On Reflection

I haven’t been writing for a long time. They say that one should write, only when creativity or inspiration comes. It might not be true for me. I’m always inspired by people & places everywhere. Almost everything excites me. Almost everything seems to be so full of beauty. However, still, I am not writing as much as I expect myself to be. I’m afraid that I’m losing touch with myself that’s why I am not able to write anything that may make some sense. Perhaps I’ve been focusing my all externally, too much, that there’s not much room or time to think deeply by myself. I wonder why I can’t reflect properly anymore, even when I’m alone and there’s no distraction. It seems that I always try to distract myself so that I don’t have to think about a lot of things. I’m always afraid that if I do, I might overthink it, and destroy myself in the process. Overthinking has always been a nasty experience for me. It triggers a lot of insecurities in me. Smiling and laughing becomes harder when all insecurities start to surface. I hate it when this happens, because it’s uncomfortable when I’m aware that I might be sharing negative feelings to the people around me because of the nasty emotions that I’m feeling. By avoiding overthinking, I’m forgetting to reflect on things. And so, days become so meaningless and empty.

I’m writing now because I have a lot of free time today, and I don’t want to waste it by engaging in vicarious activities again. Also, our discussion in EDFD 120 under Prof. Diaz made me think about these things. I’ve been thinking about these since Wednesday, which is our first day in EDFD 120. I have to translate these thoughts into writing because I don’t want this to be just another idea that would just float around my head. It would slip away, soon, for certain.

In our discussion, we talked about how one becomes wiser not because of experiences, but how much he reflects on these experiences. Every experience should leave a mark, a lesson, and a promise to not make the same mistakes again. Most essentially, thinking about these takeaways would help us to be better people who makes better decisions. That would show that we’ve really learned from the experiences that we’ve gone through, and that those experiences are actually powerful, and meaningful.

And so after that meaningful EDFD 120 discussion, I told myself that I have to reflect about many things again. Busy days just come and go, and I’m afraid that I’ve only learned a few from these experiences, because I rarely really allow myself to reflect, and think about things. My mindset in the last months is to always look forward, and not look back. The past is in the past, and so I should just move on, and not think about the past too much. This mindset, to be honest, actually works for me. I’m happy in most days except for days that I didn’t get enough sleep the night before. This mindset helped me to have a more optimistic outlook. But, the downside is that I’ve become too happy that even when adversities come, I force myself to be happy and accept things, even when the right thing to do is think about what I can do to overcome those adversities.

With these, I promise myself to make time to reflect again, especially during these times when days go so fast, and there are so much things going on— so many work to do to, faces and names to remember, relationships to keep, people to take care of, and dreams to achieve. I want to be in touch with myself again.

I’m very happy that I’ve finished this piece, in one sitting. Prof. Diaz said that so many millenials get so distracted quickly. I’m very guilty of this! I’m surprised that I managed to avoid many temptations and distractions.

Anyway, if you’re reading this part and you’ve been following my blog for quite some time, I apologize if you’ve spotted grammar mistakes (there’s lots of them) in this post, and my past posts. I never edit my writings before I post them. I just read the pieces that I’ve posted in the past, and I cringed at the many grammar mistakes. I’m too excited to type, and my thoughts just keep flowing, and I don’t want them to go. A lot of mistakes happen because of that. 😂

I also apologize if many things that you’ve read from this blog don’t make sense. I’m not good at making my point across to people, most of the time.

Finally, I know that there’s only a very few of you who is reading my blog, but I thank you anyway! It means so much to me, that someone actually listens(reads) to my whims and drama. I don’t usually go to people to talk about these things. I might be, but only some aspects of it. I’m afraid that I may come across as too intense. Thinking about it, I might actually be too intense to some people. I may look carefree to some, but I’m actually not. Being a true introvert, I like observing things and taking everything in, often intensely, but most people don’t notice it, and that’s a relief. I also don’t like the spotlight to be on me, because I’m innately shy and I don’t think there’s anything I can do about it. Am I deviating from the what I’m talking about? I don’t even know. My thoughts and hands are on fire.

By the way, I’ve been receiving many messages from people who wanted to cite my research on OPM that I posted. I’m glad that you’ve found that helpful, and thank you for your intentions to cite. I feel like a legit researcher, even when I’m not.

I have to stop. I have been writing for more than an hour straight, believe it or not. If you’ve reached this point, thank you so much for reading! Keep shining. 🙂

Advertisements

Who am I?

