The Moral of The Necklace by Guy de Maupassant The moral of Guy de Maupassant’s story “The Necklace” seems to be suggested by the line, “What would have happened if Mathilde had not lost the necklace?” If Mathilde had not lost the necklace, or in fact, even asked to borrow the necklace, she and Mr. Loisel would not of been in debt ten long years. Because Mathilde had to borrow the necklace to make herself and others like her better her and Mr. Loisel’s economic situation had become worse than it already was. I think that the moral of the story is that people need to be happy with what they have and not be so greedy. Mathilde Loisel grew up in the working class and had no expectations in life. Mathilde settled for a lifestyle she was unhappy with. When she got married, she and her husband would sit around the dinner table and imagine they were eating a luxurious meal. Together, they had nothing. Mathilde had no clothes, no jewels, and only one friend (who was rich). Mathilde dreamt of wealth, fine clothes, and a beautiful house. She knew that those dreams were unrealistic and unattainable. One day her husband came home from work and handed her an invitation to attend a ball. She wanted to attend; yet she had no dress to wear. After digging in to money they had been trying to save, Mathilde purchased a dress for the ball. Mathilde decided she needed jewels to wear with the dress, so she went and visited her only friend to borrow some jewels for the evening of the ball. Mathilde picked out a stunning diamond necklace. The night of the ball came and Mathilde looked great; everyone admired her. The evening ended and everyone went home. Mathilde decided that she would look at herself in the mirror one last time before getting out of the clothes. When she did, she noticed the necklace that she admired so much was gone. Mathilde and her husband had to borrow thirty-six thousand francs from people they knew to buy another just like it so they could return it to the friend. Mathilde and her husband were deeply in debt. For ten years they worked day in and day out until finally the debt was paid off. One day Mathilde was walking in a park and stumbled across a lady walking with a child, it was her rich friend.
The story begins with a middle class girl who dreams of being rich, and cannot achieve this so she lives in a utopian world she creates. Then in an attempt to please his wife, M. Loisel comes home with an invitation to a party, which Mathilde does not want to attend, only because she does not have a dress. When she is given money to buy a dress, she then lusts for fancy jewelry. She also does not have a necklace to show off to the guests at the party. Her husband suggest her theater dress and she does not want to wear that one, her husband also suggest a few roses but again she insists on a necklace. It is her greed that fuels the entire story plot, and it is her greed that causes the decline in social status in the
which explains well how she had a finite amount of money and thought material wealth was more important than happiness. If she only knew before that she would spend the next decade working off her debt, she would have never asked for the necklace and she would have had a happy life. Furthermore, wealth isn’t the only thing that brings happiness to life. With an easy explanation, it explains how having material possessions doesn’t matter, because the moments we have are more valuable.
... both had to work very hard to pay off their debt; this shows that it is essential to find a job to make a living. People have an ego that they do not want to be frowned on. We tend to have a desire to be accepted by the society because we do not want to look like an outcast. Mathilde did not want to be “humiliat[ed] by looking poor” (4). Instead, we should buy accessories that be are capable of affording because life is difficult when we run into major debts. She had an opportunity to “Wear a flower…For ten” (4) but she refused, which led her and her husband into ten years of hard work. It is important to live a lifestyle that we can survive in.
...tory is basically based on the necklace itself. In fact it almost seems as if the theme of the story instead was related to the definition of “deceiving” or “lying.” It doesn’t become obvious until the end of the story when Mathilde is faced once again with Mme. Forestier and it’s then made clear that the fallacy that Mathilde had was all wrong. Guy De Maupassant makes Mathilde seem foolish when Mme. Forestier tells her the truth about the necklace price and Mathilde is somewhat seemed as a fool. All her traumas of being “poor” are almost as if it backfired on her, because she was unhappy and kept complaining of her life.
