Never accept anything and you will never be disappointed. The Necklace by Guy de Maupassant is translated from French to English by John Siscoe.This story , as the title suggests, focuses on the necklace. As the necklace is given the symbolism of wealth , royalty, friendship, self respect and at last an ornament. Mathilde Loisel, young and married, has felt that she has attracted men at the ball and has relieved her wish of being rich by wearing dresses and a “diamond” necklace. This story has situational Irony. To mathilde the necklace was suppose to be one night thing ; ironically necklace takes a decade of her life. As for many people, being rich is purposes of their life and their answer to happiness. Mathilde had the parallel mentality …show more content…
Immediately, Mathilde realises necklace is not on her neck anymore it is lost. They checked the cab, but could not find it. Monsieur follows there step back, but unfortunately he could not find it. They decide to go to the jewelry store and look for similar diamond necklace Mathilde Loisel was wearing. De Maupassant let 's reader know the price of Necklace, “ The price was forty thousand francs. The store will let them have it for thirty-six thousand” ( Maupassant 177 ). Monsieur made some arrangement for the money. He had Eighteen thousand franc which his father gave to him and the rest he had to borrow from other people and promised to pay them as early as possible and with a healthy interest rate. They successfully replace the new necklace and went to Mathilde friend 's house to return it. give to her friend. And start paying up people they loaned money …show more content…
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. Hence the situational irony had taken place. First the original necklace was fake and all that pain of ten years could have been avoided. Secondly, Mathilde’s character had a turn around as in the beginning she was greedy but after the tragic events She is more self sufficient and does work to make money. And most importantly Mathilde did not divorce on Mousier and supported him and help herself pay up the debt. Ture characteristic of a person is not shown when he has everything but rather when he has
To start off with, Mathilde had many conflicts she had to face during the story. First, she was poor and low in the social class. In the textbook it says, “she dressed plainly because she could not afford fine clothes.” She does not have money to buy new clothes because she is poor. Secondly, she got invited to the ball but had no evening clothes. “Only I don’t have an evening dress and therefore I can’t go to the affair.” Mathilde is poor and does not own an evening dress and can’t afford a dress she thinks she can’t go to the ball. Next, she has no jewelry to wear. . “It’s embarrassing not to have a jewel or gem-nothing to wear on my dress. I’ll look pauper.” She has no jewels or gems to go with her dress. Finally, she overcame many conflicts
In “The Necklace”, Mathilde feels she has been born into a family of unfavorable economic status. She’s so focused on what she doesn’t have. She forgets about her husband who treats her good. She gets too carried away being someone someone
...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.
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.
To begin with, Maupassant displayed the necklace as everything that Mathilde had ever desired. The necklace was “…superb…and [Mathilde’s] heart throbbed with desire for it” (Maupassant 6). Mathilde had her choice of “…bracelets,…a pearl necklace,…a Venetian cross of finely worked gold and gems” (Maupassant 6), but instead she chose to take the most expensive and finest looking bauble in her friend’s jewel box. The diamond necklace revealed to the reader that Mathilde no only wanted the finest things, but she also wanted the most luxurious and expensive ones to be...
Maupassant, Guy De. “The Necklace.” Literature An Introduction to Reading and Writing. Ed. Edgar V. Roberts. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, 2008. 4-11. Print
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
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
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
Mathilde marries Mr. Loisel, a minor clerk in the Ministry of Education. She becomes unhappy with the way she has to live. "She suffered because of her grim apartment with its drab walls, threadbare furniture, ugly curtains." (paragraph 3). She owns cheap belongings and still dreams of being rich and having gourmet food while her husband likes plain things and seems rather happy for where he is in life. She dreams these wonderful and expensive things and it frustrates her. A dream come true happens but instead of being happy she is upset and even more frustrated.
...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.
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
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
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.
In “The Necklace,” Mathilde’s internal struggle is with herself. She mentally battled with the physical and financial limitations placed on her, but more with her own soul. She was unhappy with her place in life and could not accept the simplicity of her station, believing it to be truly beneath her. “All those things… tortured her and made her angry. “ Her husband’s blatant acceptance of their place only fueled her frustrations further.