I loved the irony in this story, as well as the use of satire. The conversation about peasants creating antiques on page 103 is key to the story’s satire, because it leads to the main question that I believe the author wants the reader to think about: Who has less morals, the American Rug Expert (who is not the only expert trying to cheat peasants) or the donkey dealer? (Or all the peasants who create fake antiques to fool tourists)
First of all, I think the American has less (or is fewer the correct word?) morals than the Donkey Dealer, because the Dealer may want to sell the donkey for a ridiculous price, but he is truthful about what he is selling. The American, on the other hand, does not want the donkey. He is not truthful to the Dealer about what he wants, which in itself is slightly mean and underhand. The American also disrespects the Dealer by thinking that the Dealer won’t know what the American really wants (hence the importance of the conversation about morals, and the American’s reaction: “Yes, that’s the way it is other places”). In all, the Dealer is truthful (if a bit literal) and never tells a lie (though he does simply avoid some topics). The American tries to cheat someone and fails. However, his reaction to failure is interesting, it doesn’t really bother him.
I believe that the American also has less morals than the peasants, because of the scale of the cheating. Sure, the peasants do cheat rich tourists out of some money, but they put work into it (as the “crazy man” points out in the last paragraph of 102), they are cheating a lot less money (especially because the artifacts could actually be valuable as current art), and I believe that they probably don’t feel like they have any other way to make enough money to survive. The American swindles on a much larger scale, to people who have no chance to look for another offer and who may really need the money, and probably doesn’t really need to cheat people.
I think that the author wants the reader to feel sorry for the peasants, to dislike the American, and to laugh at the donkey dealer’s “lucky cloth” rational. I came to this conclusion partially because of the blurb at the beginning of the story that tells that the author wrote a lot about exploitation of the lower classes.
More questions to put out:
- How can the “crazy man” sit back and see the American cheating (or trying to) a peasant without feeling angry or sorry for the exploitation? Does his lack of action mean that the “crazy man” has few morals too?
- How does the original narrator feel about the story?
- Why is the “crazy man”/professor so embarrassed about what happened and the American fine with what happened? (Possibly could be attributed to felling sorry for the peasant, but I don’t think so.)
- Does the Donkey Dealer know what the rug is/what it is worth? (I am almost positive that the answer is yes, judging from the events of the last page, but I think some people might disagree.)
Erika, I pretty much agree with you 100%. The American has less morals than the Donkey Dealer because he lies about how he actually wants to buy the rug. Also, the Donkey Dealer is giving the American exactly what he insisted: the donkey. I think that the "crazy man" is being (partially) ordered around by the American because he doesn't react like at the beginning of the story where he keeps repeating, "I'm disgraced." At the end however, he realizes what he has done and how he helped the Donkey Dealer trick the American into buying nothing but a donkey stake. Also, the "crazy man" is being respectful to the American as he is his American friend's friend. Probably, the original narrator also finds the idea of the foreign American being tricked out of his own mastery. The exception is that he probably feels sorry for his friend, the "crazy man" as he is ashamed of himself. I agree with you in the fact that the Donkey Dealer knew what the rug is worth. Usually something that is passed on generation to generation is valuable and he realized that it is priceless after the American secretly tryed to buy it and then after he didn't receive it, trick the Donkey Dealer into giving the rug away for free. Great ideas!
ReplyDeleteP.S. Why do you choose the name, the "crazy man?"
To answer your question Erika, it is less rather than fewer because you're not talking about plural morals.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I disagree with you when you say that the American "Rug Expert" has less moral than the Turkish peasants because of what has happened to the majority of the Turkish population (the peasants). At one point, these Turkish peasants were probably making a good living from farming or trading in donkeys. Now, however, most peasants have given up the old ways to try to trick tourists out of their money in a way of getting a quick buck or two. This shows that they don't have so much morale as to making a good life, more as to making money for other luxuries.