Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The necklace, essay
An essay on the theme of the necklace
The necklace, essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
I decided to analyze the short story The Necklace by Guy De Maupassant. It was very complex in the way it was written. The use of complex words did make it a little difficult to read. Once you got past the wording, you was able to grasp the meaning and understanding of the story. The Necklace was meant to teach the reader or audience a lesson. This is why I found it fascinating to write about. When it comes to the organization of the writing, it went in an even flow that was easy to follow. It did not scatter around from one thing or idea to the next and it also did not ramble on and lose the interest of the reader. I find his very important in a short story. You have to combine so much information into a short piece of literature …show more content…
It gave the audience kind of a Cinderella approach. The reason I say this is because of everything she has to do before going to make herself fit in. She had to borrow a necklace from a good friend named Jeanne and her husband gave her money for a gown. Madame Loisel then looses the necklace and has a difficult time finding it. Since she was unable to find it and was very poor, it took her ten years to replace it. This caused many hardships and trials. She never told her friend that she bought a new one to replace the one she lost. That is until they met up ten years later. That is when the truth is revealed as to the true value of the …show more content…
Placing all your energy and well life into an object (like the necklace) can take years away from you. Sometimes what we think of as valuable may not be of actual value. It is all in the way you portray the items. He friend never mentioned how much the valued necklace costed because to her it did not matter. Thus when Mathilde lost it, she never asked its true value. She just assumed and went with it. If she had been honest with her friend she could have saved a lot of trouble. As I did research on how others interpreted the story, the same conclusion would pop up. The necklace was used as a symbol of higher class of wealth. We use symbolic items to try and fit into societies belief of “fancy”. The deeper meaning is within the true value of the necklace. It is a fake just as she is! She is trying to be something she is not and ends up losing the necklace which holds a false value as well. This is why a person should not take everything as it
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.
“The Necklace” gives a strong representation of what the story is about. When Madame Loisel was looking for jewelry with Madame Forestier, “She came
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.
...only to find out years later that the necklace was not made of real diamonds but glass. This story shows the social pressure put on those of lower classes and how they wish to be a part of the better group. Maupassant uses Mathilde’s obsession to drive her into poverty and shame. For the time, this story analyzes how hard one had to work to even attain any bit of fortune.
Although Madame Loisel isn’t wealthy or part of the social class that is considered high, she tried to do everything to make herself appear as if she is. She believes that her beauty can bring her as far as becoming wealthy or being able to socialize with the wealthy. The ball is important to her because for once her appearance is equivalent with the fantasy of rising above middle class she has dreamt up in her head and “[she] was a success. She was the loveliest of all; elegant, graceful, smiling, and radiant with joy. All the other men looked at her, asked who she was, and wanted to be introduced to her… [t]he triumph of her beauty and the glory of her success enveloped her in a sort of cloud of happiness made up of all the compliments” (175). The reality is beneath her appearance because she is not wealthy, nor is she actually happy with the life she lives on a daily basis. She easily deceives everyone with her appearance to make it seem as if she does have money. Uncontrolled self-absorption can distort lives to those who worry about their appearance too much. Another example of how appearances can be misleading is the necklace that Madame Loisel borrowed. It appears as if it is made of real diamonds but instead it is fake jewelry. The fact
In 1785, the court jewelers, Bohmer and Basange, constructed a necklace with five hundred and forty diamonds of varying sizes in an ugly arrangement that resembled the collars worn by circus animals. They hoped that King Louis XV would purchase it for his favorite, Madame du Barry. Unfortunately, the king died before the necklace was completed. So, naturally the jewelers tried to sell the piece to the newly crowned Queen, Marie Antoinette, because she was known for her extravagant spending and taste. They priced the jewelry at and equivalent of two million dollars in modern money. The Queen declined the offer. She did not like the necklace and the price was even too high for her. Knowing that they would be ruined if the Queen didn’t buy their product the jewelers continued to plead with her for ten years. Each time she turned them down. Then, one day the Queen received a note signed by Bassange which said, “We have real satisfaction in thinking that the most beautiful set of diamonds in existence will belong to the greatest and best of Queens.” Puzzled by the message, the Queen, put the note to flame by a candle sitting on a nearby table (Komroff 85).
