‘The Devoted Friend’ by Oscar Wilde is both hilarious and ridiculous. I had not realized before beginning to read Wilde’s short stories how he uses hyperbole to disguise the double and sometimes triple meanings in his tales.
I have copied the book blurb:
”The two main characters in "The Devoted Friend" are a poor man known as little Hans and a rich Miller. The Miller claims to be a devoted friend of little Hans. In truth, he selfishly takes advantage of little Hans at every opportunity. Little Hans' desire to remain the Miller's friend ultimately proves fatal for him.”
For thirty pages, the Miller proclaims and expounds on what being a good friend is, in homilies and in examples given at great length, to teach (and threaten) little Hans. All the while, he takes everything he can get out of Hans. In return for taking all of Hans’ flowers almost every day without paying (Hans is a flower salesman, selling his gardening goods at a local market), and for Hans’ unpaid backbreaking labor, he bestows his friendship on Hans. Full stop. For some examples on the one-sided ‘transactional’ relationship, the Miller puts him to work fixing his roof one day, and on the next to delivering the Miller’s flour to a market six miles away carrying the flour on his back, which Hans successfully bargains to be sold for at a good price, on a journey that takes him most of the day to walk there to the market and home. The Miller comes again to Hans’ hut the next day, after months of convincing Hans again and again day after day that Hans’ unpaid labor for the Miller and the gardening products he is forced to give to the Miller for free, is normal for the Miller’s priceless friendship. When the Miller finds poor wornout Hans still in bed sleeping off exhaustion, he precedes to lecture Hans on the evils of laziness. Hans is very grateful to the Miller, and takes notes on the Miller’s lectures on friendship.
The satire is incredibly thick in this particular short story by Wilde. But I am learning after having read a number of Wilde’s stories that figuring out whether the apparent bad guy is really a bad guy is difficult to parse out. Wilde writes mostly tales seemingly with a commonly known moral to process by readers on the surface, a moral which is frequently understood by society that if adhered to it is a Good. These morals are taught to children by parents everywhere, and lectured on by ministers from pulpits in every church.
But every time when I think about what Wilde’s fiction is showing about that moral for the second and third times, I’m more and more certain that Wilde is also tweaking the reader’s sense of morality sideways and upside down. On one hand, readers will think the Miller is despicable in his treatment of Hans. On the other hand, Hans is incredibly socially needy, someone who is happy to help the Miller destroy him without complaint because he is willing to buy the Miller’s goodwill and so-called social support through the acceptance of being socially blackmailed into poverty and personal devastation. I find myself as disgusted with Hans as I am with the Miller. Other readers, maybe most readers, will sympathize with Hans, praising his kind giving nature and condemning the Miller. But I believe it is the second suggestion I have made about people selling their souls willingly, allowing themselves to be socially blackmailed to gain social capital is really the moral of almost 100% of Wilde’s stories.