1.54). The Duke is used to hearing what people think he wants to hear. On the other hand, the forest wind only gives him honesty.

Although Duke Senior claims to want equality,  “the court’s formalities still persist, in that they never cease addressing him as ‘my lord’ as opposed” (Farrar 370) to more casual different forms of address; rather than correcting his followers, the duke ironically allows the custom to continue, showing his tacit approval. Another criticism for the duke is whether he is actually happy in the forest. Amiens comments “happy is your Grace” (II.1.54) to Duke Senior, as though trying to discern whether the duke is happy bitter about Duke Frederick taking away his status (Farrar 369). For all of Duke Senior’s claims on how lovely the forest is, it looks as though he may miss the courts and the prestige more than he lets on.
            Duke Senior and his entourage are not in complete harmony. Jacques continually criticizes the forest and dims the mood or the group. When the duke was planning on hunting deer, Jacques described the act as “fright[ening] the animals and kill[ing] them up in their assigned and native dwelling place” (II.1.58). The forest is supposed to be away from big government, a place of equality, and yet Jacques still sees the oppression even though the group does not. Jacques suggests that their presence “may disrupt and taint the forest’s natural order” (Farrar 370). When the group kill a stag, Jacques uses it as an analogy, for “Duke Senior’s usurpation of the forest outwiegh[ing] Duke Frederick’s vileness in usurping the dukedom” (Farrar 379). Additionally, the meaning within this statement is a metaphor for the fact that he considers himself an outsider, forgotten by the group (Farrar 379). Duke Seniors group is meant to represent equal rights and fairness; however, in Jacques’s perspective, he does not feel like he has the same social standing as the rest of the members of Duke Seniors party. In the dialogue between Duke Senior and Jacques, they talk back and forth over Jacque's idea to criticize people's sins. The duke tells Jacques that he would be a hypocrite since he himself “hast been a libertine” (II.7.80). Jacques rebuttals: “why, who cries out in pride that can therein tax any private party?” (II.7.80). The duke thinks that since Jacques also commits sins, he has no right to judge other people’s since. Jacques believes that it is okay if he does not criticize a particular person. Jacques’s way of thinking is quite different from the rest of the group, leading to the feeling of isolation. 

The play “As You Like It” is patriarchal in nature. The only reason characters like Rosalind play such a big role is the fact that they cross dress as a man. When Rosalind is banished from Duke Frederick’s court, she is forced to disguise herself as a man since “beauty provoketh thieves sooner than gold” (I.3.50). Being a man is not only safe, but it gives Rosalind strength. As they travel wearily, Rosalind refuses to show weakness, as it would “disgrace [her] man’s apparel to cry like a woman” (II.4.68). Even though she is pretending, Rosalind is somehow able to draw strength from manhood that she is unable to bring out as a woman. Females are viewed as frail princesses while men are knights full of vigor. The gender inequality represents the social norm inherent to the establishment of this time. It indicates a lack of progress towards civil rights— as is expected due to the internalization of these social norms like women being weaker than men. 

Shakespeare's play exhibits a conservative government overall. Any attempts for change seem halfhearted. At the end of the play, Duke Senior’s “rightful privilege is restored and the radical order is extinguished” (Farrar 375). The Duke would rather return to his social class instead of living in equality within the forest. The potential for the progressive movement was destroyed in those moments as the play concluded as conservative. Orlando is also given the respect of his standing that he was fighting for. Rather than fighting the authority, he becomes part of it. Orlando ends up with Rosalind who loses her disguise and status of a man, representing the flip back to traditional marriage and order. The small acts of revolution in the play are meant mollify the lower class audience watching. In reality, the social order has not truly been shaken, so far it is ever present.

  

Works Cited

Belsey, Catherine. "Gender in a Different Dispensation: The Case of Shakespeare."

DiGeSt. Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, 2014, pp. 7-19.

JSTOR. 

Farrar, Ryan. "The Thin Line between Legitimate Utopia and Compensatory Vacation."

Utopian Studies, vol. 25, no. 2, 2014, pp. 359-383. JSTOR.

Shakespeare, William. As You Like It. SparkNotes, 2003.

Sample excellent student paper for short fiction

Students, please ignore the underlinings, which denote changes made in the revision of the paper.

