http://photos.state.gov/libraries/hochiminh/646441/vantt/The%20necklace.pdf
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 impact the story? And finally, what role does irony play in the success of the story?
"The Necklace", a short story written by Guy de Maupassant is an interesting little tale of a woman whose vanity and. Desire for a better life lead her and her husband to a life of hard work and struggle due to the loss of a simple necklace. In the story, the author creates characters who set the stage for an ironic ending due to their circumstances. Mine. Loisel, is a woman who was born into a family of clerks, but she was born with charm and appeal, leaving her feeling like she deserved a better life. She wallowed in the simple and potentially happy life that she had been I
ReplyDeleteGiven by her husband. She only saw the potential of the house and their relationships. She wished for fine silks and large sitting rooms where her acquaintances who desired her company would come to visit. One of the elements of this story that I really enjoyed was the parallel structure of many of the sentences, such as in "She suffered from the poverty of her dwelling, from the wretched look of the walls, from the worn- out chairs, from the ugliness of the curtains."
The point of view brings this short story into a different kind of reading than one that would have been in an intimate first person view. As it was written in third person, with a direct focus of Mine. Loisel, the author wanted the reader to see the story around her, and not her point of view, solely. This different point of view brings the reader to a fairly close relationship with her, but they do not form an emotional attachment to her, instead seeing her feelings as more of a silly, inappropriate thing. Because of this view of Mine. Loisel, the reader is able to see the irony of the situation and obtain feelings of humor and also sadness at the state in which she has been left. There is a small kind of catharsis at the end because the reader worries about them, feeling slightly sad for their state, but then learns that all of their suffering was for nothing.
Irony plays a big part in this story, starting in he first page. The reader learns that the main character, Mine. Loisel, was born into a poorer family, but she had the grave and beauty of someone of a higher class. Because of this, she feels she should be held in a place of higher esteem than she is. She wants a larger house with a better parlour and nicer silk curtains. However, when she had married, she had married only a meek clerk who was simple in his desires, happy in his marriage to this beautiful woman. And, when he goes out of his way to win an invitation to a very prestigious ball where some of the most important men of the area will be in attendance, he expects his wife to be happy, excited even. But alas, she is not happy or even remotely close to it. She is almost ashamed that her husband would think their humble living enough to be seen at such an event.
So, she buys and borrows, acquiring an outfit that she deems acceptable for such an important event. She has a gorgeous gown and has borrowed a beautiful necklace from her friend. She goes and has a marvelous time, leaving her husband to sleep in the waiting room by himself. And, on the way home she loses that magnificent necklace she had borrowed. They spend an illustrious amount purchasing a necklace that looks like the one her friend had, and live the next ten years in debt. And finally, it is found out hat the original was only worth five hundred francs! I must say, I laughed quite hard at this point. I think that this was a satirical piece hidden behind a more serious tone. I really enjoyed it, and am happy to have a nice little assignment such as this for a blog.
Hannah,
DeleteI always do enjoy seeing your views on our blogs. This week I feel that you supported all of your point very well. Your first paragraph said it all; if we didn't have to put so much in these blogs that would've been perfect. Although I didn't completely agree with your points on your view point paragraph it is slowly growing on me. I always figured the third person was to emphasize her irrational ideals of moving up in social class. Then the irony was just the killer of this piece so much that in my opinion it is a satirical piece of a dreamer. The dreamer in this case being Madame Loisel, and her thoughts of becoming a rich and envied woman. There's is so much irony simply revolving around Madame Loisel it just seems that the entire point of this short story was to ridicule her in the most influential way. In the end well done, I look forward to the next.
