I don’t get it and I am very obviously missing the gist of it. Here is what I am understanding: Mr. Kelada (Mr Know-it-all) gets into an argument with Mr Ramsay about Mrs. Ramsays string of pearls. Mr Kelada says they’re real and valuable but Mr Ramsay says they’re a cheap fake. (I would expect the opposite but, that;s what the story says). Mr Kelada says he is an expert and they bet $100. He examines the pearls and the story implies that he was right but as he looks at Mrs Ramsay decides to concede that her husband was right and he pays him the $100. The next day he gets an envelope under the cabin door with the $100 back.
Why did he do it? I don’t get it. I suspect he did not want to humiliate Mr and Mrs Ramsey but, why would they want a valuable item to be considered worthless? Why would they bet? I am obviously missing the crucial point which would explain the whole thing. Can someone explain?
Mrs. Ramsey obviously had an affair with someone who could afford real pearls while she and Ramsey were separated for that year. Kegal caught on from her ghastly look during the examination of the pearls and gave up his $100 win.
Mrs. Ramsey must have decided that the time had come to confess to here husband who then paid the debt.
I thought the same thing as David Simmons, and I haven’t looked at the Google links either. (And I doubt very much that this is a homework assignment.)
You flatter me. Do you really think my age is for homework?
Aha! Now I get it. I have the bad habit of reading too fast and skipping things which seem unimportant. i had missed the part which said Mr ramsay had been separated from his wife for a year. Now, with your insight it all makes sense. It is not Mr Ramsay but Mrs Ramsey who had an interest in keeping the truth secret. That is why she had “difficulty” getting it off and why Mr Ramsey eagerly helps her (not knowing the truth).
The moral of the story is that Mr. Know-it-all is obnoxious but not a mean person. I had the hunch that this was the gist of the story but I was missing that crucial point of Mrs. Ramseys infidelity. I really need to slow down in my reading but I can’t help it. I often go through several pages of a book only to look up and realise I have no idea of what I just read.
Mrs. Ramsay had an affair while her husband was away and was given the pearls by her lover. Knowing that Mr. Kelada had lied to protect her, and therefore had lost the $100, she sent him the money. Mr. Ramsay, after all, would have properly owed him $200: the $100 on the bet, and the $100 that needed to be returned.
A strange but meaningless coincidence: not an hour ago I was thinking of Raymond Chandler’s story Red Wind, which has some similarities, though it is far more convoluted.
BTW, the whole thing came up with a friend as I was telling her I had worked with a Welsh firm of solicitors called Vaughan and she asked how do you pronounce that and I said “like Maugham” but she didn’t know the writer either.
Yes, I think you could make the point that she owed him $200 as he had won the bet but I do not think that is a “mathematical error”, rather, I think she is reimbursing him so he will not suffer a loss and it is his gesture she accepts with gratitude. I do not think a gentleman would have accepted the money from the lady. That’s the point, he is a nice guy after all.