E Journal 1 - THE BET

Blog entry 1 – Divya Sharma – MAE13036

A. Summary – The Bet

The story seems to be a first person account of the protagonist Basundara, narrated in a flashback spread over 43 years. When she completes her BA, she is asked to marry against her wishes to a man, Dibanath, who she considers as having a ‘worker’s face’.  Dibanath, the antagonist in certain ways, was an uneducated rich businessman who was attracted to her. Discussions with her educated, otherwise ‘open-minded’ father over her wishes and expectations do not help her with her cause. She reluctantly marries the man she has little respect for. The story then goes through 4 bets, which build a climax like moment, since Basundara has never lost a bet, neither does in the story. The first bet revolves around simple view on the name of raga being played on the day of their conjugal night. She wins and demands a night more to herself. With every bet henceforth, the distance between her and Dibanath only widens, thanks to the wager demands put forth by Basundara. The second bet was over her writing which Dibanath did not  appreciate and intentionally mocked her efforts to pursue the same. She challenged him that her story would be published, which it did. He however hid this fact, when known to him and this made Basundara ‘hate’ him. The next bet moves on to Dibanath confidently hoping for a ‘sparkling doll’ like daughter when Basundara is expecting a baby, but she accidentally challenged him to it being a boy. This time when she won, she won her freedom of space from Dibanath, they began sleeping in two different rooms under the same roof. At the older stage of her life, things began to change when she is struck with a mild heart attack, Dibanath attends to her with care and Basundara in conversation again challenges him that she would be the one to die before him. Furious at already losing several bets, he agrees and simply disappears the next morning. Although there is a communication from a mysterious source announcing Dibanath’s death, it largely remains a mystery, tying the loose end of the story in the manner it began, claiming ‘it’s quite possible Dibanath is still alive.’

B. About the Author

Suchitra Bhattacharya aged 64 was born in Bihar, completed her education in Calcutta and quite like the protagonist in the story, The Bet, she took a break from writing when married and returned only in the late 1978-79. Per Wikipedia, most of her writing raises social issues concerned with Bengali middle class around human relations, morals, globalization, women issues, denying herself to be a feminist. She has been felicitated with several awards and recognized for her peculiar style of writing. Her writings, like The Bet have been translated from Bengali to English. She has penned several short stories and won accolades even for her famous novels.

While reading about the author, two things struck me. One, did the author intentionally write a near autobiographical account of her life since her life circumstances to an extent seem to match that of Basundara’s. Additionally, even the story being penned by the protagonist Basundara, about the blind girl who could experience colors by mere touch, might have symbolized something deeper? Could it have been something to do with her being handicapped/ chained in her marital life and experiencing life only after her association with words/ writing?

C. My Views on The Bet

I simply loved the narrative! Especially when I read it the second time, at leisure, making my notes and running through the story in slow, focused manner. I enjoyed the dramatic use of language, setting and speech style used in the story. I could quote several examples to justify the same – ‘But the clouds in my mind, those were not so easy to clear’, ‘Can music ever float across the oceans from such a distance?’, ‘The insufficient light, coupled with the lilt of the shehanai, seem to heighten the effect of light and dark in the room.’ ‘Even when the sky had drained of color, the stars climbed down and dawn arrived with gradual footsteps.’ and several others!

I also found the multifaceted interplay of various layers to the story interweaved in its complexities particularly fascinating. The story seemed to speak of the relationship between a married couple, made complex with gender roles/ identities, class differences, issues of love/ hate, education and pride. While on the face of it, the story is a simple, one between a husband and wife, the role of a woman to stay and adorn the house, while the man to command ‘lay claim over his quest’ and earn money conflicted with the protagonist sense of pride over her looks and education. There seemed to be a conflict of generational era in the sense of the husband’s worldview of life as against the educated wife’s. To question who really loved whom, how different is love from hate and of course what is love then challenged and tickled my mind and heart at the same time!

Certain aspects of the story that I particularly enjoyed or made me wonder were;

1.     Did Education influence her worldviews? Was it because she was educated, exposed to literature and other ideologies that she had high expectations from life in general? In continuation, was she then justified in having certain expectation from her life, in standard with her previous choices of education? Was it the significant age difference between the two that furthered the issues? What if she had married another man who matched her looks and taste, would she have intended to dominate him with her mind games?         

