Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Social class the necklace
Literary analysis essay fate or character of the necklace
Literary analysis essay fate or character of the necklace
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Social class the necklace
Mme. Loisel is the protagonist in the short story “The Necklace”. She is a young beautiful woman who feels she has been short changed by her social standing in life. She feels she belongs to a world of wealth and vanity but is relegated to the role of a commoner because of her family heritage. This status continues as “she let herself be married to a little clerk at the Ministry of Public Instructions”. Mme. Loisel is a very immature woman when she is introduced in the story. She places value on women as judged by their beauty and wealth. She views the “natural fineness and instinct for what is elegant is the sole hierarchy”. She fails to see traits such as wisdom, kindness, compassion as beneficial and to be highly prized. She …show more content…
Loisel’s character in the story. We see her moving from immature, selfish thoughts and actions to those that were mature and responsible. The first change we see is interaction with her husband. Although it is not directly stated, by her actions see her with a more intimate relationship with her husband where she had previously seen him beneath her. He directs her “You must write to your friend” and we see that she wrote at his dictation. She joins him in the effort to locate a replacement for the necklace. Replacing the necklace would cost the Loisel’s not only all their earthly wealth but would indebt them for many years to …show more content…
She was willing to make deep sacrifices to repay the debt. She not only “dismissed their own servant”, they moved and rented a small attic room to be able re-pay the debt. She was very careful with the family finances and frugal with household purchases so that any extra money can go to the debt. It took ten long years to repay the debt. And the time the debt was paid, when Mme. Loisel came into contact with her friend, she was honest with her friend about the lost necklace and the great expense to replace the necklace. It was revealed by her friend, that the necklace was only costume jewelry and of not value. We do see compassion from the friend as she “took her two hands” to tell her the necklace was a fake. From there the final outcome of the story is not known, but the transformation of Mme. Loisel is very evident in the
Mrs. Loisel and the grandmother are very similar due to the fact that they both had the same motivation prior to their accident. It was a selfish motivation that cost them their lives. Mrs. Loisel's character was selfish in "The Necklace" because instead of wearing flowers like her husband suggested, she chose to borrow her friend's jewelry. "You can wear some natural flowers. At this season they look very chic. For ten francs you can have two or three magnificent roses. 'No, she replied, there is nothing more humiliating than to have a shabby air in the midst of rich women.'" (67) This is truly an act of selfishness on Mrs. Loisel's part. If she wouldn't have been so arrogant, she could have just worn the flowers to the party and it would have saved her a lot of trouble.
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.
In conclusion, Mathilde Loisel, in Guy de Maupassant’s The Necklace, reveals the theme of being spoiled and ungrateful will only make things worse in many ways. Even though Mathilde Loisel is charming and beautiful she also posses the unpleasant traits of being spoiled and ungrateful. These are all ways being spoiled and ungrateful will get you
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
In “The Necklace,” Guy de Maupassant uses setting to reflect the character and development of the main character, Mathilde Loisel. As a result, his setting is not particularly vivid or detailed. He does not even describe the ill-fated necklace—the central object in the story—but states only that it is “superb” (7 ). In fact, he includes descriptions of setting only if they illuminate qualities about Mathilde. Her changing character can be connected to the first apartment, the dream-life mansion rooms, the attic flat, and a fashionable public street. [This is a well-defined thesis statement.]
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 short story “The Necklace” wrote by Guy de Maupassant, the main character Mme. Loisel is portrayed as ungrateful and embarrassed. The first character trait of Mme. Loisel demonstrate is ungrateful. This character trait is apparent when
Loisel wonders how differently her life would have been if she had not lost the necklace, and had to pay back so much debt. Mme. Loisel sees Mme. Forester with a child and describes her as still looking young and beautiful: “She perceived a woman walking with a child. It was Mme.
The price really does pay when they can't find the necklace. Through plot development and characterization, Guy de Maupassant teaches readers that bad things will catch up to dishonest and greedy people. Mme. Loisel was very greedy and dishonest to her friends throughout the story, she always expects that she should always have the best that is available.
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
Mathilde chose not to have a social life after the necklace incident, because she worked hard to pay the new necklace off. Maupassant proved Mathilde changed by showing, “both he and Mathilde expend a great deal of energy in repaying their debt; Monsieur Loisel is even forced to take on extra work in his free time” (Overview). By the end of the ten years, Mathilde realized that being rich was not everything; she changed for the better.
...assant introduces some literary elements, such as foreshadowing, “I didn’t sell that necklace, Madame,” he said “I only supplied the case.” and flashback, “But, sometimes, while her husband was at work, she would sit near the window and think of that long-ago evening when, at the dance, she had been so beautiful and admired. Maupassant hold the reader in suspense up until the end when the short story takes an unexpected twist when Mathidle finds out the borrowed necklace was fake. The story brought in horrible irony; The Loisel’s spent 10 years paying off a replacement for something that had no value to begin with. This ironic ending makes the quality of this short story so great.
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
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
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