Whenever I look at the mirror, a body made up of flesh and eyes stares right back at me. Is this what I really am? Am I really merely a flesh that is placed randomly on the universe for no particular reason at all? If I am just flesh, then what makes me so different from animals? I might argue: I have a consciousness. Feelings. Thoughts. A sense of the past and the future. A soul. Animals can’t possibly have these things in their system. But, am I sure? Am I sure that they don’t have these things, even tiny bits of what we have?

Because scientific experimentations have limits, we tend to assume the rest until we discover new ways to solve particular problems. If the case is to make assumptions, are we just assuming that only us humans, have the aforementioned things to justify the significance of our existence? But to think about it, should having consciousness, feelings, thoughts, a sense of the past and the future, and a soul, among others, make me justifiably significant? And also, what is the indication of being? Should being significant, consequently make me, me?

On reality

Morpheus says, “How do you define real? If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.”

When we talk about real, we usually talk about the present physical world — the world that our senses can reach. But often, this very exclusive and limited notion on reality is problematic, because we tend to dismiss worlds beyond the physical realm as not real, and merely imaginary. For instance, we consider dreams, thoughts, feelings and emotions as mere fragments of imagination and products of cognition. We often think that just because these are only happening inside our heads, it is therefore not real. But to think about it, are we even sure that this present, physical world is the reality? If so, what makes us so sure? What are the conditions necessary to make something real? What does it mean to be real?

Going back to Morpheus’ question, how do we really define real? Linguistically, real refers to something that is a) actually existing or happening and b) not imaginary. If we refer to these two meanings, should we consider dreams as real? If we refer to definition a, should we agree that dreams as real? They are existing, and happening, but only inside our heads. Our senses cannot reach those, because dreams are things beyond the physical realm. The only problematic term in definition a is actually. Actual refers to things that are real and not merely possible or imagined. If this is the case, then what does it mean to actually exist? If we refer to the definition b, we can easily dismiss dreams as unreal. After all, dreams are only happening inside our heads. They are imaginary. But, what makes something imaginary? Are we sure that this present, physical reality, real? What if it is only imaginary, and our minds are only making things up?

In another scene, Spoon boy tells Neo, “Do not try and bend the spoon. That’s impossible. Instead… only try to realize the truth.” Then Neo asks, “What truth?” Spoon boy answers that there is no spoon, that it is not the spoon the bends, “it is only yourself.” This scene might be suggesting that we might just be constructing our own version of reality, and that the truth is that we are just making ourselves believe that some things are real and some things are not, to delineate our understanding of the world better. Furthermore, this scene might even be suggesting that we are so far away from the truth, and we often cannot see it, because our senses tend to deceive us, and our conception of reality, is in fact, distorted. This is also suggesting that our senses are unreliable and they do not hold the complete truth, and that often the truth is beyond what our senses can reach. Most essentially, this suggests that the truth is within us, on how we perceive reality. 

Another quotation from Morpheus ties well with these. He asks, “Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you are unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?” We cannot, because even if the dream world and the real world seemed to be completely contrasting concepts, in reality, they are so closely related that we might just as well be using the concepts interchangeably. 

Eng 100 Term Paper

France, the birthplace of cinema, is acknowledged for having a strong film industry, because of the protections and advancements ensured by the French government. Many French actors have been reaching wider audience up to now by featuring in both popular and critically-acclaimed movies, not just in French films, but in Hollywood films, theater and television shows as well. Some of them even excel as singers. Such actors who made names both in French cinema and Hollywood are Maurice Chevalier who was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actor for his roles in The Love Parade (1929) and The Big Pond (1930), Michèle Morgan who played opposite Frank Sinatra in the film Higher and Higher  back in 1942, Georges Guétary, who was best known in the United States for his performance as Henri Baurel in An American in Paris, and MichelinePresle,  who was cast by director Fritz Lang opposite Tyrone Power in the war drama American Guerrilla in the Philippines in 1950 among others (Mayer). Some of them use English as their L2 or their second language. Perhaps one of the most popular French actors in this modern day who are also in Hollywood is Julie Delpy, who played one of the leads in the romantic hit film Before Sunrise, as Celine, a French woman, who also utilizes mostly English throughout the film.