Guy de Maupassant's "The Necklace" is a story about a common mistake that people are always seeming to make. Instead of telling the truth about the first necklace, a husband and his wife decided to lie and cover up what the wife had done. If they would have told the owner of the necklace that she had lost the necklace and would reimburse her they would have found out the real cost of the necklace instead of something so expensive. This short story is realistic, and proves that honest mistakes happen. There is no need for the wife to feel ashamed for what had happened; items get lost all the time. Her reaction is not honest. She lies to he friend. It is not her fault, so why is there any reason to lie? If she is as close as she is with this Mine. Loisel she would have understood the accident. For ten years, the wife and her husband have been working non stop to repay everyone for the new necklace the two had bought for Mine. Loisel without her knowledge. They find out after these all these years that the original necklace is a great amount cheaper than the necklace they bought to replace it. How ironic? Their lie bit them in their own butts. The moral of this story is to be honest with the people who surround you. You should not have to work to keep them satisfied, especially when their idea of satisfaction is different from yours.
ReplyDeleteIrony plays a big role in this story. At the end, the couple figures out that they had done many years of unnecessary work. However, I found that in real life that if this kind of thing happened then the couple would have gotten reprimanded by their friend. So it comes down to being in trouble or years of hard labor. I, personally, would take the scolding and move on with my life. The couple brought it on themselves, and screwed over only them. If I were Mine. Loisel I would be ecstatic. I would not give that necklace back either. They was their own mistake. I would feel entitled to because they worked so hard for it, but life is not fair.
The author's decision to focus on the wife and her husband shows how caught up people can get with themselves and their doings and completely forget the other person involved. Mine. Loisel is involved whether she knows or not, and it the wife and her husband pushed her out of the picture. Their fear made their life suck. If they would have had knowledge of the amount of the original necklace, they could have had ten years of fun. Mine. Loisel is only heard about when the wife visits her and when they are thinking about how angry she would be if she ever found out what they did. Is she really a friend of the wife's? I do not think the wife trusts Mine. Loisel as much as Mine. Loisel trusts her. That is the problem right there; there is not mutual trust. Seems like Mine. Loisel has a better character than the other two.
At the beginning of the story the wife is rude to her husband for obtaining an invitation to a ball for her. In her mind, she is unable to go because she is not rich, beautiful, intelligent as the other women. Also, she does not have a dress. When the husband gives up his own money, set aside for a gun, she takes it to buy a dress. The woman forgets to buy jewelry, and the whole fiasco begins. I feel like the wife likes to bring drama upon herself. She likes being able to blame someone else for her insecurities as a woman. Her husband does everything in his power to save her, and she does little jobs for people instead of finding something worth her time. She is quite a selfish person, and irritated me from the moment she became angry with her husband for getting that invitation that was hard to get. It shows what kind of person she really is, and by doing this she makes her husband look like an amazing man for dealing with her and Mine. Loisel a lovely woman for letting her borrow something.
Kaitlin,
DeleteYou brought up some really great things about this story that I really enjoyed. You focused a lot on the irony of the story, which was a major factor in how the reader reacted to the ending and other aspects of the story. I liked how you mentioned that the author kept the focus on these two to show how people can get caught up in themselves because that is really what happens in the story. Your discussion of all of the different forms of irony that took place in the story was great. I also enjoyed how you mentioned that the wife seemed to bring a lot of the drama upon herself because of her own vanity and selfishness. This definitely seems to be the truth. I really had some mixed feelings about her, and her ideas of how she deserved better than her place in life.
I also agree that in the circumstances that were presented to the couple, that I would have preferred to just take the scolding instead of spending all of that effort on not being found out for the mistake. Imagine just how distraught Mine. Loisel was when she discovered that the necklace she had lost was actually worth a very small fraction of the first necklace's worth. Also, I think you might have gotten confused with characters in this story, because to me, it seemed like Mine. Loisel was the main character, the one who lost the necklace, and her friend was Mme. Forestier. It was an easy mistake to make, something I did too, until I re-read some sections to clarify. Anyway, your blog really shows some great points, and it deepened my thinking about this story, just like a blog should! Great job.
Kaitlin,
DeleteI must say you brought up points that I would've never thought about analyzing. Especially the moral of the story that you propose, "to be honest with the people who surround you", is quite interesting. I had thought that it was solely to "never borrow nor lend etc." but your points are valid and proves to be a valid point worth considering. Your last point on your irony paragraph about them possibly keeping the necklace would be ideal if we were to have an alternate ending. However, think about who they borrowed money from and them having that extremely pricey necklace in a unprotected apartment. It could've possibly spelt danger seeing as they borrowed from the underground thugs of the city. That's only to my imagination, like possibilities of a brake inn, burglary, or a murder just to list a few possibilities. Well you definitely gave me some points to think about the next time I read this story, well done.
