Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
De maupassant, "the jewelry" character analysis
Essay wealth and poverty
Essay wealth and poverty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: De maupassant, "the jewelry" character analysis
In the 1700’s, ladies and men went to parties and wore a lot of jewelry and big, large dresses. In “The Necklace” , Madame Mathilde Loisel feels that she has nothing and her husband gets an invitation to an evening reception. Mathilde goes to her friends to get a piece of jewelry. She finds a diamond necklace. She loses the necklace at the party and she spends 10 years paying her friend back. Through connecting the characters and symbol, Guy De Maupassant “The Necklace” reveals the readers shouldn’t be greedy and care for what they have.
In “The Necklace” , the characters make the story happen. In the story analysis it shows, “Her belief that she is meant for better things than middle-class drudgery forms the core of her personality (“The Necklace” , 168).” Madame Mathilde is a greedy lady who cares for what she wants more than what she has. Her husband mostly tries to make her happy but, it never works. She thinks that just because she doesn’t have as nice stuff as anyone else she is a poor lady. In the analysis it shows ,“She believes that superficial things will make her happy (“The Necklace” , 168).” In any case, she learns how greedy she is when she loses the necklace.
…show more content…
“ In the story it shows, “All at once she found in a black satin box, a superb diamond necklace ( De Maupassant, 73).” In the story analysis it shows, “The Necklace is the central symbol of the story (“The Necklace” , 170).” The necklace represents Madame Loisel’s greed. When she loses her friend’s necklace she loses her greed. At any rate, she judges herself for what she has and believes everyone else will
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.
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
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.
Janwillem Van De Wetering says, “Greed is a fat demon with a small mouth and whatever you feed it is never enough.” Guy De Maupassant’s “The Necklace” tells of Mrs. Mathilde Loisel’s longings for the finer things in life. Her desires are so intense she risks her husband’s affections, the friendship of an old chum, and even her mediocre lifestyle to pursue these cravings. One small decision based on an ill-placed desire causes a slow drawn out death of the spirit, body and relationships.
The author of "The Necklace", Guy de Maupassant, relates the setting to Mathilde throughout the story. The central character in "The Necklace" is Mathilde. She dreams many dreams of rich living and high society. Her dwellings throughout "The Necklace" show her mood towards the way she is forced to live.
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.
“The Necklace” ends up to be a very ironic story as it explains why valuing the more important things in life can be very effective towards a person’s happiness. One example of the story’s irony is when she is at the party dressed as a beautiful and fancy woman. ‘She danced madly, wildly, drunk with pleasure, giving no thought to anything in the triumph of her beauty, the pride of her success…’ (pg 193). This is a form of dramatic irony because Guy explains earlier that Mme. Loisel is just a middle class woman who dreams of a wealthy life, but she is just alluding herself as a luxurious woman. Another example of irony in the story is when Madame found out that the necklace was paste. On page 196, Mme. Forestier, Ma...
The falling action of the story was when Madame Loisel learned her lesson. For ten years, she and her husband slaved away to make up the money for the necklace. The jeweller stated a solid price of 34,000 francs. As the couple only possessed 18,000, they borrowed the rest from multiple people with the intent of paying them back, and they did. Ten years later and the debt was payed off, with the biggest change being Madame Loisel’s looks. She use to be a beautiful, young-looking woman, but in those ten years, it looked as if she aged fifty. This brings us to the resolution of the story. Madame Loisel was out for a Sunday walk when she bumped into her old friend that leant her the diamond necklace ten years ago. Madame Forestier didn’t even recognize her because of how much she aged. After Madame Loisel told her that the reason she looked so different was because of her necklace, Madame Forestier revealed the biggest plot twist. The beautiful diamond necklace that Madame Loisel lost and spent so many hours replacing was fake. It was worth 500 francs at the most. The ending of “The Necklace” was very shocking but clever on the author’s part. Without the big finale, the story would be remembered as mediocre at best, but with the resolution, the story was quite memorable.
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 Necklace” the main characters, Monsieur Loisel and Madame Loisel, have very different values, with these values changing throughout the story. In the beginning Mme. Loisel has a good life, she is middle-upper class with a good husband and home. She was born into a family of clerks which is also her husband's occupations.
Guy de Maupassant’s “The Necklace” tells the story of Mathilde Loisel: a less-than-fortunate woman who believes she was destined for a life of luxury, and is thus dissatisfied with her life. Through Mathilde’s unhappy personality, the morality at the heart of the story is addressed; who you appear to be does not define who you are, but rather the way you go about
As I did research on how others interpreted the story, the same conclusion would pop up. The necklace was used as a symbol of higher class of wealth. We use symbolic items to try and fit into societies belief of “fancy”. The deeper meaning is within the true value of the necklace. It is a fake just as she is! She is trying to be something she is not and ends up losing the necklace which holds a false value as well. This is why a person should not take everything as it
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
The moral of Guy de Maupassant’s story “The Necklace” seems to be suggested by the line, “What would have happened if Mathilde had not lost the necklace?” If Mathilde had not lost the necklace, or in fact, even asked to borrow the necklace, she and Mr. Loisel would not of been in debt ten long years. Because Mathilde had to borrow the necklace to make herself and others like her better her and Mr. Loisel’s economic situation had become worse than it already was. I think that the moral of the story is that people need to be happy with what they have and not be so greedy.
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.