Consider the author's message in "The Necklace" explain what you think it is and why. Consider Guy de Maupassant's use of irony. What, in the story, is ironic? How has the author effectively created a sense of irony?
The author's message in "The Necklace" is that greed leads to misfortune. Mathilda wanted to be the most well-dressed woman at the meeting, so of course she chose her friend's "best" diamond necklace. If Mathilda had made a more modest choice of jewelry to borrow, she would not have needed to spend 10 years paying off all her debts and becoming an old woman. The irony in the story is Mathilda slaving away for a decade to pay back a seemingly priceless necklace because of her own reckless avarice. After that decade, Mathilda finds out that the necklace cost only 1/72 of what she paid off, but it is already too late, as Mathilda and her husband have already committed themselves to their new meager lifestyle. The author created a sense of irony by showing that Mathilda wore a cheap, inexpensive substitute to the ball, thinking it was authentic, and then spending 10 years to pay off a seemingly immense debt.
I agree with what you said about the author's message. Mathilda wanted things she could not have, and ended up paying for it. Her desire to be the best at the party led to more harm than help. She had to pay back her debts for ten years because she was greedy.
I agree with what you said about greed leading to misfortune. When people start getting greedy, they just can't stop. This leads to misfortune, as you said. I think she should have just been content with what her husband gave her in the beginning.
The author's message in "The Necklace" is that you shouldn't let your life revolve around a material item. She got so caught up in having the necklace and trying to look good that she ended up being poor. Her friend couldn't even recognize her after all those years. She became poor trying to look rich and pretty. The irony is that the necklace she used to try to become rich ended up being the thing that made her poor. It did the opposite of what it was intended for.
I agree with your interpretation of the author's message. It definitely isn't a good thing to become too overly attached onto a "thing" or a specific type of glamorous look.
I also agree with your interpretation of the story. She was greedy and kept trying to look good, but as a result of trying to look good she lost everything.
In the story " The Necklace," there is one main theme. I think that theme is always to be honest to yourself and to others. If you don't do this, you end up lying and then you tell more lies to cover up the previous lies. If she had just told the truth in the beginning, then she would have to only pay of 500 francs instead of 34,000 francs. The irony was that the necklace she lost was an imitation and because she was dishonest, she ended up paying 68 times more than she had to pay.
I agree with your theme. If Mathilda was honest to herself, her husband, and her friend, she would not have needed to pay 68 times more money than needed.
I never considered that possibility and now eagerly agree to your statement. If she had known about the necklace, Mathilde would not have had to suffer as she did and pay such an immense price from trying to cover the mistakes she made. In the first place, the necklace itself was used as an ornament to make herself seem elegant and refined, hiding her more humble status behind a forced facade. By accepting herself, Mathilde would never have had to lie to both herself and others.
I agree with you. If you lie then you have to lie the second time to cover up the first one. You keep on lying to cover up lies. Then you more lies in your life than you have truths. So, if you lie once you have to lie until it gets out.
The authors message in "The Necklace" is that you should be truthful to everything. Mathilda, the protagonist, should have been honest to her friend about losing the jewels because it would have saved her ten years worth of hard labor and would have also saved her young looks. The irony in the story is that the lended jewels were only worth 500 francs because they were a imitation of the real ones, yet Mathilda thought they were real and paid 36,000 francs with debt just to return the necklace. The author effectively creates a sense of irony because the story was of Mathilda's downfall and her hardships that she had to endure for a decade ultimately done all in vain.
I agree, it is 100% true that she should have been honest. It would have saved her from years of misery. If she had not been caught up in all of it, and just did the right thing, she would have been fine.
Consider the author's message in "The Necklace" explain what you think it is and why. Consider Guy de Maupassant's use of irony. What, in the story, is ironic? How has the author effectively created a sense of irony?
I believe the theme of "The Necklace" is to be honest. In the story if the woman had just told the other woman that she had lost the necklace earlier in the story, instead of trying to cover it up, she would have paid far less than to cover it up. As a result, I believe that the theme of the story is that it is always better to tell the truth instead of trying to hide, if you try to cover the truth up you will pay dearly for it.
I think the author's message in "The Necklace" is that you should be content with what you have. Mathilde would have been perfectly good looking if she had simply bought the dress. However, her greed made her want more and more things that she did not have. After losing her friend's necklace, she suffered for years trying to pay off the debt, without even realizing the necklace she had borrowed was fake. I think the irony in the story comes from the fact that she was trying to hide her poverty from others, but in the end, she ended up a lot worse than she started, since she had to fire her maid and housework ruined her youthful look. This only highlighted her poverty, instead of shielding it like she had originally intended.
I 100% agree. You can't live life only wanting more instead of stopping to appreciate what you already have. If she wanted so badly to be hidden because of her poverty, she shouldn't have kept asking for more.