Boy does this story bring back memories, this short story use to be my absolute favorite to hear when I was younger. I often times couldn't wait to hear it again because the characters, plot, and theme of the story just seemed so childish at the time so I could understand it. However, I never really had the opportunity to analyze it as we do now in literature. Now that I have taken a look at it again for more academic reasons rather than my occasional leisure reading it seems to be a tad more complex than I had originally assumed in my younger years.
ReplyDeleteIn the basics of the story Mine. Loisel , or Madame Loisel, has nothing more than a desire to be a rich lady with all the perks of popularity that come with wealth. Within the first page alone this sense of her greedy desire becomes eminent for this is all she dreams of. However, she is nothing more than a housewife of a clerk/government employee. They then get a lavish invitation to a ball thrown by Mr. Loisel's superior. Madame Loisel becomes hostile towards her husband because she has nothing to wear, until her husband gives her the money he was saving for a gun to use for a dress. She then complains a few days after about not having any jewels to wear, in which she borrows a diamond necklace from her friend, Madame Forestier. The night of the party she feels right at home in the lavish setting, amongst the wealth of the society. After the party they go home only to discover that the necklace she had borrowed is gone. They attempt to recover it but to no avail they come up empty handed. They then work for several years in order to buy/replace the old necklace with a new one. Once they finally get the money to replace it Madame Forestier tells them that the original necklace was a fake. Although this set of events might seem random every piece to this story holds an importance.
The theme of this short story is just as Dr. Pam once told us "never a borrower nor a lender be." We once had this discussion in class on a piece we were reading but I forget which piece it was exactly. However, that basic teaching of not borrowing what you can't return is the basis of this short story. When Madame Loisel borrowed the necklace from Madame Forrestier she had all of the attentions of returning it. Except sometime between leaving the party and going home she had lost it. Instead of just telling Madame Foresstier the truth she lied about it and ended up replacing a fake worthless necklace with an authentic one.
This simple fact of the ending is the irony of this entire piece, and the perfect ending to this satirical piece. The situational irony that the Loisel's spent all that time trying to replace the necklace, which put themselves lower in the caste system than where they were before. The satirical effect came in as soon as Madame Loisel was introduced. Her being the stereotypical wanna be rich girl fell to the poor standards. Madame Loisel desire to be envied is like that of a popular girl stirring up drama for nothing more than to become the center of attention. Another point of the satirical perspective is Madame Loisel's outlooks on society. She was born into a lower class, married within her class, but she has looks of an upper class member. To her, image is everything, even though her husband loves her for who she is that don't matter as long she is poor.
Devyn,
DeleteYou always have such a great perspective on things, especially theses blogs! I also remember reading this story back in grade school, and I think that the more you read something and the older you get, the more you take from each lesson found between the lines.
I liked that you discussed the plot in detail as it supported the statements you made concerning the different events and their outcomes. I have to say, Mine. Loisel really started to irritate me with her constant complaining about wanting to appear rich, but I guess we are all guilty of wanting to be something we not at some point in our lives. Her extreme need to be like the other women at the party really add to the satire in the story, though. I think that the plot twist at the end really emphasized that it is better to not borrow something that you know tf or a fact you can return rather than have to lie about it. All of the blood and sweat that Mine. Loisel put into those years of trying to pay back the debts just show that you receive back what you give in life. You said that Mine. Loisel believes that "image is everything," and I could not agree more. Unfortunately for her and most people who find this to be their number one priority, it backfired. By the time that she had the guts to tell the truth to her friend, she was not recognizable. Mine. Loisel looked like she had aged to be twice her actual age, which is the exact opposite of what she wants I suppose.
Overall, this was a very thoughtful blog, Devyn. Keep up the great work!
