The Bet Analysis
The Bet is a short story written by Anton Chekhov, who writes based on realistic characters and situations. I have analyze this story to prove to the reader who is the winner of The Bet.
This short story portrays a situation in which the banker and lawyer wages a bet based on the idea of the death penalty and life imprisonment. The banker puts on the line two million dollars compared to the lawyer’s life worth of fifteen years. For the next fifteen years the lawyer was placed in the banker’s backyard without the knowledge of the outside world. It was clear that any attempt on the lawyer’s part to break the conditions will result in the lawyer’s loss of the bet. Fifteen years later, the banker is near bankruptcy from gambling on the stock market. If he pays the lawyer for winning the bet, he will be ruined. His only escape from his tragedy would be to kill the lawyer. When the banker opens the door into the cell, he discovers the lawyer now looking like a skeleton. He discovers a letter and reads it, but soon realizes the lawyer plans to lose. Five hours before the lawyer’s time is complete, he runs away and terminates his eligibility to win the bet. From these events in the story, I have concluded that it was the banker who won the bet and the argument of whether life imprisonment is better than death.
The bet has been argued to be many different aspects. It was stated in the story, “I’ll bet you two millions you wouldn’t stay in solitary confinement for five years” (1). Taking this idea as the bet, it was shown at the end of the story that the lawyer lost the bet. The rule was clearly stated, “The slightest attempt on his part to break the conditions, if only two minuets before the end, released the banker from the obligation to pay him two millions” (2). It was apparent that the rules were established, but violated. The lawyer stated, “I shall go out from here fire minutes before the time fixed, and so break the compact…Next morning…they had seen the man who lived in the lodge climb out of the window into the garden, go to the gate, and disappear” (5). It is clear that the lawyer’s action was to forfeit the bet by leaving and therefore the banker winning the bet.
There has also been another argument of the idea of the bet. It has been argued that bet was not if the lawyer could stay in confinement for fifteen years; rather it was the original argument in which the bet had arose from. This argument was stated as, “Capital punishment kills a man at once, but lifelong imprisonment kills him slowly. Which executioner is the more humane, he who kills you in a few minutes or he who drags the life out of you in the course of many years?” (1). The lawyer had chose life imprisonment to be better by saying, “To live anyhow is better than not at all” (1). The lawyer however stated in his letter to the banker, “…I despise wisdom and the blessings of this world. It is all worthless, fleeting, illusory, and deceptive, like a mirage” (5) showing he has changed his opinion about the matter. By the end of the story, he admitted that he despised everything in life including life itself due to his suffering of fifteen years. He would have rather died than to have slowly suffered for those fifteen years and therefore, giving up his argument that life imprisonment is better than death.
In addition to the argument of what the bet was, there has been argument that the lawyer had actually won because he had learned more during his time in confinement. However, there is no indication from the story that winning the bet involves gaining any knowledge. It was obviously stated in the story as an argument between the ideas of life imprisonment and death and the bet place on the wager of fifteen years of the lawyer’s life and the banker’s two million dollars. The argument present by me both times is reasonable in the sense that there is a potential winner for both sides and that it follows the story verbatim.
Through facts and opinions presented, it is clear why the banker is the winner of the bet. The lawyer had violated one of the rules of the bet; breaking the confinement prior to the fifteen year term is complete, resulting in the banker winning the bet. The lawyer had also admitted in his letter that death is a better off than life imprisonment. He had regretted accepting the bet with the banker. These are only samples of potentially more examples to prove those who oppose the idea that the banker won wrong. Though many will still oppose this ruling, these reasons presented remain valid.
Liked it
I just
Could
That is the most surface level assessment you could make of “The Bet”. The lawyer never said his time in there was suffering, or that he wishes he was dead. If he wanted to die, he certainly could have.
it was a good story, but that really was a terrible analysis…
I love this story but I feel that you completely missed the point of it.
youre a good writer, but you missed what it was about & what it really stood for.
Horrible analysis.
it wasn’t about capital punishmentthe point was about the meaning of life + gaining intelligence…
The lawyer is twice the winner of the bet. He phisically stayed the 15 years (minus five minutes) and he teaches the banker the meaning of life.
i think you missed the point as the last year or so of his life in so called prison was only pased my reading bible that is a kind of hope for eternal life or a proper way of living by divine teaching of bible so he (the lawyer) learned how to be the real human and his achivement was better that materialistics and those who believe in such things …
Yes…capital punishment and betting are only motives by which Chekhov proves his point, which consists of showing how humans’ priorities are hugely screwed up…that materialistic things are valued over knowledge and items.
