Brandt 1

Kenneth Brandt
Writing 1010
26 October 2014
The Character of the Characters.
How does perspective change how people are seen? Can anyone have redeeming or
demonizing qualities? These are questions raised by Anton Chekhovs The Bet, where a young
lawyer accepted a wager of two million dollars from a banker at a party, which resulted in the
youth spending fifteen years in solitary confinement. There, he could have whatever he wished,
save a companion. He wept, read, played music, and wrote letters to make requests. However,
the banker had lost his fortune before the fifteen years were up. He intended to murder the
prisoner, but the prisoner wrote about his rejection of earthly materialism, and so the banker
sympathetically allowed him to escape five minutes before the bet has to be paid. As The Bet is
told through the bankers point of view, the reader must infer the prisoners development through
what he was seen doing, realize the bankers increasing materialism, and demonstrate how the
captor became more possessive in contrast to the prisoner, who simply had to cope with
isolation.
The third person point-of-view changes the way the story as a whole is perceived. As the
story follows the banker, a first-person view would definitely give unnecessary bias. The bet
would have been seen as an overarching threat as the years went by and his money drained.
Indeed, the reader may have sympathized when the banker decided the one means of being
saved from bankruptcy and disgrace is the death of that man (24)! If this was told in first
person, the prisoner may have been painted as a villain, since he undoubtedly took a toll on the
bankers assets. Thus, the bankers attempt to murder him would appear to be more justifiable.

Brandt 2

The bankers character demonstrated plenty of moral deterioration. In the beginning, he

was incredibly affluent, and had the confidence to flaunt it. The banker, spoiled and frivolous,
with millions beyond his reckoning, was delighted at the bet (11). He was certainly
overconfident, and taunted the lawyer at dinner. He had enough to not only pay for a two million
dollar bet, but also to pay for a prisoners furnishings and desires for fifteen years. He showed
his impulsiveness by his immediate acceptance of these conditions, not realizing the toll they
could easily take. Desperate gambling on the stock market, wild speculation, and the
excitabilityhad by degrees led to the decline of his fortune, and the proud, fearless, selfconfident millionaire becamemiddling rank, trembling at every rise and fall in his
investments (24). Clearly, this impulsiveness and failure to perceive long-term consequences
had reduced his status significantly. Indeed, the prisoner had certainly earned more than the two
million through books, shelter, music, and watchmen. The banker had no one to blame for his
financial instability but himself. However, his hubris remained, if dampened, as he blamed the
wager and the youth for his current ranking. His impulsiveness as time began to run out
demonstrated itself when he decided that the best way to solve his financial problems was to
murder the man. Overall, he became more fearful and insecure with time, but no less
materialistic.
Had the story directly followed the prisoner, his perspective could have been more
understood, but a contrast would have been lost. Since he stayed in solitary confinement for
fifteen years (7-8), he had no knowledge of his captors financial woes. As he developed, the
reader would have seen his emotions and how they changed through the years. The bet would
have been seen, for much of the story, as a glimmer of hope in the isolated conditions that the

Brandt 3
prisoner endures, as he could think of how his life would immensely improve after fifteen years.
In the meantime, however, the reader would see why he chose specific books or instruments at
different times. The banker would have definitely been seen as either an enemy or the prisoners
only means to the outside world, depending on how the story was written. Outside of the
prisoners perceptions, however, the bankers character would have never been seen.
The prisoner had to adapt to an isolated, if well-supplied, life. The lawyer started out
rather brash and impulsive. You stake your millions, and I stake my freedom (10)! Since this
extreme wager was senselessly started by a debate over the death penalty, the attorney is easily
observed to be as frivolous and money-focused as the banker. He willingly gave up fifteen years
of his life on the promise of cash. Further, he was perhaps of high social class, as he was invited
to the wealthy bankers party in the first place. As both of them were rich and foolish, the
imprisonment seemed a quality idea. Solitary confinement, however, is not a pleasant
experience, regardless of conditions. As far as one could judge from his brief notes, the prisoner
suffered severely from loneliness and depression (16). The reader does not know if the lawyer
had family or friends, but it can be inferred that he was very social. Reading provided an escape
from his conditions, as they kept his mind busy. He began to read books about humanities,
throwing himself eagerly into these studiesso much so that the banker had enough to do to get
him the books he ordered (18). The prisoner may have been attempting to feel a sense of
companionship from reading about human history, language, and philosophy. Perhaps he wished
to be well-equipped to be with others again after fifteen years.
With either interpretation, the man clearly missed other humans more than anything.
After the tenth year, he sat immovably at the table and read nothing but the Gospel (20). Many
people are comforted by religion when all seems lost. There is also the fact that no religious

Brandt 4
person is alone in his faith. Speaking with God would mean no longer being alone. His studies of
humans along with reading about heaven and all that it bears would certainly make him weary of
peoples actions. He wrote, I marvel at you who exchange heaven for earth. I dont want to
understand you (36). After learning his emotional suffering may not be for naught, he naturally
renounced the two million dollars by escaping prematurely. He no longer wanted for earthly
things when heaven promised much more. However, he still seemed to be somewhat arrogant, as
he wrote as if he was superior to everyone else, and expressed no desire to teach others what he
had learned. While the banker became more nervous, the prisoner became more depressed.
Two perspectives mean two completely different stories. However, one point of view can
reveal two characters, if the correct point of view is chosen. Both the banker and the prisoner
change with time, and this is easier to see with the captors viewpoint. Both shared attributes that
stay strong with time, yet they remained separate with different experiences. They had their own
demonizing and redeeming qualities. It truly depends on how one looks at it.