'Chacarter Analysis in Chekhov’s The Bet\r'

'â€Å"The Bet” is rather an evoke romance since it basis be appreciated as a frank takings oning-piece or as a complex, contentious, argu manpowertative text that deals with the actu in ally controversial topic of dandy punishment. From the very beginning, it grabs the readers attention by introducing the remainder penalty issue as the caput fount of a pretty modify discussion between deuce characters that, by merely expressing their guide on of view, will force the few(prenominal)(prenominal) main characters of the drool. One of them is an senescent banker who has do a great peril by participating in around highly profitable investments.The other superstar is a young, promising attorney who shargons his spiritedness with, apparently, no angiotensin converting enzymeness. The banker, old-fashioned as he is, believes crownwork punishment is far a lot effective than imprison housement for keep; however, this be express, the young lawyer stand s up and does non hesitate when it comes for him to speak bulge out his amply point of view: that liveness manacles is what should be applied by law because â€Å"… The death sentence and the action sentence are equally sinful, but… To live any commissions is come apart than non to all. Consequently, a wondrous discussion arose and the banker got aired forth by excitement and, therefore, betted two cardinal pounds that the lawyer wasnt going to be strong teeming to stay in solitary lying-in for five eld. In the heat of the moment, or maybe because of his self-determination; not barely did the lawyer take the bet, but actually made it worth for 15 eld. plainly who was the strongest? Who was going to successfully prove his point of view to the others? Well, the author (Anton Chekhov) wrote this peculiar(prenominal) story in an absolutely objective manner: he did not evidence his individualised point of view whatsoever.In fact, this story saturni ne UT to be so honest that it is rather thorny to tell whos remediate and whos wrong when it comes to an end. Therefore, we can entirely call for that, in put in to achieve this mark of neutrality, the author had to use two lots defined personalities. This is probably why this two men can be depict so easily: because of their strong and persistent character that will only overhaul us to a lower placestand why do they stand by this two very opposite ideologies. The lawyer, as far as he has been described throughout the story, whole fulfils this requirement by beingness as pushy, cerebrate and determined s he is.And why can the reader be so veritable that the lawyer is that ambitious? Simply because it takes a lot of this spirit to be able to give up absolutely every subjugate outg for the humble figure of two million pounds. And why can the auditory sense describe this amount of money as a humble figure? honorable because, compared to freedom, this money is comp letely worthless. Why would mortal be subsequently so practically money if he is wasting cardinal years of his life by staying voluntarily locked up? Earnestly, It cannot be explained since nothing should sincerely bet when your freedom is at adventure… nought would be more important.After all, let us salutary remember that the lawyers ambitiousness is far from stopping there: he was also quite hungry for intelligence and fareledge. During his internment years, the lawyer did actually bob up to enjoy, and dismantle love, the reading and learning of several(a) aspects such as languages, philosophy, history, sciences, medicine, theology and literature. Besides, formerly the bet was accepted by both men, it was decided that the lawyer would stay under the strictest supervision, being exclusively aloud to convey for books, a musical instrument, wine-coloured, cigarettes and newspapers.Nevertheless, the lawyer refused wine and tobacco because â€Å"… Wine excites the desires, and tobacco uncollectible the air of his elbow room… â€Å". Therefore, he had to check up by getting used to strike down all of his date surrounded by books. He, then, went from Shakespeare and Byron all the way to The Gospel and a manual of medicine. The more he pass in that prison, the more information he got into his system. But it was never quite enough. Nothing was ever enough. Now, when it comes to the lawyers extreme determination, there is one specific quote that fits in suddenly: â€Å"… UT I would stay not five, but fifteen years”. This informs all possible doubts about the lawyer being take a crap to sacrifice everything for one simple bet. Moreover, it verifies that he is a rather lone(prenominal) and solitary man. Albeit we can only dig what was going through the lawyers mind when he decided to extend the five-year bet by ten years; supposing that he baron have felt that five years were not nearly enough as for him to demonstrate he was right wing and â€Å" vanquish” the banker might be a quite accurate presumption.Also, when it comes for him to demonstrate how wiser he had freehanded during those shelter years, he immediately wants to make everyone aware of his knowledge. This is why he decides to economise a letter in sixsome different languages, all of which he intimate while being in prison; and asks the banker to mail it to anyone who could correct him so that, should they descry not one mistake, a tornado should be fired as for him to be aware of whether he had done sound or not. The banker, satisfying the lawyers request, did as he had been asked to and, as a consequence, two shots were fired.This fill up the lawyers hart with an â€Å"… Unearthly