Devyn,
DeleteI really appreciate your blog response for three reasons – you remembered the quote Dr. Pam told us about that I could not recall, you referred to the short story as satirical, and you had read this previously. I thought of the whole borrow-lend thing as well, especially when I was reading Natalie’s blog, and I could not remember the quote so thank you for putting that down! I do not really know why I was so excited to see you use the word satirical but it just made me feel a whole lot better about the short story. Here I was feeling bad for the husband and the greedy Mine. Loisel, but it is a satire! I was supposed to be smirking at how her selfish manner and vanity led to her downfall. The author was mocking people who only think about themselves and what they are missing as compared to what they already have. In a way, Mine. Loisel did not even deserve her husband because he gave her his savings just to please her. She just really upset me if you couldn’t tell.
The third reason – you have heard this story before! I think that allowed you the opportunity to offer such a different perspective because you were already familiar but you got to analyze it with a new mindset. I think that your ideas turned out to be mostly the same as the rest of ours and I would have liked to know more about how you originally perceived it as compared to how you understand it now. But that wasn’t what the blog was about so I understand why you did not draw more from that. Overall I thought your ideas were good although I wish there had been a little more on the theme and the irony, but I enjoyed your last paragraph and the mention of the worth of the caste system to Mine. Loisel. Mine. Loisel made me think of the husband in “The Birthmark,” which I’m not sure if you’ve read, because she had something wonderful and everyone saw that but she was not happy just as the husband would not rest until he removed the birthmark from his wife’s cheek. At the end of both stories there is a feeling of irony because both of the characters sacrificed what they had because they wanted more and what they really got was less. These are the kinds of stories that remind me of how lucky we all are to have food and clean drinking water when not everyone in the world does. That was an important theme of this story – be grateful for what you have. Overall a nice job, Devyn!
Written by Guy de Maupassant, “The Necklace” is a popular short story that can be read and enjoyed by all ages alike. In fact, I remember reading this short story in one of my classes back in elementary school. This particular short story is successful in the sense that it teaches an important lesson, while the ironic ending not only provides a comedic relief but it serves to really enforce the previously mentioned lesson.
ReplyDeleteI can recall sitting on a rug while the teacher read my class this short story. Personally, I wasn’t the biggest fan of this story. Sitting here at the counter with a cup of tea, re reading “The Necklace,” it still does not appeal to me. However, I still can appreciate this story. People are always trying to tell me that it is “impossible” to not like the main character, yet here I am with a great dislike for one of the main characters, Mine. Loisel. Mine. Loisel is, as I would describe, an average lady. She settles for less in regards of wealthy, material items and events. I would like to add emphasis on the word “settles.” Mine. Loisel seems to wallow in her self pity, day dreaming about all of the things she wishes she had without and drive to even attempt to get them. She simply remains still, waiting for money to fall from the sky.
Mine. Loisel’s husband works hard to please her, and yet nothing is ever enough. She is quite the “all or nothing” type of girl. Her husband bought her a ticket to the ball, and yet the dress she had was not good enough. So she wasn't going to the ball anymore. She simply remarked “therefore I can’t go to this ball. Give your card to some colleague whose wife is better equipped than I” and demanded money for a new dress. Although the new dress was not enough, either. For she needed new jewelry. God forbid she opt for fresh flowers like her husband recommended, she needed real jewelry or else she might as well just stay home. So, she had to settle for borrowing a friends necklace. All of these things that she “needed” so desperately, she did nothing to earn. She did not try to get them she simply demanded them of her husband. Even after she had lost the necklace, she had done nothing to find it. She left it all up to her husband while she waited at home. “She sat waiting on a chair… She waited all day.” That’s about all she did.
While I have a dislike for the character of Mine. Loisel, I think that it is possible that this is what Guy de Maupassant had intended. This way, the reader does not feel sympathetic for Mine. Loisel at the end of the story where she meets an ironic ending. I understand that there is a moral to this story, a few actually. People are always saying that “Honesty is the best policy,” and I think that that is the original message that people get upon reading “The Necklace.” This story also speaks a lot of greed and how it can take over a person so easily, yet it will never end well. Money cannot buy happiness, either. Due to all of the lessons, this short story serves to be an excellent teaching tool. However, what I don’t understand is why the husband had to suffer as well. All he had tried to do was make his wife happy! But, maybe that was intended as well. Obviously we all know that bad things happen to good people and that nothing in life is fair.
