Even with limited knowledge of Oscar Wilde's work, you probably don't expect his stories to begin with a "Once upon a time" and conclude with a clean and reassuring text “happily ever after”. There is simply no room for such authoritative and didactic lines in his decidedly amoral, but not immoral, fairy tales. Indeed, it is entirely due to the moral complexity (and sometimes ambiguity) of fairy tales such as “The Happy Prince,” “The Nightingale and the Rose,” “The Selfish Giant,” and “The Devoted Friend” that ethics of such fairy tales the tales are probably more accessible and relevant than the authoritative versions to which most people, and children in particular, are subjected. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay As in all fairy tales, the expression of a good/bad, moral/immoral dichotomy is fundamental in Wilde's fairy tales. Where they break with traditional expectations, however, is in Wilde's depiction of the extremely good and the extremely bad. Of the four fairy tales, this is most evident in the characterization of Hans and his “dear friend” Hugh the Miller in “The Devoted Friend.” A classic story of commitment and dedication to preserving friendship, this story follows the parasite Miller, who relies heavily on the good-natured Hans for everything from flowers to finding doctors, but can't be bothered to return the favors because he might " ruin" Hans' good nature (38). He admits to his son that he could never allow Hans to even enjoy a dinner with the Miller family for fear that the honest worker would see the family's riches and dare ask for something as meager as flour. “'Flour is one thing, friendship is another, and they should not be confused'” (38). For the Miller, friendship is established in words, in the act of expressing one's associations; he's too self-involved to risk losing any of his prized possessions just to also be a friend in action. The classic fairy tale model dictates that Hans, the honest and hardworking of the two, should be the moral center of the story, and indeed he could be. Wilde, however, complicates matters by portraying “poor little Hans” as truly deceived, incapable of asserting himself or perhaps too stupidly optimistic to realize that he is being exploited. For Hans, who "would not be hostile for all the world" (41), the miller's willingness to give him his most useless wheelbarrow is the culmination of a selfless act of friendship (40), and every selfless act that Hans offers in the return is disproportionate to Miller's, ultimately leading to his dramatic and undeserved death. The exaggerated sacrifice exchanged for a useless wheelbarrow suggests that Wilde does not idealize unconditional devotion and sees no justification for someone being labeled moral or good; rather, this passivity of the working class is worthy of reproach. Similarly, the nightingale in “The Nightingale and the Rose” is so fascinated by the concept of true love that he willingly sacrifices himself for a young man he has idealized as a “true lover.” (278). Indeed, the “true lover” is quick to reject a romanticized version of love when rejected, proclaiming that practicality and logic trump love (282). The nightingale sacrifices herself for the idle whims of a young man she has foolishly romanticized. Of course, Wilde is critical of both this heavy-handed idealization of the "good" in fairy tales and the Victorian refutation of reality or practicality replacing romance. To further demonstrate the moral complexity in these tales, Wilde tends to employ a form.”