Just an interesting thing I found, but:
“His reading suggested a man swimming in the sea among the wreckage of his ship, and trying to save his life by greedily clutching first at one spar and then at another” (Chapter 4)
His ship would probably by his old views, and he is trying to save parts of him to keep him afloat, yet dismiss the rest…and perhaps the “boat” he destroyed himself.
I also noticed that until his tenth year, he reads the work of greats, then stopped, and for a whole year read the New Testament, then began avidly reading again. I think there is some symool of enlightenment/religion there but am on the brink and don’t know where to go…ideas?
My bad… that quote is on page 4
I JUST WANT TO SAY……………………………………………………………………………………………HI
This assessment is terrible! I agree with comment #6 by JF.
I wouldn’t call the analysis horrible. It’s just… It’s barely an analysis. It fits more into the category of summary. There were no actual beyond-the-text realizations.
I should probably mention that this text was littered with grammatical errors. The subject-verb agreement needs work.
not correct analysis because the lawyer ran because he has hated money not because death is better than life imprisonment and he ran before 5 min of the finishing of the bet and he was going to win !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is by far the worst analysis i’ve ever read, did you even read the story?
Our class has just read this story and we feel – at least the majority of our class seems to feel that there really is no winner at all because in the end the banker despises himself and the lawyer despises life – isn’t winning all about happiness????? or is it???? – we had fun reading all these comments!
A student in this class also used the term that perhaps one of life lessons in the story was that “the world is messed up”> He also agreed that the banker is the winner.
but you guys are missing another good point! the banker doesnt learn anything from the experience. he was not enlightened by the lawyer’s note. at the end he keeps the note in a fire proof case just in case the lawyer comes back. the banker is a flat character, he doesnt learn from the lawyer’s experience.
does anyone know what the symbol of this story would be?
I would say a very impressive piece of work here but i would have to admit that I feel there is more to this story than you interpretted sir. I think that each man has learned his lesson. The banker may have officially won the bet, but truly he has won nothing, just lost nothing as well. The lawyer “wasted” fifteen years of his life, give or take, but he became more enlightened, he knew the reasoning behind life giving from the “words of god” not that i am a very religious person but from his point of view, reading through the new Testament for over a year, was him learning the rules and meanings, then he went back to what i would call pleasure reading to waste time. Upon reading the New Testament i beieve that he had already realized what he was going to do, if he truly wanted to win he could have stayed the rest of the five minutes and won, but what is life without a challenge? To risk so much over money is a pathetic way to live, and that lawyer realized that, but the banker missed the reasoning and point for why the lawyer left five minutes before the bet was over.
I must say i do like your bravery in stating your opinion on the internet, and decent writing.:)
i lik lawyer
this coment not impossibell
i cant say this inerpretation is not a good one, since all and every one of us have got our own ideas about every thing.i appreciate all of your efforts writting this piece.any ways in my oppinion the lawyer is the main and absolute winner since he has improved the spritual aspects of his charachter and is not any more interested in financial issues and matters of this sort.
I belive the lawer is double loser of the bet because he wasted 15 years of his live in confinement and also didnt get any money at the end.just some knowledge which could be earned in free life too.
im doing a f** analysis n im in blaaannkkkk!!!!!!
Your analysis is perfect. Everyone on this post who said that you are wrong is looking not only too deep, but in the wrong direction as well. The bet had nothing to do with “life realizations” and “enlightenment.” It was strictly on the death penalty versus life imprisonment. Since the lawyer wrote that he despised life, then it is obvious that life, (especially a life behind bars), is not preferred by him. By the way, I read the original version as it was written in Russian. Perhaps some of the meaning was lost in translation for you guys.
i think that capital punishment and life imprisonment are both inhumane measures but i think life imprisonment harder and causes great torture than life imprisonment
The bet is a Good Story, But in the end…. what does it prove???
by the way, it’s not five minutes before the terminal of the agreement that the laywer went out, but five hours!!!
true meaning of life …………….. KNOLEDGE …… STAY IN SCHOOL DUMBASSES
the banker indeed won the bet if that is what we are talking about literaly and not by heart..as a reader,in my opinion, the main purpose of the story is not to argue boldly about who wins and who does not, but as far as I have read about Tolstoy, the writer, it is more about the moral values that we human should learn from the story. As i read your analysis and conclusion bout the story.. it made me think that you are a person well needless to say, who pointed out to everyone that your argument is THE ULTIMATE or THE BEST ONE, which is ACTUALLY NOT!!! because you missed the most important part of the story…winning isnot always about winning the bet..it is far beyond that.. it is more of finding out the very essence of the the truth and realizing something more meaningful…
i am a student of English translation.i needed the comment of the bet for my course( oral reproduction).i do appreciate all the buddies left comment ,since i learnt more from them than from the analysis of the author itself.