Felicia,
DeleteTo answer you question on my blog, yes, I was in her class! I knew that I had heard it before without even getting past the title.
Mine. Loisel was just an awful person! I wish she would have worked for the money to buy her dress rather than take it from her husband's savings. Oh, she just frustrated me! Like you said, whatever her husband does for her, it is not enough. Her expectations are set way too high for her way of life, and I don't think she ever considered that. I like that you pointed out that all of these things were things she needed rather earned. Her character is just so caught up in the things she wants that does not consider what it takes for her to receive them.
I never thought that her character was meant to be like that, but it makes so much sense! Personally, I loved the ironic ending. I think it goes to show that karma will always come back to bite you, and Mine. Loisel was no excuse. I agree with all of the lessons you named from this short story, especially the one about money not being able to buy happiness because that is exactly what Mine. Loisel was trying to do. As for her husband, I wish he would have had a happy ending, but that is not always the case.
Overall, Felicia, this was a fantastic blog! I always love reading what you have to say as your opinion holds your honest truth. Great work!
Felicia,
DeleteLoved your blog! I agree with you on everything you said about Mine. Loisel. I dislike the person she is. I completely forgot that she didn't go around to find the necklace SHE lost. She expected her husband to do everything. At first I pictured her husband to be kind of like a hard man, but no I think otherwise. I feel like he is a puppy dog when he it comes to her. I feel bad for him. I do not feel bad when she losses the necklace. I actually find it hilarious that she had to work for ten years. She did it to herself! She wanted everything for nothing. Losing that necklace taught her to work for something, even though it's not hers. When she found out ten years later in her life that the necklace was much cheaper, I chuckled and said "sucks to suck." I don't feel bad at all, and I will stand by that. Great job this week!
Felicia,
DeleteAs much as I commented on how the story was heart-wrenching in my blog, I can see where you’re coming from. I wasn’t the biggest fan of the piece myself. Personally, she had it coming for her. I can very much agree with you on not liking the main character. I mean, after all she was not a very good person as a whole. I have a friend that has something in her bedroom that says “never settle for anything less than butterflies” and I feel like Mine. Loisel did NOT listen to that in any way, shape, or form. She did settle. She knew what she wanted but never went for it. She knew what she could have, but settled for less. She was afraid of what people thought about her and her image, but never really did anything to change how those around her would perceive her. Why? All those factors led me up to not being very fond of her at all. Although she settled, she settled for a man that tried to give her the moon and stars. She is the type of person, like you said, that is an “all or nothing” type. Why was her husband never good enough? Even after he gave her all that money he had been saving up for shooting during the summer; yet the ungrateful woman still wasn’t pleased. Ugh, it still makes me angry thinking about it. She did sit and wait, and wait, and wait. She was lazy and should have done more herself but she thought she was too good for that. I have to agree again that the author must have wanted the reader to have some sort of disliking for the protagonist, I mean, how could they not? She got what was coming for her in my opinion. Good work, Felicia!
In Guy De Maupassant’s short story, “The Necklace” a heart wrenching story is told. Mathilde Loisel and her clerk husband are invited to a ball. As exciting as this should have been, she is devastated because she realizes that if she was to attend the ball, she would be surrounded by rich women in fancy clothing wearing expensive jewelry. Her husband ends up giving her a large amount of money to go buy a dress to wear to the function as well as others in the future. Even after buying a dress she is still not happy. She needs jewelry. Mathilde Loisel does the logical thing and borrows a necklace from her friend. This is where the story, and the irony, really start.
