Explain "That Costly Ride"
February 18, 2008 12:41 AM Subscribe
I recently subscribed to the short story of the day rss feed mentioned here on metafilter. The first story I read was "That Costly Ride". The ending makes no sense to me. Does anyone have an insight on this story?
Hmm... Well, another story by de Maupassant, The Diamond Necklace, is about some other down-on-their luck aristocrats who through foolish pride and a consequent misunderstanding waste their fortunes and lives trying to fulfill an obligation that is entirely in their own heads.
In this story he seems to go out of his way to show that the injured charwoman is totally ripping them off once she gets better. That seems true based on the descriptions he makes of her health and demeanor - “a malicious gleam in her eyes” as he says - and even the doctors are suspicious.
So I would suspect that, given the way The Diamond Necklace went, in The Costly Ride here he's implying that the protagonist is being foolish and aristocratic to just keep supporting her despite obvious signs that she's perfectly well. And the final line doubles the portrayal of aristocratic foolishness: his wife blames herself for causing the accident by not keeping the children quiet despite the fact that the husband was being a complete jerk of a showoff on the horse.
Maybe the only thing that's missing culturally is the whole class warfare theme of European history and literature that the author is employing (though he was “well-bred” himself, I think.) Note the melodramatic descriptions of how wrenching the experience of the down-on-their-luck aristocrats is when they're still living in the wealthy quarter of Paris - and in the end, gosh, it gets to the point where they have to live without a servant! But some of that may be my own perspective coloring my reading. Though at the time he was writing I think his audience would have included a large percentage of middle-class people, so it would make sense if he was lampooning the aristocrats.
posted by XMLicious at 1:27 AM on February 18, 2008
In this story he seems to go out of his way to show that the injured charwoman is totally ripping them off once she gets better. That seems true based on the descriptions he makes of her health and demeanor - “a malicious gleam in her eyes” as he says - and even the doctors are suspicious.
So I would suspect that, given the way The Diamond Necklace went, in The Costly Ride here he's implying that the protagonist is being foolish and aristocratic to just keep supporting her despite obvious signs that she's perfectly well. And the final line doubles the portrayal of aristocratic foolishness: his wife blames herself for causing the accident by not keeping the children quiet despite the fact that the husband was being a complete jerk of a showoff on the horse.
Maybe the only thing that's missing culturally is the whole class warfare theme of European history and literature that the author is employing (though he was “well-bred” himself, I think.) Note the melodramatic descriptions of how wrenching the experience of the down-on-their-luck aristocrats is when they're still living in the wealthy quarter of Paris - and in the end, gosh, it gets to the point where they have to live without a servant! But some of that may be my own perspective coloring my reading. Though at the time he was writing I think his audience would have included a large percentage of middle-class people, so it would make sense if he was lampooning the aristocrats.
posted by XMLicious at 1:27 AM on February 18, 2008
I think the simpler explanation is better: even Maupassant sometimes wrote stories he couldn't tie off neatly.
posted by Phanx at 4:54 AM on February 18, 2008
posted by Phanx at 4:54 AM on February 18, 2008
But why does the story end, on the very last line, with the wife saying “it's not my fault”? Why didn't she say “it's not our fault”? Clumsy or not - for the guy who pioneered the short story, it seems to me unlikely that it's an unintentional detail. But I could be wrong.
Just out of curiosity (and to test my French Google-fu) I hunted down a copy of the story in French. BTW the literal name of the story in French is something like “By Horse”. The thing I wanted to confirm is that she says “my fault” in the French too, and she does…
«Que veux-tu, mon ami, ce n'est pas ma faute !…»
posted by XMLicious at 5:38 AM on February 18, 2008
Just out of curiosity (and to test my French Google-fu) I hunted down a copy of the story in French. BTW the literal name of the story in French is something like “By Horse”. The thing I wanted to confirm is that she says “my fault” in the French too, and she does…
«Que veux-tu, mon ami, ce n'est pas ma faute !…»
posted by XMLicious at 5:38 AM on February 18, 2008
I also should ask - mulligan, is what I wrote in the above comment what confused you too? Or were you asking about something else?
posted by XMLicious at 5:42 AM on February 18, 2008
posted by XMLicious at 5:42 AM on February 18, 2008
Well, there are a couple of papers which interpret the story, but unfortunately they're both behind fee-walls.
My interpretation is twofold: 1) Henrietta is blaming Hector for ruining their lives. 2) Maupassant is indicating that times have changed and that people like the de Gribelins are on the losing side of history.
I'm not entirely happy with that interpretation, but it's the one that sprang to mind while reading it.
posted by Kattullus at 6:21 AM on February 18, 2008
My interpretation is twofold: 1) Henrietta is blaming Hector for ruining their lives. 2) Maupassant is indicating that times have changed and that people like the de Gribelins are on the losing side of history.
I'm not entirely happy with that interpretation, but it's the one that sprang to mind while reading it.
posted by Kattullus at 6:21 AM on February 18, 2008
Perhaps she is simply pointing out that it isn't her fault that the family has basically become the old woman's servants. Her point seems to be in response to the husbands surprise at the suggestion that the old woman be installed in their home.
In other words she's saying "Don't blame me for what you've gotten us into."
posted by oddman at 6:27 AM on February 18, 2008
In other words she's saying "Don't blame me for what you've gotten us into."
posted by oddman at 6:27 AM on February 18, 2008
Yeah, Henrietta blaming Hector in the last line makes the most sense, especially seeing the French: the mon ami (my friend) is much more obviously sarcastic than what it says in the translation. I think I was mislead by the way she was crying and the way Hector was surprised.
posted by XMLicious at 7:57 AM on February 18, 2008
posted by XMLicious at 7:57 AM on February 18, 2008
Response by poster: XMLicious,
Thanks for the wonderful reply.
You are correct, I was curious about the final line and statement by Henrietta.
It just seems so off to me.
posted by mulligan at 8:15 AM on February 18, 2008
Thanks for the wonderful reply.
You are correct, I was curious about the final line and statement by Henrietta.
It just seems so off to me.
posted by mulligan at 8:15 AM on February 18, 2008
Yeah, I think it's all in the crappy translation now that Kattullus and oddman have cleared it up. In French the line sounds more literally like “Whaddya want, my friend, it's not my fault!” whereas the translation was “But what can we do, my love? It's not my fault!”
posted by XMLicious at 8:27 AM on February 18, 2008
posted by XMLicious at 8:27 AM on February 18, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by mulligan at 12:42 AM on February 18, 2008