More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay analysis the necklace
What symbolic meaning does the necklace convey in the story " The Necklace " ? Substantiate
The narrative of the necklace
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay analysis the necklace
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
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.
“Guy de Maupassant’s, “The Necklace”, is about a young couple who discovers the upper society appears to sparkles like a real diamond necklace, but in reality it is not always true. A decision that seems to protect their integrity turns out to tarnish it – like a fake necklace. However, through ironic insights we witness drama, character revelations and experience surprise” (Clugston, 2010) .The Necklace is told from a 3rd person point of view with limited omniscience. The title suggests that the plot will center on a necklace. So, naturally we, the audience or reader wants to know what the significance of the necklace is. After reading the story I believe that Maupassant used the necklace to symbolize the upper society or wealth. Another symbol that the necklace represents is appearance. In the story Mme. Loisel was a beautiful young woman that had admirers at the reception. She made all the attendees believe she was from...
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
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. In conclusion, 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.
Lying doesn't always give the best results. In the short story “The Necklace” by Guy Maupassant the main character Mme. Loiter learns this the hard way. She begins by wanting more than she can has, so when her husband gets an invitation to a grand ball she wants finer clothes and jewelry. Her husband buys her a dress and she borrows a diamond necklace from a friend. At the ball she is beautiful and extravagant but she then loses the necklace. Rather than telling her friend the truth she and her husband drown themselves in debt to buy a replacement. After 10 years of working off the debt Mme. Loisel sees her friend once again. Now haggard and old she explains what had happened only to find that the necklace they replaced was really a fake.
The development of a character on paper is key to being able to create that character on stage. The development of character on paper is also key to understanding it in our imaginations. I read and understand stories and novels much the same way that I read a play script…through character analysis.
Reluctance or stubbornness in ending impulsive actions can have consequences. In the Book Thief by Markus Zusak, Liesel Meminger’s inability to halt her dangerous habits put her and others’ lives in dangerous situations. Three main examples of Liesel’s dangerous activities are when she steals books, when she demonstrates kindness at improper times, and when she disrespects others for her own selfish reasons. In all these examples, there is always one moment where Liesel places her or others in harm’s way and narrowly escapes punishment.
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.
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
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.
At many places in the story he shows the irony of Madame Loisel’s situation. From the time of her marriage, through her growing years, Madame Loisel desires what she does not have and dreams that her life should be other than it is. It is only after ten years of hard labor and abject poverty that she realizes the mistake pride led her to make. At that point, the years cannot be recovered. In my opinion, the moral lesson of the necklace story is that we should not judge people on appearances because they may appear to be rich and successful and they may not be. It also explains us we should not pine after material possessions, but realize we are happy with what we have and we must be satisfied with what we have and what we are. We must be honest enough to confess his mistake instead of running from situations and turning back. There’s nothing wrong in have wishing though and dreams, but you must know your limits and your condition as
I wonder how she feels if it was all worth it to her now? When she sits to reflect on the evening filled with beautiful dresses and the succulent food is she remorseful. Does she realize that she is at fault for not only hers but her husband's downfall for the last 10 years? Some would blame the friend that never informed her the necklace was indeed pasted, others may say it was due to society's influence on women when truly the only one to blame was the person who stared herself in the mirror and envied what others may have.