The Bet- A Review

‘The Bet’ is the English translation of a Bangla autobiographical story penned by the noted Bengali litterateur Smt. Suchitra Bhattacharya. The story, set in the author’s Bengali upper middle class family during a period of 30 years from 1960s, unravels the crisis that she experienced in her marriage. The story is centered on the emotional disconnect the author felt with her husband, resulting in continuous tensions and negotiations.

The Story

Basundhara (the author addresses herself with this name) is a college educated girl from a well to do Bengali family. The education and exposure to the world she had, bestowed upon her a vivid and colourful dream, especially about love and marriage. However, she had to compromise her dreams before her family’s decision to get her married to Dibanath, an enterprising businessman who was little educated and 12 years elder to her. She found him not just unattractive but also repelling.

On the very first night of their marriage, they get into a verbal duel over the raga of the music arranged for the occasion. She challenges his knowledge of raga and dares him for a bet, which she ultimately wins. She dares him for bet thrice more in the story which eventually defines and moulds the fate of their relation.

She finds his idea of love strange and cruel. She hated him when he wanted her to sit idle before him as an object of his stare. The boredom with her life draws her back to writing, the hobby she used to enjoy as a child. However, Dibanath disliked it and creates hurdles in her endeavour. She gets irritated when he asks her, “Which fool would ever publish your writing?” and dares him for the second bet with the condition that he will not come in her way in her writings in future. Dibanath accepts the challenge but lose it for the second time when her story about a blind girl gets published in a magazine.

As Basundhara’s writing flourish they move (emotionally) even further apart. The occasion for the third bet was set when one day Dibanath comes home with sari and gown clad dolls to his pregnant wife. When he tells her that he wants “a sparkling daughter like a doll”, she asks him what if it was a boy. She dares him for another bet, the wager for which was, “If it is a boy, then you will not demand another child of me. If a girl, then whatever you say.” Dibanath lose it yet again.

Soon after the birth of their son they drift apart to different poles. They live their lives as total strangers in the same house, till one day, years later; Basundhara gets an acute chest pain. Dibanath attends to her and serves her well. She discovers that she hates him no more and feels compassion for him for the very first time. During a casual conversation, she mentions to him that she may die soon, well before him, to which he replies in negative. But as the fate would have it, the occasion for the fourth bet presented itself at the moment. She dares him for yet another bet. Extremely annoyed at this, he accepts the challenge with the words, “Won’t you lose even once in this life?” The very next day Dibanath leaves their home, forever.

After months of search that goes in vain, Basundhara receives a letter from a stranger in Varanasi that Dibanath had passed away the previous month. An inexplicable sense of void envelops Basundhara from then on.

My Response (cum Interpretation)

The story is written in a very lucid manner and engages the reader throughout. It keeps the reader guessing about the next move of the characters and gives a lot of scope for personal evaluation of the circumstances the characters find themselves in. The plot of the story was very engaging. It was also disturbing at the same time. I could feel the moods of the characters (especially Basundhara's character which was possessed by a strange feeling for revenge) capturing me. Also the sarcastic tone of writing drained me emotionally by the time I finished reading.

Calkins (2000) defines the plot of a story as the sequence of events. The flow of the story is the result of a successful plot. The direction of the story is also determined by events that come in a much sequenced manner. The four bets that Basundhara throw at Dibanath are the major events of the story. There is no deviation from the chronological sequence and the movement through time is very much linear. The characterisation involved in the story is quite strong and vivid, displaying intense emotions of like, dislike, hate etc. especial w.r.t Basundhara, through whom the story unfolds. Apart from Basundhara and Dibanath all other characters are incidental. The other literary elements of setting and change are not very pronounced in the story.

Wolf (2003) highlights five forms of literary criticisms. They are genetic, formal, text-to-text, transactional and socio-cultural. While genetic criticism “emphasises a view of the literary work as primarily a reflection of the author’s life and times” (p. 24), formal criticism “depends on close readings in order to understand how textual elements works to create a unified whole” (p. 24). In text-to-text criticism the interpretation depends on how a text fits into the larger body of literature and therefore involves comparisons. The last of the five forms are the transactional and socio-cultural criticisms. While in the former, reader reads the text by bringing in his individual life, the latter “concentrates on the political and socio-historical dimensions of the response” (p.24). In my attempt at reviewing the story, I have largely banked on the socio-cultural form of criticisms. This was primarily because I did get sufficient (literary) data to review on the basis of other forms. Though story is a personal narrative and hence well suited for a genetic criticism, a background search of the author (in internet) did not give much credible information. With all the sociology and gender studies that we have done at APU in three semesters, nothing (no experience) goes without a socio cultural analysis! That way, socio cultural criticism became the default form in this review.

The socio-cultural context in which the author locates the story is hard to ignore. Though there is no explicit mention of this by the author, one could clearly see interplay of class and gender throughout. Basundhara is portrayed as an upper class, educated, urban lady and Dibanath, a rich business man with an orthodox mind set. The sense of freedom and independence Basundhara held was quite high and it unnerved Dibanath to the very end. This is all the more obvious as the story takes place in 1960s and 70s Bengal, when patriarchy was the norm of the day. The narrator throughout challenges this in subtle ways and made her (and her husband’s) life a struggle. Though I appreciate the sense of independence of the narrator, I thought she could have shown a little more maturity (given her education) in the relationship.

Participation in the Literary Circle

The whole process of being a part of the literary circle was very enriching. Though as a group we came up with similar interpretations for the story as a whole, we differed widely on specific parts. This was most evident w.r.t to character analysis (Basundhara and Dibanath). One of the instances to mention was the interesting discussion I had with Shobana, my group mate. When I mentioned to the group that I felt Basundhara to be very harsh on her husband and possessed by a strange sense of revenge and that I felt sorry for Dibanath, Shobana was very surprised. She said that, on the contrary, she felt for the Basundhara and wondered how someone could ever feel sorry for Dibanath! Our observations were further discussed in the group and others also came up their views. However we did not arrive at any consensus with regard to this (which I realise to be perfectly fine!).

Wolf (2003) stresses the importance of accountable talk in literary circles. It is looked at as a tool for thinking rather a mere reporting of ideas. It is central to assimilation, accommodation and operates as a scaffold. Our literary circle discussion was fully in tune with this. All of us were prepared with the necessary background reads and were able to relate to the theoretical concepts during our appreciation of the literature. Since we were also familiarised to the working of the literary circle, the discussion was systemic and each ideas was sequentially pursued, connected to one another and built on. An example would be the literary appreciation we did. The discussion was sequenced and each member analysed the story through the frame work of Calkins’ literary elements. This gave a structure and a grip to the discussion.

The process (and discussion) certainly helped me in deepening my understanding and appreciation of the story. It opened before me perspectives which I had not considered while doing my first reading. It helped me to empathise with the main character. The feedback received from my peer helped me polish the summary. She also highlighted the perspective I employed in the review and an alternative to it. In my second draft I included those suggestions and I could refine my writing.

Summing Up

As my reflections have already been shared in the previous section, I will sum up this report with four take-aways from this experience.

1.      A deeper (nuanced) understanding about literature and its significance in literacy building.

2.      A general framework to literary appreciation through exposure to the literary elements.

3.      The idea of accountable talk and the functioning of literary circles.

4.      A general frame work to literary criticism.

Reference

1.      Sheby, A. W. (2003). Interpreting Literacy with Children

2.      Lucy, L. M. (2000). The Art of Teaching Reading