She comes from a good family that works for what they have. She marries a good hard workingman. But, Mathilde is not happy the way she is living and she daydreams about having the glamorous life. From having fancy tapestries, grand banquets to tall footmen. One day her husband, M. Loisel, comes homes extremely excited to show his wife an invitation that he has received to go to a fancy ball. She is not happy because she has nothing to wear and she doesn’t want to show up looking ugly with house full of rich people. She got the dress she wanted but then was not happy because she needed jewelry to go with this dress. Mathilde went to her rich friend to borrow jewels from. Of course she went with the most extravagant piece of jewelry, a diamond necklace. Showing up to the fancy ball with everybody adoring what a beauty she is, Mathilde was finally satisfied. When she got home after the fancy ball, she noticed that the necklace she borrowed was missing. Looking franticly for weeks, Mathilde then decided she had to replace the necklace. Replacing the necklace took everything they had and more. Mr. and Mrs. Loisel then became extremely poor with no money to there name. They then had to sell everything had and both now had to work. This went on for about ten years. Mathilde had no beauty to her anymore, she had to work, and do the house keeping. The
Other details in the story also have a similar bearing on Mathilde’s character. For example, the story presents little detail about the party scene beyond the statement that Mathilde is a great “success” (7)—a judgment that shows her ability to shine if given the chance. After she and Loisel accept the fact that the necklace cannot be found, Maupassant includes details about the Parisian streets, about the visits to loan sharks, and about the jewelry shop in order to bring out Mathilde’s sense of honesty and pride as she “heroically” prepares to live her new life of poverty. Thus, in “The Necklace,” Maupassant uses setting to highlight Mathilde’s maladjustment, her needless misfortune, her loss of youth and beauty, and finally her growth as a responsible human being.
Guy de Maupassant expresses his theme through the use of situational irony. Guy de Maupassant says, “She suffered endlessly, feeling herself born for every delicacy and luxury. She suffered from the poorness of her house. All these things, of which other women of her class would not even have been aware, tormented and insulted her.”(De Maupassant). She is poor and thinks of herself too much and then he says "but she was as unhappy as though she had married beneath her; for women have no caste or class.”(De Maupassant). She wants more than she can get which will ruin her later in the story. When she lost the necklace by the end of the week they had lost all hope to find it. Loisel, who had aged five years, declared:
In the story, Guy de Maupassant clearly and effectively proves that people come before materialistic items. Such literary devices such as symbolism, situational irony, and juxtaposition are used to prove the theory. Symbolism was expressed through the necklace having a greater meaning within itself. The situational irony was expressed in three different ways. Mme. Loisels’ beauty, her judgment of character, and that her old life she hated, turned out to be greater than what was to come her way. The juxtaposition was shown through her and her husband marriage and values. People always have values that can change, or stay the same. Sometimes people’s values are poor and misleading, but it doesn’t mean they are not a good person at heart.
