Friday, November 8, 2013
The Necklace
After reading "The Necklace" by Guy de Maupassant, discuss what makes it a good short story. What elements does it contain? Think about the stories plot and structure. React to the characterization. Consider the theme. What about the point of view? How does the author's decision on point of view effect the story? And finally, what role does irony play in the success of the story?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
After reading “The Necklace”, I had the undeniable urge to inflict physical harm upon something. That sounds awful! Haha!
ReplyDeleteI shall explain my thoughts later. Nevertheless, “The Necklace” is a remarkable short story because it teaches a very valuable lesson, and incorporates many literary devices to convey the message.
I have somewhat reacted to the characterization in my opening lines, but allow me to elaborate. This would be my conversation with Madame Loisel:
“Just because you’re pretty, doesn’t mean you should be rich, lady.”
“But I’m so beautiful. And I married a minister of education. Woe is me. We have no money.”
“You know what? I feel so much sympathy for your poor, dear husband. All he tries to do is make you happy, and what do you do in return? Cry about it! He lends you four hundred freakin francs that he was saving up for a nice gun, just so that you can buy a stupid dress that you will wear once in your life! And what do you do? Cry about it!”
“But the necklace -”
“Maybe if you didn’t care so much about money and ‘beauty’ you wouldn’t have been stuck living such a miserable life for ten years. What’s more important, Madame Weeper, money or happiness?”
“Happiness, I suppose.”
“Goodness, at least you learned something.”
My reaction to Madame Forestier:
I walk up to her and give her a knuckle bump. “That is what I’m talking about, lady. Way to show that Madame Losier a lesson!”
My reaction to Monsieur Losier:
I give him a giant hug. “I’m so sorry. You can be my husband any day.”
The theme of the story, in my opinion, is that money does not buy happiness. Madame Losier’s greed and desire for money or beauty overrides her desire for happiness, and as a result, she ends up paying for her sins through ten years of misery. The ending punch line of the story really demonstrates the theme of the story when Madame Forestier announces that the necklace was only worth 500 francs. I think at that moment, readers definitely get the hint that money indeed does not bring happiness.
The third person point of view in the story has an important effect on readers. It allows readers to see each character’s thought process, reactions, and emotions. This contributes to the story such as when the reader discovers that Monsieur Loisel sacrifices money for his wife, and then the reader sees how ungrateful she was toward him. It adds to the ethos aspect of the story. It is another element that makes “The Necklace” such a great story.
Irony definitely plays a huge role in the success of the short story. As soon as I found out that the necklace was an imitation I pretty much pooped my pants. It was ironic that Monsieur and Madame Loisel were working their butts off to pay back for a diamond necklace that they bought that didn’t even need to buy. The irony is what really conveys the lesson of the story. Money can surely not buy happiness.
Rachel,
DeleteYour blog was so funny! I loved your conversation with Mathilda. I seriously can't take her. I got one page in and I was complaining to Meaghan Coppolo about how annoying she was. I didn't even know the half of it! However, I do disagree on how much sympathy you give towards the husband. He partially helped create the monster, did he not? I think she needed some tough love that he failed to provide. I agree on how the irony really drove home the whole major lesson of the story. Money can't buy happiness. How cliche it sounds but how true it is.
Anyways, it was a very good and entertaining blog, Rachel! Nice job!
Rachel,
DeleteHaha I loved your blog as well. I also really really didn't like Madame Loisel, I found her to be very anyonying actually. I also felt bad for Mr. Loisel though I guess I do see where Danielle is coming from. He probably should have given her some tough love. But, anyways she did finally get what she deserved. Great blog!
Rachel,
DeleteThat section where you imitated a conversation with Madame Loisel was beautiful! Haha! It was so true. That girls husband was a boss though. If I saved up that much money to lend to a winer it would be a struggle. So I can see how bad the husband has it. I'd find it hard not to dump her honestly, even if she was really pretty. Nice blog!
Just to start, "The Necklace" was very good.