KJ

October, 2019

English 102

For  centuries men were the only bread and butter winners, but today females are just as responsible for providing for their families. Nonetheless, men still hold incalculable power and say in our modern day society. This power manifests itself in “The Mark of Cain” by Roxane Gay and “The Fun House” by Sherman Alexie. These are two stories that explore the role and oppression of women by highlighting their experiences. In Gay’s “The Mark of Cain” the main character, a woman who remains unnamed, finds herself in a toxic relationship with her husband and begins to find refugee in his brother’s arms. While,“The Fun House” by Sherman Alexie explores the life of a woman who is left to assume all household responsibilities on her own, solely because she is a woman. Rather than being appreciated by her husband and her 30 year old unemployed  son , she is disrespected. Although the two stories unfoil distinct plots, both stories implement flashbacks, and mirroring conflicts and climactic scenes to develop a theme of male domination.

 In “The Mark of Cain” the main character tells us  “I worry about the day when he leaves me, torn apart on our bed, waiting for him to put me back”(Gay). Here, It is obvious that she does not feel whole nor strong without her husband Caleb. In fact,  when she says she would have to wait for him to be fixed she reveals just how dependent on him she is. Caleb seems to be completely in control of her emotions. She even makes the choice to only wear eyeliner and dark lipstick simply because he wants her to look how she did when they first met, despite knowing it to be a memory of her dark past. Caleb has such a strong hold on her that he is easily able to manipulate her to do anything he pleases, including things she might not like or be against.  He hurts her, yet still she is on a never ending journey to satisfy him and feel loved by him. When she comes to the realization that it is unrealistic to feel truly loved by her husband, she finds the elements of love that she could never find in her own relationship in one with Jacob, her husband’s twin. By Jacob’s side she feels the closest to loved. In the same way, the aunt from Sherman Alexie’s story also struggles with the same internal conflict: the lack of love and respect from her significant others. She reminisces about a better time in her relationship with her husband; however, during that earlier period, She asks him“Do you love me?” (Alexie)  She still finds herself feeling uncertain whether she is loved or not and seeks affirmation from his part. The writers showed us that two women with completely different backgrounds and personalities can battle the same fight in their subconscious. 

Gay and Alexie not only showed us both characters share the same internal conflict, but they also dismantle complex characters for the reader’s unserstanding through flashbacks. Specifically, Roxane Gay’s  first-person narrarator says “ He starts telling me a story about himself and his brother sitting in the backseat of their father’s Cadillac while the old man got a blowjob from a woman that was not their mother, and how their father had her give his sons blowjobs as well.” This flashback helps readers understand Caleb’s toxic behavior. With this, Gay unfoils a multi-faceted character who was once a victim and has now become an oppressor of his own wife. The chronological timeline of Alexie’s story is also interrupted for the same purpose. We begin to understand the aunts frustrated attitude towards her husband when she dates back 30 years to when she and her husband got into a car accident because he was drunk, despite all her warnings about him not being in the  condition to drive. Still, she was supportive of him even as this was not the first time he found himself in this predicament. But he could never do the same for her.  Actually, when a mouse runs up her leg and she asks why didn't he help, he says: “I bet when that mouse ran up your pant leg, he was thinking what in the hell kind of mouse traps do they got now”  Through the flashback we are able to further understand both the aunt and Caleb’s behavior.

The two stories demonstrate elements of patriarchy and show us how the female role is exploited. Within Caleb and his wife’s relationship, it is clear that there is both verbal and physical abuse: “Caleb grabs me by my waist , straddles me, and slaps my face.” He then continues to be verbally abusive and tells her  “Don’t be a fucking whore.” He exerts control over her in every way he possibly can in order to regain the control and supremacy he felt he was stripped from by his father as a child. Although, there isn't any domestic violence in the aunt’s relationship in “The Fun House” the aunt struggles with with not conforming to the quintessential and traditional  role of being a woman,but unlike Caleb’s wife, she approaches the situation differently.  Instead she stands he ground and is reluctant to be treated like the only caretaker in the house. When her husband urges her to come out of the water she chooses to not abide by what he says. Instead, she shows independence and courage when she tells him she will be coming out when she wants to do so. She then proceeds to tell her husband and son “ and cook your own god damn dinner.” Unlike the aunt, Caleb’s wife has a more submissive attitude towards her husband’s actions. The aunt in Alexie’s story makes it known that she is not okay with the way she is being treated. While one woman is empowered to speak up for herself, the other woman is left voiceless and discouraged, yet both women are being suppressed by male dominance and need help.