I think the author's message in "The Necklace" is that being dishonest once in your life could change it forever. Madame Loisel would have never had to pay the thirty-six thousand francs if she had told her friend. She would have never had to deal with an extremely low class life if she only had to pay her friend five hundred francs. The story is ironic because she went through so much work only to realize that it was for nothing. It was useless. The author builds up so much sadness only to reveal something that many readers would find hilarious.
What the author is trying to say is that, you have to be yourself and not let the power of greed and wealth control you. In the story, the main character fantasised about having jewelry but was married to a poor man. When she decided to borrow jewelry, what she hoped would make her happy, lead to a long time of misery. And even after all that time, the fact that the price of the necklace was not anything close to what she thought it would be just adds to it.
The theme, or author’s message, of " The Necklace" is that anything can be beautiful no matter how much money u put in. Mathilde thought that the more expensive a piece of jewelry or and object of clothing is the prettier and better it is, but Madame Forestier made her realize that anything can be beautiful no matter how much money u put in.
I agree with you. I also think that his message is that anything can be beautiful no matter how much money you put in it. I also think that the author is trying to say you shouldn't care about what other people think about you because when you do it could cost you a lot
In the short story of ¨The Necklace¨, the author tries to convey that too much greed can bring misfortune to a person and blind them. The irony in the story shows how Mathilde, the main character, yearns for a rich and luxurious life but settles for one of lesser comfort by marrying a clerk. When they are invited to attend a party, she spends money to seem like the lady that she wishes to become and borrows jewels from a friend to wear. She experiences one night that fulfills her dreams, with men fawning over her and her attire and manner showing how high class she seems. However, by doing so, Mathilde loses a diamond necklace, and consequently, ten years of her life to work the debt away. The author's effective use of irony shows that one night of fulfilling all of her desires has driven Mathilde to live ten years in poverty, as a woman opposite of that which she wanted to become.
I agree. It is really ironic how she made all the effort to look wealthy at the party but in turn took ten years of work to pay off that one night and one necklace that was an imitation and could have been easily payed for. Her greed gave her quite the misfortune.
I think the author's message from "The Necklace" is to not judge a book by its cover. Throughout the story this is shown by different people or objects. First is Mathilde Loisel. Her cover was her poor wealth and status level but inside she was a lady of refined and wealthy taste with beauty and elegance. People did not see this part of her due to her rank in society. This was told in the beginning and shown at the party when she was dancing and being in the spotlight like the high and wealthy women and when she had to leave in their commoners clothes after the party. After she lost the ring and was working to pay it off she looked poorer and shabbier but still was the same person inside dreaming about beauty and riches. Even Madame Forestier did not recognize her for on the outside she looked quite different. The diamond necklace was probably the most apparent use of the theme and also is the biggest irony. The cheap imitation necklace and the expensive real diamond necklace are completely different in prices but still look the same. The irony was that all she wanted was to be wealthy by wearing the diamonds but in the end it made her dirt poor and that even the cheap imitation diamonds could look beautiful.
The connections in the story that you showed are really consistent and clear. I had no idea these hints were so openly put out into the story, and this has made me view it as a whole in a new light.
I think that the main message in "The Necklace" is be honest with yourself and others. In the story, a woman borrows a necklace from a friend for a party. After the party, the woman loses the necklace. She sends her husband to search for it but he never finds anything. So instead of owning up to what she did, her and her husband spend 10 years searching. And when they can't find it, they work more to pay off the necklace. They eventually work up enough money to buy a cheap replacement. They give her friend the necklace and never tell her it's not the correct one. Many years later, the 2 friends run into each other. The woman finally decides to admit that she lost her friend's necklace 10 years before. The ironic part about it, is the friend told the woman that the original necklace was cheap and an imitation. The woman spent years lying and it kept building up on her. If she had admitted what she had done in the first place, she wouldn't have had to go through so much trouble.
I definitely agree with you that a major theme in honesty. If Mathilde had just told her friend that she lost the necklace, her friend would have simply told her to buy a replacement imitation necklace. She should have taken the risk to tell her friend, which would have saved her years of trouble. Instead, she suffered for years all because she didn't have the courage to own up to her mistake and tell her friend.
I believe that the author's message through "The Necklace" was that a life of simplicity is not necessarily a life of woe. One should not focus on the material items or luxuries of life, but should be grateful for what they have. Madame Loisel spent her whole life dreaming and wishing she was someone richer and more desired. It's quite ironic that the necklace that fulfilled her dream and satisfied her greatest wishes was her greatest downfall. Once she lost the necklace, her husband and her threw away their lives and their freedom attempting to repay the cost of replacing it. They slaved away and aged many years filled with remorse and difficulty. The Loisels lost their savings, their home, their maid, and their dignity all because of one night. Another display of irony emerges when Madame Loisel speaks to her wealthy friend and learns that the necklace was merely an imitation and worth five hundred francs. It came to show that even those who have the money to spend on these items don't waste it away on the superficial parts of life. In the end, she had paid a price greater than any amount of money to compensate for losing the worthless necklace. Her need for luxuries, riches, and an extravagant lifestyle stole away her happiness and if she had only appreciated what she did have, her life would have turned out very differently.
