The Bet By Anton Chekhov Analysis

He maintains that “the death penalty is more moral', later revealing complete moral bankruptcy when he plans murder to avoid honouring the bet. While the banker is emotionally affected by the letter, when he feels “so great a contempt for himself” that he weeps, Chekov is ambiguous about the nature of his remorse. Is his contempt for his murderous heart or for the rashness which almost led to financial ruin? Is he weeping tears of shame or relief? The dramatic irony of “he took from the table the writing in which the millions were renounced, and when he got home locked it up in the fireproof safe” suggests that his moment of self-awareness has not been life changing.

Anton Chekhov’s short story, “At Home,” provides a representation on how societies view morality when faced with the action of discipline. This view is imperative to the story because Chekhov wants the reader to recognize the futile ways societies determine what is morally correct or incorrect, by implementing consequences without considering why an action must be punished. Evgeni Bykovski, an attorney, is faced with this exact problem as he determines how to properly teach and discipline his son, Seriozha, who has been caught stealing, smoking, and lying. Nevertheless, Evgeni finds himself at his most difficult trial because as he ponders how to punish his son, he encounters his own set of crossroads on how societies discipline

Throughout the entirety of Dostoevsky’s novel, The Brothers Karamazov, the author chooses to insert lines of poetry in order to give more insight to the situations he is portraying. Out of all of the Russian poems that were referenced, this paper will be focusing on the five that, I feel, were the most crucial to the deeper understanding of the scenes in which they were placed. These poems; Lermontov’s “Do not, do not believe in yourself,” Pushkin’s “Demon,” Pushkin’s “Chill Winds Still Blow,” Tiutchev’s “Silentium,” and Nekrasov’s “Before the Rain” will be discussed. Each of these poems offers insight to the scene, which goes beyond what was explicitly written by Dostoevsky. “Do not, do not believe in yourself” gives deeper insight to the

The lawyer was depicted by Chekhov as a dynamic character who once allowed greed to dominate his life, despite its obvious destructive tendency. He changed his ways as he experienced the repercussions of greed. “If you mean that seriously,” the lawyer replied, “then I bet I could stay locked up for fifteen years, not five” (960). This use of dialogue showed that the lawyer was willing to give up his youth for money because he thought it was more important. His greed resulted in the waste of his prime years in solitary confinement all for money. The author conveyed through the dialogue between the two characters that the lawyer was just as greedy as the banker; he showed this when the lawyer upped the ante as a response to the banker’s proposition. After years of being locked up all because of a wager the lawyer realized how idiotic he had been. “To show in actual practice how much I despise what you live by, I renounce the two million I once dreamed of, as though of paradise, but for which I feel only contempt now. To forfeit my right to them I shall leave this place five hours before the stipulated time and thus break the agreement” (964).Through the author’s use of characterization and through the thoughts of the lawyer the reader saw how the lawyer changed his entire

The stories of Anton Chekhov mark a focal moment in European fiction. This is the point where 19th realist caucus of the short stories started their transformation into modern form. As such, his work straddles two traditions. The first is that of the anti-romantic realism which has a sharp observation of external social detail. It has human behavior conveyed within tight plot. The second is the modern psychological realism in which the action in typically internal and expressed in associative narrative that is built on epiphanic moments. In consideration of the two sides, Chekhov developed powerful personal styles that presage modernism without losing traditional frills of the form. This essay will discuss the Chekhov's portrayal of women.

In Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Rakitin responds to a central question throughout the novel, “What is permitted?” when he proudly states to Dmitry that “An intelligent man can do anything he likes as long as he’s clever enough to get away with it” (788). While Rakitin has found his answer to this question, multiple characters in the novel are still stuck on that question. Throughout the novel, Dostoevsky seems to separate these characters into two groups: the characters like Dmitry who wonder if all actions are permitted and the characters like Ivan who wonder if all thoughts are permitted. These groups seem completely separate until Book 10 when a boy named Koyla Krasotkin comes onto the scene who seems to be in both groups at once as he tests for himself exactly what thoughts and actions are permitted. In Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky uses Book 10 and Kolya to introduce the idea that the “free thinkers” and the “free doers” are one in the same in that they are wondering who will punish those who go beyond “what is permitted” and by extension sets up an argument between moral and legal punishment throughout the rest of the novel.

Crime and Punishment, a Russian novel by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, is an engrossing story about an ex-student, Raskolnikov, who plans a murder against an innocent pawnbroker. Raskolnikov the main character and narrator of the story, is a very poor young man who lives on the top floor of a dilapidated apartment in St. Petersburg. Although his plan to kill the pawnbroker Alyona Ivanovna is obvious early on in Crime and Punishment, his reasoning behind committing the murder is a mystery. Through out the novel, Raskolnikov surfaces many different reasons as to why he killed Alyona, but all the reasons are proven false except for the last one he gives. Raskolnikov’s need for money to support his family, and his

The banker, next, suffered fairly severe Financial consequences if the lawyer did 15 years in solitary confinement. “ He will take my last penny from me” (Chekhov, 3). When the banker promised last 2 million he was a multi-millionaire but during the 15 years, he lost almost all of it. When they lawyer got out of solitary confinement, also, they thought he was crazy. The lawyer suffers not only mental consequences but also physical consequences. “ He was a skeleton with skin drawn over his bones . . . “ (Chekov 54). The lawyer's mental consequences made his physical consequences worse. Clearly, the lawyer made a worse decision that led to horrendous consequences. Although one may be able to regain their wealth, one cannot regain their sanity.