Throughout the stories a feminist appeal is consistant. In fact, the climax in both stories make a strong appeal to the to  male supremacy and feminism In the beginning of Alexie’s story the aunt works on a fully beaded dress that only a strong woman could wear, that woman would be their savior. Sherman Alexie then ends the story by reintroducing the dress of freedom and strength: “She pulled that heaviest of beaded dresses over her head. Her knees buckled and she almost fell from the weight; then she did not fall. ‘No,’ she said to her husband when her husband and son tried to help her.” Within this climactic scene, she defeats the concept male supremacy as she refuses the help of the men in her life that she once desperately wanted, and become her own hero as she danced in the heavy dress that almost dragged her to the ground. In contrast, the first-person narrator in Gay’s stroy does not face that same type of victory. In the climax, she faces the irony of being pregnant with two male twins. Instead of overcoming the beliefs of male chauvinists, it seems that she became deeply immersed in them.

    The authors convey a feminist critique through the use of  literary devices like conflict, flashbacks, and climax. Through this style, “The Mark of Cain” and “The Fun House” tell the stories of two women that are nothing alike, yet share similar experiences. Consequently, raising  awareness to the issues that women face on a day to day basis. Today, women have equal rights as men, but still there is a gap between the law and the actual sexist ideals that are inculcated in some men, but these stories give women a positive and hopeful outlook regarding patriarchy, showing that the power is within women to stand up for themselves like the aunt did to be your own liberator.

Works Cited

Alexie,Sherman. “The Fun House.” The Lone Rangerand Tonto Fistfight inHeaven. Atlantic Monthly P, 1993

Gay, Roxane. “The Mark of Cain.” Difficult Women. Grove P, 2017

For the following essay, the Works Cited is not available, but it was done properly:

Jacqueline Real

English 102

“The Lady with the Dog”: What’s Love Got to do With It 

Chekhov uses his short story, "The Lady With the Dog", as an exploration of misogyny and narcissism during the time of the 1800’s. This exploration is masked within a “love story” between Gurov and Anna. Although one may believe that it is a love story, or even a story about adultery, in reality it is a story about a man attempting to find meaning in his lonely life. Chekhov uses dialogue and motif to carry the reader throughout the romance, and the reader is left to grapple with the idea of whether or not it truly is a love story. 

From the very beginning the reader is thrust into the misogyny of the time.  Chekhov writes, “If she is here alone without a husband or friends, it wouldn’t be amiss to make her acquaintance, Gurov reflected.” (Chekhov) Gurov’s thought process is a completely misogynist point of view. He already feels that he has the “right of way” in the relationship. Because of the conditioning of females and males during this time, Gurov feels that he has the permission to speak with her, not the other way around. This immediate understanding that he “has no choice” but to make her acquaintance is a direct appeal to the hierarchy of the era. Anna has no say in the matter, and she is his to conquer. This usage of inner monologue is a direct insight into the mind-set of Gurov. Within the first few paragraphs the reader is already aware of the control Gurove feelshe has. This helps to set the tone of the piece and allows the audience to grapple with the idea of male dominance. 

            The reader is allowed to delve even more into the psyche of Gurov with the third person omniscient narrator. Chekhov writes, “….and yet he could not get on for two days together without “the lower race.’ In the society of men he was bored and not himself,..” (Chekhov)  Gurov is literally speaking about the fact that he understands that he believes women are the lower race, but that he is so bored with his status and every day life that he continues to seek the attention he so desperately needs. All that the reader is witnessing is a lonely and bored man finding a striking woman and becoming interested in her. Chekhov uses the narration to make believe that Gurov is aware of his shortcomings, but in fact it is in his shortcomings that he allows his misogyny to grow. Within the same section of the story Gurov is degrades his current wife, and in every single line that speaks about the opposite sex, it is a defamation of their character. What Chekhov does do is use the “honesty” of his faults to make the reader seem sympathetic to his views, and in turn the reader enables his misogynistic views. 

The most striking aspect of the story is how Chekhov explores the patriarchy that bonds both Anna and Gurov to each other. The reader is filled in with Gurov’s ideas throughout the narration, but with Anna, the reader experiences her character through interactions. Chekhov writes, “The lady looked at him and at once dropped his eyes.” (Chekhov) This is an immediate character trait that exposes Anna’s insecurities. To be a woman alone at that time is to expose ones self to “impropriety”. Anna needs to lower her gaze to express the fact that she is a “lady” and not put forth any emotion that is inappropriate. The two characters are communicating “around” each other and not directly. Gurov states, “There’s something pathetic about her, anyway,” he thought, and fell asleep.” (Chekhov) This statement is a great representation of how much Gurov is exploiting Anna’s feminine character. He considers himself fascinated with her and yet this is how he views her. Gurov enjoys the fact that he believes she is a meeker being. As the reader continues on there are more adjectives that instill the idea that Gurov feels superior to Anna. Chekhov writes, “Gurov felt bored already, listening to her.” , and also, “..simple woman, who has seen little of life.” What is comical is that these statements are made afterGurov kisses her and asks to go to her hotel. 