2.     Although at the outset, her father, a male educated ‘open-minded’ person encouraged her to study, read/ write, when it came to the core vital life changing issues, he too succumbed to traditional ideas put forth by others, agreeing to marry his daughter to a man who seemed less worthy of her standard. On the same lines, she too protested but did not show any further resistance and gave in to marry Dibanath. Just as the text quotes ‘Perhaps mothers are more eager than fathers to dispose of their daughters. Then. As today’ indicating that core societal values haven’t really changed as much as we think it might have and change only superficially in form and not in substance.

3.     To outline the complex characters of Basundara and Dibanath, left me perplexed. We could not with surety call either of them at fault. Did she not have any emotion? Hate is an emotion too? She was superficial, status and looks conscious, having immense pride for a woman in a postcolonial era, although we cannot be fully sure of this. Dibanath seemed like a simplistic, yet typical man, always being provoked to win. During their first conversation when she challenged his verdict he attempted to set the equation straight asking her to never argue with him. Yet Basundara remained ‘unnerved’ and continued to challenge him not just then but even henceforth in the story.

4.     I could sympathize with Basundara, when she spoke of being ‘chained’ or ‘forcibly held under water’ as what women might feel under various contexts and situations, or for that matter any human, when he or she is devoid of his or her space. I could relate to a woman who was used to certain degree of space and freedom and then commanded over, subjected to limited space. In this sense I could feel for the character out of my life experiences. Quote from the text that repeats this sentiment symbolically is ‘… kind of inhumanity that forcibly curbs plants from attaining their natural height.’

5.     The odd relationships that existed between Dibanath and his father and Dibanath and his son were very intriguing. Again an unexpressive love/ attachment, which resurfaced only during death, at the end of their relationship.

D. Literary Element

The plot and setting are riveting and gripping for their sequencing, climaxing, heightening the readers personal investment in the story and for the dramatic use of weather/ season, home, era set in post colonial Bengal. They almost make the reader believe in the story as a happening that is being watched in mind, otherwise as real as in flesh and blood. However, the characterization, which was complex, layered and very well rounded; yet highly debatable, appealed to me the most.

Basundara is shown as a strong headed educated mown, who knows her mind. She seems to believe that she is entitled to grander events in life (such as marrying someone like a French romantic!) and is judgmental/ shallow and even proud enough to judge someone else as a ‘worker face’ despite having a stature/ respect and wealth in the society. She surrenders to the societal settings and demands of being a woman and yet dominates the relationship with her mind and intellect and from wagers over the bets that she provokes her husband to deal in with, for example – she agrees to marry Dibanath despite not liking him, agrees to simply sit in front of him when he returned from work despite hating the objectification, yet in conversations with her husband, shows no sign of submission in tone/ words or thought. She seems to always want to distance herself from her husband and uses the silly ploy of betting to get things her way, sometimes spontaneously and some other times rather intentionally. Why did she not want to mother his children beyond the first child? Was it because of her hatred towards Dibanath or was it because of her individual choice in life? Indirectly it is shown that Basundara is rather beautiful (she has the confidence to call someone ugly and have a rich man loyally attracted to her).

Dibanath, is shown as a man of his words, who is attracted to Basundara and makes attempts to please her in his own way, his worldview of the best way a man could be to a woman, which wasn’t enough for Basundara. His character has not been detailed as much as Basundara, mostly since the narrative is from the account of Basundara. He however is shown as a male personality, who is used to having things his way, right from the time of being a single child to single father. His arrogance stems from his identity of being a man, unlike that of Basundara, whose pride comes from her education and beauty. He never seems to want to win a bet to get things his way unlike Basundara.

Basundara’s father and son play a critical role yet is largely minor characters. They have been characterized interestingly and directly. The text does not leave the reader to build the character of these two actors, by directly calling them ‘open-minded, educated, easy-going’ and ‘quiet, modest and extremely gifted academically’ respectively.