ReplyDeleteI’m not going to lie, at the beginning of the story, I found a lot of the background boring and uninteresting. However, as I continued to read on and the plot progressed, I learned that all of the background information was critical to the eventual outcome. When I read the title, “The Necklace” and began to read through the first page, I come to the conclusion that she was going to get a necklace somehow and it was going to go missing one way or another. I was right in that sense. However, I could not have guessed the outcome of the story in the sense of the protagonist having to work ten long, hard years in order to pay off the debt for having replaced the necklace she lost. This is what makes it such a good short story. There are little details and surprised thrown into the phrases that make the reader want to keep reading.
The short story itself is full of very descriptive adjectives that help describe the environment that the characters are in— for example, Mme. Forestier’s room. These descriptions help to carry the story along while giving the reader hints on what could be coming up. They also enable the reader to create a better visual image of what is really occurring. The structure of the short story reminded me of the type that Nikolai Gogol used in The Overcoat. Why?, simply because he stated a lot of the essential background information at the commencement of the story which made it so that reader was not questioning the simple parts about the characters. Speaking of the characters, I almost wish that there would have been a little bit more of a variety rather than just those considered rich and those considered poor. What happened to that middle class? If the protagonist was so beautiful and never wanted to be a merchant, why did she settle for marrying one when she could have done better? Could she really have done better though? Does she put on an act for those around her? Why is she so afraid of what other people think about her? Sorry just so many questions…
Maybe it was just me and how I read it, but I found the point of view as kind of an outsider, someone who wasn’t caught up in all of the concepts of society’s he said-she said nonsense. I liked it though because I felt like he wasn’t biased and told the story as it was rather than how a specific social class perceived the situation. Ohh the irony! Mathilde Loisel could not have been as good of friends with Mme. Forestier as the narrator leads on because after returning the necklace, the two do not stay in touch. Since when do friends just stop talking? I understand that Loisel would have been constantly nervous about the necklace being discovered as a cover up, but that is no reason why Forestier would have just stopped conversing all together. The real irony in the story comes in to play within the half to three fourths of a page. Mathilde Loisel sees her old friend on the street and decides to let her in on her decade old secret only to be told that she spent ten years paying off a debt that she wouldn’t have had to if she would have admitted the mistake ten years sooner.
DeleteI can honestly say that I was not expecting the ending as much as I probably should have. Guy De Maupassant did an excellent job at describing the background behind the characters in his short story. I applaud him very much for throwing in twists and turns throughout the pages that kept me interested in reading until the end. Although I wished some more of my questions could have been answered, I really liked this short story and think it portrayed a very crucial lesson about telling the truth from the get-go.
Jessica,
DeleteI did not guess what was going to happen unlike you said. I like to read in the moment so I can be surprised. I found this story to be realistic, except the fact that it took ten years to pay the debt to all the people they had borrowed from. That would have been good to mention. I loved that you mentioned that the author used very good words to describe the environment. I agree with that one hundred percent. I never really thought of it until I read your blog.
Unlike me, you kept characters straight. I'm not making excuses (I am), but I read this last night falling asleep. However, I really enjoyed this story. Probably more than I should have because this has happened to me before. Like I mentioned in my blog, accidents happen. You said the point of view, to you, seemed like an outsider. I agree with you, but I feel like it focuses on the the man and his wife for a reason. To me, it shows who the wife really cares about. She doesn't care if her husband is saving money for a gun, she wants it for her own benefits. I don't really like her. She's too self absorbed. It's disgusting. Great blog this week!
Jessica,
DeleteIt seems as if we have an opposite opinion of this short story. (surprise, surprise.) Where you saw a "heart-wrenching story," I saw a hysterical, well deserved story. However, I agree with you on the background information. It is so vital to the story line, but it is so hard to make it interesting... making it hard to read!
To answer some of your questions, it is important to remember the time period that this short story was written into. While I am probably the worst of the class in history, I do remember learning sometime in the past that there was no middle class. Shockingly, there was a huge gap between the lower and upper class. Don't get me started on Mine. Loisel! I think she was so sneaky, that she didn't necessarily settle for less when she married her husband, rather she married him with the full intention of taking advantage of a man who wanted nothing more than to please her. I am repulsed by her, her actions, and her intentions.
