Views of Women in The Necklace by Guy De Maupassant A&P by John Updike "The Necklace" by Guy De Maupassant, and "A&P" by John Updike were written in two different centuries by two authors of very different backgrounds. However, each story expresses very similar views about women. The women in these stories are self-centered creatures who control men with their sexuality, and end up damaging the men's life. The main character in "The Necklace" is a lady named Mathilde who is extremely pretty. She is not a very wealthy person, and is married to a clerk. Mathilde is very unhappy with her life, and wishes she could have more luxuries. The author says : She dressed plainly because she could not dress well, but she was as unhappy as though she had really fallen from her proper station, since with women there is neither caste nor rank: and beauty, grace, and charm act instead of family and birth. Natural fitness, instinct for what is elegant, suppleness of wit are the sole hierarchy, and make from women of the people the equals of the very greatest ladies. (Guy De Maupassant 160) Mathilde is completely materialistic and ungrateful for her blessings. Even though she has a servant, she feels like a poor person: "She had no dresses, no jewels, nothing and she loved nothing but that; she felt made for that. She would have so have liked to be envied, to be charming, to be sought after." (Guy De Maupassant 161) Mathilde will not even visit her old friend because her friend is rich, and Mathilde is jealous. Her husband is very content with his life and only wants her to be happy. However, when he gets them invited to a fancy ball, all she does is complain that she has nothing to wear. Her husband gives her the money tha... ... middle of paper ... ... her children about some candy they didn't get by the door of a powder blue falcon station wagon." (Updike 16) The writers of these two stories paint a dismal picture of what women are like. When they are young and beautiful, they are sexually attractive, but they are not particularly intelligent or deep. However, the men in these stories go to extreme limits, because of their attraction to the women. In the end, the men in these short stories are the fools because they are slaves to their desires, which is what Sammy realizes he is going to be doing the rest of his life, and what Mathilde's husband did for ten years after she lost the necklace. Bibliography: Works Cited Kennedy, Gioia, ed. Literature New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 2000 Guy De Maupassant "The Necklace" Kennedy, Gioia 160-166 John Updike "A&P" Kennedy, Gioia 12-16
Though, when one examines their true purpose and commentary it is revealed to be a direct assault on the principles of what it means to be a man. Both short stories depict men whose only purpose is to impress females; or, men who are simply foolish. While both stories are misogynistic superficially as the men treat the women as sex objects, the true offence is the misandristic stereotype that this is what a typical teenage boy would do. This idea permeates through the entirety of both stories. This irresponsible idealism negatively effects ones view of males as a gender. This leaves one question, if the misogyny of the stories is widely reputed, why is the misandry blatantly
Jane was born into a rich family and could have very easily become a housewife with few worries. As a little girl, she once tried on a beautiful coat and asked her father, John Addams, if she could wear it to church. Jane’s father advised her to wear an old cloak instead, which would keep here warm without making the other girls at Sunday school feel badly about their own clothes. He added that, "it was very stupid to wear the sort of clothes that made it harder to have equality even (in church.)"
To start off with, Mathilde had many conflicts she had to face during the story. First, she was poor and low in the social class. In the textbook it says, “she dressed plainly because she could not afford fine clothes.” She does not have money to buy new clothes because she is poor. Secondly, she got invited to the ball but had no evening clothes. “Only I don’t have an evening dress and therefore I can’t go to the affair.” Mathilde is poor and does not own an evening dress and can’t afford a dress she thinks she can’t go to the ball. Next, she has no jewelry to wear. . “It’s embarrassing not to have a jewel or gem-nothing to wear on my dress. I’ll look pauper.” She has no jewels or gems to go with her dress. Finally, she overcame many conflicts
The setting of both stories reinforces the notion of women's dependence on men. The late 1800's were a turbulent time for women's roles. The turn of the century brought about revolution, fueled by the energy and freedom of a new horizon…but it was still just around the bend. In this era, during which both short stories were published, members of the weaker sex were blatantly disregarded as individuals, who had minds that could think, and reason, and form valid opinions.
... both had to work very hard to pay off their debt; this shows that it is essential to find a job to make a living. People have an ego that they do not want to be frowned on. We tend to have a desire to be accepted by the society because we do not want to look like an outcast. Mathilde did not want to be “humiliat[ed] by looking poor” (4). Instead, we should buy accessories that be are capable of affording because life is difficult when we run into major debts. She had an opportunity to “Wear a flower…For ten” (4) but she refused, which led her and her husband into ten years of hard work. It is important to live a lifestyle that we can survive in.
Lying can have consequences. Mathilde always longed to be of a higher class. She was a woman with very good looks, but she wanted more of wh...
In both of these stories there are certain characteristics of females that are the same, they are inner strength, obedience, honor and respect, the good of the family is better than the good of the individual.
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.
Both stories show the characters inequality with their lives as women bound to a society that discriminates women. The two stories were composed in different time frames of the women’s rights movement; it reveals to the readers, that society was not quite there in the fair treatment towards the mothers, daughters, and wives of United States in either era. Inequality is the antagonist that both authors created for the characters. Those experiences might have helped that change in mankind to carve a path for true equality among men and women.
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.
“The Necklace”, narrated by Guy de Maupassant in 3rd person omniscient, focuses the story around Mathilde Loisel who is middle class, and her dreams of fame and fortune. The story is set in 19th century France. One day, Mathilde’s husband brings home an invitation to a fancy ball for Mathilde; to his surprise Mathilde throws a fit because she doesn’t have a dress or jewelry to wear to the ball. M. Loisel gets her the beautifully expensive dress she desires and Mathilde borrows a diamond necklace from Mme. Forestier, a rich acquaintance of Mathilde. Mathilde goes to the ball and has a night she’s dreamed of, until she gets home from the ball at 4 A.M. to find
Furthermore, the lifestyle both women want ends up in disaster however, one ends in death while the other in hard labor. In "The Necklace", the wife ends up losing her friend’s expensive necklace which causes her to work hard to earn enough money to pay of a new one. Due to all the work she loses her beauty. In contrast, whereas in "The Jewels" the constant attendance of the opera house during the winter causes her to die of inflammation which resulted a deep sorrow towards the husband. Both wife’s lived life differently. Both tries to find the best way to fulfill their desire for the good
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.
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
Mathilde Loisel grew up in the working class and had no expectations in life. Mathilde settled for a lifestyle she was unhappy with. When she got married, she and her husband would sit around the dinner table and imagine they were eating a luxurious meal. Together, they had nothing. Mathilde had no clothes, no jewels, and only one friend (who was rich). Mathilde dreamt of wealth, fine clothes, and a beautiful house. She knew that those dreams were unrealistic and unattainable.