.jpg)
This is a blog-post I made for school. It is a brief analysis of the shirt story The Bet by Chekhov:
Anton Chekhov's The Bet is a very poignant story that inspires the deepest sort of thinking. The story features several lawyers, one of which is of full-age and rich, and another of which is young and naive. During a discussion on the morality of capital punishment, the older banker bets the younger one 2 million dollars that he cannot live in solitary confinement for an extended period of time. The young man accepts the bet and lives in a small dwelling with one window, a musical instrument, books, wine, and tobacco for a set duration of 15 years. In this time his tastes, moods, and motivations change quite dramatically. In his solitude, he thinks a great deal and gains much of what he calls wisdom. He studies literature, philosophy, theology, foreign language, and science. At the end of the 15 years he forfeits the bet because he no longer desires the money- the original motivation of the feat.
I found all of the questions in the reading guide rather boring. I feel there are deeper questions in the text than mere questions of comprehension. To circumnavigate the problem I am faced with (the problem of writing something meaningful while doing what I am "required" to do) I will answer the question, "Did you like the story?". My answer, yes I did and here's why.
The antagonist of the story is not the greedy old banker, it is nihilism. The struggle... the quest is overcoming the notion that life is meaningless. The prisoner is faced with this problem in his solitude as his naivete is taken from him and replaced with understanding. Ironically, with wisdom comes great confusion. We can answer the what and the when and the where and the how, but when we attempt to answer the why, our answers often seem quite inadequate. I wonder if the prisoner struggled with this in his confinement- if his preconceived notions of why we live were shattered by his wisdom.
Let us examine his progression...
Year 1: The prisoner is lonely and depressed. He plays the piano, writes, and reads shitty books.
Analysis: I'd wager that the prisoner was not yet cynical of life at this point. He agreed to the bet because of the money, and he spent his time trying to enjoy himself as much as possible. That is why he read novels of light character. Regardless of his attempts at happiness, he was very lonely and sad.
Year 2-4: The prisoner does little but read the classics.
Analysis: I think that the man noticed the central trends of humanity in his thoughts and pain and sought out the classics to reveal more of those trends and their nature's.
Year 5: The prisoner stops reading and plays music again. He drinks and eats and attempts to enjoy himself.
Analysis: After four years of study and pondering, I think that the man was tired of it all and simply wanted to try to enjoy the simple things of life. It also said that he wrote a lot. This betrays his desire to emulate the authors that he had been reading and write something himself. He apparently fails at this and rips up his writing.
Year 6-10: The prisoner reads philosophy, foreign language, and history.
Analysis: At this point, the prisoner's desire to study has returned and he desires to study philosophy. I think that history and foreign language are merely supplemental to these studies. History to understand man (anthropology of sorts) and foreign language to understand foreign authors. He seeks to quell his nihilism, the bitter companion of wisdom, with more knowledge. He hopes to find solace in the writings of men with problems similar to his own.
Year 11-13: The prisoner reads the Gospel and commentaries associated with it.
Analysis: I think this desire comes from the prisoner's questioning. He is looking for motivation and his de-facto motive was always Christianity. He seeks to justify that motive and he does so by rigorously studying the religion.
Year 14-15: The prisoner read indiscriminately.
Analysis: The prisoner is does not know what other studies to pursue and therefore reads indiscriminately. He has in many ways exhausted the volumes of human wisdom and is grasping for something with meaning.
The prisoner's conclusion: The man decided that he was wise because he had read so much about mankind and his various motivations, but in the end, he decided that he despised it all and loved his solitude. He had no love for the things that men strove for. He renounced the world and the money. What he does after he leaves the prison is completely unknown. The reader does not know whether or not the man found meaning.
Which brings us back to one of the major questions posited at the beginning of the story. Is it better to live in any state than it is to die, or as the prisoner put it prior to his imprisonment, "To live anyhow is better than not living at all!"
