Gustave Flaubert taught Guy De Maupassant how to write. Flaubert’s teaching principles said that the “writer must view everything to find an aspect of it that no other person has seen or expressed” and that this would give the reader a different or new perspective (Charters header 523). Kate Chopin (861) said that Maupassant was a writer who had “entered himself into his life and looked at it through his own eyes.” His “realistic fiction” was a major influence on writers (Charters, “Brief History”, 998). “The Necklace”, a 19th-century literary realist period story, was written. The story is about “everyday life, events, and relationships of middle/lower classes” and gives a glimpse into normal people and their influence by “social economic forces” (Agatucci 4,).
The story’s plot and characters are what help us understand the meaning of “The Necklace”. Maupassant said that story is more than entertainment. It’s a tool to help us “think and understand the deeper and hidden meanings of events.” (Writer’s 896). The theme of “The Necklace,” to me, shows the importance and joy of being honest with yourself. It shows us that there are many things that can make a person happy, and money does not necessarily solve all their problems. Donald Adamson described Mathilde as “poor, but honest” and I disagree. Mathilde’s dishonesty leads to her discovering “the horrible existence for the needy” (Maupassant, 528). Mathilde is a sad and selfish woman who is married to a “little secretary” who is poor and unhappy. She longs for a life of luxury and elegance where she can be beautiful and respected (Maupassant – “Necklace”, 524). Mathilde is driven through the story by her internal conflict. M. Loisel her husband is content with their lives and wants to make Mathilde happy despite all he has to endure. He is thrilled to receive an invitation to a ball, which was “awful trouble to obtain”, but he also eagerly returns it to his wife (525). Mathilde, after having her dress altered, can’t believe she will be able to go to the ball without “one jewel.” So Mme. Forestier (526). Mathilde’s day at the ball was everything she had hoped for, but Mathilde loses her necklace. Mathilde and M. Loisel eventually find a substitute necklace. But, Mathilde later discovers that the necklace was “merely costume jewellery.” (Charters). Maupassant provides a detailed character portrait of Mathilde (Adamson) in the exposition “The Necklace”. Mathilde is a conflict-prone person. Mathilde feels too successful for the life she has chosen. She’s unhappy with her life and wants to be someone else. M. Loisel, on the other hand, is content to return home to his wife and enjoy a “economical yet delicious meal”. (Smith). Mathilde believes that wealth will end her suffering. She won’t visit a wealthy friend or “former classmate at convent” because she is jealous and envious.
Mathilde gets the invitation. Mathilde cannot see herself in her old dresses and is now more conflicted. Mathilde cries and M. Loisel, who has just a few dollars left, “quickly gives up his savings” to buy her a new dress. (Smith). Mathilde isn’t content with a dress. It would be disgrace for her to not wear jewelry to the ball. Maupassant 526. She cannot “look poor” among rich women. So, she borrows Mme. Forestier (526). Maupassant convincingly convinces the reader that this necklace is genuine diamonds. This sets the stage for the thrilling climax, when Mathilde accidentally loses her necklace on her return from the ball. M. Loisel retorts, and he goes to look for it. Mathilde tells him to lie to Mathilde if he doesn’t find it. Forestier will tell Forestier that the necklace was broken and she will need to get it fixed. Mathilde could have been honest and told Mathilde that the necklace was broken. Forestier would’ve told Mathilde that the necklace only cost “paste…worth at least five hundred francs” (530). They instead found a replacement necklace that cost thirty-six thousands francs. M. Loisel turned five years old after a week and was forced into using his inheritance and borrowing money. Mathilde was horrified to learn of the “horribleexistence of the poor” (528). Mathilde left her flat and “forgave their servant”. Mathilde was a “woman from impoverished homes – strong, hard and rough” (529). Mathilde was forced by her “miserable money” to bargain and defend them (529). They had to wait ten years before they could pay all their debts. Mathilde had lost her charm and was no longer charming.
These trials represent the falling action in the story. The conflict is moving towards resolution (Charters, “Elements” 1005). Donald Adamson and Guy De Maupassant use the term “hero” to describe Mme. Loisel may have been heroic but it is not what I feel. She was simply fulfilling her duties, which she believed she was not good enough for. I don’t think dishonesty should be considered a characteristic of a hero. Mathilde could have been open with Mme. She would have told Forestier straight away about the loss of her necklace. Mathilde may be praised for being heroic in that she accepted responsibility and gave up her life to pay the debt. It was admirable she didn’t expect her husband to shoulder the burden. The surprise factor in “The Necklace’s” conclusion is undoubtedly evident. Mathilde discovers it was made of imitation gemstones and not diamonds. Mathilde’s shocking discovery leaves many questions unanswered.
Maupassant uses a limited omniscient narrative to describe Mathilde. She is a flexible character who can choose alternative solutions to situations (Charters, “Elements”, 1007). Mathilde can be both dynamic and static, according to me. Mathilde is dynamic because she undergoes significant changes and assumes the role of a poor housewife. She’s still not happy with her life. M. Loisel, Mathilde’s husband, is also a “play-and-pull” character. This can be seen in the story (Charters, “Elements”, 1007). Mathilde gets upset by the invitation and offers to buy her another dress. Mme. Forestier is a good place to borrow jewelry for her if she needs it. Forestier takes the money and replaces the necklace when Forestier loses it. M. Loisel experiences some change but he remains static. He is happy and content throughout the story. Mathilde remains his focus and he works hard. The story is full of themes from “The Necklace”. Mathilde should have been sincere with Mme. She could have saved the entire ordeal if Forestier had been honest with her and was happy with herself. The reader is shown that honesty is best. Maupassant warns readers about the dangers of vanity. Mathilde did not need to wear a necklace made of diamonds. She was worried about how others would view her. The fake diamond necklace shows that not everything is as it seems, even though Mme. Forestier looked wealthy but she could have chosen or only been able afford to wear costume jewelry. “The Necklace,” I believe, serves to remind us all that it doesn’t matter how much material wealth or money we have.