It declares, “And he looked at his wife not with a smile now, but with hatred”(Chekhov 202). This indicates how the problem brings forth opinions that are deep inside the surface. Lastly, the dilemma from “The Lottery Ticket” of what will happen if Ivan Dmitritch and his wife win the lottery showcases the selfishness and independence in their relationship. It confers how, “She had her own daydreams, her own plans, her own reflections... She knew who would be the first to try to grab her winnings”(Chekhov 202).

Anton Chekhov, born in Taganrog, Russia on January 17, 1860, was considered the father of the modern short story and modern play. In 1875, his father lost his business and was forced to leave to find work in Moscow in order to pay off his debt. Anton and his three younger siblings were left with their mother, Yevgeniya, after a while they lost their home and decided to move to Moscow to be with Chekhov’s father. Chekhov, who was left behind in Taganrog to finish his schooling, helped his family financially by tutoring children in Taganrog. He found work in a clothing warehouse until he finished his final exams. After school, he joined his family in Moscow, where he continued his studies in the medical field at the University of Moscow. Chekhov used his own experiences of living in Moscow in his short story “The Lady With the Dog”.

He simply states that “she was a tall, erect woman with dark eyebrows, stately and dignified and, as she said of herself, intellectual.” She isn’t described as beautiful woman and the statement that she thinks of herself as intelligent gives the reader the impression that she is arrogant and the description makes her sound hard and maybe even unloving. What would have happened though if Chekhov had allowed the wife to be a main character and showed her as loving him deeply and missing him while he was gone on his trips? The reader would have felt sympathy for her and this story may have become one simply of an affair and not one of love. This is why both authors used a third person narrator. This allowed a round character which the reader could sympathize with and even forget the sinfulness of his/her endeavors.

Sixty-three years before Faulkner received his Nobel Prize, Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy wrote the novel titled the “Death of Ivan Ilych”. In this story, Tolstoy tells us of the life of the protagonist Ivan Ilych Golovin. An unremarkable man in most every way, Ivan is a judge, who values material possessions and social standing above all else. Ivan’s passion lies with his career and the material objects his salary provides. His family is nothing more than an

In the short story, “The Bet” by Anton Chekhov, a banker and a young man make a bet with each other based on capital punishment and whether the death penalty is better or worse than life in prison. The terms of the wager state that if the lawyer can live in solitary confinement for fifteen years, he will be given two million dollars. When examining the story, the Marxist lens would offer an insight to the ability of symbols and its forms, styles and, meanings. Chekhov connects these themes by utilizing the literary elements of Power. More specifically the power of money, knowledge, language, and competition.

There are many factors that contribute to how Chekhov’s story is a satire. The story is satirizing how frequently people are lazy and forget read the last detail, and how quickly people come to conclusions. Ivan and Masha Dmitritch came to the conclusion that they won the lottery and began making plans for what they would do with the money that they won. Their laziness is displayed when they put off checking the ticket numbers and decided that they would wait a while to check because they would “have plenty of time to be disappointed”(199) if they lost. Irony is displayed when Ivan begins to begin planning what he would do with the money if he won, when in reality the ticket was Masha’s and it should be her decision on what to do with the money.

In high school I read a short story called The Bet by Anton Chekhov. The story was about a young lawyer who made a bet with a banker that imprisonment for fifteen years was better than the death penalty. Like Socrates in Plato’s Crito the lawyer was trying to challenge society’s beliefs. While in confinement the lawyer read many books, whose subjects ranged from languages to philosophy. After fifteen years of solitary confinement the lawyer rejects his prize money and defaults on the bet, hours before winning. I wonder if the man had read the Crito. We can reason that Socrates’ could have inspired the man to decide to pick the more brash choice to try and teach his accusers a lesson. The man may have decided to default on the bet when he was so close to winning because he wished to make the lesson the banker learned more memorable and infinite. In the Crito even though Socrates thinks himself to be innocent of the charges brought against him he still refuses to escape prison when presented with the opportunity. This helps him teach his final lesson about the principles he believes are worth dying for. His principles are that the opinion of the many is unimportant, his life is not worth living with a corrupt soul, life is not as important as living justly, the only consideration to take into account is justice, and acting unjustly is always bad and shameful. Even though Socrates and the polis or laws arrive at the same conclusion that Socrates should not escape prison, the