Can we assume that the prisoner still took this position at the end of the story when he had obtained wisdom and his battle with nihilism was crescendoing? I really don't think so. I think that he eventually committed suicide. What did he have to live for? He had exhausted the great literature and learning of the world and he had no desire to mingle with people. On what basis would he continue to live? That is a question that we must all answer for ourselves and its an incredibly important question to answer.
That is why I liked the story- because it makes clear the reality of the futility of life and inadvertently asks the reader to fixate on the reason that he or she lives. Few short stories are capable of that.
I found all of the questions in the reading guide rather boring. I feel there are deeper questions in the text than mere questions of comprehension. To circumnavigate the problem I am faced with (the problem of writing something meaningful while doing what I am "required" to do) I will answer the question, "Did you like the story?". My answer, yes I did and here's why.
The antagonist of the story is not the greedy old banker, it is nihilism. The struggle... the quest is overcoming the notion that life is meaningless. The prisoner is faced with this problem in his solitude as his naivete is taken from him and replaced with understanding. Ironically, with wisdom comes great confusion. We can answer the what and the when and the where and the how, but when we attempt to answer the why, our answers often seem quite inadequate. I wonder if the prisoner struggled with this in his confinement- if his preconceived notions of why we live were shattered by his wisdom.
Let us examine his progression...
Year 1: The prisoner is lonely and depressed. He plays the piano, writes, and reads shitty books.
Analysis: I'd wager that the prisoner was not yet cynical of life at this point. He agreed to the bet because of the money, and he spent his time trying to enjoy himself as much as possible. That is why he read novels of light character. Regardless of his attempts at happiness, he was very lonely and sad.
Year 2-4: The prisoner does little but read the classics.
Analysis: I think that the man noticed the central trends of humanity in his thoughts and pain and sought out the classics to reveal more of those trends and their nature's.
Year 5: The prisoner stops reading and plays music again. He drinks and eats and attempts to enjoy himself.
Analysis: After four years of study and pondering, I think that the man was tired of it all and simply wanted to try to enjoy the simple things of life. It also said that he wrote a lot. This betrays his desire to emulate the authors that he had been reading and write something himself. He apparently fails at this and rips up his writing.
Year 6-10: The prisoner reads philosophy, foreign language, and history.
Analysis: At this point, the prisoner's desire to study has returned and he desires to study philosophy. I think that history and foreign language are merely supplemental to these studies. History to understand man (anthropology of sorts) and foreign language to understand foreign authors. He seeks to quell his nihilism, the bitter companion of wisdom, with more knowledge. He hopes to find solace in the writings of men with problems similar to his own.
Year 11-13: The prisoner reads the Gospel and commentaries associated with it.
Analysis: I think this desire comes from the prisoner's questioning. He is looking for motivation and his de-facto motive was always Christianity. He seeks to justify that motive and he does so by rigorously studying the religion.
Year 14-15: The prisoner read indiscriminately.
Analysis: The prisoner is does not know what other studies to pursue and therefore reads indiscriminately. He has in many ways exhausted the volumes of human wisdom and is grasping for something with meaning.
The prisoner's conclusion: The man decided that he was wise because he had read so much about mankind and his various motivations, but in the end, he decided that he despised it all and loved his solitude. He had no love for the things that men strove for. He renounced the world and the money. What he does after he leaves the prison is completely unknown. The reader does not know whether or not the man found meaning.
Which brings us back to one of the major questions posited at the beginning of the story. Is it better to live in any state than it is to die, or as the prisoner put it prior to his imprisonment, "To live anyhow is better than not living at all!"
Can we assume that the prisoner still took this position at the end of the story when he had obtained wisdom and his battle with nihilism was crescendoing? I really don't think so. I think that he eventually committed suicide. What did he have to live for? He had exhausted the great literature and learning of the world and he had no desire to mingle with people. On what basis would he continue to live? That is a question that we must all answer for ourselves and its an incredibly important question to answer.
That is why I liked the story- because it makes clear the reality of the futility of life and inadvertently asks the reader to fixate on the reason that he or she lives. Few short stories are capable of that.
No comments:
Post a Comment