i should mention sth no body said:
(while betting the banker bet for 5 years but the lawyer increase it to 15 years) why did he do such crazy thing?he could accept 5 years it was much more easier.
i myself think that he was at the age 25.he was youth and proud self confident without any experience and attached to material.when he was suggested 2 million $ he lost his mind and thought just about the money.and also he in youth didn t know the price of life.he exchanged 15 years of his life with just 2 millions. but at the age of 40 (which at this age human and his brain will be complete ) he become a wise human being.
i have also sth to say i learnt today:
THE WISDOM ALWAYS COMES BY AGE,BUT SOMETIMES ONLY THE AGE COMES.
I believe that both the Lawyer and Banker lost. The lawyer lost the bet and his 15 years of life, and the banker lost his money from gambling.
i like to read storys while i eat cheese this is a story that makes my cheese so darn good i like it cause i couldnt stop eating cheese reading it made me so horny i to my book to the bathroom and wacked my willie for awhile
@retard eddy: Okay… I don’t children like me want to hear or know about that stuff yet…
I think that the analysis was well written,but I don’t think it can really be known as an ‘analysis’. Try reading “The Bet” a few more times and think of other ways to come at it. You’ll understand the full concept sooner or later…
I…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ALSO WANT TO SAY “HI” :3
The lawyer chose to lose the bet, not because anything would be better than a life of imprisonment but because he had come to understand through his many years of research, that human life is too crowded by materalism. To him accepting the money would have been greedy and just what would prevent him from living a pure and happy life.Therefore, the lawyer ultimately won because he came to terms with what the author would view as a universal truth.
beannan poche is a cajun fagget and is lookin fo someone
andrew dahlgren is a jew that bails n gets pissy all the time
bennnan is in a pissy mood
andrew dahlgren is a jew that bails n gets pissy all the time and brennan is not cajun or pissy
Brennan is a little hating cajuun who needs to stop hating
andrew only bails on his friends and gets pissy everyday. he has no life cause he got caught. right after he bailed
andrew only bails because brennan is always in a pissy mood
i think this story is one of the best stories that i have ever read.
You gotta be kidding me. This story has absolutely nothing to do with whether life imprisonment or capital punishment is better. In the text it directly says, “Why did I make this bet? What’s the good? The lawyer loses fifthteen years of his life and I throw away two millions. Will it convince people that capital punishment is worse or better than imprisonment for life? No, no! all stuff and rubbish. On my part, it was the caprice of a well-fed man; on the lawyer’s, pure greed of gold.”
This short story “The Bet” explains the meaningless of life and the “blessings of this world.” During the eleventh year, the lawyer studied the New Testement of the Bible for one year. It was in this time that the lawyer was able to understand how useless the worldly possessions were. When you die, can you carry money or houses to heaven, hell, or any sort of afterlife? Even if you don’t believe in life after death, you can’t take any crap with you. The lawyer realizes this and begans to despise the world in which he is in- “So do I marvel at you, who have bartered heaven for earth. I do not want to understand you.” That is why the lawyer writes a renunciation of his two million. “That I may show you in deed my contempt for that by which you live, I waive the two millions of which I once dreamed of as paradise, and which I now despise. That I may deprice myself of my right to them, I shall come out from here five minutes before the stipulated term, and thys shall violate the agreement.”
I may have sounded harsh, but sorry. I did not mean to. I just wanted to suggest an idea. Thanks!
Quit ripping on this guy that the analysis was terrible. Yes, it qualifies more as a summary, but really you guys need to relax. It takes some risk to put yourself out there and attempt to do things such as this. I GUARANTEE a lot of you that were like \”oh this sucks you are horrible at analises\” have NEVER even attempted to do such a thing as this. I give the author props for attempting to make an analysis. But for future reference author, an analysis consists of deeper, non-text thinking (i.e. explain WHY the lawyer/banker did what he did). Just don\’t quote the book and consider it an analysis. My recommendation would be to use Bloom\’s Taxonomy both to ask yourself deeper questions about the story, and also to answer those through your response.
its 2 million rubles not dollars, chekhov is a russian writer his coin is rubles thats the russian money system
Unbelievably shallow and superficial. The short story, in addition to many major themes and issues, includes a detailed account of Freud’s human psyche development. Just like Hemingway in “The Old Man and the Sea” and Ibsen in “Doll’s House”, Chekhov raises the question of how the SE should be developed. Analyzing the story based on what has been said or written, is nothing short of failure in literary comprehension.