Julie Delpy as Celine in Before Sunrise

Before Sunrise is an American romantic drama film directed by Richard Linklater in 1995. The film follows Jesse, played by Ethan Hawke, a young American man and Celine, played by Julie Delpy, a young French woman, who meet in the train and get off in Vienna, where they spend the night walking around the city talking about life and love, and getting to know each other. The film received high critical praise at the time of its release, and was even entered into the 45th Berlin International Film Festival where director, Linklater, won the Silver Bear for Best Director.

Celine, the character of Delpy, exhibits an interesting English variety in the film, which is French English. Hawke’s American English variety is a foil to Delpy’s, and both varieties demonstrate some important differences between the French phonology and American English phonology.

Delpy is a French-American actresss, film director, screenwriter, and singer-songwriter who was born at Paris, France. After moving to the United States in1990, she became an American citizen in 2001 (“Julie Delpy Biography”). Her L1 or first language is French and her L2 is English, which is strengthened by her exposure to the language while studying filmmaking at NewYork University’s Tisch School of the Arts in the US.

Delpy’s L1 (French) exhibits significant influence on her L2 (English) and this is demonstrated in her character Celine in Before Sunrise. The phenomenon of transfer is showed in Delpy’s pronunciations of Celine’s lines.

Transfer between American English and French

French pronunciations of English words are notably different from that in American English. For example, French has a [ʁ] sound while English has a [ɹ] sound. These two sounds are written in the same way as “r” in prose, but are pronounced differently and according to Koutsoudas and Koutsoudas, “French speakers would want to substitute their [ʁ] sound for the English [ɹ] sound for the word red” (54). Some phones change in French English. This is because of the transfer happening between the French and English languages. As defined by George Yule, transfer, is the “using [of] sounds, expressions or structures from the L1 [or first language] when performing in the L2 [or second language]” (191). The phonetic inventories of American English and French differ; some phones in American English phonetics do not occur in French phonetics, as shown in these phoneme inventories in Figure 1 and 2.

A phoneme inventory includes all the distinct sounds, consonants and vowels, in a given language. In Figure 1 below, the consonant phoneme inventory for French is given in the first column and the consonant phoneme inventory for English is given in the second column. Figure 2 gives the vowel phonemes of French and American English (Campbell 417 & 469).
Figure 1. Consonant phoneme inventories for French and English
Figure 2.Vowel phoneme inventories for French and English.

As shown from the figure, the consonant phonemes [θ], [ð], [h], [ŋ], [ʍ], [tʃ], [dʒ], and [ɹ] occur in English but do occur in French.
Transfer is caused by the collision of the American English’s and French’s phonetic inventories. This phenomenon occurs in the English lines uttered by Julie Delpy’s character, Celine, in Before Sunrise.

Analysis

The researcher’s objectives are to analyze the phonological features of the English lines uttered by the French character, Celine, in Before Sunrise and to examine the effects of Celine’s L1 (French) on her L2 (English), mainly by dissecting how French speakers overlook certain American English rules, because of the transfer happening between  the two languages. This study is limited only to the notable American English rules overlooked by Celine in Before Sunrise —  Aspiration Rule, Tap Rule, Velarization Rule and Final Consonant Release.

There are some American English rules that illustrate consonant pronunciation and the overlooking of these rules is common for French speakers of English because of their differences with the French rules.

Aspiration Rule

The fist rule is that voiceless stops /p t k/ in English are aspirated in word initial position and syllable initially before a stressed vowel.

Aspiration Rule: Voiceless stops become aspirated at the beginning of the word or stressed syllable.

According to George Yule, “aspiration is the puff of air accompanying the [t] sound at the beginning of words such as tar” (43).

Table 1.0 Celine’s line at 00:55:29

In the same positions, the French counterparts are unaspirated. Therefore, French speakers may be pronouncing words like person, differently because in English /p t k/ are aspirated but in French they would be unaspirated.

As shown in the table, Celine’s pronunciation of the initial /p/ sound in the word, person, is unaspirated as opposed to the American English version where the initial /p/ sound of the same word is aspirated. As shown, [ˈpʰɜrsən] in American English is [ˈpɜrsən] in French English.

Tap Rule

The second rule deals with the American English tap. In American English, when an alveolar stop /t d/ is the single consonant between two vowels, the second of which is unstressed, then it becomes a tap.

Tap Rule: An alveolar stop becomes a tap when it is a single consonant between two vowels the second of which is unstressed.

Table 2. Celine’s line at 00:04:09

In the word ability in American English, the [t] becomes a /r/ because it is between two vowels, the second of which is unstressed.

