The devoted friend

2. major and minor characters

2.1 major characters

A, Little Hans:

- Hans is the protagonist in the Linnet’s tale. He is an honest little fellow.

- He has a kind heart and a funny round good - humoured face.

- He is an innocent, good-natured peasant who believes himself to be the Miller’s best friend.

- He is a peasant belonging to the working class—he lives in a tiny cottage and spends all his time
working in his garden, growing beautiful flowers that he can sell at the market.

B, The Miller

The Miller is the antagonist in the Linnet’s tale. He is a rich, exploitative merchant who manipulates
Hans into performing labor in the name of friendship.

- The Miller is an incredibly wealthy man but he doesn’t share his wealth with his so-called friend.

- The Miller’s requests grow more and more unreasonable as the story progresses, showing there is no
limit to how much he is willing to exploit little Hans.

2.2 minor characters

A, The Linnet

- The Linnet narrates the story of Hans and the Miller.

- He was a little bird with tiny wings.

- He tells the story in order to show the Water-rat the dangers of one-sided friendships, but the Water-
rat refuses to pick up on this moral.

b. The Miller’s wife

- The Miller’s Wife appears to share all of the Miller’s ideas and supports his exploitation of Hans.

- She constantly lavishes her husband with praise, applauding him for his wise sayings about friendship
and life.

c. The Water-rat

The Water-rat
The Water-rat, along with the Duck, is the audience to the Linnet. He appears to sympathize with the
Miller; the Water-rat also has a very lopsided view of friendship and, like the Miller, has many “beautiful
sentiments” about friendship and life.

d. The Miller’s Son

- The Miller’s son sympathizes with Hans.

- He seems to be more generous and kindhearted because he is the only one who asks why they (the
millers) don't invite Hans to be with them during the winter. But is chastised by the Miller for this
sympathy.

e. The Duck

- The Duck, along with the Water-rat, is the audience to the Linnet.

- She was pure white with real red legs. She has children.

3. the setting

The first story takes place in a pond, where the Water−rat, the Duck and the Linnet speak. The action
last justsome minutes, but in the middle of this first story, there is the second one.The second story has
different places:

-The house of Hans: is described as a tiny cottage with a garden, In all the country−side there was
nogarden so lovely.

- The house of the Miller: is described as our warm fire, and our good supper, and our great cask of
redwine.

- The moors where Hans dies.

- The second whole story last some months, because it says that the winter went by. But the concrete
story takesjust some days, in spring.

4.the plot/ summary

A, Innocence and Friendship

The storty is narrated by a songbird to a water rat and a duck. There are two characters in the story little
Hans and the miller.Little Hans was a simple, innocent, kind-hearted. He was a hard working gardener
and earned his living by selling the fruits and flowers. Hugh the miller was a rich but clever and selfish
man. He always claimed that he was a devoted friend of little Hans.He never gave anything to Hans.
Hugh the miller repeatedly exploited Hans. Sometimes, he sent Hans to Market with a heavy sack of
flour..In return, he merely made a promise to give his invalid and damaged wheelbarrow to Hans, free of
cost. Unfortunately, the promise was never materialized.It is so happened that on a rough and stormy
night, Hugh the miller sent little Hans to bring the doctor because the miller's little son hand been
seriously injured.He stranded on the moor and fell into a deep pool of water, where he was drowned.

5.the theme

a. Innocence and Friendship

Oscar Wilde's "The Devoted Friend" is a satirical fairytale. In the story, Hugh the Miller tricks Hans into
performing chores for him in the name of friendship. The so-called friendship between Hans and the
Miller is extremely lopsided. Wilde notes that "the neighbours thought it strange that the rich Miller
never gave little Hans anything in return". Despite Hans's innocence and generosity, he dies a terrible
death. His death goes unnoticed by his "friend," the Miller. In "The Devoted Friend," innocence coupled
with an unbalanced friendship leads to injustice and suffering.

b. Storytelling, Language, and Morality

"The Devoted Friend" is brimming with moral guidance, either through the spoken word or couched in
stories. The story demonstrates that though storytelling and language can be used to convey morals.The
story is peppered with moral teachings. The Miller's most devoted listener is little Hans. Wilde
demonstrates that blind acceptance of seemingly beautiful morals can have disastrous
consequences.Wilde seems to be advocating for another approach: thinking critically and thoughtfully
about morals, instead of simply accepting them.

c. Class and Exploitation

There is a clear socioeconomic gap between little Hans and the Miller: little Hans is a poor villager, while
the Miller is a rich tradesman. Despite his wealth, the Miller remains greedy and continues to take from
Hans and extract the poor man’s labor, even though Hans has close to nothing. Furthermore, the Miller
demonstrates no qualms about his exploitation of Hans, nor is he punished for it. Through this narrative
of exploitation, Wilde demonstrates that the rich are often able to successfully capitalize on the poor
without facing any backlash for their actions.

