The Necklace At the beginning of the story Madame Loisel was extremely greedy and vain. She wouldn’t accept what her and her husband had at the time and didn’t care that her husband would do everything to keep her content and happy with the life they had. Everything Madame Loisel had she wanted more and pitied herself instead of trying to change their life for the better. “ It’s nothing. It’s just that i have no evening dress and so I can’t go to the party. Give the invitation to one of your colleagues whose wife will be better dressed than I will be (296)” Although she could have worn the dress she wears to the theatre, she needed something better. After her husband gave up the money he was going to buy a gun with for a new dress …show more content…
After they couldn’t find it her husband told her to write a note to Madame Forestier saying that she broke the clasp of her necklace and that they are going to get it mended in time. While they had this time they searched high and low for a necklace identical to the missing one and when they finally found one for 40,000 francs they took it. After spending a fortune on the necklace for the next 10 years Madame Loisel and her husband were stricken with poverty. As the hardy times passed one day Madame Loisel was avoiding chores and decided to go for a walk instead. On this walk she spotted Madame Forestier and was resistant to say hello. When she introduced herself for the first time in years Madame Forestier was in shock of how rugged and different she looked. “I’ve been through some pretty hard times since I last saw you and I’ve had plenty of trouble- and all because of you! (301) “ After saying this Madame Forestier was confused, and Madame Loisel decided to tell her about all the pain her family has been through because of the necklace. “ Oh, my poor, poor Mathilde! Mine was false. It was worth five hundred francs at the most! (301)
and Mme. Loisel cooperate to find what seems to be an exact replica of the lost necklace, which they must purchase and return to Mme. Forestier. Mathilde attempts to find a replacement for the necklace to prevent Mme. Forestier from realizing the original had been lost. The couple travelled “from one jeweler to another hunting for a similar necklace” (175). They went together to look for the necklace, which proves that they are exerting mutual effort. M. Loisel uses all means necessary to pay for the necklace. He “made ruinous deals” (187) and “risked his signature” (188) in order to pay for the expensive diamond necklace. Though Mme. Loisel lost the necklace, her husband uses his savings and takes out loans to help her pay for the replacement. The couple acquires the necklace and must return it to Mme. Forestier. M. Loisel brings the necklace home, and “Mme. Loisel took the necklace back” (199) to the owner. The couple collaborates to get the necklace into the hands of its owner. Mathilde and M. Loisel work together to replace Mme. Forestier’s necklace, and she is none the
5. (CP) Madame Loisel borrows seemingly expensive necklace to satisfy her arrogance and attend a party that was way above her social class, only to lose it. She has been blessed with physical beauty, but not with the lifestyle she desires. She may not be the ideal protagonist, but she went through a tough time after she lost the necklace and had to make money to replace it.
After the many years that have passed by with Monsieur and Madame Loisel working hard to make up the money that they spent on buying a replacement necklace, Madame Loisel finally went to talk to her old friend. She found out the necklace cost close to nothing compared to their replacement when the author writes, “Oh, my poor Mathilde! But mine was imitation. It was worth at most five hundred francs!” This quote signifies how Madame Loisel and her husband worked so hard and the necklace was dirt cheap. The ironical ending makes the reader feel sort of sorry for Madame Loisel as now she is living a life worse than before. It also causes the reader to be a little happy as she sort of got what she deserved. In the end, it just didn't turn out so well for
If Mrs.Loisel wouldn’t have been so set on that necklace, or if she would have appreciated the items she already owned, then she could have saved herself from misery. By being selfish and wanting everything, her life was ruined because of a necklace. Within the story, the author also helped explain the theme in different literary elements. One way in which she did that was from the plot. The plot discuss Mrs.Loisel background and says, “She was one of those pretty and charming women...into a family of clerks and copyists.
This can describe as her being spoiled because although her husband got her the letter she wanted more and her husband gave her more. In other words, Madame Forestier is another character in “The Necklace” whose dialogue is shown. Madame Forestier let her friend Mathilde Loisel borrow a necklace that was gorgeous and unique she was going to attract attention towards her. “Suddenly she discovered, in a black satin case, a superb diamond necklace; her heart began to beat covetously. Her hands trembled as she lifted it. She fastened it round her neck, upon her high dress, and remained in ecstasy at sight of her. Then, with hesitation, she asked in anguish: "Could you lend me this, just this alone?" "Yes, of course." (Guy De Maupassant 1884). This showed that Madame Forestier was nice enough to let Mathilde borrow the necklace.
In the story, “The Necklace”, Madame Loisel is very childish. She is the main character for this story. In the beginning of the story she thinks about all of the things she wants to have in order to fit in with the other wealthy people she lives around with. She is not poor nor is she filthy rich, but she seems very ungrateful for almost everything she does have. Her husband was in charge of keeping her happy and keeping each other on track.
Matilda Loisel, the wife of an office clerk, was persuaded by her husband to attend a dinner party hosted by the Commissioner. She wanted a beautiful jewel to adorn her neck while on her outing so the others guests don’t think she is from a life of poverty.