I especially agree with your first statement. Mathilde acted like her life was the worst, but in reality, her simple life was a lot better than the one that was caused by one day of living as a wealthy person. I didn't realize the fact that even the wealthy don't waste their money like she did, so it's even more ironic now that I realize that.
I think the author's message in "The Necklace" is..tell the truth right away or else you might regret it later. Sometimes what you think is good or thoughtful isn't always necessary. In this case, Mathilde could have saved herself the trouble by being honest in the very beginning. The message is tell the truth or face the consequences. I think the ending of the story had situational irony because Mathilde and her husband spent 10 years trying to replace the necklace, which wasn't even genuine. They went through all that work when they could have just paid at most 500 francs. They didn't know that until the end, where Madame Forestier said it was a fake.
I agree with what you have said. If Mathilde had been brave enough to tell her friend the truth, it would have spared from the life she had to endure. Also, not telling the truth right away might have caused Madame Forestier to lose her trust for Mathilde.
In "The Necklace", the author's message is to not be too greedy and be truthful. In the short story, Mathilde, the main character, was too greedy, and even though she had one night full of what she ever wanted, she suffered for the next ten years through loosing the necklace at the party. Also, if she had been truthful to her friend, Madame Forestier, and told her friend she lost the necklace, Mathilde would have discovered that the necklace was worth at most five hundred francs, and she would not have needed to spend thirty six thousand francs on the real diamond necklace and suffer through the years.
Guy de Maupassant's use of irony plays a great part in "The Necklace". The author creates the perfect night for Mathilde, making the reader's think that the night will lead her to the pathway to her success and fortune, but instead, the author creates the sudden downfall of Mathilde's already poor life by having her loose the necklace and replace it. At the very end, the author adds more irony by revealing that all of Mathilde's years of suffering was for a fake necklace which costed much less then the authentic necklace the bought.
I believe that the message in "The Necklace" is that you should be grateful for what you have. Mathilde was living a life that she thought was unbearable and below her. She got the opportunity to live the life she always wanted for one day, but it led to misfortune. She borrowed a necklace from her friend to look the part and ended up losing it. She couldn't bring herself to tell her friend and instead wanted to replace it, but the one necklace cost the pair their easy lifestyle. Mathilde became the woman that she tried not to become. One case of the irony displayed in this story was that Mathilde hated the idea of being a poor woman and wanted to be wealthy and for people to notice her, but because she got one night of pretending to be wealthy, The rest of her life went down the drain. Another case of irony was that Madame Forestier lent Madame Losiel her necklace without any hesitation, but Mathilde couldnt't tell Jeanne even though they were good friends. Also, Mathilde spent a huge chunk of her time and money to pay for the loss of a fake. The sense of irony was shown when Mathilde wore 'diamonds' to feel rich, but in the end, the diamonds were what made her very poor. She was even worse off then before she went to the ball.
I totally agree with you. She was so busy dreaming of this extravagant life that she never appreciated her life before. She hated the idea of being a poor, old woman with nothing but work to do, and her selfish greediness landed her right where she didn't want to be. It was ironic that she wanted to be noticed, and in the end her own friend couldn't even recognize her.
I agree with your theme. People should be happy with what they have, even if other people have better things in life. What matters is people who love and respect you (like Mathilde's husband). It was also ironic that they spent so long trying to pay it off and the necklace turned out to be a fake.
I think the author's message in "The Necklace" is that you should be grateful for what you have. If Mathilde had borrowed a piece of less fancy jewelry, she wouldn't have to spend the next ten years of her life struggling to pay a debt. Mathilde enjoyed one night of pretending to be rich, but spent the next ten years poorer than ever. She did not appreciate the life that she had before the ball, but it was after the ball that her life took a sharp plunge. Even her life was not very luxurious before, it would seem desirable next to what she had to endure for the next ten years. A sense of irony is created by showing that Mathilde wanted to use her dress and diamonds to gain fame and fortune, but the diamonds ended up costing a significant amount of her life and her youth. In other words, the diamonds were supposed to improve the quality of her life, but they ended up leaving Madame Loisel and her husband in poverty.
The authors message of the "neckless" is don't be so greedy because you are going to have to pay for it later. Loisel wanted to look like she was rich but even though she bought an expensive dress she still wanted more. Like wanting jewlery to go with it. I also think the authors message is that you shouldn't care about what other people think about you and when you do it can cost you a lot. The irony is that she wanted to look rich at the party but she ended up being poorer than when she started and owing people money.
I agree. Madame Loisel completely and utterly disregarded what others were doing for her, and only focused on herself. The greedy aspect comes into play when you consider that she did everything at the expense of others at a whim, without giving it a second thought. Madame Loisel was rather short-term; she didn't look ahead and plan for what was going to happen a few months or even a few days from then, but rather focused on her immediate scenario.
