Everyone has had those moments where you just sit and dream about how much better your life would be if you were elsewhere. That was the case for Mme. Loisel in “The Necklace” by Guy De Maupassant. Every single day she longed for a better life, a better house, better clothing, and a better income. She felt like she deserved all of those great things in life. However, one day Mme. Loisel was going to find out that everything she wanted wasn’t as great as she thought it to be. Mme. Loisel was a very pretty woman and she thought she deserved better than what she was given in life and wanted everything that would make her above everyone else. Mathilde, for some reason thought her life was dreadful and there was nothing you could do to change …show more content…
Mme. Loisel was surprisingly not excited at all. She had finally gotten something she only could have dream about before, and now she was contradicting herself. It seems like the author included this to show that once she got what she wanted, she still wasn’t happy. Secondly, Mathilde had realized that she had nothing to wear to this event, life had gotten even worse for her now. Her husband decided they were going to attend. Once the outfit was purchased, she still wasn’t pleased. Mme. Loisel had no jewels to go along with her outfit. Anew, her husband came up with the idea to have her ask one of her dear friends if she could borrow a necklace. As the party ensued, Mme. Loisel was the center of attention; her dreams were being fulfilled. As they were leaving the party, the author includes, “He threw her over his shoulders the wraps that he had brought for going home, modest garments of everyday life whose shabbiness clashed with the stylishness of her evening clothes. She felt this and longed to escape, unseen by the other women who were draped in expensive furs” (Maupassant 4). This is demonstrating that once again she got everything she wanted, but there was a setback. Nothing was ever going to be exactly what Mme. Loisel wanted. All of this is clearly showing that everything wanted in life isn’t going to be as great as it’s thought to
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
The Princess of Cleves was first published in 1678 and is often believed to be the first significant French novel. Marie de La Fayette paved the way for future novelists with her work. The significance and impact of her work goes far beyond the actual text. She combines original and classic concepts throughout her story. Her figurative language is still prevalent and widely used in modern literature. De La Fayette’s innovative ideas contributed to one of the most important time periods, the Enlightenment, and continues to inspire today.
Utopia: what is it really? The conclusion that most scholars have come to is that is the ideal world, a perfect society. The debate comes in whether it is achievable or not. Many famous authors; Ray Bradbury, Shirley Jackson, Kurt Vonnegut, and Ursula Le Guin to name a few, have tackled the topic in short stories they've written, and the conclusion they've come to is simple: that utopia is impossible. These short stories all share something in common: in them, at least one person in the utopian society is suffering for others to prosper. This is why utopia can not be achieved by human society until there has to be no one suffering for others to be happy.
Christine de Pisan’s book, The Treasure of the City of Ladies, explains in detail the various aspects of women’s lives during the late Medieval and Renaissance culture. She addresses all women of this time from those with power and authority to the poorest peasant women. Christine de Pisan focuses on three main areas of a women’s life during this time period. First she discusses the role of knowledge and education in the lives of the various women. Then she offers her advice to all the different women of varied backgrounds and social standards. She relates how all of these women are in fact connected due to common concerns. Finally, she depicts how men and women interact with one another. By describing the way in which women are treated by the men during this time, she portrays the typical relationship between men and women during Renaissance times. Women were expected to lead a very specific life, focusing on the men of their society.
Madame Loisel was a proud woman who was extremely poorly along with her husband, who earned a low amount of money, but she dreamed of being someone who owned extravagant clothing and jewelry that was worth plenty of money. Someone who has money would be seen as a highly respectable person who was elegant and looked up to. This could be seen in paragraph 3 where it says, “The modest clothes of an ordinary life, whose poverty contrasted sharply with the elegance of the ball dress.” Madame Loisel for example, wanted to pretend to be a high class individual while in reality she was only an average poor person. She had not realized what it actually took to acquire the money needed to a fine women so all she could do was dream. She did not value the life she had where she did not have to work and all she had to do was stay home and clean. Also in paragraph Add Paragraph “She had become strong, hard and rough like all women of impoverished households.” This helps develop the idea that valuable items have an emotional attachment because the necklace was so valuable money wise but it also helped her develop a different personality that was more accepting to what she had already. The necklace represented something to her that she could never own on her own but in the process of being selfish and greedy she learned many values of life. Treasurable
Mathilde marries Mr. Loisel, a minor clerk in the Ministry of Education. She becomes unhappy with the way she has to live. "She suffered because of her grim apartment with its drab walls, threadbare furniture, ugly curtains." (paragraph 3). She owns cheap belongings and still dreams of being rich and having gourmet food while her husband likes plain things and seems rather happy for where he is in life. She dreams these wonderful and expensive things and it frustrates her. A dream come true happens but instead of being happy she is upset and even more frustrated.
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
Honesty can prevent years of misery, guilt and regret which Guy de Maupassant depicts throughout “The Necklace.” Guy de Maupassant, a French writer, born in 1850, was considered one of France’s greatest short-story writers. His writings were mostly influenced by the divorce of his parents when he was thirteen years old and by great writers such as Shakespeare, Schopenhauer, and Flauber. His parent’s divorce caused his stories to depict unhappiness of matrimony, deceit, miscommunication, and a profound misunderstanding (Maupassant, Guy de, 1850-1893). In the short-story “The Necklace,” Madame Mathilde Loisel, an unhappy person living in Paris, France, is given an invitation to a party at the Ministerial Mansion, but she will not attend without a fancy dress to wear and fancy jewelry. Her husband tells her to borrow jewelry from her friend, Madame Forestier, but this ends up being her downfall. She borrows the necklace, and eventually loses it after the party. She ends up paying for it with 10 years of hard labor, only later to find out that it was a fake. In “The Necklace,” Maupassant proves the theme that things do not always turn out as one expects through the use of point of view, characterization, and irony.
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
Some people in life are never satisfied with the experience given throughout their lifetime. In Guy De Maupassant’s short story “The Necklace,” Madame Mathilde Loisel is burdened by the middle-class life she is living and yearns for a life of luxury and delicacy. Mathilde is ungrateful of her life and her loving husband who helps her replace a lost necklace she selfishly borrowed from a friend in a vain attempt to be the prettiest woman at the ball.
From the beginning of the story Mathilde seems to have a chip on her shoulder as if she has been done an injustice because of who she is married to. The time period, in which this story was set, the only way a women could move up the class scale was to marry a man who came from wealth. Ironically, Mme. Loisel’s husband is a clerk just like her father was. She longs to be rich. Her mind is concentrated on being in the social circle and living a life surrounded by everything that is fine and exclusive. She is greedy and unhappy with her modest but still quite tolerable lifestyle. It is illustrated beautifully in the passage where she describes her intolerable “worn out chairs” and “ugly curtains.” In the very next breath she speaks of her “little Breton peasant who does her humble house work” (Maupassant 178). When her husband comes upon the opportunity to go out for an evening to a ball, he assumes his wife would be overjoyed. Instead, she relishes in thoughts of looking poor among the rich. Try as he might there is no pleasing his deprived wife.
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.
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
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.