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
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
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
As a character in the writing who was self-absorbed into looking wealthy because the community around her was, and she did everything she could to fit in with the expectations society was given to her. With a loving husband that found tickets to go to a ball, she continued to be bitter about her wealth; and she demanded for money for an expensive dress and a necklace so she went to a friend’s house to seek for a necklace to borrow (Maupassant, 1884, p. 2). Guy de Maupassant (1884) wrote, "All of a sudden she discovered, in a black satin box, a superb necklace of diamonds; and her heart began to beat with an immoderate desire. Her hands trembled as she took it" (p. 3). This quote illustrated the enjoyment the women got out of seeing a diamond necklace and hailing it as if it was worth one million dollars. Therefore, this reveals the the true power of perception and how this materialistic object satisfied the character because it made her look exquisite. The necklace is a sense of pride for this character to pursuit wealth and fame. Overall, a simplistic piece of jewelry was a meaning of wealth and please for this woman to be happy overall going to an event that fits her own reality of being
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.
As Mathilde begins sifting through Madame Forester’s jewelry, she asks, “You haven’t anything else” (Maupassant 51)? Ultimately, she found the prettiest necklace in a fancy box and decided to borrow it. All of Mathilde’s selfishness and vain attempts paid off the day of the ball, the narrator states, “She was the prettiest of them all, elegant, gracious, smiling, and mad with joy” (Maupassant 52). Unfortunately, Mathilde accidentally lost the necklace while she was enjoying her time at the ball. When she realized the jewelry was missing, she began to panic and eventually had to purchase a replacement with the help of
While there are a few stories that this may not be the case for, the rising action in “The Necklace” is the most enjoyable part of the text. First Madame Loisel feels the need for a nice dress and buys one using her husband’s money. The same thing applies for a necklace in which she borrows for Madame Forestier. This is when she and her husband attend the extravagant party. Madame Loisel is the center of attention and is quite content with herself. She looks at herself in the mirror and vows to remember the night forever. Little does she know the irony in the statement before the rising action comes to an end when she realizes that she lost the
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.
The imagery shows how she was once a very beautiful women that grew ragged with hard work. The text is trying to teach us that being greedy can often give you what you fear the most. Mathilde feared being poor and wanted to be wealthy so she took the necklace that symbolized wealth and lost it. She ended up having to spend all of her family’s money in order to replace the missing jewelry and thus had to be poor. The entire story is irony because she desired to be wealthy and she ended up being
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.
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.
Mathilde allows her life to be miserable because of her dreams of great wealth. She is also disappointed in her husband who always supports her and caters to her every desire. If she would have accepted her life for what it was and would have been happy for what she was given, then a great deal of her unhappiness would have never existed.
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.
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
Loisel knew that Mathilde was unhappy and withdrawn by noticing she took no interest in their home or even idle conversation. Mathilde just daydreamed all day of a better life and these dreams did not include Loisel. Loisel being a man of concern and wanting to see his wife happy worked hard to obtain tickets to a dinner ball. When he presented these tickets to Mathilde she surprised him with her reply and reaction, "She looked at him angrily and stated impatiently:"What do you want me to wear to go there?"(par.14).