More handpicked essays just for you.
Greed and irony in the necklace by guy de maupassant
What is the conflict of the necklace by guy de maupassant
What is the conflict of the necklace by guy de maupassant
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Greed and irony in the necklace by guy de maupassant
In The Necklace Mathilde Loisel puts her family in debt because of a necklace that she borrowed and lost. Loisel’s life is surrounded by prosperous high standing people, while she on the other hand is poor. Her husband tries to give her whatever she desires, but it’s not good enough for her. Loisel wants to be like the people surrounding her, wealthy, happy, and living life at it’s fullest. She believes that for her to be like that, it would require a lot of money. While trying to look wealthy like the others she ends up being in debt for a necklace that she lost, which causes her to turn out even more poor than when she started. While trying to impress people at the party her husband was invited to, she spends a lot of money on a dress so she wouldn’t look different …show more content…
She thought now that her debt was all payed off, she wouldn’t mind telling her what happened. “I brought you another just like it. And we’ve been paying for it for ten years now. You can imagine it wasn’t easy for us who had nothing. Well, it’s over now, and I’m glad of it”(Maupassant 233). As Forestier smiles, she tells Loisel it was worth way less than what she paid for, since the necklace she borrowed was nothing more than a fake. She made herself miserable, when all she had to do was tell her the truth. Mathilde Loisel ends up in huge debt for not telling Forestier the truth about the lost necklace. If she would’ve just confessed to Madame Forestier, she wouldn’t have ended up so poor and miserable. When she puts her family in debt, she blames Forestier that she ended up that way. At the end, telling the truth to Forestier was the better option. She was poor, hopeless, and even in the end she ended up with nothing. It really wouldn’t have been such a big deal since the fake necklace was no more than five hundred francs, which was nothing to Madame Forestier. Poor Loisel is she had only given her the
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.
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.
In "The Necklace", the couple was not wealthy; the husband was a store clerk. When it came to going to a ball, she did not want to attend not just because she did not have anything to wear but she did not have any jewelry. The couple just could not afford it. Since her husband would do anything to make her happy, he had given her the money that he was saving up so she could buy herself a dress. After buying a dress and borrowing a necklace from her rich friend, they were off to the ball. After having a wonderful time and returning back home, she realized the necklace that she had borrowed was not on her neck anymore. After going to the jeweler to get it replaced, they knew that they would be in debt for a long time. "Loisel possessed 18 thousand fiancés which his father left him and he had to borrow the rest" (Maupassant, 2004, p. 349). For the necklace cost 44 thousand fiancés. Ten years they spent repaying back the money that they borrowed.
Guy de Maupassant’s The Necklace expresses the theme of being spoiled and ungrateful will only make things worse in many ways. Mathilde Loisel is a beautiful woman who is born into a family of poor clerks and feels she has nothing even though she wishes to have the best of everything. At times she can be charming and elegant, but she also possesses the unpleasant traits of being spoiled and ungrateful as shown in the story multiple times.
First, in “The Necklace” Mme. Loisel needed the material possession of the necklace in order to go to the ball and her greed cost her to lose everything.
Values are spread all around the world, and many people’s values differ. These can lead to people being judged, or indirectly characterized by other people. In “The Necklace” Mme. Loisel is a beautiful woman with a decent life, and a husband that loves her, and only wants to make her happy. She is not rich but she makes it along, she insists of a better, wealthier life. When her husband gets her invited to a ball, she feels the need for a brand new fancy dress and tons of jewelry. When the couple realizes they cannot afford jewelry as well, they search out to borrow her friend, Mme. Forestiers’ necklace. She comes to notice she no longer has the necklace on when she leaves the ball. This later troubles her, as she has to work for a long time to collect enough money to buy a new necklace. This story describes the relationship between a couple, who have different dreams, and how desires can revamp your life. Guy de Maupassant, the author of “The Necklace” uses literary devices to prove people come before materialistic items.
Mathilde Loisel lived the life of a painfully distressed woman, who always believed herself worthy of living in the upper class. Although Mathilde was born into the average middle class family, she spent her time daydreaming of her destiny for more in life... especially when it came to her financial status. Guy de Maupassant’s short story, “The Necklace”, tells a tale of a vain, narcissistic housewife who longed for the aristocratic lifestyle that she believed she was creditable for. In describing Mathilde’s self-serving, unappreciative, broken and fake human behaviors, de Maupassant incorporates the tragic irony that ultimately concludes in ruining her.
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
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 short story written by Guy Maupassant titled “The Necklace” is a story based in France in the later 1800’s about a women Mathilde Loisel whom feels she deserves better, and daydreams of a rich life often. She married a little clerk of the Ministry of Public Instruction instead of rich and distinguished man, cause of family names and birth rights she had no choice they did not go on beauty, grace, or charm. Mathilde said “she was unhappy as if she had really fallen from a higher station: since with women there is no caste or rank.”(Maupassant, p.1) The Writer did a great job with using dynamic characters, figurative language, and making it a parable which included the consequences they dealt with during their lives.
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
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
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.
Her husband tries to please her with that invitation, so that she can enjoy that night with him. Instead of appreciating him for the invitation, he got in a lot of trouble. She wants a new dress and jeweler for the ball night. He saved the money for his next summer shooting trip with his friends. The author states "All right.