Nobody can really tell the difference between real and fake whether it is a piece of jewelry or a person. In “The Necklace” Mathilde did not know anything about the value of jewelry so she assumed it was expensive when really it was a piece of costume jewelry. This causes her to throw her whole life away. In “The Amber Bracelet” Breeze accepts what she has been handed and although her necklace may have no value to everyone else, it means everything to her because it came from someone she cares about. The value someone puts on an item can completely change a person’s life.
Janwillem Van De Wetering says, “Greed is a fat demon with a small mouth and whatever you feed it is never enough.” Guy De Maupassant’s “The Necklace” tells of Mrs. Mathilde Loisel’s longings for the finer things in life. Her desires are so intense she risks her husband’s affections, the friendship of an old chum, and even her mediocre lifestyle to pursue these cravings. One small decision based on an ill-placed desire causes a slow drawn out death of the spirit, body and relationships.
“The Necklace” ends up to be a very ironic story as it explains why valuing the more important things in life can be very effective towards a person’s happiness. One example of the story’s irony is when she is at the party dressed as a beautiful and fancy woman. ‘She danced madly, wildly, drunk with pleasure, giving no thought to anything in the triumph of her beauty, the pride of her success…’ (pg 193). This is a form of dramatic irony because Guy explains earlier that Mme. Loisel is just a middle class woman who dreams of a wealthy life, but she is just alluding herself as a luxurious woman. Another example of irony in the story is when Madame found out that the necklace was paste. On page 196, Mme. Forestier, Ma...
Telling the truth will always prevent future conflicts. Author Guy De Maupassant who lived from 1850 to 1893 proves in the story of “The Necklace,” that no matter how bad a situation is, speaking with the truth is always best. Now, this author does not prove this theme directly. Instead, throughout various situations in the story the main characters are faced with a long-term conflict because decisions were not made with honesty. Mathilde and Loisel who is her husband, who works as a clerk at the Ministry of Public Instructions, were both faced with a conflict that could have been prevented. For instance, Mathilde asked her friend Mme. Forestier if she could borrow a beautiful piece of jewelry for a ball event her husband Loisel had been invited to. Unfortunately, Mathilde loses the borrowed necklace and suggest that since it belongs to her rich friend it was worth more than what they could ever afford. Mathilde and Loisel decide to not tell Mme. Forestier about the lost necklace and instead they buy her a similar one. However, the one they buy is worth a lot more than what the lost necklace was worth. They both end up working multiple jobs for 10 years in order to pay off the necklace. The moral of this story is that everyone should always speak with the truth, because Mathilde and Loisel could have avoided this conflict if only they had told Mme. Forestier about the lost necklace. Many factors such as lying, desiring other’s valuables, and being so attentive to what people might think, is a good way that a situation like Mathilde’s could have been avoided.
Throughout “The Necklace” it is clearly obvious that Madame Loisel is not satisfied with the
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
“The Necklace”, narrated by Guy de Maupassant in 3rd person omniscient, focuses the story around Mathilde Loisel who is middle class, and her dreams of fame and fortune. The story is set in 19th century France. One day, Mathilde’s husband brings home an invitation to a fancy ball for Mathilde; to his surprise Mathilde throws a fit because she doesn’t have a dress or jewelry to wear to the ball. M. Loisel gets her the beautifully expensive dress she desires and Mathilde borrows a diamond necklace from Mme. Forestier, a rich acquaintance of Mathilde. Mathilde goes to the ball and has a night she’s dreamed of, until she gets home from the ball at 4 A.M. to find
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.
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.