The author's message is to be content with what you already possess, and in a similar sense, wealth can be highly destructive. At the start of the short story, we see Madame Loisel lamenting over the absence of illustrious opulence in her life when she is clearly well enough off, or at least well enough off that she doesn't have to lift finger around the household. The text even mentions that other members of her caste would not have given a single fleeting glance at their current state of affairs, compared with those higher up. With Madame Loisel, on the other hand, the lack of such items gnaws at her everyday existence.
Wealth matters so much to her, in fact, that Madame Loisel refuses to even visit her longtime friend, Madame Forestier, on a regular basis, that the former had known since they attended school. All because she couldn't handle the fact that her friend was wealthier than she was without breaking down in tears. Madame Loisel could've focused on what really mattered (her friends and family members), thereby boosting her overall happiness and positively altering her outlook on life; instead, she chose to venerate material wealth. The depressing part about this is that both her husband and the aforementioned friend did so much to support her, but she probably never noticed once in her life.
So where do we see that wealth is destructive? Aside from corrupting the victim's mind about illusions of grandeur and isolating them from people that matter the most, it can also have an adverse effect in the physical world. Later in the story, Monsieur Loisel, Madame Loisel's husband, manages to procure an invitation to a congregation, featuring the Minister of Education and other prominent individuals. And what does Madame Loisel do? She angrily rejects it as if it means nothing to her, simply because she feels like she has nothing "fancy" to wear, even though this could've been the big break she was looking for. How's that for irony?
But in comes the faithful husband to save the day, taking the blow of the double-edged sword in order to finance a dress, using the money he had been saving up for a gun for leisure target practice. Not only is it putting a strain on monetary reserves (which is the opposite of what she desires), the cancer that is material wealth lures Madame Loisel into a sense of apathy for those she should care about. She didn't even bother to inquire what her husband was going to do about those francs, or if he felt comfortable parting with them. In this way, Madame Loisel cares about herself and only about herself; At the expense of his own contentedness, Monsieur Loisel bought the dress to make her feel content (for now).
We see this wealth-obsession-induced leeching personality again a few days before the meet. Madame Loisel is (for the third time) stressing over the fact that she has no jewels to accompany her grandiose dress, when it is once again the resourceful Monsieur Loisel who suggests that she meet with her aforementioned friend for assistance. Remember how I said that Madame Loisel refuses to visit Madame Forestier because she couldn't stomach the latter's wealth? The former does in fact make an exception just this once, but only to borrow some jewels to better her own appearance. When the appointment does take place, however, Madame Loisel doesn’t express any delight, nor the least bit of acknowledgement, of talking with an old “friend,” when they hadn’t seen each other for what we can assume is a good while. (Continued in next comment.)
The only things she’s here for are tiny, glittering stones, paying no respect to the other party; Madame Loisel absolutely ravages Madame Forestier’s collection, giving absolutely no regard to the notion that what the latter is rummaging through is another person’s belongings, and should be treated as such. All this transpires as Madame Forestier faithfully, and perhaps in a foolhardy manner, beckons her on to try every and take any accessory she desires; the loads of compassion in contrast to the nonexistent gratitude is sickening. The coup de grâce comes when she (unfortunately) notices what appears to be the most “valuable” item in the collection: a diamond necklace. And she―you guessed it―snatches it and leaves as quickly as the speed at which Madame Forestier opened her collection. At least Madame Loisel gave a triumphant hug before she left, even if it was for the wrong reason.
The day of the party finally arrives, and Madame Loisel is the star of the show, accomplishing what she set out to do and bringing her short-term success. The quirky part about this whole situation is that while the Loisel family has a slightly below-average economic status, Madame Loisel wore the most elegant clothes than anyone at the party. This would not have been possible if it were not for those people who really cared about her, and is definitely a warning sign that she cares too much about personal appearance and wealth.
Fast forward a few hours and Madame Loisel loses her necklace. She is naturally in a state of shock, but the unacceptable aspect of this is that she doesn’t go out of her way to retrieve or even attempt a hunt of it. Instead, her husband, on his own account, decides to search for it in her place, dedicating an entire day or two tirelessly working for its recovery without any rest. This is no longer a question of despair in the lack of wealth, but rather being spoiled by it, as Madame Loisel sits in her house suffering but doing nothing to remedy her complication, even though she claims sole responsibility.
When everything seems lost, Monsieur Loisel is forced to replace the necklace, essentially selling his entire life to pay for the cost, including using up his entire inheritance and entering shady dealings. For the sake of wealth, Monsieur Loisel’s life has been all but destroyed, and he didn’t even get a single thank-you. As for Madame Loisel, she is forced to live in true poverty for ten years in order to pay off the debt. And all this for the sake of being wealthy and not being content with what you already have. As for a touch of irony, the actual, lost necklace was only worth at most 500 francs, tens of times less than what was paid for the replacement.