For Anna, the reader is only privy to her emotions through Gurovs reactions to her. She is very tentative and paranoid about how the two of them and how they appear to everyone around them. Anna is the first one to mention how wrong what they are doing is. She immediately is filled with guilt and tears. Anna exclaims, “I love a pure, honest life, and sin is loathsome to me” (Chekhov). This is the perfect example of how much women were subjected to the themes of “purity” and “sin”. If both Anna and Gurov were caught with sinful intentions, then it would be Anna who would get the brunt of the punishment. She is in a much different place emotionally than Gurov throughout the entire affair. This happens because of the different roles that men and women were given at the time. Gurov can only see his passion and amusement with Anna, because he feels in control of the situation; as men were at that time. Anna, on the other hand, is grappling with a much larger emotional state because she feels that she is crossing a line she can never return from. Chekov uses Anna’s tears as a motif. Anna cries three times throughout the story and within those encounters Gurov exposes his callus side. Chekhov writes, “He was irritated by her naïve tone, by this remorse, so unexpected and inopportune; but for tears in her eyes, he might have thought she was jesting or playing a part.” (Chekhov) Gurov genuinely does not understand her stress because this is what he does all the time, and he has justified it for himself. 

Anna’s departure is evidence enough that this is not a love story, in the truest sense. The reader is already informed about how much Gurov craves excitement in his life, and that he is desperate to find meaning within himself. Because of that mentality, when he is forced to live his “Moscow life” after Anna returns to her home, Gurov is set off. The narcissist is left alone and not in control. It was Anna’s realization that it was the “finger of destiny” that forces her to leave. She feels remorse and understands that she will always remember their passion and time together, but feels it is the end. Anna states, “Don’t remember evil against me.” Anna states this as she is departing, constricting herself to the mold of the time and exposing her guilt. She feels as if she is to blame for the whole encounter. Although she has partaken in the affair as well, it is striking to see her grapple with the guilt, when Gurov never does. Instead Gurov is thrust into reality and hates it. He hates his situation so much that he goes off to “stalk” Anna, even though she has exclaimed to him that he should not find her. This is not a surprising fact for his character, since Chekhov has established Gurov’s narcissism; it makes sense that Gurov would turn into a little boy who misses his toy. Gurov penetrates her world by finding her and even when he does, he states, “this little woman, in no way remarkable….was his sorrow and his joy.” (Chekhov) How can Gurov be so passionately in love when this is how he speaks of the woman he loves? One can argue that this is the mentality of men at the time, but it feels more like Gurov is an exceptional misogynist. He is completely unaware of the depths of his resentment. If this were not true, this encounter would be met with much more optimism. 

Even the idea of Gurov believing he has the right to find her depicts the control Gurov knows he has. It is his choice to infiltrate her world, not Anna’s. When Gurov does find her Chekhov uses negative adjectives to highlight Anna’s emotions. She “turned pale”, “glanced again with horror”, and exclaimed, “don’t make me suffer still more!”; although she admits to missing him, Anna is overwhelmed by how forward he is being. And of course, in the end Gurov gets what he wants; So much so that he starts to get his daughter involved by using their walks to school to see Anna. This is the ultimate betrayal of his current marriage and family, a father using his daughter as a tool to get what he wants. Checkov uses the dialogue between the daughter and Gurov to highlight this disloyalty. Even as Gurov is speaking to his daughter, he is thinking of Anna. This does not happen because of their “true love”, but because Gurov has not fullyattained what he wants. He still does not “have” Anna. Chekhov writes, “He talked, thinking all the while that he was going to see her, and no living soul knew of it.” (Chekhov) Here the third person omniscient narrator is used to portray this attempt at irony. The fact “that no one knows” is what is giving Gurov the excitement; it’s his own little game. If this were not true then the reader wouldn’t have been given this tidbit from the narrator. Although “stalking” was not an idea of the time that is exactly what Gurov does. This is why Anna is not overwhelmed with happiness when she sees him and is forced to reveal that she was thinking of him. She still has no control, and is at the mercy of Gurov. This does not create a fantastical romance that deserves to be fulfilled. 