ReplyDeleteNow what makes this a good short story? Well first off because it is actually short. (I'm sorry Bartleby but thirty-some pages of "I'd prefer not to" just didn't cut it). However, the story worked because it followed the general formation of stories which is just proven to work. The characters are introduced first with a conflict, then a complication, then a conclusion, even if it wasn't a very happy conclusion. The story's basic structure is familiar and, therefore, it works.
Alright, now this story certainly has some characters I can babble about. First, let's talk about Mathilda. She's pretty. She's vain. She's selfish. She really needs to stop complaining so much about her lack of dress and jewels. I thought wearing flowers was a great idea! She, and the circumstance in which she finds herself, represents the destructive power of consuming oneself with dreams and illusions. The dress and the jewels were all to make her mirage more convincing and, for a night, deceive others and herself into believing she was worthy of upper-class treatment. It's okay to play dress up for a night as long as the mask comes off the next morning and the individual is able to face reality. In Mathilda's case this could not be done. Even after she lost the necklace and willingly let her husband work tirelessly to avoid her having to take the fall, Mathilda refused to shatter the allusions that she had built up in her mind from a lifetime of yearning and one night of fulfillment. Her inability to let go revealed that she, as a character, was unable to truly take responsibility for what she had done and the life she had forced her husband into for ten long years.
And now for Monsieur Loisel. After I finished this story I was like "Wow, he deserves better. He's a good guy" and then it hit me. Monsieur Loisel isn't that great of a guy either. He's a martyr which can be a very noble and brave thing (evidentially when put in a religious context it is) however, this story reveals that there is a danger in martyrdom. He shouldn't have let his wife act on all of her silly whims, forcing him to do all the dirty work. His harmless acts of sacrifice for his wife seemed small and sweet at first, however, they soon escalated into unreasonable and treacherous sacrifices of which the wife was far from deserving. He lost himself and his life by his actions, which fully encouraged his wife's ludicrous and damaging behavior. He helped create the monster that destroyed his life. He is not blameless as it first appears.
The third person point of view helped to give an equality to the story's characters that was need to understand them all as a whole. If one character would have been selected to narrate the tale form his or her point of view, the story would have become bias and it would have become more difficult for the reader to uncover the full truth about each individual's character.
The irony was the absolute best part of the story. It drove the whole piece home, as irony so often does. What were they really working to preserve? Some diamonds that helped make Mathilda's fanciful dream so spectacular? It really all sounds kind of stupid when you say it for what it truly is. And by making the diamonds that she wore and that perfect night cheap and meaningless, the author drives home the point that allusions like Mathilda's that are shallow and vain are meaningless too. Holding on to a far off fantasy cannot bring an individual true internal peace and happiness.
Danielle,
DeleteI was also very glad that this shorty was actually short. I originally felt very bad for Mr. Loisel but after reading your blog I can see where he probably should have stepped in. So that kind of changed my perspective on him. I also found the irony to be the best part of this story, it was also my favorite part. Well, great blog!
Danielle Healy,
DeleteI love your interpretation of this story. Your last line holds so much truth within it. I respect how you brought up the structure of the short story, and I was relieved with the short length of story as well! As you know, I am in accordance with your irritated reaction to Madame Loisel. I can see where you are coming from with Monsieur Loisel with not helping her or make her realize how petty she was being, but I do not believe he was being a martyr. He wanted his wife to be happy, and granted, he did not make her happy, but he is a guy (no offense Bobby or Kraus), and sometimes they do not understand the ways of women. He thought that she knew what she wanted in order to be happy, so he made sacrifices and bought her materials, in order to obtain her happiness that she envisioned. Obviously it did not work, but I really think he meant the best. The irony of the story completes it. As soon as I read the last line I thought, “Really?” But as you mentioned, it gets across the point that trying to live an outlandish fantasy instead of life cannot obtain true happiness.