I had already read this short story long ago in a previous class, so it was interesting to read the review of someone who had read this for the first time. I enjoyed reading your post. Good Job, Jessica!
Oh, the irony! "The Necklace," written by Guy de Maupassant, is a short story filled with good character development, structure, and a major plot twist at the end. I really liked the flow of events in this short story, and I think that some short stories rush rather than ease into things. The overall plot of "The Necklace" is something I think everyone can relate to one way or another. Everyone makes mistakes, and you just have to own up to it rather than lie about it. The main character, Mine. Loisel, was afraid to admit to her friend that she lost her diamond necklace, but her way of going about the situation had much greater consequences. She and her husband were too caught up in trying to fix the problem that they never considered telling the truth, which would have worked out much better for them as the original necklace was not real diamonds but rather "paste" (6). I think that goes to show the lesson that this short story reveals, which is a major component of most short stories. Also, the character development of Mine. Loisel really shows her ultimate downfall from being a plain clerk's wife to a beautiful woman at the party to a woman who looks twice her age because of the stress and hardwork put into paying of all of her debts. Personally, this was my favorite part about "The Necklace." It shows the raw truth in trying to squirm your way out of original consequences and instead receiving an even worse punishment.
ReplyDeleteI think this short story has two themes present. The first one that I noticed was about wanting to be something you are not, and how that never ends well for anyone. Mine. Loisel wished so badly to fit in with the others at the party that she bought a new dress with the money her husband was saving for his own pleasure and borrowed a necklace she thought was worth thousands of francs. The dress worked out well for her, but she ended up losing the necklace. This leads into the second theme about never borrowing nor lending. When you borrow something, you are in debt to that person until you give it back in the same or better condition as when you received it. When you lend something to another person, you always worry about whether or not you will receive that item back, and if you do but in poor condition or you don't at all, them you'll always hold a grudge against that person. Neither action is positive in my mind.
I think the point of view in this story, third person, helps the development of the irony that is definitely visible. I felt like the point of view also allows the reader to see how both of the Loisel's are feeling and acting during each event of the story. I'm glad that the author chose to write the story in third person because it allows us to see more than one person. Although the story revolves mostly around Mine. Loisel, the reader can view everything as a bystander. I think this gives the plot twist more value to the actual lessons and themes in "The Necklace." I also think that the irony makes the reader think about their own decisions in life, and how actions can come back to bite you.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this short story. I feel as though I read before for some other class, but I cannot put my finger on it. But I'm glad we got to read it this year because we can all walk away with something greater now than before from the lesson found beneath the words.
Natalie,
DeleteI always love reading your opinions on things, and this blog didn't disappoint. I really enjoyed your discussion of the themes that you found to be in this story. I think that your realization of the theme of not trying to raise yourself above your situation was excellent. This really was the main cause for all of the problems that occurred in this story. That woman really irritated me at times, believing that just because she was born with poise and beauty that she deserved to live in a grand house with drawing rooms and silk curtains. Work for it lady! She never would do anything of consequence, doing little jobs her husband found her and never really helping at all. And then, when she demands the money for the new dress, she takes the money that he had been saving for himself.
I also believe we had the same ideas on the point of view in the story. I really enjoyed how the author chose third person because it took the focus off of Mine. Loisel, and gave the reader room to see the story through the eyes of a bystander instead of through the cloudy judgment of the wife. This was a really great blog, and I think that you expressed your opinions well in it. Once again, I feel as though I have a deeper understanding of the work through reading everyone else's blogs. Great work!
Natalie,
DeleteI remember reading this short story as well! Were you in Mrs. Pasquenelli's class, because for some reason I think I remember her reading it to the class! Now, obviously, you know that I am going to say how much I enjoy reading your blogs, but I really do mean it! You are an excellent writer.
I must agree with you, my favorite part of this story was how honest it was. You had remarked that "The Necklace" "shows the raw truth in trying to squirm your way out of original consequences and instead receiving an even worse punishment." I love how she tried to be sly and it all blew up in her face. Hannah also commented above me on her opinion of Mine. Loisel, saying that she "really irritated" her "at times"... or all the time! Goodness, that lady drove me up a wall!
