I think the main theme of the story

I think the main theme of the story is to ask what should be our response to suffering. The prince and swallow are initially not aware of it. The rich people choose to ignore it. A socialist response is to redistribute wealth from rich to poor, but Wilde considers this too materialistic (the living always think that gold can make them happy), and proposes a christian response: we must give all we have to those who are suffering, thereby achieving our own spiritual growth. Wilde's aesthetic philosophy is another theme as you point out: the relationship between virtue and beauty, the contrast between inner and outer beauty. And the backdrop is composed of colourful vignettes of victorian society.

But the best part is the ending. I can't agree that it must be happy: of the five stories published in the same volume, three have sad endings, and one (the selfish giant) is happy. I would say this one is ambiguous. Consider what the story would be like without these two sentences. The themes would still be fully developed, and there would still be no doubt the prince and swallow were the heroes of the story: a bit like the ending of the devoted friend. You could say that the ending is a rhetorical flourish, which lifts the readers emotions while highlighting the religious sub-text. On the other hand, you could say that the ending compares god's response to suffering unfavourably with that of the prince - he is the prince of the universe, aware of all the suffering, and yet does nothing: this is the problem of evil. The garden of paradise is like the Palace of Sans-Souci, and the prince and the bird have regressed to the start of the story.

Reply

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

Tôi nghĩ rằng các chủ đề chính của câu chuyện để hỏi những gì nên chúng tôi đáp ứng với sự đau khổ. Hoàng tử và Nhạn ban đầu không được nhận thức của nó. Người giàu chọn để bỏ qua nó. Một phản ứng xã hội chủ nghĩa là để phân phối lại sự giàu có từ người giàu tới người nghèo, nhưng Wilde sẽ xem xét điều này quá vật chất (cuộc sống luôn luôn nghĩ rằng vàng có thể làm cho họ hạnh phúc), và đề xuất một phản ứng của Kitô giáo: chúng ta phải cho tất cả chúng ta có những người đang đau khổ, do đó đạt được tăng trưởng tâm linh của riêng của chúng tôi. Triết lý của Wilde thẩm Mỹ là một chủ đề như bạn chỉ ra: các mối quan hệ giữa các đức hạnh và vẻ đẹp, sự tương phản giữa vẻ đẹp bên trong và bên ngoài. Và bối cảnh gồm có các họa tiết đầy màu sắc của xã hội thời Victoria.But the best part is the ending. I can't agree that it must be happy: of the five stories published in the same volume, three have sad endings, and one (the selfish giant) is happy. I would say this one is ambiguous. Consider what the story would be like without these two sentences. The themes would still be fully developed, and there would still be no doubt the prince and swallow were the heroes of the story: a bit like the ending of the devoted friend. You could say that the ending is a rhetorical flourish, which lifts the readers emotions while highlighting the religious sub-text. On the other hand, you could say that the ending compares god's response to suffering unfavourably with that of the prince - he is the prince of the universe, aware of all the suffering, and yet does nothing: this is the problem of evil. The garden of paradise is like the Palace of Sans-Souci, and the prince and the bird have regressed to the start of the story.Reply