Storytelling, Language, and Morality Theme Analysis

When the Linnet concludes its story about Hans and the Miller, the Water-rat is outraged at the idea that the story contained a moral—even though the Water-rat doesn’t know what, exactly, that moral was, he is still furious at the mere thought of it. After the Water-rat storms away, the Linnet declares, “I am rather afraid that I have annoyed him […] The face is that I told him a story with a moral.” Voicing the story’s overarching message, the Duck replies, “Ah! That is always a very dangerous thing to do.” The narrator also chimes in, noting, “And I quite agreed with her.” This passage gestures to the role that lessons and morals play in the story more broadly. In fact, “The Devoted Friend” is brimming with moral guidance, either spread straightforwardly through the spoken word or couched in a story. Ultimately, “The Devoted Friend” demonstrates that though storytelling and language can be used to convey morals, such morals are not necessarily correct and should not be blindly accepted or rejected.

The inner story of “The Devoted Friend” is peppered with moral teachings, most of which are spread by the self-righteous Miller, who frequently makes grand, sweeping statements about everything from laziness to friendship. The most conspicuous moralizer in the story, the Miller makes many moralizing comments to little Hans, from “real friends should have everything in common” to “friendship never forgets.” He constantly teaches little Hans not to be selfish: at one point in the story, when Hans says he is too busy to help the Miller with his chores, the Miller tells him “that considering I am going to give you my wheelbarrow it is rather unfriendly of you to refuse.” Although the Miller never gives little Hans anything and doesn’t practice the unselfishness that he advocates, he is still a wellspring for moral teachings.

The Miller’s most devoted listener is little Hans. He clings to the Miller’s every word and accepts all of his moral teachings as truth—which eventually proves fatal. Through the character of Hans, Wilde teaches readers to beware of blindly accepting morals. When the Miller tells little Hans, “I should have thought that friendship, true friendship, was quite free from selfishness of any kind,” little Hans enthusiastically accepts this statement with “My dear friend, my best friend […] you are welcome to all the flowers in my garden. I would much sooner have your good opinion than my silver buttons, any day.” Hans maintain this attitude of blind acceptance throughout the story: “So little Hans worked away for the Miller, and the Miller said all kinds of beautiful things about friendship, which Hans took down in a notebook, and used to read over at night, for he was a very good scholar.” He tries his best to practice what the Miller teaches, without realizing the Miller’s hypocritical tendencies. Little Hans dies an unfortunate death, due to his blind devotion to the Miller. When the Miller’s son falls and hurts himself, the Miller tells Hans to fetch the doctor, despite the vicious storm brewing outside. Furthermore, the Miller refuses to give Hans his lantern. This causes Hans to lose his way, fall into a hole on the moor, and drown. Through this, Wilde demonstrates that blind acceptance of seemingly beautiful morals can have disastrous consequences.

The outer story—that of the Linnet and the Water-rat—speaks to the way that storytelling is a more subtle vehicle for moral teaching. However, while Hans’s character arc showed the dangers of accepting moral guidance unflinchingly, the Water-rat’s shows that rejecting moral teachings can be just as bad. When the Water-rat pompously declares that he defines friendship as someone being wholly devoted to him, the Linnet resolves to tell the Water-rat a story to highlight the dangers of this line of thinking: “‘Let me tell you a story on the subject,’ said the Linnet. ‘Is the story about me?’ asked the Water-rat. […] ‘It is applicable to you,’ answered the Linnet.” The Linnet’s response here points to the way that stories can act as vehicles for moral teachings. Knowing that the Water-rat is unagreeable and obtuse—and wouldn’t be receptive to direct criticism or moral guidance—the Linnet couches a moral (that friendship based on one-sided devotion is dangerous) inside a story. While the Water-rat doesn’t give in to the dangers of blindly accepting moral teachings, he responds in an equally unhelpful way. After the Linnet has concluded the story and admitted that it did, in fact, have a moral underpinning it, the Water-rat grows furious. “I think you should have told me that before you began,” he says. “If you had done so, I certainly would not have listened to you.” As the Water-rat is clearly an unlikable, unsavory character, it seems fitting that he refuses to engage very deeply in a discussion about morals. Although the Linnet hasn’t even told him what the moral is, the Water-rat is willing to reject that moral teaching outright, refusing to change his ways or see things differently. Thus, while blindly accepting morals is dangerous, blindly rejecting them can be just as harmful.

Fairytales and fables are known for having a moral of sorts and children are often encouraged to accept them. Wilde warns against this acceptance through the moral of his own story: do not blindly accept the morals that others preach. However, the outer story of the animals reveals that simply rejecting the morals that other people teach won’t do, either. In charting the dangers of these two extremes, Wilde seems to be advocating for another approach: thinking critically and thoughtfully about morals in order to adopt only those which a person feels are truly right.