Danielle,
DeleteI enjoyed your discussion on characters. I think that your description of Mathilde is extremely accurate. She spends her whole life creating her illusion. She says that she always thought herself destined for the social scene. She starts the story acting as if the universe is punishing her by making her average and wanting the wealth. She is so petty and unrealistic. I also mentioned in my blog that Monsieur Loisel was a part of the problem. He never told Mathilde no. He let her have whatever she wanted, but never did anything for himself. He was such a contributor to the whole problem. I also really liked your discussion of the irony in the story. At the end I just laughed because I thought that Mathilde deserved it. The only other comment that I would make on your blog would maybe be to consider the role that Madame Forstier in the story, but overall the blog was wonderful!
I personally really enjoyed the necklace. I can see why Mrs. Messineo considers this one of her favorites. It is definitely one of mine.
ReplyDeleteSo, the characters in this story. Well, I am really really not a big fan of Madame Loisel. First of all she is very whiny, which is very irritating. Also, she is completely helpless. Don't you think that you should go help your husband search for the stupid necklace!? That part just really got to me, she just stayed home and let poor Mr. Loisel do all the work when she lost the necklace in the first place. She needs to take a reality pill and recognize that she is not a princess and it is never going to happen.
So, Mr. Loisel I feel so bad for the poor guy, he just wants to make his wife happy and all she does is complain about how miserable her life is. The guy probably had no idea of what he he was getting himself into when he married her. Not matter what he does she is never going to be satisfied and really he is a good husband.
Madame Forestier, well she is pretty much the bomb even though she doesn't realize it herself until the very end when Madame Loisel tells her the whole story. I am glad that Madame Forestier was able to teach Madame Liosel a lesson, even if she didn't really realize it. Also she got a really expensive necklace out of the deal.
So the theme is money isn't everything. Madame Liosel thinks that if she has a lot of money to buy so fancy dresses then she will be happy. Well she did get her chance for a night and it didn't turn out so well. Then they were really poor for the next ten years, which shows that money can not buy happiness.
The third person point of view gives the reader an clear view on all of the characters in the story. It also allows the reader some details that otherwise would be missed had the story been limited to the first person point of view. This would include the characters personal thoughts and actions that otherwise would have been missed.
The irony truly makes this story and is extremely important because it emphasizes the theme that money isn't everything. There are much more important things in life that money just cannot buy which includes happiness. At the end of the story I was laughing, it is just what Madame Liosel deserved.
Michaela Cashmer,
DeleteI am so glad you enjoyed this short story! I loved it because it was a SHORT story! Haha! But it also taught a valuable lesson, and I definitely think that you gathered it that it money is not the true source of happiness. I was so annoyed with Madame Loisel, too! And I am glad that you think that Monsieur Loisel was a good husband because he made sacrifices, and tried to make his significant other happy. Like I said, he could be my husband any day! Haha! Madame Forestier definitely taught at least me a lesson. I love the irony at the end. It definitely completes the story and teaches a very valuable lesson.
Michaela,
DeleteI also strongly disliked Madame Loisel. She is just a woman who only wants money, and it bites her in the butt. She deserves it, though. As for Monsieur Loisel I had mixed feelings. I felt that the way that he gave in to Madame Loisel and whatever she wanted makes her partially his fault. He doesn’t tell her no or anything, so she thinks that she can have whatever she wants. Madame Forstier, I loved her. She accidentally humbles Mathilde and it makes me so happy. As I said in my blog I let out a little cheer when that happened! I really liked your discussion about the point of view. If it would have been in first person the story would have been very lopsided. The reader would be missing key elements to it. Nice job, Michaela.
Michaela,
DeleteI agree with most of your points in your blog. I think that Mr. Loisel didn't know what he was getting himself into also. I also liked how you said that Mr. Loisel did all the work. I never thought of that, but it was true. Finally, I agree with you that irony was very important to the story because they entire plot was centralized through the irony. Nice job!
So the necklace was pretty good. It was, thankfully, a pretty short story and at the end of it I actually felt pretty satisfied with it.