French does not have a flap allophone of /t d/ that English has. Therefore, it may suggest that instead of pronouncing the wordability with a tap, the French would pronounce it with a full [t] closure. British English also doesn’t have the tap allophone and ability would be pronounced the same way that native French speakers are predicted to, with the full [t] closure.

In Celine’s line above, she pronounced ability without a tap. Instead, as predicted, she pronounced the word with the full [t] closure although /t/ is sandwiched between two vowels.

Here, [əˈbɪləri] in American English is [əˈbɪlɪti] in French English.

Velarization Rule

The third rules deals with the [l] sound. The English [l] has two allophones. The first is before front vowels and is produced by a distinct contact of the tip of the tongue against the alveole (Valdman 39). The second /l/ allophone is velarized and occurs everywhere else.

According to Peter Ladefoged, “Velarization is a secondary articulation in which the back of the tongue is raised toward the soft palate” (298).

Velarization Rule: [l] becomes velarized everywhere except before front vowels.

Table 3. Celine’s line at 01:26:49
French only has a single front allophone for /l/ which is always produced with contact of the tip of the tongue with the inner side of the upper front teeth. It can be predicted that French speakers would have trouble producing the velarized English /l/ since they do not have it in their own language. They would most likely pronounce all English [l] sounds in the same manner with the front allophone for /l/ regardless of the sound’s location.

In the given line by Celine, in the word complicated, the /l/ is supposed to be velarized in American English because /l/ is not before front vowels /i/ or /e/ in both environments  however, Celine pronounced /l/ in the same manner with the front allophone for /l/. [ˈkɑmpləkeɪtəd] in American English is [ˈkomplɪkeɪtɪd] in French English. It is also shown here that [ˈkomplɪkeɪtɪd] in French English does not have any stress unlike the American English version which has a stress in the first syllable.

Final consonant release

The fourth and final rule also looks at the voiceless stops /p t k/. In American English, voiceless stops are normally not released for some speakers in final position whereas in French there might be an audible release.

Final consonant release: Voiceless stops in final position are unreleased.

Table 4. Celine’s line at 01:07:06

Celine’s pronunciation of the word attempt from the line above exhibited a Final Consonant Release. [əˈtɛmp] in American English is [əˈtɛmpt] in French English. The unreleased final /t/ sound of attempt in American English is released in French English.

These four rules are not the only phonological differences between American English and French.  For example, many French centre and front vowels use rounded lips, whereas in English they would be made with neutral lips. Also, French has just one close front vowel [i], English has two: /ɪ/ and /i:/ – /ɪ/ should be made with a slightly lower jaw, but French speakers often just use the one position for these vowels. Lastly, French contains one open vowel unrounded: [a], English contains 2: /æ/ (cat) /ɑ:/ (cart) so French often the French [a] instead (“10 English Pronunciation”). But, these differences are not noticeable in Celine’s lines in the film.

Summary and Conclusion

France has a very rich and tight film culture and it has been home of many talented French actors who are making names by appearing and even starring not just in French cinema, but also in Hollywood. Such French actress is Julie Delpy who most notably played the French character of Celine in the romantic hit, Before Sunrise opposite another Hollywood star, Ethan Hawke.  Aside from the entertainment, the film also offers an interesting phonological foil between the two actors of different ethnicity. Hawke’s Jesse uses the American English variety while Delpy’s Celine uses the French English variety.

Delpy’s character, Celine, exhibits the influence of her L1 (French) on her L2 (English), demonstrating the phenomenon of transfer. In order to analyze this further, a contrastive view of the phonology between American English and French is performed by dissecting how French speakers overlook certain American English rules, because of the transfer happening between the two languages. Such American English rules which are analyzed are Aspiration Rule, Tap Rule, Velarization Rule and Final Consonant Release.

Varieties of languages occur because of many factors and in Julie Delpy’s French English variety, the variation happened because of the phonological influence of her French on her English. But, this variety should not be considered as better or less than other English varieties. It does not reflect social status or power. Rather, it just demonstrates how language can still vary and evolve in many ways through the clashes of the phonological features of different languages.

 

Works Cited

“Biography.”IMDb.IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.

Campbell, George L. Compendium of the World’s Languages. Vol. 1.N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

“French Speakers’ English Pronunciation Errors.” Pronunciation Studio.N.p., 2015. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.

Koutsoudas, Andrea and Olympia Koutsoudas.“A Contrastive Analysis of the Segmental Phonemes of Greek and English.”Language Learning 12 (1962): 211-230. Print

Ladefoged, Peter. A Course in Phonetics. Boston: Thomson Wadsworth, 2006. Print.