The author's message in "The Necklace" is that greed leads to misfortune. Mathilda wanted to be the most well-dressed woman at the meeting, so of course she chose her friend's "best" diamond necklace. If Mathilda had made a more modest choice of jewelry to borrow, she would not have needed to spend 10 years paying off all her debts and becoming an old woman. The irony in the story is Mathilda slaving away for a decade to pay back a seemingly priceless necklace because of her own reckless avarice. After that decade, Mathilda finds out that the necklace cost only 1/72 of what she paid off, but it is already too late, as Mathilda and her husband have already committed themselves to their new meager lifestyle. The author created a sense of irony by showing that Mathilda wore a cheap, inexpensive substitute to the ball, thinking it was authentic, and then spending 10 years to pay off a seemingly immense debt.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about the author's message. Mathilda wanted things she could not have, and ended up paying for it. Her desire to be the best at the party led to more harm than help. She had to pay back her debts for ten years because she was greedy.
DeleteI agree with what you said about greed leading to misfortune. When people start getting greedy, they just can't stop. This leads to misfortune, as you said. I think she should have just been content with what her husband gave her in the beginning.
DeleteThe author's message in "The Necklace" is that you shouldn't let your life revolve around a material item. She got so caught up in having the necklace and trying to look good that she ended up being poor. Her friend couldn't even recognize her after all those years. She became poor trying to look rich and pretty. The irony is that the necklace she used to try to become rich ended up being the thing that made her poor. It did the opposite of what it was intended for.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your interpretation of the author's message. It definitely isn't a good thing to become too overly attached onto a "thing" or a specific type of glamorous look.
DeleteI also agree with your interpretation of the story. She was greedy and kept trying to look good, but as a result of trying to look good she lost everything.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the story " The Necklace," there is one main theme. I think that theme is always to be honest to yourself and to others. If you don't do this, you end up lying and then you tell more lies to cover up the previous lies. If she had just told the truth in the beginning, then she would have to only pay of 500 francs instead of 34,000 francs. The irony was that the necklace she lost was an imitation and because she was dishonest, she ended up paying 68 times more than she had to pay.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your theme. If Mathilda was honest to herself, her husband, and her friend, she would not have needed to pay 68 times more money than needed.
DeleteI agree as well. It would have saved her a lot of work and trouble to just be honest with everyone including herself.
DeleteI never considered that possibility and now eagerly agree to your statement. If she had known about the necklace, Mathilde would not have had to suffer as she did and pay such an immense price from trying to cover the mistakes she made. In the first place, the necklace itself was used as an ornament to make herself seem elegant and refined, hiding her more humble status behind a forced facade. By accepting herself, Mathilde would never have had to lie to both herself and others.
DeleteI agree with you. If you lie then you have to lie the second time to cover up the first one. You keep on lying to cover up lies. Then you more lies in your life than you have truths. So, if you lie once you have to lie until it gets out.
DeleteThe authors message in "The Necklace" is that you should be truthful to everything. Mathilda, the protagonist, should have been honest to her friend about losing the jewels because it would have saved her ten years worth of hard labor and would have also saved her young looks. The irony in the story is that the lended jewels were only worth 500 francs because they were a imitation of the real ones, yet Mathilda thought they were real and paid 36,000 francs with debt just to return the necklace. The author effectively creates a sense of irony because the story was of Mathilda's downfall and her hardships that she had to endure for a decade ultimately done all in vain.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your theme. She could have avoided ten years of suffering just by being honest with her friend
DeleteI agree, it is 100% true that she should have been honest. It would have saved her from years of misery. If she had not been caught up in all of it, and just did the right thing, she would have been fine.
DeleteConsider the author's message in "The Necklace" explain what you think it is and why. Consider Guy de Maupassant's use of irony. What, in the story, is ironic? How has the author effectively created a sense of irony?
ReplyDeleteI believe the theme of "The Necklace" is to be honest. In the story if the woman had just told the other woman that she had lost the necklace earlier in the story, instead of trying to cover it up, she would have paid far less than to cover it up. As a result, I believe that the theme of the story is that it is always better to tell the truth instead of trying to hide, if you try to cover the truth up you will pay dearly for it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree. Usually when people are not honest, they end up with an even bigger problem compared to when they tell the truth.
DeleteI think the author's message in "The Necklace" is that you should be content with what you have. Mathilde would have been perfectly good looking if she had simply bought the dress. However, her greed made her want more and more things that she did not have. After losing her friend's necklace, she suffered for years trying to pay off the debt, without even realizing the necklace she had borrowed was fake. I think the irony in the story comes from the fact that she was trying to hide her poverty from others, but in the end, she ended up a lot worse than she started, since she had to fire her maid and housework ruined her youthful look. This only highlighted her poverty, instead of shielding it like she had originally intended.
ReplyDeleteI 100% agree. You can't live life only wanting more instead of stopping to appreciate what you already have. If she wanted so badly to be hidden because of her poverty, she shouldn't have kept asking for more.
