The Goat Meat Special

This semi surreal story follows Hoi, the Chief of Planning in a Vietnamese construction factory, and the strange things that follow the purchase of his new color television set. When Hoi’s wife and children are out of the home he watches a TV show where a model strips her clothing, and other salacious programs. Hoi recounts these tales to the men at work, but none were lucky enough to catch this late night tale. His bragging caught the interest of his boss Dien, and he insists on coming over to watch the salacious show. Dien and Hoi watch a pornographic film involving pigs and then Hoi, shocked, sees that Dien has transformed into a goat. Dien is upset, but not surprised and demands to take refuge in Hoi’s house until he figures out what to do. Hoi gives him refuge in the pig pen and soon extorts his former boss for permission to steal materials from the construction factory in exchange for food. The next day Dien’s wife, Toan comes barging in and quickly identifies the goat to be her husband. Toan takes Dien, the goat, home strapped to her motorbike for fear that Hoi’s wife would sell him as a specialty to the government hotel. Hoi comes home to his wife watching television and sets off on a rant about how they are surrounded by a “society of goats” (325). The story ends when a neighbor walks into the study of Dien the goat and then she blabs to the whole town and is promptly sent to the insane asylum. 

Written in the 1990s in a series of short stories, this absurdist social satire reveals the inanities and contradictions of politics, corruption and communism in a post-war Vietnam. In the first paragraph the idea is introduced that corruption was being cracked down on all over the country, and that Hoi’s wife, who works at a government hotel, may be covering something up with her boss. His wife used to collect foodscaps from the hotel to feed to their animals (when they had animals), but now felt that she was being watched and that any unusual action could get her into trouble. Hoi takes advantage of the transfiguration of his boss into a goat, and Dien ironically cries,“‘What humiliation! And just for food.’ Hoi responds, ‘Everything we do is just for food, sir’” (322). The power relationship here is both exposed and reversed - revealing the practical reality of how corruption is the avenue that supports many people’s livelihoods, including the seemingly upright Dien. Corruption at a high level is institutionally permissed, while ‘corruption’/ stealing at a low level is highly policed. Dien does not see himself as being corrupt and throughout the piece expresses his moral superiority to others and has obviously gained disproportionately from his position based on his many gold accessories. 

Dien, the dogmatic general manager proclaims, “‘Nonsense!… To the contrary, we only like entirely open movies - the kind where everything on the girls’ bodies gets entirely opened. We’re too experienced and dedicated to be corrupted by such films,’ he said severely admonishing the younger man. ‘While for you…If the reins are loosened too much, you’ll soon slide into debauchery’” (319).  This is an interesting reversal in which the general manager claims that movies in which ‘the girls are entirely opened’ actually prove his impermeability to such salacious ideas, and reaffirms his strength against the ‘impure’. Dien is strong and unaffected by pornogrpahy but ‘weak men’ like Hoi must be shielded from it because would be too easily converted to ‘debauchery’. Dien then transfigures into a goat when he watches the pornographic television program with Hoi- revealing which of them is actually transformed by ‘immoral’ television programs. The unfortunate neighbor who was bold/simple enough to go around town saying that she saw Dien as a goat was sento an asylum, the likely fate and foreshadowed outcasting of those who call people in positions of power, by their name. 

What does the author mean by, ‘we live in a society of goats’?

Is the symbol of the goat the Thai parallel for ‘(capitalist) pig’ in the United States? How might these archetypes be similar or different? 

What is the central critique that Ho Anh Thai makes in this piece?