My favorite part of your blog was your second last paragraph where you focused on the view point of the story. You explained a lot within that single paragraph all the while making it easy to understand.
Great blog this week, Natalie!
Natalie,
DeleteThat girl, though! She takes her husband’s savings just so that she can appear to be rich and beautiful and all it does is get her into trouble. I loved the idea of your first theme because we shouldn't try to force ourselves into being something we are not. We have to find the beauty around us. I just finished our Huck Finn homework and this story reminded me of the "king" and the "duke" in a strange way. Sure, they were pretending to be a king and duke just to mess with Huck and Jim and they were con artists, but imagine how it felt for them to live a life of poverty and lies and then have people serve you and call you "your majesty" even if it is a lie. That was Mine. Loisel wanted, and she got it - the rest just did not go as she expected. Also, the theme of borrowing and lending brought to mind a quote that I can't exactly recall, but it essentially says that you should not put yourself in debt when you cannot afford it and you should never allow someone else to do the same because you may not get what you gave them back. However, I also think there was a third theme - lies will get you nowhere. You were right in saying that they got so "caught up in trying to fix the problem that they never considered telling the truth." The lies just ruined the entire experience for everyone. They worried and lied and worked when they should have told the truth because the necklace was a fake!
By the way, I think that the necklace being a fake was a key symbol because wasn't Mine. Loisel a fake, in a way? She is a beautiful girl but she was not born into nor did she marry into a higher class. For the party she buys a beautiful dress with her husband’s only savings and borrows what she believes to be an expensive necklace. But the necklace is a fake just as she is, although they are still both beautiful. The irony of this story made me think about "The Gift of the Magi." Do you remember that? The husband sells his watch to buy hair-combs for his wife who chops off her beautiful hair to buy her husband a watch chain. Although I think it had a somewhat happier ending and a different moral there are similarities besides the irony. For example, they both led me to think that we should be happy for what we have and we should never take it for granted. I also thought that it showed us the value of character because the couple in "The Gift of the Magi" acted with love and ended loving each other more while Mine. Loisel acted with greed and selfishness and only ended up making her own situation worse. Your blog led me to new thoughts about this story and I love that! Keep up the good, thought provoking work!
Natalie,
DeleteI always love reading your blogs. I feel like your mind is this magical place where so many things happen and I can never seem to get enough. As for your opinion on authors often rushing into the story too quickly when it comes to short stories, I couldn’t agree more. That’s one of the reasons I liked how this story was written. There was a lot of background and explaination at the beginning of the piece that I didn’t feel like—for lack of a better reference— I was dropped in a foreign country and left to my own devices. I have to admit that honesty is the best policy and she should have told the truth from the beginning. I don’t understand why she wouldn’t have just told the truth. I know how mad I would have been incredibly angry at myself if I would have spent the last ten years trying to pay off a debt only to find out that I did it all for almost nothing.
Isn’t it a saying that everyone wants what they can’t have? I feel like that is a very true statement especially in a story like this. Loisel wanted everything she couldn’t have and didn’t appreciate anything she did have. How rude haha. But in all honesty, how ungrateful can a single person be? I love that the author wrote the story in third person. It’s almost as if they were like looking down on the story and watching what was happening. They weren’t involved and you got to hear equally about both sides of the story without thinking one side was better than the other simply because the narrator was making it seem so. As I read into “The Necklace” more and more I also thought I recognized the story, but, like you, can’t seem to remember where I’ve read it before. Maybe we can figure it out tomorrow if we discuss the blog. Underlying meanings are one of my favorite things in all the forms of literature. I’m so glad you picked it out too. Good job!
Nice job this week. We will discuss in class how to respond to questions that regard stories. Discussing plot without focusing on "plot summary" is an important skill for the AP exam. Choosing a rather simple story is a good place to begin. I was happy to hear that it was familiar to many of you!
ReplyDeleteSuch a piece of great information for a blogger I am a professional blogger thanks
ReplyDeleteSignal Relief Patch Reviews