DeleteI think the author's message in "The Necklace" is that being dishonest once in your life could change it forever. Madame Loisel would have never had to pay the thirty-six thousand francs if she had told her friend. She would have never had to deal with an extremely low class life if she only had to pay her friend five hundred francs. The story is ironic because she went through so much work only to realize that it was for nothing. It was useless. The author builds up so much sadness only to reveal something that many readers would find hilarious.
ReplyDeleteWhat the author is trying to say is that, you have to be yourself and not let the power of greed and wealth control you. In the story, the main character fantasised about having jewelry but was married to a poor man. When she decided to borrow jewelry, what she hoped would make her happy, lead to a long time of misery. And even after all that time, the fact that the price of the necklace was not anything close to what she thought it would be just adds to it.
ReplyDeleteThe theme, or author’s message, of " The Necklace" is that anything can be beautiful no matter how much money u put in. Mathilde thought that the more expensive a piece of jewelry or and object of clothing is the prettier and better it is, but Madame Forestier made her realize that anything can be beautiful no matter how much money u put in.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I also think that his message is that anything can be beautiful no matter how much money you put in it. I also think that the author is trying to say you shouldn't care about what other people think about you because when you do it could cost you a lot
DeleteIn the short story of ¨The Necklace¨, the author tries to convey that too much greed can bring misfortune to a person and blind them. The irony in the story shows how Mathilde, the main character, yearns for a rich and luxurious life but settles for one of lesser comfort by marrying a clerk. When they are invited to attend a party, she spends money to seem like the lady that she wishes to become and borrows jewels from a friend to wear. She experiences one night that fulfills her dreams, with men fawning over her and her attire and manner showing how high class she seems. However, by doing so, Mathilde loses a diamond necklace, and consequently, ten years of her life to work the debt away. The author's effective use of irony shows that one night of fulfilling all of her desires has driven Mathilde to live ten years in poverty, as a woman opposite of that which she wanted to become.
ReplyDeleteI agree. It is really ironic how she made all the effort to look wealthy at the party but in turn took ten years of work to pay off that one night and one necklace that was an imitation and could have been easily payed for. Her greed gave her quite the misfortune.
DeleteI think the author's message from "The Necklace" is to not judge a book by its cover. Throughout the story this is shown by different people or objects. First is Mathilde Loisel. Her cover was her poor wealth and status level but inside she was a lady of refined and wealthy taste with beauty and elegance. People did not see this part of her due to her rank in society. This was told in the beginning and shown at the party when she was dancing and being in the spotlight like the high and wealthy women and when she had to leave in their commoners clothes after the party. After she lost the ring and was working to pay it off she looked poorer and shabbier but still was the same person inside dreaming about beauty and riches. Even Madame Forestier did not recognize her for on the outside she looked quite different. The diamond necklace was probably the most apparent use of the theme and also is the biggest irony. The cheap imitation necklace and the expensive real diamond necklace are completely different in prices but still look the same. The irony was that all she wanted was to be wealthy by wearing the diamonds but in the end it made her dirt poor and that even the cheap imitation diamonds could look beautiful.
ReplyDeleteThe connections in the story that you showed are really consistent and clear. I had no idea these hints were so openly put out into the story, and this has made me view it as a whole in a new light.
DeleteI think that the main message in "The Necklace" is be honest with yourself and others. In the story, a woman borrows a necklace from a friend for a party. After the party, the woman loses the necklace. She sends her husband to search for it but he never finds anything. So instead of owning up to what she did, her and her husband spend 10 years searching. And when they can't find it, they work more to pay off the necklace. They eventually work up enough money to buy a cheap replacement. They give her friend the necklace and never tell her it's not the correct one. Many years later, the 2 friends run into each other. The woman finally decides to admit that she lost her friend's necklace 10 years before. The ironic part about it, is the friend told the woman that the original necklace was cheap and an imitation. The woman spent years lying and it kept building up on her. If she had admitted what she had done in the first place, she wouldn't have had to go through so much trouble.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you that a major theme in honesty. If Mathilde had just told her friend that she lost the necklace, her friend would have simply told her to buy a replacement imitation necklace. She should have taken the risk to tell her friend, which would have saved her years of trouble. Instead, she suffered for years all because she didn't have the courage to own up to her mistake and tell her friend.
DeleteI believe that the author's message through "The Necklace" was that a life of simplicity is not necessarily a life of woe. One should not focus on the material items or luxuries of life, but should be grateful for what they have. Madame Loisel spent her whole life dreaming and wishing she was someone richer and more desired. It's quite ironic that the necklace that fulfilled her dream and satisfied her greatest wishes was her greatest downfall. Once she lost the necklace, her husband and her threw away their lives and their freedom attempting to repay the cost of replacing it. They slaved away and aged many years filled with remorse and difficulty. The Loisels lost their savings, their home, their maid, and their dignity all because of one night. Another display of irony emerges when Madame Loisel speaks to her wealthy friend and learns that the necklace was merely an imitation and worth five hundred francs. It came to show that even those who have the money to spend on these items don't waste it away on the superficial parts of life. In the end, she had paid a price greater than any amount of money to compensate for losing the worthless necklace. Her need for luxuries, riches, and an extravagant lifestyle stole away her happiness and if she had only appreciated what she did have, her life would have turned out very differently.