ReplyDeleteMy first reaction to Madame Loisel is that she needs to stop whining and accept what she has. She spends all of her time complaining that she isn’t rich and privileged. Well it could be worse. She could be poor and on the streets. She could not have food for days and wonder where her next meal will come from. She could have a husband who turned into a dead beat. She could be laughed at by all as they passed her begging for money, but no. She has a husband with a steady job that loves her and a roof over her head. She needs to stop thinking about what she could have and start thinking about what is right in front of her. When they spend the thirty six thousand francs to buy the new necklace I don’t feel a shred of sympathy. She, honestly, deserved this. She needed to take some serious time to humble herself and realize that she should be focusing on being happy to be alive. I really did not like Madame Loisel at all.
My reaction to Monsieur Loisel was kind of indifferent. There were things that he did that I liked and things I didn’t like. One particular instance of liking him is when he obtains that invitation for him and his wife. Even though Mathilde isn’t overly pleased at first, it was a nice gesture. He did it because he wanted to make her happy. He saw that she never went out, and he wanted to give her the chance to be a part of society. I also liked when he told her that her old dress looked good to him. He is trying to tell her that a pretty dress doesn’t matter. She is beautiful to her, but she ignores him anyway. I don’t like him when he starts to give her money. She buys the dress and then, suddenly, she wants more. Then she loses those jewels and he is forced to pay all that money for her. He created this monster that is Madame Loisel.
Then there is Madame Forstier. What a woman. She actually happens to be my favorite character. She is generous and lends Mathilde a nice diamond necklace. Mathilde, however, loses the necklace and has to buy her a new one. Ten years and a ton of debt later Mathilde meets her again. Madame Forstier is like “that necklace cost 500 francs.” I let out a small cheer actually. I think that she created the perfect situation without even trying. She taught Mathilde how to be humble by accident, and I absolutely loved it. Way to go Madame Forstier!
The theme of this particular piece is that money can’t buy happiness. Mathilde is so busy striving for riches because she thinks that that will make her happy. This isn’t true however. Each time that she gets something more or gains more wealth she wants more. It is never good enough for her. Only once she becomes dirt poor does she realize that money may not be the most important thing in life. Maybe what is important doesn’t actually come with a monetary value.
The author’s decision on point of view in this story is crucial. If this story were in the first person sense it would be extremely lopsided. We would only see the situation from Mathilde or Monsieur Loisel’s perspective instead of what the situation actually was. With it being in third person it is possible to see the feelings of more than one character, and it establishes a better grasp for the actual truth of the situation.
Irony. I love irony in a story. This story in particular has become one of my favorite examples of irony. I think that this particular use of it is essential to the story. It really takes the theme and drives it home. It is a great way to remind the readers that Mathilde’s search for happiness through money only brought her sadness and misfortune.
Megan,
DeleteI enjoyed your blog. I agree with you that Madame Loisel became obsessed with what she did not have and did not focus on what could have been worse. I also thought that your theme was right on, I think that "money cannot buy happiness is exactly what the theme was. Nice blog!
Wow, that was a great short story. I would definitely consider it one of my favorites.
ReplyDeleteI think the story is such a great story for many reasons. The story could be separated into three sections: before the party, during the party, and after the party. Before the party started the couple was very poor and they did not even have enough to afford a nice dress. When the invitation was extended to Loisel she was not happy because she could not afford a nice dress, so she would stick out. They found enough funds to afford a dress, but she was not satisfied. She wanted more jewels to add to her dress. She remembered that she had a friend who could give her jewelry so they went to her house. She found a perfect "diamond" necklace which she thought would satisfy her. She went to the party and had a great time, but lost the necklace. Rather than telling the truth they tried to buy a replica of the necklace which cost thousands of dollars. They spent the rest of their lives trying to pay off their debts. When they finally told the truth, they found out the necklace was not diamond. This entire plot has one underlying theme that makes the story great. The lesson is that being honest it much better than tying to lie and cover up what was wrong. The couple tried to do the right thing by buying a new one, but it could have been avoided if they had told the truth in the first place.
