False Identities in "The Necklace" by Guy de Maupassant and "Miss Brill" by Katherine Mansfield
When I think of false identities, two stories come to mind. "The Necklace" by Guy de Maupassant and "Miss Brill" by Katherine Mansfield. Both these stories deal with women who are nearly obsessed with lives that aren't their own. Both stories illustrate a woman who has entered into this `false reality.' By comparing and contrasting the characters and setting, we are able to take a look at the similarities and differences. Although these both deal with similar women, they also have great differences. Miss Brill is content with leading this false life once a week but Mathilde in "The Necklace" refuses to be happy unless she is given all the riches in the world.
In both of the short stories we begin to picture a woman who is less than satisfied with the way her life is. For example, in "The Necklace" we read: "She sat down to dinner, before the round table covered with a tablecloth three days old, opposite her husband, who uncovered the soup tureen and declared with an enchanted air, `Ah, the good pot-au-fue! I don't know anything better than that,' she thought of dainty dinners, of shining silverware, of tapestry" (Maupassant 108). This quote gives us an insight to, most likely, Mathilde's daily thoughts. She's unhappy with what she is given. Things like a healthy life, a happy husband, and a home. I found it peculiar that her husband seemed to be much more upbeat and happy with his lifestyle. I don't think that she has always had this attitude. Something must have made her like this.
Secondly, in "Miss Brill" we read: "She sat there for a long time. The box that the fur came out of was on the bed. She un...
... middle of paper ...
...d look of the walls, from the worn-out chairs, from the ugliness of the curtains. All those things, of which another woman of her rank would never even have been conscious, tortured her and made her angry" (107). This shows that Mathilde doesn't live in the best conditions but she is still certainly middle class. Towards the end of the story we read about her having things taken away from her. Their housekeeper is laid off and they move out of their house. This is a good indication that she didn't have such a bad life in the beginning of the story. Mathilde definitely dramatized the situation. She almost `imagined' her living situation to be worse than it actually was.
In conclusion, with both stories we go on a journey with these women to what they wish they had. Everyone uses their imagination in their own way to what they think is their benefit.
In conclusion both short stories were great at allowing us the reader to see the way that women were repressed in their society in the 1900s. We don't hate the men; we just wish women did not have to be so subservient. Freedom is achieved in very unconventional ways in both of these stories, but the kind of freedom these narrators achieve is not available to most women of this time era.
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.
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.
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.
Both stories show feminism of the woman trying to become free of the male dominance. Unfortunately, the woman are not successful at becoming free. In the end, the two women’s lives are drastically
In both these stories, authors portray two very different yet alike women who have trouble accepting their fate and are trying to reject the life of women of their class. Mathilde Loisel and Louise Mallard are very alike because they dream of something they do not have, then their dreams come true, but destiny plays a fatal role in both stories, and ladies lose everything they had. In both stories, ladies have caring husbands, whom they do not appreciate .Unfortunately, the endings of both stories are tragic.
When faced with a danger that may mar our existence, as humans we have the instinct to defend ourselves against destruction. Miss Brill’s character illustrates this human trait. Mansfield's intent in this story was displayed through Brill. Miss Brill made no effort to communicate with others but instead observed them through a goggled imagination. She took no effort to accept what and who she is, but believed she was something different. And when she was faced to deal with the reality of the world her expectations set her on a path to disappointment. Her ideals and beliefs made her naive about the world, eventually causing her to be hurt making her realize the world is not at all a play.
Maupassant, Guy De. “The Necklace.” Literature An Introduction to Reading and Writing. Ed. Edgar V. Roberts. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, 2008. 4-11. Print
both stories shared similar ending and moral which is receiving enlightenment in first hand. "The
Miss Brill is without any relatives or close friends. She has no acquaintances to converse with. Therefore, she treats her fur as if it were a pet. Her fur is a “dear little thing” (98) with eyes and a tail. She sometimes feels like “stroking” it (98).
Details about the modest apartment of the Loisels on the Street of Martyrs indicate Mathilde’s peevish lack of adjustment to life. Though everything is serviceable, she is unhappy with the “drab” walls, “threadbare” furniture, and “ugly” curtains (5). She has domestic help, but she wants more servants than the simple country girl who does the household chores in the apartment. Her embarrassment and dissatisfaction are shown by details of her irregularly cleaned tablecloth and the plain and inelegant beef stew that her husband adores. Even her best theater dress, which is appropriate for apartment life but which is inappropriate for more wealthy surroundings, makes her unhappy. All these details of the apartment establish that Mathilde’s major trait at the story’s beginning is maladjustment. She therefore seems unpleasant and unsympathetic.
Maupassant, Guy De, and Joachim Neugroschel. The Necklace and Other Tales. New York: Modern Library, 2003. Print.
It took ten years for Mathilde and her husband to pay off the debt of buying a new necklace. Those ten years were not spent with the luxuries she experienced so many years ago at the party, nor were they filled with the simple things she once owned and despised. She came to know “the horrible existence of the needy. She bore her part, however, with sudden heroism.” When passing her rich friend again in the street, she was barely recognizable. Who she was the day she ran into her friend was not who she was the night she wore that necklace.
“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
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.