THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER, A SHORT STORY BY W. SOMERSET MAUGHAM

Hello dear readers and fellow bloggers! Welcome November! We'll welcome this new month with a blog review. In this post, I'll share my review for Maugham's short story titled The Ant and the Grasshopper. This post will also be  a reading recommendation because I enjoyed this story a great deal. I've been reading Maugham's The Complete Short Stories for some time now. I've been taking my time with this collection, but I enjoyed it a lot. When I finish this book in its entirely, I'll share a review for all of his stories. Until then, I'll keep posting individual reviews of stories I liked the most. If you want to read Maugham yourself, you can find his collected works online (among other places on project Gutenberg) and read them for free.  W. Somerset Maugham is a writer whose subtle use of humour is delightful, but sometimes it's easy to miss it just because it's so subtle. He's wonderful at mixing the harsh realities of life with clever conclusions. If you're curious about this author, you can check my previous reviews of his works. 

THE FALL OF EDWARD BARNARD, A SHORT STORY ...AND
THE PAINTED VEIL, A NOVEL BY W. SOMERSET MAUGHAM 

Some of the most brilliant stories in this collection are actually a bit bleak, tragic and on overall pessimistic. This one, however, is quite entertaining, while still providing us with some food for the thought. That's the main reason why I decided to review it today. I'm in mood for reviewing something that's clever, but not overbearingly heart-breaking or endlessly complex.

 Previously styled: 1/ 2 / 3 /4 /5 /6

---AND LET'S TAKE A MINUTE FOR PROMITING SUSTAINABLE FASHION PHILOSOPHY!

As always, there's also a place for sustainable fashion in this post. I try to make my book reviews visually interesting by pairing them with interesting eco-friendly outfits and location photography. I'm sharing two outfits today, both featuring a two piece tea green suit, made by a local designer Stanka Zovko (brand Ozz). I talked about this designer in my last post as well. The locations for the photographs are Mostar and Split. 

In the first outfit, I'm wearing the tea green pants with a white folklore print shirt (second hand)  and cream sandals with a block heel. I wore this for a dinner in hotel Buna near Mostar back in the Summer. The second outfit where I wore the suit with brown bohemian suede  heels is what I wore for a coffee date in Autumn in Split. 

Previously I have worn this suit for another book recommendation post INSPIRED BY A VINTAGE EDITION OF ANNA KARENINA! As I explained in that post, the tea green blouse with ruffles is actually a part of a set. Follow the two links to see other ways to style it.

1) https://modaodaradosti.blogspot.com/2021/08/a-matching-tea-green-set-from-designer.html

2) https://modaodaradosti.blogspot.com/2023/08/a-tale-of-love-and-darkness-novel-by.html

3) https://modaodaradosti.blogspot.com/2021/09/wiwt-red-floral-blouse-ozz-pants-and.html

4) https://modaodaradosti.blogspot.com/2024/05/inspired-by-vintage-edition-of-anna.html

5) https://modaodaradosti.blogspot.com/2024/08/the-masters-by-ursula-k-le-guin-short.html

6) https://modaodaradosti.blogspot.com/2024/06/my-spring-alphabet-2024.html

 Now, let's back to reviewing this delightful short story that speaks of two very different brothers. 

IN CASE YOU WANT TO TACKLE THIS WRITER'S SHORT STORIES RIGHT NOW, HERE'S A LINK

The Complete Short Stories of W. Somerset Maugham

Volume I

Table of Contents

Preface

Rain

The Fall of Edward Barnard

Honolulu

The Luncheon

The Ant and the Grasshopper

Home

The Pool

Mackintosh

Appearance and Reality

The Three Fat Women of Antibes

The Facts of Life

Gigolo and Gigolette

The Happy Couple

The Voice of the Turtle

The Lion's Skin

The Unconquered

The Escape

The Judgment Seat

Mr. Know-All

The Happy Man

The Romantic Young Lady

The Point of Honour

The Poet

The Mother

A Man from Glasgow

Before the Party

The Vessel of Wrath

Louise

The Promise

A String of Beads

The Yellow Streak

The Force of Circumstance

Flotsam and Jetsam

GIVING A CLASSICAL FABLE A NEW SPIN BY CHANGING BOTH ITS TONE AND ENDING

 We are all familiar with the famous fable about The Ant and The Grasshoper. This fable, dating back to Aesop, an ancient Greek story-teller, has divided many a reader. Traditionally, ant is depicted as good and grasshopper as bad. The moral of the story is that the ant enjoys the fruits of his labour in the Winter, while the grasshopper goes hungry because during the warmer months all he did was sing.

