19th century France was a time of deception and pretence. In a society supported by the working class, the bourgeoisie turned to social appearance as a source of value. Upper class women relied heavily on social events as opportunities to show off their wealth by dressing fashionably and gossiping, while the men used their wives as symbols of power and prosperity. However, a good deal of these husbands "visited prostitutes for sexual adventures of kept mistresses" (Social Classes), proving that they did not truly value marriage for its true purpose: exclusive love. When the primary characters of Guy de Maupassant 's "The Necklace" find themselves entwined in the social fabric of upper class citizens, they suffer a devastating loss - that of
…show more content…
and Mme. Loisel demonstrate such a sense of dishonesty and pride that it demands appropriate penalty, which they receive through their fall to poverty. Their ordeal is comparable to the biblical story of the fall of man, in which Adam and Eve are tempted to "be like God" (New International Version, Gen. 3.5), in the same manner that Mme. Loisel is desperate to be equal to members of the upper class. Adam and Eve consume the fruit of the tree of knowledge and receive the knowledge that they longed for, and Mme. Loisel receives the attention and acceptance of the upper class, but both are cast out for their insolence - Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, and Mme. Loisel from the middle class. In the end, both are forced to live a life of labour as payment for their sins. In all this, however, it is important to remember that M. Loisel is to his wife as Adam is to Eve. Although the serpent seduces Eve, she offers the fruit to Adam, who consumes it as well. When the loss of the necklace is announced, M. Loisel is the one who says " 'We 'll have to write to your friend... to tell her you have broken the catch and are having it repaired '" (de Maupassant 5). In addition to this, he furthers the dishonesty by stating that they "must take steps to replace that piece of jewelry" (5). These excerpts serve as proof that M. Loisel is, in fact, not "the innocent victim" (Bement 180) that Douglas Bement claims him to be in his analysis. Because he expresses the need to replace the …show more content…
Loisel acquires the ability to recognize true value. The necklace, the short story 's titular object, serves as a strong symbol of a flawed sense of value, since Mme. Loisel only appreciated it for its social power, when it actually held no real value. This being said, the jewelry also serves as a reflection of Loisel herself, seeing as how it was looked upon as if having great monetary value, when it in truth barely had any. In an added level of irony, the crystal would still hold no real value since it is not an essential item, and is the most common of the "rare" gems. Previous to her downfall, Mme. Loisel took for granted everything she had. For example, when given the invitation which her husband "had an awful time getting" (de Maupassant 2), she "scornfully tossed the invitation on the table, murmuring 'What good is that to me? '" (2). The only things she valued were unimportant, such as the full attention of her peers. However, after living in poverty, she begins to find worth in simple things, such as going "for a walk on the Champs Elysees to relax a bit from the week 's labors" (7). When Mme. Loisel speaks with Mme. Forestier, an interesting contrast is drawn - Forestier is still "young-looking, still beautiful, still charming" (7), but when approached by the now drab-looking Loisel, she "[shows] astonishment at being spoken to so familiarly by this common person" (7). This means that she has not developed in
and Mme. Loisel demonstrate such a sense of dishonesty and pride that it demands appropriate penalty, which they receive through their fall to poverty. Their ordeal is comparable to the biblical story of the fall of man, in which Adam and Eve are tempted to "be like God" (New International Version, Gen. 3.5), in the same manner that Mme. Loisel is desperate to be equal to members of the upper class. Adam and Eve consume the fruit of the tree of knowledge and receive the knowledge that they longed for, and Mme. Loisel receives the attention and acceptance of the upper class, but both are cast out for their insolence - Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, and Mme. Loisel from the middle class. In the end, both are forced to live a life of labour as payment for their sins. In all this, however, it is important to remember that M. Loisel is to his wife as Adam is to Eve. Although the serpent seduces Eve, she offers the fruit to Adam, who consumes it as well. When the loss of the necklace is announced, M. Loisel is the one who says " 'We 'll have to write to your friend... to tell her you have broken the catch and are having it repaired '" (de Maupassant 5). In addition to this, he furthers the dishonesty by stating that they "must take steps to replace that piece of jewelry" (5). These excerpts serve as proof that M. Loisel is, in fact, not "the innocent victim" (Bement 180) that Douglas Bement claims him to be in his analysis. Because he expresses the need to replace the …show more content…
Loisel acquires the ability to recognize true value. The necklace, the short story 's titular object, serves as a strong symbol of a flawed sense of value, since Mme. Loisel only appreciated it for its social power, when it actually held no real value. This being said, the jewelry also serves as a reflection of Loisel herself, seeing as how it was looked upon as if having great monetary value, when it in truth barely had any. In an added level of irony, the crystal would still hold no real value since it is not an essential item, and is the most common of the "rare" gems. Previous to her downfall, Mme. Loisel took for granted everything she had. For example, when given the invitation which her husband "had an awful time getting" (de Maupassant 2), she "scornfully tossed the invitation on the table, murmuring 'What good is that to me? '" (2). The only things she valued were unimportant, such as the full attention of her peers. However, after living in poverty, she begins to find worth in simple things, such as going "for a walk on the Champs Elysees to relax a bit from the week 's labors" (7). When Mme. Loisel speaks with Mme. Forestier, an interesting contrast is drawn - Forestier is still "young-looking, still beautiful, still charming" (7), but when approached by the now drab-looking Loisel, she "[shows] astonishment at being spoken to so familiarly by this common person" (7). This means that she has not developed in