The characters social class in the story was essential. The couple was poor which made it nearly impossible to attend the party. They gave up much of their wealth to attend the party, but they ended up losing all of their money. If the characters would have had a lot of wealth than it would have been easy for them to pay off their debts.
The author's point of view is omnipotent. He knows what all of the characters are doing. This impacts the story because the reader is able to know what is happening to all of the characters. The authors view on the story also plays a role in the story because he does not like that the Loisel is poor. He thinks that she should do more lavish things because of her beauty.
The irony of the story is essential. The couple goes from poor to poorer because they tried to live one day somewhat lavishly. If they would have been satisfied with what they had they would not have became more poor than they were. The ironic part wast that they spent everything they had for a diamond necklace when the necklace was made of paste. Overall, the entire story had most elements of a great short story.
Luke Kraus,
DeleteI liked how you said that the story was separated into three sections. That point is so true that it can't be argued. It went from poor, to rich, to poorer for ten years. I know that the end was a terrible let down for the girl, but she was a brat. The husband though, that guy was awesome. Anyways the irony was essential to the story too, because it relates so much. Nice!
Well, this was probably one of my favorite short stories, if not my favorite. I can see why my Aunt Gracie was crazy about it!
ReplyDeleteThe Necklace is such a good short story because it exemplifies a short story. I mean there is a difference between a short story and a novel. This was short, which kept me actively reading it. When I saw Bartleby, and how it was 20 some pages, I read it half asleep. I mean I got the main just of it, but it really didn't give me a deeper meaning to look into.
Which goes on to my second point. A novel is just supposed to be suspenseful and enjoyable, with maybe a meaning or two behind it. A short story has to be short, obviously, but grab the readers attention, have some conflict, have resolution, and have a meaning.
What grabbed my attention was the woman's husband. He was willing to do absolutely anything to keep his wife happy, and that's a really good husband in my eyes. Even though it might not be necessary, or it might be for a stupid reason, he was willing to risk 10 years of long hours to keep their marriage alive. Even though his wife was something else, having a pity party for the last millennia, he did everything he could to try to help.
In the short stories, the basic "guidelines" have to be short and symbolic. There were many literary devices and there was also a ton of symbolism. The necklace represents life or death, and the one little thing that can make or break something. There was the ball which symbolized all that the girl wanted to be: rich. There was also a lot more stuff that I should talk about, but I have to skip it cause this blog is a couple hours late (let's just say I had a long day). But anyways these symbols and literary terms give the poem more depth in meaning, and there are definitely a ton more in the story.
The short story has to follow the five part chart that we learned in the week. Characters, then the story rising to the climax, then the solution comes out. This story followed that sequence all while putting more and more symbolism into it, and doing it effectively. I mean that ten years was rough, and the final sentence was kind of a bummer, but hey, life is rough, and money can't buy happiness.
Which bring me to the theme: money doesn't make someone truly happy. I mean winning the lottery would be pretty cool, but in the long run money isn't everything. Life is what you make of it, and Madame Loisel was in the dumps all the time while her husband was on cloud nine. A good or bad attitude can make all the difference, even if you are poor.
The authors point of view is crucial, and well played by the author. It is omnipotent, so the story is not biased, which is absolutely huge. The irony in this story is also huge. The woman tried to get rich when she was poor, and she did that for one night and became poorer, for ten years that is. Anyways this story was awesome. It was short, packed with literary elements, and had meaning behind it.
Matt,
DeleteNice blog! I enjoy reading your characterization of Monsieur Loisel because it differs so drastically from my own. I found Loisel to be a foolish character, a martyr, who made his first mistake by not putting his foot down when Mathilda is making stupid requests. However, it certainly makes sense what you say regarding him. He had good intentions for certain. Your discussion on the point of view of the story was excellent! Way to use the word "omnipotent!" Nice blog, Matt!