Loisel repaid the necklace together with their sweat and tears. Mathilde didn’t have a choice; she had to change from a vain, ungrateful, material, bored wife, into a hardworking proud and loving wife. She even says, right before she runs into Mme. Forestier, “What would have happened if she had not lost that necklace? Who knows? Who knows? How life is strange and changeful! How little a thing is needed for us to be lost or to be saved!”(39) In that quote I saw 2 things, when she asked herself what would have happened if she didn’t lose the necklace, she doesn’t go into some fairytale about what life she could be living, she just accepts what she is now, even if it’s not the easiest life in the world. At the very end of that quote “How little a thing is needed for us to be lost or to be saved!”(39) The fact that she added “or to be saved!” to her thought, tells me that she realizes that she was vain and unappreciated and that she lacked character, but now she is grateful, even though it was such a terrible thing, she was grateful that she was able to say that she was a better person now, even after everything that happened to her than she ever “dreamed” of being before. Guy de Maupassant certainly described a very difficult hardship for Mathilde in “The Necklace” but in the end, everything that happened to her, made her a much better and stronger woman inside and out. This story teaches a very important lesson, you have no idea what you can do and who you can become, until your chips are down and you’re put between a rock and a hard
Ten years of suffering is the cost of having pleasure for only one night! In “The Necklace,” by Guy de Maupassant presents Mathilde Loisel, an attractive, charming but vacuous and selfish middle class lady transforms to selfness, poor, satisfied and hard-working lady. Even though, Mathidle owns a comfortable home and married to a faithful and kind husband, Monsieur Loisel, who seeks her happiness and satisfaction; she was ungrateful to the things that she had been given, because her greed and desire of wealth had captured her thoughts and blurred the real meaning of happiness in her perspective. Mathidle spends most of her time surfing in her day dreams of being wealthy and suffering from accepting the reality, because her imagination was more than she could not afford. One day Mathidle’s husband brought his wife an invitation for a fancy party, but as a result of their low income, Mathidle’s was ashamed to wear flowers as decoration, so she decided to borrow an expensive looking necklace from a friend of her, Madame Forestier. After attending the fabulous party and spending a memorable great time looking stunningly beautiful, Mathidle discovers that she had lost the expensive necklace that she borrowed, so she decides to buy a similar copy of the necklace to her friend after loaning an enormous amount of money and narrowing the house outcome. The author surprises his readers with a perfectly detailed twist at the end of the story. Losing the necklace was a turning point in Mathidle’s life and the best thing that ever happened to her.
Maupassant delighted me with this story. I especially liked how he present the character Mathilde, she seemed to be extremely ungrateful with her mediocre life. She dreamed of wealth and fame and it seemed like nothing would please her. She focused so much on her desire to have social status that when she got the opportunity to go a social gathering with elite members of society, she would not go unless she had a fancy dress and fancy necklace. For one night, she felt like “somebody”. I found this story to display themes of gross vanity, irony and suffering. Because in the end Mathilde worked hard to replace the necklace that she presumed was real. She was never able to have another day of pleasure or go out to any other events. She made such a big deal of the one event, she lost herself in the feeling of being social accepted by a higher class in society.
Around the world, values are expressed differently. Some people think that life is about the little things that make them happy. Others feel the opposite way and that expenses are the way to live. In Guy de Maupassant’s short story, “The Necklace”, he develops a character, Madame Loisel, who illustrates her different style of assessments. Madame Loisel, a beautiful woman, lives in a wonderful home with all the necessary supplies needed to live. However, she is very unhappy with her life. She feels she deserves a much more expensive and materialistic life than what she has. After pitying herself for not being the richest of her friends, she goes out and borrows a beautiful necklace from an ally. But as she misplaces the closest thing she has to the life she dreams of and not telling her friend about the mishap, she could have set herself aside from ten years of work. Through many literary devices, de Maupassant sends a message to value less substance articles so life can be spent wisely.
It is said that “everything that shines isn't gold.” A difficult situation can result a vast illusion that is not what one thought it would be, which leads to disappointment and despair. Just like Guy De Maupassant stories, “The Necklace” and “The Jewel.” In the first story, the protagonist, Mathilde Loisel’s need for materialistic fulfillment causes her hard labor which ends her natural beauty. In the second story, the husband Monsieur Latin ends up living a dreadful life due to the passing of his wife and her admiration for jewels. “The Necklace” and “The Jewel” both share many similarities such as the unconditional love each husband haves toward their wife, the necessity each wife haves towards materialistic greed, the beautiful allurement
It took ten years for Mathilde and her husband to pay off the debt of buying a new necklace. Those ten years were not spent with the luxuries she experienced so many years ago at the party, nor were they filled with the simple things she once owned and despised. She came to know “the horrible existence of the needy. She bore her part, however, with sudden heroism.” When passing her rich friend again in the street, she was barely recognizable. Who she was the day she ran into her friend was not who she was the night she wore that necklace.
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.