Chekhov gave the two men their occupations for valid reasons. The dude who initiates the bet is a banker because he has lots of money and can afford to pay two million rubles if he loses. The prisoner is a lawyer because he knows the law. If he wins the bet he must feel sure he can force the banker to pay him the money. The bet was not written down as a formal contract, but it was made in front of many witnesses. The lawyer could take the banker to court and sue him for "unlawful detainment," "breach of contract," or something else. It doesn't have to be called gambling. It could be described as a form of employment. The banker agrees to pay the lawyer two million rubles for staying in solitary confinement for fifteen years. This is why their professions do matter.
However, the author specifies that there are a number of important men at the party who are all witnesses.
The majority of the guests, among whom were many journalists and intellectual men, disapproved of the death penalty.
In a good short story even detail counts. If the banker lost the bet and refused to pay, he would be disgraced. The journalists would spread the story all over Russia. And the banker would still get a judgment against him for two million rubles anyway. He can't get out of paying the lawyer tomorrow, and if he pays him he will be wiped out.
Pretty weird bet. I agree. But Chekhov takes considerable pains to make the reader believe in it. One of the tricks Chekhov uses for this purpose is to have the banker himself reflect more than once during the story that it was a crazy bet. For example:
And now the banker, walking to and fro, remembered all this, and asked himself: "What was the object of that bet? What is the good of that man's losing fifteen years of his life and my throwing away two million? Can it prove that the death penalty is better or worse than imprisonment for life? No, no. It was all nonsensical and meaningless. On my part it was the caprice of a pampered man, and on his part simple greed for money ..."
Chekhov is writing this sort of internal dialogue for the reader's benefit-- including yours. He knows the bet is crazy, but he has to sell his idea to the reader. This premise is called a donnee. There should be an acute accent over the first e in donnee, but I don't know how to make one. It has been said that we have to allow the writer his donnee. We certainly do that with other writers, including Ray Bradbury.
I don't think we are supposed to identify with the lawyer. Chekhov keeps the entire story in the banker's point of view (POV), so we can only identify with him. It is his problem and his POV. These are the two ways a fiction writer gets the reader to identify with a character.
Chekhov doesn't say anything about booze. But this bet is made at an all-male party. There must have been a lot of drinking being done. They would drink vodka before dinner, wine during dinner, and more wine or vodka or brandy after dinner. The bet only got made because both men had been drinking. But Chekhov didn't want to suggest that they were intoxicated (although the dialogue makes them sound intoxicated) because that would sort of invalidate the bet and make it too easy for both of them, or either of them, to call it off when they were more sober. The banker actually does try to get out of the bet, but he wants to do so by persuading the lawyer to call it off.
"Think better of it, young man, while there is still time. To me two million is a trifle, but you are losing three or four of the best years of your life. I say three or four, because you won't stay longer. Don't forget either, you unhappy man, that voluntary confinement is a great deal harder to bear than compulsory. The thought that you have the right to step out in liberty at any moment will poison your whole existence in prison. I am sorry for you."
The banker feels sure he is not risking anything because he believes the lawyer won't be able to stand solitary confinement for more than three or four years.
Finally, the lawyer wants the two million rubles. He would be set for life. Some people would find it easier to tolerate solitary confinement for fifteen years than others. Some people are introverts and some are extroverts. The lawyers behavior while in confinement shows he is an introvert. He reads six hundred abstruse books in a number of different languages, and he has to teach himself the languages in order to read many of the books. Furthermore, he is not kept in a dungeon but in a comfortable lodge where he can have virtually anything he wants except human companionship. He can even have wine with his meals if he wants it. He probably eats the same food as the wealthy banker. All this makes his acceptance of the bet somewhat more credible.
No comments:
Post a Comment