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. …show more content…
In the end Mme. Loosely caused her own downfall because she was greedy, materialistic, and selfish. Me.
Loisel’s greed caused her great problems throughout the story. Greed is an act of always wanting more and never being happy with what you have. In the story Mme. Loisel continues to grieve her lack of belongings even though she has recently bought a new dress. Mme. Loisel expresses this when she says, “It’s embarrassing not to have a jewel or gem, nothing to wear on my dress...there’s nothing more humiliating than to look poor among alot of rich women” (Maupassant 75). Mme. Loisel is always wanting more than she has and she finds it humiliating when she can't achieve her idea of excellence. She lets her greed drive her decisions and she doesn't stop to think of the consequences. Being materialist also aided Mme. Loisel in her downfall. Materialism is only focusing on the material things in life and focusing on what they are worth. Mme. Loisel is very materialistic and it shows especially when she dreams of all the things she wants. In the book it talks about how she didn't have any fine clothes or jewelry yet these were all things she wanted, “she felt that was the kind of life for her” (Maupassant 73). This showed that she wanted all these material things and she believed greatly that they would make her
happy. Throughout the story selfishness was a great cause of problems for Mme. Loisel. Many selfish people often only worry about how something will affect them personally and they tend to overlook everyone else’s needs. Mme. Loisel has many selfish moments during the story and one of the, happens when she is returning the replacement necklace to Mme. Forestier. When she gives her the necklace and begins to think of what would happen if she found out the truth Mme. Loisel’s first thought was, “would she have thought her a thief” (Maupassant 80). Even though she and her husband are completely drowning in debt all she can think about is what Mme. Forestier would think of her. She was selfish and didn't think of either her husband or Mme. Forestier’s feelings, all she could think of was her own. Mme. Loisel was greedy, materialistic, and selfish, which in the end caused her own downfall. In the story Mme. Loisel always wanted what she couldn't have and when she had something she always wanted more. Her greed went along with her materialistic nature because she only cared about the value of something and how it made her look. She never cared about anyone’s feelings other than her own and when she chose to lie about the necklace she never took in count how it might affect those around her. People like Mme. Loisel often times forget that lying is not the best option and at times it can actually cause more problems.
Deceptiveness of appearances is highlighted in, “The Necklace,” by the necklace of Mathilde’s wealthy best friend, Madame Forestier. She allows, Mathilde to borrow it for the party. The fact that it comes from Madame Forestier’s jewelry box gives it the illusion of high value, when actually it is just costume jewelry. Mathilde would not have worn the necklace if she knew the diamonds were fake, because she believes she is deserving of more. Fake jewels suggest that even the wealthiest pretend to have more than they actually claim. Unfortunately, Mathilde loses the necklace, not realizing the necklace is fake. The fact that Madame Forestier, does not notice Mathilde has replaced the fake gems with real diamonds, suggests that true value is ultimately dependent on perception. In the movie Slumd...
Crises are inevitable. But Crises can be dealt a number of ways, due to their prevalence. However, books seem to be a popular choice, why? What makes them special and useful in times of crises? Some of the most well-known books involve a description of crisis or a character going through the crisis. In Night, Author Elie Wiesel describes his experience in Nazi Hungary and in concentration camps such as Auschwitz and Buchenwald to bring awareness about the horrors of Holocaust and warn the people about any future atrocities. Furthermore, in The Book Thief, The main character, Liesel Meminger, describes her experience with stealing books and how it helped her survive and stay courageous during the Nazi regime. Lastly, in The Dairy of a Young Girl, Anne Frank
and Mme. Loisel cooperate to find what seems to be an exact replica of the lost necklace, which they must purchase and return to Mme. Forestier. Mathilde attempts to find a replacement for the necklace to prevent Mme. Forestier from realizing the original had been lost. The couple travelled “from one jeweler to another hunting for a similar necklace” (175). They went together to look for the necklace, which proves that they are exerting mutual effort. M. Loisel uses all means necessary to pay for the necklace. He “made ruinous deals” (187) and “risked his signature” (188) in order to pay for the expensive diamond necklace. Though Mme. Loisel lost the necklace, her husband uses his savings and takes out loans to help her pay for the replacement. The couple acquires the necklace and must return it to Mme. Forestier. M. Loisel brings the necklace home, and “Mme. Loisel took the necklace back” (199) to the owner. The couple collaborates to get the necklace into the hands of its owner. Mathilde and M. Loisel work together to replace Mme. Forestier’s necklace, and she is none the
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:
Because Madame Loisel was blessed with beauty, but she “had no fine dresses, no jewels, nothing. Yet luxury was all she cared about; she felt that she had been born for it. She wanted so much to give pleasure, to be envied, to be alluring and admired” and longed for a wealthy life, she wanted to dress like the wealthy when given the chance to mingle among them, but Madame Loisel believes she might be able to find a “suitable dress...for four hundred
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.
The late Irish poet Oscar Wilde once stated, "In the world, there are only two tragedies. One is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it.” This quote accurately describes human nature to the extent that man is never fully satisfied with his current possessions. In fact, most people who rely on materialistic items for happiness are typically desolated and miserable. This story is based on an archaic view on women, where women have no caste or hierarchy. The people grade women based off their looks and beauty. Money “practically makes nobility” (Shmoop). It “enables the user to pay for the high life” (Shmoop) and confine the person with luxurious items known to man. Money controls the life of people, rather than vise versa, causing greed. Malthide, who is the wife of a minor clerk, has immense greed to live a sumptuous life. Malthide’s greed led to her destruction and turmoil, however her grief is what taught her an everlasting lesson.
All that glitters is not gold. A lesson Mathilde Loisel had learned during her journey of discovering the greed. Greed is a curse that blocks people’s vision from seeing the realistic value of things...
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.
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.
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.
But the misery taught Madame Loisel to accept her situation. She was dressing like commoners; she was doing all the household chores without complaining. She was living a poor woman’s life and she accepted it. Because she knew that she has to pay the debt for the necklace. So this misery lasted for ten years when they finally cleared all the debts. It was a huge relief for them. That little incident has shaken her life; she realizes that it losing it was the reason of her misery. This is where she is wrong, instead of thinking that she should be thinking why she borrowed it at the first
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.
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.