Mayer, Alicia. “7 French Actors Who Made It Big In Hollywood’s Golden Age #1.”Playbuzz.N.p., 2015. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.

Valdman, Albert. Introduction to French Phonology and Morphology. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1976. Print.

Yule, George. The Study of Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2006. Print.

Infidelity: A Quest for Novelty

This is another paper that I did for our Eng 11 class. I kind of enjoyed doing this, although it was very stressful, because I had to cram this whole thing.

What personal and societal challenges should one take in dealing with a monotonous and decidedly unexciting marriage? “What did that mean, to be together? What did it mean to enter into a bond with another person?” (Oates 65). Anton Chekhov’s “The 
Lady with the Dog” and Joyce Carol Oates' “The Lady with the Pet Dog” explore and exemplify how two married individuals' yearnings for self reinvention and novelty, consequently catapulted them into obscure territories of infidelity.

Chekhov points out very early in his story that his main character, Dmitri Dmitrich Gurov, is someone who is used to being unfaithful with his wife and their marriage, as emphasized by: “He had begun being unfaithful to her long ago – had been
unfaithful to her often” (52). This unfaithfulness attests Gurov’s dissatisfaction with their marriage, eventually pulling him to cheat, to escape displeasure by finding missing pleasure through the company of other women. His stay at Yalta also
indicates his attempts of temporary escapes. The author hints that he goes there to find women in that he “had begun to take an interest in new arrivals” (51).He yearns so much for excitement in that place as he dreams of “tales of easy conquests, of
trips to the mountains and the tempting thought of a swift, fleeting love affair… took possession of him” (Chekhov 52). He later becomes acquainted with Anna Sergeyevna, “the lady with the dog” (Chekhov 52) and develops an affair with her. The “swift, fleeting love affair” however, does not turn out as how it is meant to be. Something brief grows into something deeper, as Gurov follows Anna to her hometown, even after they have parted and made promises to never see each other again. Anna, who is also married, and Gurov, figure out what to do with their relationship, for they “loved each other like people very close… like husband and wife… They could not understand why he had a wife and she, a husband, and it was as though they were a pair of birds of passage, caught and forced to live in different cages” (Chekhov 62).

Oates’ Anna also encounters the same problem. She also feels like she is trapped in her marriage, as if her relationship is in stagnant seas: “For years now, they had not been comfortable together; in their intimacy… they struggled gently as if the paces of this dance were too rigorous for them” (Oates 64). She moreover confessed to her lover that “she lived with her husband lovelessly, the two of them polite strangers, sharing a bed, lying side by side in the night in that bed, bodies out of which souls had fled” (Oates 75). This suggests that she and her husband were, once upon a time, happy and in love, but as time passes, the loving “souls had fled,” the love they once shared has already left them. Anna, in turn, attempts to find this lost love that eluded their marriage and finds it with an unnamed stranger, thinking that “this man was her savior, that he had come to her at a time in her life when it demanded completion… a permanent fixing of all that was troubled, shifting, and deadly” (Oates 65). She feels that her “completion” depends on the arrival of this special person. Even though she is evidently elated with this discovery, she is chased by shame, the same way Chekhov’s Anna is. In parallel with Gurov’s ultimate certainty or otherwise, about Anna Sergeyevna and their relationship , Oates’ Anna claims that the unnamed lover, “this man, whom she loved above any other person in the world, above… her own life, was her truest lover, her destiny” (Oates 75).