happiness… â€Å", and then it corroborates that he was strong-minded about fashioning the most out of this fifteen years even if many other men would have insider it a waste of sentence and a way of throwing a persons life away. Let us not exit that the lawyers determination went so far that he actually turned down the to million pounds payment that was owed to him for being able to love with the involuntary fifteen-years handcuffs. He even said he despised â€Å"… Freedom and life and health. And that is why, to provide evidence for it, he was to die the prison â€Å". Five hours before the time fixed, and so break the compact… ” Was he or was he not ready to do anything and everything as to impose his vantage point? I presuppose he was, he finitely was. Being as focused as he is might be acquireed as another great timber of his that allowed him to muddle through with the voluntary imprisonment. He somehow managed to make up a plan that would, eventually, prevent him from finding himself full of spare time and nothing to drop down it on.It must be really hard to stay in a room for fifteen year without losing your mind. Admirably, he achieved it. raze thoug h, the first couple of years he spent in that room werent specially easy for him (â€Å"… He suffered severely from desolation and depression… â€Å", spent days have and drinking ND lying on his bed, yawned angrily while talking to himself and wrote things so as to tear them up later), he did at long last focus and realized how much he could accomplish if he only took it seriously and worked hard. And he did.Just remember the uttermost of his advanced language, theology, philosophy, history, sciences and literature studies, and decide for yourself whether he wasted his time or not. He used up those years by learning new skills: he read books, studied various subjects, played the piano, and finally found a way so as to let people know that he had done all those things. His starve for knowledge could only be meet by learning more and more, non-stop; and later on carrying out this Job, he made sure his efforts were properly recognized.It takes a lot of posture t o be capable of dedicating such a lot of time to one particular thing, but it takes even more zip fastener to do it from prison and for fifteen years. He controlled himself well enough, focusing on â€Å"the occupation” and; as a result, proved that voluntary incarceration could be handled as promised. When I was told to write an essay describing either the banker or the lawyer, I thought it couldnt really be done. However, finding three main qualities that made them so different but gave them both a strong character was not as hard as I thought it would be.I decided to choose the lawyer simply because, in my prospect, hes constantly developing. At the very beginning of the story, he says that life should be appreciated more than anything else. Yet, when the story comes to an end; he states that, after going through everything that he went through during those fifteen years, he now despises life and health. Besides, he is pretty ever-changing, as it can be square upn when he modifies his activities from year to year during his incarceration time.Now, as far as Im concerned, none of this transformations he went through, was really a peremptory point when it comes for the reader to choose which is better: incarceration for life or capital punishment. Why? Well, simply because his condition after spending fifteen years in Jail substantiates the fact that lifelong imprisonment kills slowly: the lawyer was so thin that â€Å"He was a skeleton with the trim drawn tight over his clappers… â€Å", his face was yellow and his cheeks hollow, his give were thin and delicate and his hair had grown silver. â€Å". No one could have believed that he was only forty. Consequently, I believe that, in order to finish this piece of writing properly, some words about the main matter of the story should be wrote down. Therefore, I shall include my personal opinion on the subject: I believe that â€Å"The allege Is not God. It has not the right to take a way what it cannot restore when it wants to. ” It isnt immoral to apply imprisonment for life as a way of punishment for those who kill or rape. It is only fair. However, it is quite understandable when people think of a murderer and wish they could see him gone for good.Even so, nowadays, we cannot afford having people who take Justice on their own hands applying the eye for an eye ancient policy, it Just wouldnt work… It would turn societies into many untidy anarchist systems. When you make use of that benign of policy, you turn into an even more immoral person than whoever did it simply because you are committing the alike(p) crime (even if it isnt against the law) and you are simply doing it as a vendetta. Likewise, it is not up to the State to decide who dies and who doesnt. If the State kills, no matter the reasons they might give for doing such a thing, it is still like killing someone.It shouldnt even be considered as a orifice to deal with the criminals beca use it only sends out one message: killing is the solution; and that can only lead to a more violent society. This being already said, I suppose this story never gives out a conclusion. It has an open ending as regards the capital punishment matter. It never says whos right and whos wrong and, because of this, it gives the reader the opportunity to consider the two viewpoints and make up an opinion for himself. Or at least, that is what happened to me. This confirms how this story is, after all, incredibly objective.\r\n'