Gurov’s development of love is the twist that is not a twist. The climax of their “love” at the end of the story is a psychological exploration of the “misogynist” and the “virgin”. Even when Gurov catches himself in the “looking glass” he is concerned by how much he has aged. In romantic love stories one normally gains a youthful spirit when they find love. And just before this moment the motif of Anna crying is used again, and again Gurov implores her to stop. Even though he claims to love her, he is still uncomfortable with her emotions. Chekhov could also be highlighting Gurov’s discomfort with emotions because in Russia emotions are not something comfortably discussed. But nonetheless it does reassert Gurov’s patriarchal disgust with Anna’s weakness. The narrator does say that Gurov has “fallen properly, really in love – for the first time in his life.” Now this can be seen as an admission of the climax of the story, but it can also be read as a sad depiction of what these two characters define as love. For Anna this love is a pushy interpretation that she really has no control over. Even though she is an adult making her own decisions, she is much more constricted to the times that they are both living in. For Gurov it is the first time that he is finally excited by life, and then once it is taken away from him, he cannot live without it. 

This theory is made true by the fact that Chekhov doe not really end the love story. This technique forces the reader to have to make up his or her own mind with what happens. In scenario A, that they are truly in love, one would assume they are living happily finding ways to grow their love without being caught. Or it’s scenario B; Gurov will eventually find another shiny object to entertain him and the lore will wear off. This seems more likely because Anna will eventually become exactly how Gurov sees all women. The climax of the story isn’t that Gurov finally comes to terms with the “lower race” and is overwhelmed by how much he has underappreciated all women in his life, so there really is no climax within Gurov’s character and he is only enabling Anna’s insecurities. 

Both Gullason and Creasman believe that Gruov eventually attain the emotions to sustain a true romance. This idea is only credible if you do not hold the details of the story in high regard. Gullason writes, “This allows him to probe both outer and inner reality, especially inner reality, where he brings to surface the powerful impulse of dream and memory, and the psychological stresses of the double life..” (pg 270) Chekhov does bring about the feeling of memory and inner reality, but the only stress Checkov highlights is Anna’s. Anna is the one who is grappling with the anxiety of everyone finding out; of being cast out of society by being a “whore”. Gurov does not find stress in the double life, so much so that he is able to have his daughter with him when he is experiencing the “secret” life. This does not validate the point that Gurov is emotionally stressed about it. Gullason also writes, “it is timely and timeless, realistic and romantic, prosaic and poetic, in its sensitive and touching study of human beings, and their needs and desires.” (pg 271) “The Lady and the Dog” is timely and realistic, but not in the fact that it is a touching study of human beings in love. It is realistic in the fact that the gravity of the misogyny and patriarchy of the time has created this situation that “feels” like a love story. Chekov is actually being realistic with the limitations of the time and in that he succeeds in discussing patriarchy without having to say the word. 

With Creasman there are similar flavors to Gullason in the idea that it is a timeless love story. Creasman writes, “to determine whether Gurov loves Anna, the reader is directly told just before the conclusion of the story that the two main characters do indeed love each other.” (pg 59) First of all, there really is no “conclusion” in the story; Anna and Gurov are left to figure out what their future may hold. And although the reader is given the words that they are in love, if you read the story up to that point and after, there is enough evidence that this may not be true. The only issue is that since this is a third person narrator, we are technically reading what these characters are thinking, but can be swayed by historicizing the story as well. It is the times in which they are living in that really drive the “love story”, not genuine emotion. Creasman also states, “the couples problem – how to keep their love for each other alive while hiding the relationship from society – remains unresolved.” This is a very interesting usage of words, “how to keep their love for each other”. This is actually the truth and their struggle. Gurov is going to have to figure out how to keep his “love” for Anna. Throughout the story we are under the impression, and the narrator at the end validates the idea, that Gurov has never been in love. So how will he keep himself entertained? Anna, of course, is just along for the ride. This is an interesting way to put it, because that is the real question. How will they sustain their “love”?

“The Lady with the Dog” is an incredible exploration by Chekhov of how hard love and emotions were during the 1800’s in Russia. Because women were second-class citizens and the patriarchy knew no boundaries, love was not something prevalent during the time. With the characters of Gurov and Anna, Chekov explores weakness, narcissism, obsession, passion, and insecurities, under the guise of a love story. Within one romantic encounter, the reader is thrust into the emotions and limitations of the times and is forced to ask questions within themselves of what they see as “love” and what they see as “lust”.