Even though both stories share very similar premises, themes, plots, and characters, they are manipulated by the author in distinctive manners. The similar plot, although different in structure, and “Anna” might primarily imply the possibility that both stories are connected, however, the settings of both stories prove otherwise. Chekhov’s is set on Russia, in Yalta, while Oates’ is set on United States, particularly in Nantucket and New York. The protagonists’ genders (one from a masculine
perspective, and the other, feminine) introduce the readers into distinctive moods and tones which the authors want to highlight. Chekhov’s Gurov appears to be laid­back, condescending, even dismissive, particularly with his wife and women. The very little information that Chekhov presented about Gurov’s wife insinuates that she plays an unimportant role in his life. Chekhov only tells the readers how Gurov “considered her unintelligent, narrow and inelegant” (52). The author also exposes most of Gurov’s thoughts, that attests how generally cynical and condescending his disposition is. About Anna, he thinks dismissively, “’There’s something pathetic about her anyway’” (Chekhov 53). He also admits that he used to call women “the
lower race” (Chekhov 52). The earlier part of Chekhov’s story offers a slightly relaxed, tensionless tone. Gurov’s nonchalant and virile disposition act as a tone driver. He primarily exudes an almost guiltless attitude towards infidelity. The tension just appears near the conclusion when Gurov realizes that “only now when his head was grey he had fallen properly, really in love – for the first time in his life” (Chekhov 62) and then both of them gradually think about how they can handle their secret relationship. Oates’ Anna, on the other hand, exudes feminine, dissenting feelings of hope and doubt, love and shame throughout the story. Unlike Gurov, Anna still has a direct physical connection with her husband – kissing, embracing, and love­making, shameful though it might be for her. Also, unlike Gurov’s wife, Anna’s marital partner evidently still cares for her, asking affirming questions such as, “Did I hurt you?” (Oates 52). She is notably religious about her lover, hailing him as her “savior”. Anna consistently thinks of her infidelity as something shameful, especially whenever she is with her husband, and doubtful: “He doesn’t love me, nothing will come of it” (Oates 72).

The two authors both speak of two worlds in their stories. In Oates’ it is “to be here and not there, to be one person and not another, a certain man’s wife and not the wife of another man” (66) while in Chekhov’s, “he had two lives: one, open, seen, and known by all… and another life running its course in secret” (61). Both are referring to the main characters’ two worlds: a) the public, legal life with their marital partners and b) the private life with their secret lovers. Both main characters similarly experience life in monotony and dissatisfaction, with Gurov thinking that “There is left a life… curtailed, worthless and trivial” (Chekhov 58) and Anna believing that “her life demanded completion” (Oates 65).

Shame and uncertainty are hovering feelings in both stories. To Oates’ Anna: “There was no future” and to Anna’s lover: “This is impossible” (66). Chekhov’s Sergeyevna tells Gurov that, “They could only meet in secret, hiding themselves from people,
like thieves” (62). Both stories also show that the two women (Oates’ Anna and Anna Sergeyevna) are more palpably worried about the social repercussions which may inevitably amount from infidelity, than the two men (Gurov and the stranger). The
two men’s nonchalant attitude towards it seems to suggest that they deem infidelity as something natural and inevitable to happen. This might also suggest that in both places and both time frames present in the story, societies are quicker to point fingers to women, likelier to impose shame and fault upon them, than they are to men.

Chekhov utilizes his story’s plot in a linear structure, while Oates’ does hers in a cyclical fashion. Chekhov’s strategy highlights realism, showcasing an open ending, wherein the conflict is just beginning to unveil itself. It reflects everyday reality, in which, practically, not everything ends with a closure. Chekhov ends “The Lady with the Dog” with: “They had still a long, long road before them, and that the most complicated part of it was only just beginning” (62). Oates’ cyclical plot structure, on the other hand, is effective in presenting Anna’s personal battles. Oates introduces the readers first to her marriage, her relationship with her husband –her life six months after she and lover decide to part ways, with consistent mentions of someone whom she is not allowed to be with. Oates then delves into the middle, in which she narrates Anna’s relationship with her secret lover. By primarily warning her readers that Anna indeed did something in the past that made her feel very shameful, the readers are able to empathize with her and understand what she is clearly feeling and where it is coming from at the middle of the story.

Even though the story is set in different time frames and different countries, different places, it is evident that in both stories, the main characters hide in secrecy, managing to create another world, a world that is private, known only by the two people participating in the secret relationship. The need to create another world, illustrates that the characters are fearsome of the legal and social repercussions that shall amount from an illegal relationship. This reflects that Russian and American societies, at those time frames, both frown upon infidelity. The characters’ secret dives into infidelity prove to be problematic, because of legal and societal consequences and conventions, but these dives, nonetheless, fulfill their yearnings for reinvention, and novelty.

Works Cited

Chekhov, Anton. “The Lady with the Dog.” Trans. Constance Garnett. Efictions. Ed. Joseph F. Trimmer, C. Wade Jennings, and Annette Patterson. Forth Worth: Harcourt College, 2001. 51­62. Print.

Oates, Joyce Carol. “The Lady with the Pet Dog.” Efictions. Ed. Joseph F. Trimmer, C. Wade Jennings, and Annette Patterson.
Fort Worth: Harcourt College, 2001. 63­76. Print.