ReplyDeleteI especially agree with your first statement. Mathilde acted like her life was the worst, but in reality, her simple life was a lot better than the one that was caused by one day of living as a wealthy person. I didn't realize the fact that even the wealthy don't waste their money like she did, so it's even more ironic now that I realize that.
DeleteI think the author's message in "The Necklace" is..tell the truth right away or else you might regret it later. Sometimes what you think is good or thoughtful isn't always necessary. In this case, Mathilde could have saved herself the trouble by being honest in the very beginning. The message is tell the truth or face the consequences. I think the ending of the story had situational irony because Mathilde and her husband spent 10 years trying to replace the necklace, which wasn't even genuine. They went through all that work when they could have just paid at most 500 francs. They didn't know that until the end, where Madame Forestier said it was a fake.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you have said. If Mathilde had been brave enough to tell her friend the truth, it would have spared from the life she had to endure. Also, not telling the truth right away might have caused Madame Forestier to lose her trust for Mathilde.
DeleteIn "The Necklace", the author's message is to not be too greedy and be truthful. In the short story, Mathilde, the main character, was too greedy, and even though she had one night full of what she ever wanted, she suffered for the next ten years through loosing the necklace at the party. Also, if she had been truthful to her friend, Madame Forestier, and told her friend she lost the necklace, Mathilde would have discovered that the necklace was worth at most five hundred francs, and she would not have needed to spend thirty six thousand francs on the real diamond necklace and suffer through the years.
ReplyDeleteGuy de Maupassant's use of irony plays a great part in "The Necklace". The author creates the perfect night for Mathilde, making the reader's think that the night will lead her to the pathway to her success and fortune, but instead, the author creates the sudden downfall of Mathilde's already poor life by having her loose the necklace and replace it. At the very end, the author adds more irony by revealing that all of Mathilde's years of suffering was for a fake necklace which costed much less then the authentic necklace the bought.
I believe that the message in "The Necklace" is that you should be grateful for what you have. Mathilde was living a life that she thought was unbearable and below her. She got the opportunity to live the life she always wanted for one day, but it led to misfortune. She borrowed a necklace from her friend to look the part and ended up losing it. She couldn't bring herself to tell her friend and instead wanted to replace it, but the one necklace cost the pair their easy lifestyle. Mathilde became the woman that she tried not to become. One case of the irony displayed in this story was that Mathilde hated the idea of being a poor woman and wanted to be wealthy and for people to notice her, but because she got one night of pretending to be wealthy, The rest of her life went down the drain. Another case of irony was that Madame Forestier lent Madame Losiel her necklace without any hesitation, but Mathilde couldnt't tell Jeanne even though they were good friends. Also, Mathilde spent a huge chunk of her time and money to pay for the loss of a fake. The sense of irony was shown when Mathilde wore 'diamonds' to feel rich, but in the end, the diamonds were what made her very poor. She was even worse off then before she went to the ball.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you. She was so busy dreaming of this extravagant life that she never appreciated her life before. She hated the idea of being a poor, old woman with nothing but work to do, and her selfish greediness landed her right where she didn't want to be. It was ironic that she wanted to be noticed, and in the end her own friend couldn't even recognize her.
DeleteI agree with your theme. People should be happy with what they have, even if other people have better things in life. What matters is people who love and respect you (like Mathilde's husband). It was also ironic that they spent so long trying to pay it off and the necklace turned out to be a fake.
ReplyDeleteI think the author's message in "The Necklace" is that you should be grateful for what you have. If Mathilde had borrowed a piece of less fancy jewelry, she wouldn't have to spend the next ten years of her life struggling to pay a debt. Mathilde enjoyed one night of pretending to be rich, but spent the next ten years poorer than ever. She did not appreciate the life that she had before the ball, but it was after the ball that her life took a sharp plunge. Even her life was not very luxurious before, it would seem desirable next to what she had to endure for the next ten years. A sense of irony is created by showing that Mathilde wanted to use her dress and diamonds to gain fame and fortune, but the diamonds ended up costing a significant amount of her life and her youth. In other words, the diamonds were supposed to improve the quality of her life, but they ended up leaving Madame Loisel and her husband in poverty.
ReplyDeleteThe authors message of the "neckless" is don't be so greedy because you are going to have to pay for it later. Loisel wanted to look like she was rich but even though she bought an expensive dress she still wanted more. Like wanting jewlery to go with it. I also think the authors message is that you shouldn't care about what other people think about you and when you do it can cost you a lot. The irony is that she wanted to look rich at the party but she ended up being poorer than when she started and owing people money.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Madame Loisel completely and utterly disregarded what others were doing for her, and only focused on herself. The greedy aspect comes into play when you consider that she did everything at the expense of others at a whim, without giving it a second thought. Madame Loisel was rather short-term; she didn't look ahead and plan for what was going to happen a few months or even a few days from then, but rather focused on her immediate scenario.