 Historically, there have existed many different interpretations of this famous fable, and its message is something that is still debated. Some writers and thinkers of classicism hinted at a new interpretation. For example, it is argued that Jean de la Fontain's  ironic retelling in French was meant to inspire the debate about compassion and charity. It can even be argued that with time the grasshopper became a symbol of an artist, who would rather starve than abandoned its sacred craft of singing. 

I actually remember us debating this fable back when I was a student of literature. Some interpretation claim that ever since the 18th century the grasshopper has become a definite symbol of an  artist. Moreover, there have been many adaptation of the original story. This is certainly a fable that still keeps its readers on their toes and offers opportunities for different interpretations. 

 Maugham gives it a new twist by offering a new interpretation in which the lines between the good and the bad become blurred. When you finish reading this short story, you're not sure who you should sympathize with. 

First of all, Maugham uses human protagonists instead of animal ones. His characters are very human, indeed, especially when it comes to their flaws. So human they are hard to sympathize with at times!

This story begins with a narrator that is probably the author himself. He talks of the fables of La Fontaine, and how one particular fable made him hate ants. As I explained in the introduction, La Fontaine retelling in French is considered to be deliberately ironic, so it's no wonder that even as a child, the narrator ended up hating the ant, even thought the moral of the fable was explained to him. This framed narrative makes sense in the context of this story. It seems as we're directly listening to the author telling us of people he knew, and how this childhood incident of stepping on the ants reminded him of it. 

When I was a very small boy I was made to learn by heart certain of the fables of La Fontaine, and the moral of each was carefully explained to me. Among those I learnt was The Ant and The Grasshopper, which is devised to bring home to the young the useful lesson that in an imperfect world industry is rewarded and giddiness punished. In this admirable fable (I apologise for telling something which everyone is politely, but inexactly, supposed to know) the ant spends a laborious summer gathering its winter store, while the grasshopper sits on a blade of grass singing to the sun. Winter comes and the ant is comfortably provided for, but the grasshopper has an empty larder: he goes to the ant and begs for a little food. Then the ant gives him her classic answer:

"What were you doing in the summer time?"

"Saving your presence, I sang, I sang all day, all night."

"You sang. Why, then go and dance."

I do not ascribe it to perversity on my part, but rather to the inconsequence of childhood, which is deficient in moral sense, that I could never quite reconcile myself to the lesson. My sympathies were with the grasshopper and for some time I never saw an ant without putting my foot on it. In this summary (and as I have discovered since, entirely human) fashion I sought to express my disapproval of prudence and commonsense.

I have to say I quite liked this short introduction. The author sets the tone, explains his childhood feelings towards this fable, and then goes on to tell us of his 'ant' and 'grasshopper'. They are in fact siblings- two brothers who couldn't be more different one from another. One brother works hard, while the others just spends. It seems easy to guess on whose side our sympathy should be. Still, Maugham manages to add a bit of complexity and irony to the story. 

THE AUTHOR INTRODUCES THE WORRIED AND LONELY GEORGE RAMSAY TO US

I could not help thinking of this fable when the other day I saw George Ramsay lunching by himself in a restaurant. I never saw anyone wear an expression of such deep gloom. He was staring into space. He looked as though the burden of the whole world sat on his shoulders. I was sorry for him: I suspected at once that his unfortunate brother had been causing trouble again. I went up to him and held out my hand.

Following this description, it is easy for the reader to feel sorry for George who is apparently so lonely and trouble-stricken. No wonder the narrator rushes to talk with him, and see if it is his brother Tom that is causing him problems, and surely enough- it is Tom, again. 

"How are you?" I asked.

"I'm not in hilarious spirits," he answered.

"Is it Tom again?"

He sighed.

"Yes, it's Tom again."

"Why don't you chuck him? You've done everything in the world for him. You must know by now that he's quite hopeless."

THE NARRATOR ADVISES GEORGE TO GIVE UP ON HIS TROUBLESOME BROTHER TOM

Two brothers that are quite unlike one to another. The author seems to sympathize with the brother he meets, suggesting he cuts ties because he did everything that could be done for him. After that, the narrator/author proceeded to tell us the story of Tom, the black sheep of the family. 