Wilde makes it clear that the Miller is much wealthier than little Hans and that they belong to different
classes. When the Linnet begins his tale, he tells the Water-rat, “I don’t think [little Hans] was
distinguished at all, except for his kind heart, and his funny, round, good-humoured face.” Little Hans
“lived in a tiny cottage all by himself, and every day he worked in his garden.” On the other hand, the
Miller “had a hundred sacks of flour stored away in his mill, and six milch cows, and a large flock of
woolly sheep.” In terms of commercial value, the Miller’s assets far surpass the beautiful flowers in little
Hans’s garden. The winter months are “a very bad time” for little Hans; having “no money at all to buy
bread with,” Hans is forced to sell the silver buttons from his Sunday coat, his silver chain, his big pipe,
and his wheelbarrow. In contrast to little Hans, the Miller spends his winter conversing with his son and
wife, who “sat in her comfortable armchair by the big pinewood fire” with her “large glass of warm ale.”
While the Miller enjoys these amenities, little Hans “suffer[s] a good deal from cold and hunger, and
often ha[s] to go to bed without any supper but a few dried pears or some hard nuts.” From this,
readers see that little Hans earns his bread from day to day, while the Miller is wealthy enough to enjoy
periods of leisure.

The Miller, despite his wealth, still manipulates the poor Hans into giving up property and labor, and
Hans receives no compensation for his efforts. At the beginning of the fairytale, the Miller takes freely
from Hans’s garden: “Indeed, so devoted was the Miller to little Hans, that he would never go by his
garden without leaning over the wall and plucking a large nosegay, or a handful of sweet herbs, or filling
his pockets with plums and cherries if it was the fruit season.” Later on, the Miller takes a plank from
Hans to repair the roof of the Miller’s own barn as well as a basketful of flowers that Hans was going to
sell at the market. The Miller, despite his many possessions, always wants more. His greediness leads
him to take even from those who are much less fortunate than he is. The Miller also manipulates Hans
into giving free labor throughout the course of the fairytale. Hans takes the Miller’s sack of flour to the
market, mends his barn-roof, drives his sheep to the mountain, and, quite fatally, fetches the doctor for
his son during a storm. The Miller “was always coming round and sending [Hans] off on long errands, or
getting him to help at the mill,” so little Hans never has time to look after his flowers. The Miller
promises Hans a broken wheelbarrow as payment—a useless form of compensation, considering that he
took the plank of wood Hans would need to repair the wheelbarrow—but the Miller never follows
through on this meager act of generosity.

The Miller is not punished for his unjust treatment of Hans. Through this, Wilde shows that those
belonging to the upper classes can often manipulate the lower classes for their own benefit and remain
at ease about their actions. Although the Miller’s actions lead to the death of little Hans, he still serves
the honorable role of chief mourner at Hans’s funeral. He even declares, “As I was [Hans’s] best friend
[…] it is only fair that I should have the best place.” No one in the village appears to dispute this claim.
The Miller also evades punishment on an emotional level, as he shows no guilt regarding Hans’s death.
Indeed, there is even a sentiment of blame in the Miller’s last words in the fairytale. When the
Blacksmith remarks that “Little Hans is certainly a great loss to everyone,” the Miller makes a heartless
reply: “A great loss to me at any rate […] why, I had as good as given him my wheelbarrow, and now I
really don’t know what to do with it. It is very much in my way at home, and it is in such bad repair that I
could not get anything for it if I sold it. I will certainly take care not to give away anything again. One
certainly suffers for being generous.” It is as if the Miller blames Hans for dying and not taking the
unwanted wheelbarrow. There is no hint of a guilty conscience anywhere in his words—the Miller has
not the vaguest inclination of towards remorse.

Ultimately, the fairytale stands as a matter-of-fact portrayal of how the upper classes (represented by
the Miller) can manipulate the lower classes (represented by Hans), with neither party aware of the
exploitation that is happening. The story ends on a bleak note, as Wilde resists from providing any sor of
solution. There is neither guilt nor punishment for the rich manipulator—such is the way things are in
this world.

The chart shows the changes in ownership of electric appliances in households in one country between
1920 and 2020. Overall, ownership of all three appliances increased during this period, with that of
refrigerators having the greatest growth.

Washing machines were the most common of the three electrical appliances in 1920, with ownership
reaching approxmate 40% of the population. This number then rose to about 60% in 1970, with a small
dip in 1995. In 2020 , it increases more than 60%.

In comparison, almost a little households had a refrigerator in 1920. However, ownership increased
rapidly and by 2022 there reached 100%.

In 1920, people showed their preference for air conditioner is 20%. Within the period of 10 years from
1920 to 2020, there was an increase in doing with air conditioner between 20% and approxmate 80% .

The proportion of house chores with refrigerator jumped between 1920 and 1980, from more than 0%
to 100%. air conditioner is between 20% and approxmate 80% and Washing machines is approxmate
40% and it reached approxmate 80%.