E. Peer Discussion

While most of us agreed on the larger aspects of not being sure of the winner of the last bet to issues of gender/ class and pride, we strongly differed on the nuances interpreted by us.

1.     We could not conclude if one must sympathies with Basundara or Dibanath. While 2 of us strongly felt that Dibanath was being unfairly dealt with by his wife, I wasn’t fully sure if even he was to blame for not respecting Basundara’s intellect and treating her too like a ‘sparkling doll’ which he craved for (a feminine space/ void in his life.) Another peer pointed out that any relationship usually involves both the parties to extend and make an effort and Basundara clearly did not invest herself emotionally into the relationship. However the ending of the story left us all confused as to whether she did love Dibanath or continued to hate him or was simply attached to him? Did she have too much pride to even allow any feelings to surface and take form? As the story poised the question ‘Are love and hate really different?’ and ‘One could almost mistake his cruelty for love.’ we brought in the idea from movies such as Delhi Belly having a song which goes like ‘I Hate you, Like I Love you.’

2.     We could also not conclude as a group on whether Basundara intentionally laid out the well planned bets or were they more out of her habit of making bets as always. While I strongly felt that the text in the story suggest that some bets came across as rather spontaneous, some others seemed more thought out. But the wager did not seem as spontaneous, always manifesting her deeper aspirations, which might have been around for much longer. To this my peer argued that all the bets seemed well planned since she always knew what she wanted in return for her wins.

3.     We all discussed and debated over what is love and hate and specifically if Dibanath loved Basundara. Since Basundara’s love for Dibanath was not made fully clear, the text seemed to at least more strongly suggest that he was more invested in the relationship. But was that love? We began discussing what is love then! Since Dibanath largely demanded a sense of ownership over Basundara and pampered her in his way, yet as an object of affection, of fascination. Another peer pointed out that per the social setting and norms of those days, that is the best a man could do, since he would have no clue that a woman must also be given her space and respect for her intellect. Another peer added that Dibanath might be the type who was not as comfortable being expressive about his feelings and fumbled in the ways he did show them, then being miss-judged.

4.     Another point put forth by a peer was that, had the child been a girl, instead of the boy, would she have held her bit of the wager by allowing the girl to be brought up in the manner Dibanath wanted? We wondered if she would have let go of her pride for her child, irrespective of it being a boy or girl, unlike Dibanath. In this context, for Dibanath, his pride came before his own child and he did not show any affection/ love for his only son.

The literary circle without any doubt enriched my understanding of the text and made it all the more lovely. While I had most of the thoughts in my mind, some were rather abstract and naïve.  Also, some of my views, which I thought to be obvious from the text, post discussion did not seem that obvious, even moved to the contrary. This made me understand that the circle was critical to widening my understanding, perspective and assumptions/ biases I might have as a reader. For instance I’m married and I never looked at the text as something I could be afraid of, while all the other peers stated that the narrative rather put them off marriage! Interesting certain ideas that I did not previously consider, came about from me, but with cues/ discussions from the peers! So although I came about certain idea (of pride of each of the characters stemming from different origins came about only when a peer questioned if Dibanath did have a sense of pride or not) I could not come up with the same by myself and neede peer discussion for it.

I can now clearly see that every person comes with his/ her own bias or views on account of a context. No one can state claim to any of the views as right or wrong, yet I must be open to the idea of existence of multiple views and opinions.

I also understand that I’m a rather emotional reader and feel very passionately about the text that I ‘feel’ for. It is just a story after all one might say, yet I was ready to pull out swords to argue and make home my point of view! I also realize that I’m a romantic reader and a killer for stories to do with relationships and emotions. In this context I must mention how much I enjoy reading Jhumpa Lehri’s writings, especially her short stories that are very much on the lines of this story.

I also have now the knowledge that I thoroughly enjoy the read when I have a comfortable setting, patient no pressure ambience and time for detailed focus nuances. This was available to me the 2^nd time only, since the first time I rushed through the reading and thought it to be interesting but did not appreciate it as much. In fact I now appreciate the text even more than the 2^nd read, since the discussion in the circle really charged me up and gave augmenting insights that I had missed.