I suppose every family has a black sheep. Tom had been a sore trial to his for twenty years. He had begun life decently enough: he went into business, married and had two children. The Ramsays were perfectly respectable people and there was every reason to suppose that Tom Ramsay would have a useful and honourable career. But one day, without warning, he announced that he didn't like work and that he wasn't suited for marriage. He wanted to enjoy himself. He would listen to no expostulations. He left his wife and his office. He had a little money and he spent two happy years in the various capitals of Europe. 

TOM THE BLACK SHEEP OF THE FAMILY ABADONS HIS FAMILY AND LIVES A LIFE OF LEISURE

Rumours of his doings reached his relations from time to time and they were profoundly shocked. He certainly had a very good time. They shook their heads and asked what would happen when his money was spent. They soon found out: he borrowed. He was charming and unscrupulous. I have never met anyone to whom it was more difficult to refuse a loan.

As the author describes Tom, it becomes obvious how Tom manages to get along in the world without doing anything. Apparently, Tom is a charmer!

TOM , AN ARTIST AT MAKING FRIENDS AND BORROWING MONEY FROM THEM

He made a steady income from his friends and he made friends easily. But he always said that the money you spent on necessities was boring; the money that was amusing to spend was the money you spent on luxuries. For this he depended on his brother George. He did not waste his charm on him. George was a serious man and insensible to such enticements. George was respectable. Once or twice he fell to Tom's promises of amendment and gave him considerable sums in order that he might make a fresh start. On these Tom bought a motor-car and some very nice jewellery. But when circumstances forced George to realise that his brother would never settle down and he washed his hands of him, Tom, without a qualm, began to blackmail him. 

TOM IS NOT SO CHARMING TO HIS BROTHER, RATHER HE BLACKMAILS HIM

Tom gets by with his ability to borrow money and make friends, but that's not enough for his life of luxury it seems. Already, Tom starts to form as a darker character. His brother George tries to get him to clean up, and gives him money to start again, but Tom refuses and blackmails his brother. Here we can see that Tom is really a shady character. He is never charming to his brother, he just takes and gives nothing in return. He senses that his brother George is afraid of losing his reputation and social standing, so he takes odd jobs just to humiliate him. Now, this makes George seem like somewhat of a snob. Why should George be bothered by his brother working as a taxi driver or a waiter? Does it mean that George is a social snob? That's an interesting question because it tells us more about the character of this so called 'good brother'. 

It was not very nice for a respectable lawyer to find his brother shaking cocktails behind the bar of his favourite restaurant or to see him waiting on the box-seat of a taxi outside his club. Tom said that to serve in a bar or to drive a taxi was a perfectly decent occupation, but if George could oblige him with a couple of hundred pounds he didn't mind for the honour of the family giving it up. George paid.

It's clear that Tom is a rotten man, but what about George? Is he just a victim of his time? Clearly, Tom is not interested in working any honest job, he just does it temporarily as a way of blackmailing his brother. Tom works occasionally only  to blackmail George and get money from him. Not wanting to tarnish their family name, George gives in. Now, what I find interesting here is George's motivation. Is he interested in preserving his reputation because he has a family to feed, and in that case we can sympathise with him, or is he really a social snob at heart? That's the question! This also made me consider how rigid the social structures used to be. It was really unheard of for someone in upper middle class to be a friend with a taxi driver, or to be related to one. It was seen as a failing of sorts. Nowadays, the social structures are not so rigid. Perhaps also because of recession?  People might work as lawyers but still take odd jobs to make ends meet and pay of law school student loans. The world we live in is not so socially rigid, but it's still a hard world to live in.

GEORGE SAVES HIS BROTHER TOM FROM JAIL AT GREAT EXPENSE AND TROUBLE...

Anyhow, George keeps paying and Tom keeps getting into trouble. It seems to be terrible on poor George.

Once Tom nearly went to prison. George was terribly upset. He went into the whole discreditable affair. Really Tom had gone too far. He had been wild, thoughtless and selfish, but he had never before done anything dishonest, by which George meant illegal; and if he were prosecuted he would assuredly be convicted. But you cannot allow your only brother to go to gaol. The man Tom had cheated, a man called Cronshaw, was vindictive. He was determined to take the matter into court; he said Tom was a scoundrel and should be punished. It cost George an infinite deal of trouble and five hundred pounds to settle the affair. I have never seen him in such a rage as when he heard that Tom and Cronshaw had gone off together to Monte Carlo the moment they cashed the cheque. They spent a happy month there.

