More handpicked essays just for you.
Full critical analysis of the story diamond necklace in 150 words
Theme of greed in the necklace
Theme of greed in the necklace
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Topic
This essay is going to show the character from "The Diamond Necklace", and "Charles" made the wrong choices at the beginning but good and right choices in the end. The main character in "The Diamond Necklace" is a woman named Matilda Loisel. In the beginning of the story Madame Loisel was being selfish. She didn’t like the way she was living, she wanted to be rich. Madame Loisel should be happy with the way she's living. She thinks she's poor but she doesn’t know that there are others who are less fortunate than her. Madame Loisel was also jealous of other people because of their wealth and their happiness. She didn’t like her life, but she should be thankful and appreciative for what she has.
Madame Loisel's husband got an invitation
…show more content…
She was the prettiest woman at the party. She got all the attention that she wanted. Madame Loisel was having the time of her life. Her husband wanted her to be happy than being selfish and jealous most of the time. When she left the party, she noticed she had lost the necklace. She and her husband searched for the necklace everywhere but they couldn't find it. They both tried to find it for an entire week. Madame Loisel's husband said that Madame Loisel should write a letter to Mrs. Forestier telling her that she no longer had the necklace she had borrowed. He was 100% right, Madame Loisel should've told the truth instead of keeping the truth to …show more content…
Forestier that she lost her necklace, she wanted to replace it with a similar one. If she didn't want to tell the truth, then she should at least replace it. Madame Loisel found an exact replica of the necklace in one of the shops they looked through, but it cost thirty-six thousand francs. She and her husband borrowed money from people and pay them back as soon as they earned their money back. They finally got enough money to buy the necklace. And Madame Loisel gave the necklace to Mrs. Forestier. Mrs. Forestier was upset that Madame Loisel returned her necklace in late. Mrs. Forestier had the right to be upset because she agreed to lend her necklace to her friend and she had returned it weeks
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
The Necklace is a great example of how our desires can create tragedy rather than happiness. Madame Forestier would have rather been idolized for her wealth instead of buying items that grant her survival. She says,”It’s just that I have no evening dress and so I can’t go to the party.” 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 a life.
Situational irony occurs throughout most of The Necklace; it appears when Madame Forestier lends Madame Loisel a diamond necklace since “[she’s] upset because [she] haven’t a single piece of jewelry or a gemstone or anything to wear with [her] dress.[She’ll] look like a pauper. [She] almost think[s] it would be better if [she] didn’t go” and lets her borrow it for a ball one night so Madame Loisel can fit in; however, she ends up losing the necklace(174).Madame Loisel was not informed of the fact that the diamond necklace was actually fake. In a panic, Madame Loisel and her husband work hard and pay the loans off for many years trying to replace the necklace only to find out it wasn’t real; they gave up their decent lifestyle and had to save up for ten years. The situational irony is the fact that Madame Loisel thought that if she borrowed the diamond necklace it would help her become closer to the life she wanted, but the necklace ended up putting her and her husband into poverty and without the life that she longed for, instead. The ten years of poverty that Madame Loisel and
A common literary device, symbolism is used in this story. Symbolism is when something has a greater meaning within itself. For example, the necklace is considered a symbol in the story. When looking at necklaces at Madame Forestier she finds one that just jumps out at her. She believes it is everything she wants in life. This is symbolic because it was only a necklace it could not fulfill all of her dreams of a rich high-class life. “She wasn’t at all convinced “No… There’s nothing more humiliating than to look poor among a lot of rich woman”. This quote is said before borrowing the necklace, but it is the reason she borrows it from Madame. Furthermore, the necklace is not really going to change who she ...
“The Necklace” is an ironic, amusing and witty short story which deals with themes such as the deceitfulness of appearance, the threat of martyrdom and the power of objects. The main protagonist in this short story is Mathilde Loisel. Born in a family of clerks, the alluring Madame Loisel is convinced that her social status the “Petite Bourgeoisie” is simply a blunder and Mathilde is destined for a life of prosperity. She pursues her life in perpetual revolt against her circumstances. However she is not living in poverty, with a comfortable home and a caring husband, yet she remains oblivious of all other than the riches she craves. Her lust for wealth is a continual torment and turmoil.
For instance, throughout the story, Monsieur Loisel is invariably trying to provide Madame Loisel with as much luxury as he can. Monsieur Loisel supports the idea of providing luxury when he sacrifices money out of their cramped bank account for Madame Loisel to purchase a new, extravagant ball gown. “He turned a bit pale, for he had set aside just that amount to but a rifle so that, the following summer he could join some friends who were getting up a group to shoots larks on the plain near Nanterre.” (Maupassant 228). Another example of the love and compassion Monsieur Loisel has for his wife is introduced when he works extra to pay off the debt of the necklace Madame Loisel barrows and loses from Madame Forestier. Monsieur Loisel uses his inherited riches from his father along with other loans to pay for the diamond necklace. In this case, Monsieur Loisel decides that his wife’s friendship with Madame Forestier is more important than not having the hefty debt to pay. In these cases, readers can conclude that Monsieur Loisel has a deep love and consideration for his wife’s needs, making him a realistic
He borrowed “asking a thousand franc from one , five hundred from another” (Maupassant 3) to spend the next ten years of his and Mathilde Loisel life to repay the thirty thousand to everyone they have had borrowed from. After completing the long and dreadful ten years of hard labor Mathilde Loisel quiensidently ran into Mme.Forester to only find out that the necklace she had worn that night was fake and worthless. Being a female that has absolutely no authority over her assets and has no say what so ever in where the are placed thus meaning that she is practically worthless. Realizing all of this it is no longer astonishing that Mr.Loisel went out of his way to borrow 36 thousand francs in loans without the permission from his wife Mrs.Losiel. She understand the fact that they would have to repay these outstanding loans and had spent the next ten years of her youthfull life paying back all the money that was owed. In efforts to pay of this debt Mrs. Losiel works around the house and does her daily duties with no intensions of having control over her finances and accepts that the debt of her husbands is a debt of
In conclusion, the story of “The Jewelry” gives clarification to Madame Lantin’s characteristics. Guy De Maupassant not only gave us clarification of Madame Lantin’s characteristics, but did an excellent job of backing these characteristics up with certain events in this story. Clarification of her character traits included admiration, modest and strong willed. These character traits will leave not only a lasting impression on the readers but also made the story mysterious with an unexpected twist at the end.
A common literary device, symbolism is used in this story. Symbolism is when something has a greater meaning within itself. The example of this in the story is the necklace. When looking at necklaces at Madame Forestier she finds one that just jumps out at her. She believes it is everything she wants in life. This is symbolic because it was only a necklace it could not fulfill all of her dreams of a rich high-class life. “She wasn’t at all convinced “No… There’s nothing more humiliating than to look poor among a lot of rich woman”. This quote is said before borrowing the necklace, but it is the reason she borrows it from Madame. The necklace is not really going to change who she is in reality. The necklace ...
Mme. Loisel's adversity provides her with an opportunity to better herself. Had she not lost the necklace, Mme. Loisel may have never relinquished the lofty (but unrealistic and shallow) expectations she had of herself and her husband. Most likely, she would have spent the rest of her life as an unhappy, discontented woman. Instead, Mme. Loisel receives a chance to begin again with a clean slate and a more positive attitude. Finally, Mme. Loisel realizes that her adversity has helped her by forcing her to grow up-to appreciate what she has rather than what she does not and to realize that little in this life comes without hard work.
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.
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.