In "The Bet," why is the bet described as "wild" and "senseless"?

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

A lively discussion arose. The banker, who was younger and more nervous in those days, was suddenly carried away by excitement; he struck the table with his fist and shouted at the young man:

     "It's not true! I'll bet you two million you wouldn't stay in solitary confinement for...

This Answer Now

Start your 48-hour free trial to unlock this answer and thousands more. Enjoy eNotes ad-free and cancel anytime.

Get 48 Hours Free Access

five years."

     "If you mean that in earnest," said the young man, "I'll take the bet, but I would stay not five but fifteen years."

     "Fifteen? Done!" cried the banker. "Gentlemen, I stake two million!"

     "Agreed! You stake your millions and I stake my freedom!" said the young man.

     And this wild, senseless bet was carried out!

Anton Chekhov had an idea he wanted to develop into a short story. A man bets another that he can spend fifteen years in solitary confinement. He will receive a fortune if he can do it. Chekhov's biggest problem was "selling" this concept to the reader. Would anyone really make such a bet? Would anyone agree to spend fifteen years in solitary confinement? And, if so, would anyone agree to pay him two million rubles for doing so?

All of the opening exposition is presented as a flashback in the banker's mind as he is remembering how the bet came to be made. This is all mainly to persuade the reader that it was not only possible but that it was actually carried out. The words "wild" and "senseless" can be understood to be part of the banker's recollection and not of the anonymous narrator. What Chekhov is doing is convincing the reader that the preposterous bet was really made by having the viewpoint character himself admit that it was "wild" and "senseless." The banker agrees with the feelings of the reader. This is not the only place in the story where the banker agrees with the reader that the bet was improbable, bizarre, dangerous, perhaps even illegal. Here is another place:

"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."

The reader can't argue with the banker because the banker agrees with him. It was all nonsensical and meaningless; nevertheless, it was carried out. Chekhov wanted to write the story, and so he used all his powers to persuade the reader that it really happened. Once the term of imprisonment begins, the reader accepts it as a fait accompli. Chekhov tries in various ways to ameliorate the prisoner's suffering. He lives in a comfortable guest lodge. His meals are brought to him, and they are probably the same as the banker himself eats. He can have wine with meals if he so desires. Best of all, he can have books, music, and virtually anything else he wants except human contact. There is also the fact that the prisoner may walk out a free man any time he chooses, if he forfeits the bet.

Chekhov specifies that the bet was made at an all-male party. We know there must have been a lot of drinking being done--vodka, champagne, brandy, etc. But Chekhov doesn't say a word about liquor. He doesn't want to suggest that the banker and lawyer made the bet because they were both drunk. That would invalidate the bet. But it seems highly likely that both men were drunk when they made it and then didn't know how to call it off when they were sober. The banker subsequently tries to get the lawyer to back out, but the lawyer is young and greedy; he wants those two million rubles.

The bet really is wild and senseless, but Chekhov sold his premise to the reader and made one of his best stories out of it.

Approved by eNotes Editorial
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

In "The Bet" by Anton Chekhov, why was the bet considered "wild and senseless?"

It is the banker who, after the passage of fifteen years, thinks of the original bet as wild and senseless.

And this wild, senseless bet was carried out! 

It is wild and senseless on the banker's part because he is putting up two million rubles against nothing. There is no quid pro quo. If the lawyer defaults on his part of the agreement and leaves his confinement before the fifteen-year term is up, then the banker gains nothing, and he is out the expense of providing for the lawyer for whatever time he spends in solitary comfort in the banker's guest lodge. On the other hand, if the lawyer sticks it out for fifteen years, the banker loses two million rubles. When the story opens that sum of money means a great deal to the aging man. If he pays the lawyer he will be ruined. He is seriously considering murdering his prisoner, thereby becoming a murderer and a scoundrel at the same time.

Fifteen years before, his millions had been beyond his reckoning; now he was afraid to ask himself which were greater, his debts or his assets. Desperate gambling on the Stock Exchange, wild speculation and the excitability which he could not get over even in advancing years, had by degrees led to the decline of his fortune and the proud, fearless, self-confident millionaire had become a banker of middling rank, trembling at every rise and fall in his investments. 

On the lawyer's part, he is giving up the best years of his life on the chance of making a fortune. If he decides he can't stand the solitude and vacates the lodge voluntarily, he will have lost years of his life for nothing. If he stays there for the full fifteen years, he will have won two million rubles, but in effect he will have sold fifteen years of his youth for that amount of money. And in any case, the bet would have proved nothing as far as penology was concerned. As the banker reflects in Chekhov's long exposition:

"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."

The bet is indeed "wild and senseless." Chekhov wanted to write such a story because the idea appealed to him (just as it appeals to readers)--but he had to make it plausible. He does this mainly by having the banker himself acknowledge that the bet was wild and senseless because it created a lot of trouble for both men and proved nothing. This is for the benefit of the reader--that is, to keep the reader from thinking the same thoughts himself. Nobody would ever make such a bet. Nobody would want to spend fifteen years in solitary confinement, and nobody would want to keep another man a prisoner on his own property for fifteen years. The story is implausible, but Chekhov was a great writer and made it not only plausible but memorable. We actually believe this happened. We can sympathize with both the banker and the lawyer. We are appalled by the ravages of time. The banker has become old and fearful and unscrupulous. The lawyer may think he has achieved high enlightenment, but he has lost all his youthful vitality and optimism, and he looks like a corpse. What good is the rest of his life to him? Where will he go? And he doesn't even collect the two million rubles!

It truly was a wild and senseless bet. But both men seem to have gained some wisdom and humility from it. 

Last Updated on