... ONLY TO DISCOVER THAT IT WAS ALL A FRAUD

At this point, I really felt bad for George, as it is easy to imagine the stress he was under. It's easy to say don't worry about your reputation, but in certain social circles, reputation is almost everything. Tom never seems to stop his mischief, and George seems to be stuck in his victim role. 

TOM REMAINS YOUNG LOOKING AND THE NARRATOR EXPLAINS WHY IS IT SO HARD TO DISPISE HIM

However, the author can't help liking Tom despite all of his shortcoming. Obviously, Tom is a charming man. He explains this in detail. So, even if it seems that Tom only takes and takes, in some ways he gives back. What Tom gives back is his  charm. One shouldn't like him, but one does. Why? Maybe because he's merry, pleasant and charming. Preserving gaiety in any time and place is an accomplishment in itself. 

For twenty years Tom raced and gambled, philandered with the prettiest girls, danced, ate in the most expensive restaurants, and dressed beautifully. He always looked as if he had just stepped out of a bandbox. Though he was forty-six you would never have taken him for more than thirty-five. He was a most amusing companion and though you knew he was perfectly worthless you could not but enjoy his society. He had high spirits, an unfailing gaiety and incredible charm. I never grudged the contributions he regularly levied on me for the necessities of his existence. I never lent him fifty pounds without feeling that I was in his debt. Tom Ramsay knew everyone and everyone knew Tom Ramsay. You could not approve of him, but you could not help liking him.

However, what does Tom gives back to his brother? Absolutely nothing. He cons him in the worst ways, poisoning his life. If one could forgive Tom for borrowing and not  returning small amounts of money from friends he so easily makes (and that are probably not short on funds themselves), one still can't forgive him for what he does to his brother George. That's where I feel Tom crosses the line and becomes nothing short of a real criminal.

GEORGE APPEARS MUCH OLDER THAN HIS BROTHER TOM, EVEN IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE

George, on the other hand, has been a good father and husband. It's stressed repeatedly that George is an honest man in every sense.

Poor George, only a year older than his scapegrace brother, looked sixty. He had never taken more than a fortnight's holiday in the year for a quarter of a century. He was in his office every morning at nine-thirty and never left it till six. He was honest, industrious and worthy. He had a good wife, to whom he had never been unfaithful even in thought, and four daughters to whom he was the best of fathers. 

GEORGE IS GLAD THAT TOM IS GROWING OLD, TOO

George's worked hard and planned to retire early. He's glad he's aged because George's looking forward to Tom growing old, too. 

He made a point of saving a third of his income and his plan was to retire at fifty-five to a little house in the country where he proposed to cultivate his garden and play golf. His life was blameless. He was glad that he was growing old because Tom was growing old too. 

George's probably accumulated a lot of bitterness towards Tom over the years. It's hard to blame him for him, because his brother Tom has caused him nothing but trouble, but bitterness is never good as it eats us alive. We can see that George definitely harbours negative feelings towards his brother Tom, and is even looking forward to Tom's downfall.

He rubbed his hands and said:

"It was all very well when Tom was young and good-looking, but he's only a year younger than I am. In four years he'll be fifty. He won't find life so easy then. I shall have thirty thousand pounds by the time I'm fifty. For twenty-five years I've said that Tom would end in the gutter. And we shall see how he likes that. We shall see if it really pays best to work or be idle."

Poor George! I sympathized with him. I wondered now as I sat down beside him what infamous thing Tom had done. George was evidently very much upset.

THE AUTHOR SYMPATISES WITH POOR GEORGE WHO KEEPS SUFFERING BECAUSE OF HIS BROTHER

I was all ears when it came to this final conversation between the narrator and George. It was such a roller-coaster of emotion. As a reader, one feels as sorry for George as does narrator. However, what happens next is really a brilliant surprise.

"Do you know what's happened now?" he asked me.

I was prepared for the worst. I wondered if Tom had got into the hands of the police at last. George could hardly bring himself to speak.

"You're not going to deny that all my life I've been hard-working, decent, respectable and straightforward. After a life of industry and thrift I can look forward to retiring on a small income in gilt-edged securities. I've always done my duty in that state of life in which it has pleased Providence to place me."

"True."

"And you can't deny that Tom has been an idle, worthless, dissolute and dishonourable rogue. If there were any justice he'd be in the workhouse."

"True."

I loved the way this was written. As George gets red in the face, despite the fact that he's right and has been wronged,  he still turns into a character we can laugh at.