In “The Necklace” Maupassant serves an ending in which is not only shocking but well deserved. With a similar theme as “The False Gems”, beauty is within, the author gives readers the non-expected also while expected. Coupled with this, Mme. Loisel throughout the entire story is an ungrateful, envious, spoiled person. She is highly uncontented with her current level of caste and constantly wants more. After her husband gives her 400 francs she wishes for more to support her materialistic beauty. When Mme. Loisel borrows the necklace from her friend she later loses it and lies about it to her acquaintance. With this, a deeper problem is issued. In the end the money Loisel paid to buy a new necklace was much more than its original worth, a difference of 22000 francs! Towards the ending this was very satisfying because appreciation is important. Within the 10 years Mme. Loisel lost her beauty, youth, and confidence. Together with this, some things are priceless and once it’s gone it will not come back. Maupassant symbolized the jewls, and with this readers can understand that youth is a gift and confidence is within. Therefore Madame Loisel’s ending was what she deserved for her actions and I found it to be
In the hopes to please his wife, Monsieur Loisel comes home with invitations to a ball at the ministry. In her grief, Mathilde immediately states that there is nothing worse than to look poverty-stricken among rich women. To attend the ball, she simply must purchase a new dress, which is exactly what she does. Then, Mathilde visits her friend and borrows a beautiful necklace. At the party, Mathilde is a huge success, the fairest of all the ladies.
With a starving yearning for elegant belongings, Madame Loisel can’t help but to get into trouble. She dreams of a life where she has servants and fine tableware. Madame Loisel, in “The Necklace” by Guy de Maupassant, is blinded by greed, envy and is manipulative.
In this short story, “The Necklace”, by Guy de Maupassant, Mme. Loisel is to blame for the disaster that occurred. As evidence and several reasonings have shown, Mme. Loisel indeed is the reason Mme. Forestier’s necklace is lost. For example, Mme. Loisel is not happy in any way with her life and what her family can and can not afford. Her husband can afford a roof over their heads and food on the table but Mme. Loisel still insists a desperate change. “It annoys [her] to not have a single jewel, not a single stone, nothing to put on” (Maupassant 2). In other words, Mme. Loisel takes her life for granted when her and her family already have everything they need. As well, she is very irresponsible about keeping the pendant around her neck throughout
In the short story “The Necklace”, the main character, Loisel, is a woman who dreams of greater things in her life. She is married to a poor clerk who tries his best to make her happy no matter what. In an attempt to try to bring happiness to his wife, he manages to get two invitations to a very classy ball, but even in light of this Loisel is still unhappy. Even when she gets a new dress she is still unhappy. This lasts until her husband suggests she borrows some jewelry from a friend, and upon doing so she is finally happy. Once the ball is over, and they reach home, Loisel has the horrible realization that she has lost the necklace, and after ten years of hard labor and suffering, they pay off debts incurred to get a replacement. The central idea of this story is how something small can have a life changing effect on our and others life’s. This idea is presented through internal and external conflicts, third person omniscient point of view, and the round-dynamic character of Loisel. The third person limited omniscient point-of-view is prevalent throughout this short story in the way that the author lets the reader only see into the main character’s thoughts. Loisel is revealed to the reader as being unhappy with her life and wishing for fancier things. “She suffered ceaselessly, feeling herself born for all the delicacies and all the luxuries.” (de Maupassant 887) When her husband tries to fancy things up, “she thought of dainty dinners, of shining silverware, of tapestry which peopled the walls…” (de Maupassant 887) As the story goes on her point of view changes, as she “now knew the horrible existence of the needy. She took her part, moreover all of a sudden, with heroism.” (de Maupassant 891) Having the accountability to know that the “dreadful debt must be paid.” (de Maupassant 891 ) This point-of-view is used to help the reader gain more insight to how Loisel’s whole mindset is changed throughout her struggle to pay off their debts. Maupassant only reveals the thoughts and feelings of these this main character leaving all the others as flat characters. Loisel is a round-dynamic character in that Maupassant shows how she thought she was born in the wrong “station”. “She dressed plainly because she could not dress well, but she was as unhappy as though she had really fallen from her proper station.
To help out, she gets a job and helped her husband pay off the debt in ten years. In those ten years she had lost her beauty and had not seen Madame Forestier face to face in danger of feeling ashamed in front of her rich friend because of her poverty. After they had paid off all the debt, she finds Madame Forestier down the road and talks about what had happened in her lifetime since the last time they had meet. They start talking about the necklace and the incident that happened the ball night. Mathilde talks about hardships that had taken her to pay off the debt of about twenty thousand francs. And suddenly Madame Forestier says “But mine was fake. It wasn’t worth more than five hundred francs.” ( Maupassant 179 ). This mesmerise Mathilde’s brain and the story ends.
The Necklace also displays distinctive realism in the use of socioeconomic influences which are essential to the plot. The major conflict in the story would be absent and the theme would not be obtainable without Mathilde Loisel’s insecurity about her own socioeconomic reputation. An example of Loisel’s self-deprivation nature is presented when she realizes she does not have a necklace, she says “I shall look absolutely no one. I would almost rather not go to the party” (Maupassant, sec. 3). Another example of the self-conflict caused by social pressure is Loisel’s immediate attempt to replace the necklace and her reluctance to speak to her friend Madame Forestier about the necklace for ten whole years. If she were not conflicted by societal pressures she might have avoided the whole situation altogether. The Necklace establishes a realistic difference in value between the necklaces and proposed clothing. Her husband proposes flowers which were valued 10 franks so in any case if she had chosen the flowers there would have been an insignificant economic loss. Her decision not to tell her friend about the necklace ends up costing her seven times the worth of the original. The roses symbolize the simpler things in life to the theme of the story. Mathilde Loisel’s withered appearance at the end
...ected her husband, herself, and her friend, Madame Forestier. She should understand that wonderful things would not last forever, but how would her life be if she was not materialistic? Maybe, when her husband comes home from work she would welcome him with open arms. She would enjoy living in her home that she already has, and most importantly, she would accept herself for who she is as a wife, as a friend, and as herself; a woman with a big heart who is very lovable. She would not have to work for the necklace and if she was not comfortable with her home that she lived in, she would seek domestic employment in another family home. When it comes to her husband, she would offer him more gifts to make him happy. The only thing that is valuable in the world is life itself.