DeleteThe author's message is to be content with what you already possess, and in a similar sense, wealth can be highly destructive. At the start of the short story, we see Madame Loisel lamenting over the absence of illustrious opulence in her life when she is clearly well enough off, or at least well enough off that she doesn't have to lift finger around the household. The text even mentions that other members of her caste would not have given a single fleeting glance at their current state of affairs, compared with those higher up. With Madame Loisel, on the other hand, the lack of such items gnaws at her everyday existence.
ReplyDeleteWealth matters so much to her, in fact, that Madame Loisel refuses to even visit her longtime friend, Madame Forestier, on a regular basis, that the former had known since they attended school. All because she couldn't handle the fact that her friend was wealthier than she was without breaking down in tears. Madame Loisel could've focused on what really mattered (her friends and family members), thereby boosting her overall happiness and positively altering her outlook on life; instead, she chose to venerate material wealth. The depressing part about this is that both her husband and the aforementioned friend did so much to support her, but she probably never noticed once in her life.
So where do we see that wealth is destructive? Aside from corrupting the victim's mind about illusions of grandeur and isolating them from people that matter the most, it can also have an adverse effect in the physical world. Later in the story, Monsieur Loisel, Madame Loisel's husband, manages to procure an invitation to a congregation, featuring the Minister of Education and other prominent individuals. And what does Madame Loisel do? She angrily rejects it as if it means nothing to her, simply because she feels like she has nothing "fancy" to wear, even though this could've been the big break she was looking for. How's that for irony?
But in comes the faithful husband to save the day, taking the blow of the double-edged sword in order to finance a dress, using the money he had been saving up for a gun for leisure target practice. Not only is it putting a strain on monetary reserves (which is the opposite of what she desires), the cancer that is material wealth lures Madame Loisel into a sense of apathy for those she should care about. She didn't even bother to inquire what her husband was going to do about those francs, or if he felt comfortable parting with them. In this way, Madame Loisel cares about herself and only about herself; At the expense of his own contentedness, Monsieur Loisel bought the dress to make her feel content (for now).
We see this wealth-obsession-induced leeching personality again a few days before the meet. Madame Loisel is (for the third time) stressing over the fact that she has no jewels to accompany her grandiose dress, when it is once again the resourceful Monsieur Loisel who suggests that she meet with her aforementioned friend for assistance. Remember how I said that Madame Loisel refuses to visit Madame Forestier because she couldn't stomach the latter's wealth? The former does in fact make an exception just this once, but only to borrow some jewels to better her own appearance. When the appointment does take place, however, Madame Loisel doesn’t express any delight, nor the least bit of acknowledgement, of talking with an old “friend,” when they hadn’t seen each other for what we can assume is a good while.
(Continued in next comment.)
The only things she’s here for are tiny, glittering stones, paying no respect to the other party; Madame Loisel absolutely ravages Madame Forestier’s collection, giving absolutely no regard to the notion that what the latter is rummaging through is another person’s belongings, and should be treated as such. All this transpires as Madame Forestier faithfully, and perhaps in a foolhardy manner, beckons her on to try every and take any accessory she desires; the loads of compassion in contrast to the nonexistent gratitude is sickening. The coup de grâce comes when she (unfortunately) notices what appears to be the most “valuable” item in the collection: a diamond necklace. And she―you guessed it―snatches it and leaves as quickly as the speed at which Madame Forestier opened her collection. At least Madame Loisel gave a triumphant hug before she left, even if it was for the wrong reason.
DeleteThe day of the party finally arrives, and Madame Loisel is the star of the show, accomplishing what she set out to do and bringing her short-term success. The quirky part about this whole situation is that while the Loisel family has a slightly below-average economic status, Madame Loisel wore the most elegant clothes than anyone at the party. This would not have been possible if it were not for those people who really cared about her, and is definitely a warning sign that she cares too much about personal appearance and wealth.
Fast forward a few hours and Madame Loisel loses her necklace. She is naturally in a state of shock, but the unacceptable aspect of this is that she doesn’t go out of her way to retrieve or even attempt a hunt of it. Instead, her husband, on his own account, decides to search for it in her place, dedicating an entire day or two tirelessly working for its recovery without any rest. This is no longer a question of despair in the lack of wealth, but rather being spoiled by it, as Madame Loisel sits in her house suffering but doing nothing to remedy her complication, even though she claims sole responsibility.
When everything seems lost, Monsieur Loisel is forced to replace the necklace, essentially selling his entire life to pay for the cost, including using up his entire inheritance and entering shady dealings. For the sake of wealth, Monsieur Loisel’s life has been all but destroyed, and he didn’t even get a single thank-you. As for Madame Loisel, she is forced to live in true poverty for ten years in order to pay off the debt. And all this for the sake of being wealthy and not being content with what you already have. As for a touch of irony, the actual, lost necklace was only worth at most 500 francs, tens of times less than what was paid for the replacement.