GEORGE IS FURIOUS BECAUSE TOM BECAME ENGAGED TO AN OLDER WOMAN...

George grew red in the face.

"A few weeks ago he became engaged to a woman old enough to be his mother. And now she's died and left him everything she had. Half a million pounds, a yacht, a house in London and a house in the country."

George Ramsay beat his clenched fist on the table.

"It's not fair, I tell you, it's not fair. Damn it, it's not fair."

George's reaction is understandable, but the unexpected irony of the situation is still funny. Moreover, George appears petty and bitter. George has certainly been wronged horribly by his brother Tom, who blackmailed him and committed fraud, but his wrath at his brother's fortune is still funny. I think if George could have laughed at the irony of the situation, and see how it meant that he was freed of his brother, it would make George a more loveable character. Moreover, one can imagine Tom's gaiety at the news, and while it's true that Tom is a rascal, the reader almost laughs with him. Tom is horrible, but he's charming. George's hard-working, but he's bitter. With whom would you rather dine? With a very entertaining man who might borrow a small sum from you in exchange for his charm, or a bitter man who rants about his brother inheriting a fortune from an old lady? Maugham makes the reader see there are truly two sides to every story. People have worth in different ways. I hated Tom, but I could see how some people would enjoy his company. I felt sorry for George, but I could understand how someone could find him laughable in his wrath. 

TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY, THE AUTHOR/NARRATORS  BURSTS INTO A SHOUT OF LAUGHTER

I could not help it. I burst into a shout of laughter as I looked at George's wrathful face, I rolled in my chair, I very nearly fell on the floor. George never forgave me. But Tom often asks me to excellent dinners in his charming house in Mayfair, and if he occasionally borrows a trifle from me, that is merely from force of habit. It is never more than a sovereign.

When the author/narrator laughed at George, I got it. I could imagine him going from being emphatic to finding the whole situation absurdly funny. I could also imagine George not forgiving him his reaction, and the narrator borrowing money to Tom from a force of habit. 

This short story is really brilliant, as it conveys complex irony and subtle humour using little words. For such a short piece of writing, it paints the psychological portrait of the brothers perfectly. Moreover, the dialogue between the George and the narrator sounds so natural. The writing flows effortlessly, and the timing is fantastic. Maugham's interpretation of the classical fable feels both natural and original. To conclude, this is one of the cleverest shorts stories I have ever read!

Previously styled: 1/ 2 / 3 /4 /5 /6

WHAT IS THE MORAL OF THIS STORY?

Well, I think it's something for all of us to find. For me personally, the moral of this story is that we shouldn't be bitter because life isn't fair. It just isn't. Life is never fair. That doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to be fair or to be as perfect as we can.

Moreover, we should understand that people provide value in different ways. We should understand that being hard-working doesn't always pays off. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work hard. We should work hard, but for the right reasons. 

We should be conscious of why are we working hard. It's not the same to work hard for your principles and what you feel is right and to work hard to fit some social standard or pressure. We have to find meaning in this life. We have to make our own definition of success. We shouldn't let anyone blackmails us, but we also shouldn't be bitter or jealous of others. Comparison is sometimes indeed the thief of joy. 

The moral for me is that we shouldn't be like either of the brothers. Instead, we should be like the narrator of the story. Be ready to offer compassion and empathy, but also be ready to laugh at the irony of life. Maybe the narrator was a bit cruel to laugh to George's face, but it's not cruel to laugh at the injustice of life in general. In fact, it might be a healthy thing to do. 

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE TWIST AT THE END OF THE STORY?

IS LIFE ALWAYS FAIR? 

What do you think? Isn't this an entertaining little story? Instead of a traditional view that praises the ant for being hard-working and criticizes the grasshopper for being lazy, the Maugham makes them both look bad, but each one in their own way. Of course, being a writer of realism and naturalism, he does it in a subtle but convincing way. 

MORE RECENT READING RECOMMENDATIONS AND REVIEWS

SIEGE AND STORM & RUIN AND RISING BY LEIGH BARDUGO

SHADOW AND BONE BY LEIGH BARDUGO

THE WILD GIRLS, A STORY BY URSULA K. LE GUIN

PORTRAIT OF A SOUL (PORTRET DUŠE), A NOVEL BY MIRO GAVRAN

THE MASTERS BY URSULA K. LE GUIN (SHORT STORY)

Thank you for reading and stopping by!