Mathilde, is a "pretty and charming" girl whom, according to herself, was born in the wrong class-- she is meant to be rich; she was supposed to be born with all the delicacies and all the luxuries. But " as though she had really fallen from her proper station", she suffers in her own poverty.
Mathilde is married to a "little" clerk. He does his best to give her what he can, but even in his best efforts it does not please her.
Mathilde's husband fought to obtain an invitation, for his wife and himself, to a ball where only the most prestigious, and highly classed people attend.
At the presentation of this invitation, Mathilde becomes irritated with her husband because she does not own a dress or jewelry extravagant enough for the event. In another effort to help please her, he relinquishes 400 franc he had saved up for himself, so Mathilde can buy herself a dress.
After buying a dress she decides to reach out to a former school mater, Mme. Forester, whom resides in the upper class, that she does not go and see anymore "because she suffered so much when she came back". Upon her visit to Mme. Forester she borrowed a piece of jewelry so that she could wear it to the ball.
While at the ball, Mathilde feels beautiful. Once the ball was over, Mathilde was back to her poor life style. Upon realizing that her necklace from Mme. Forester was gone, Mathilde and her husband spend 40,000 francs; to replace the lost necklace.
" Mme. Loisel now knew the horrible existence of the needy".
For ten years, Mathilde and her husband worked relentlessly to payoff the debts of the necklace. Mathilde was young and beautiful and now was old.
One evening when Mathilde ran into Mme. Forester in town she disclosed to her that she had lost her original necklace and spent the last 10 years paying off the 40,000 franc for a new one.
Mme. Forester exclaims, she wishes Mathilde told her sooner as the one she had lent her was a fake and only worth a maximum of 500 franc.
Was this avoidable?
Yes.
To lie or not to lie?
Not
40,000 franc and 10 years of relentless physical labor, was all avoidable if Mathilde didn't lie.
Some of the most embarrassing moments in life include being caught in a lie. Mathilde attempted to blame Mme. Forester for her appearance of old age and extreme poverishness; only for her to find out it was all avoidable if she had just told Mme. Forester the truth 10 years ago.
Mathilde saw her lie as a white lie, in effort to not harm her relationship with Mme. Forester, but one little white lie was behind the 10 years in suffering conditions for Mathilde and her husband.
An alternative to lying would have been for Mathilde to tell Mme. Forester she has lost the necklace and would buy her a new one; Mme. Forester then would have told her the real value of the necklace.
Telling the truth will always prevent future conflict. Mathilde spent 10 years paying off a replacement for what was actually a worthless necklace, just one instance of irony evident in The Necklace.
Also ironic is the fact that Mathilde’s beauty, which had been her only valued asset, disappears as a result of her labor for the necklace.
She had borrowed the necklace to be seen as more beautiful and winds up losing it and her looks completely.
Perhaps the most bitter irony of “The Necklace” is that the arduous life that Mathilde must assume after losing the necklace makes her old life—the one she resented so fully—seem luxurious.
Good job Giana. While you explain that you Mathilde didn't do the right thing by lying about the necklace, it would been beneficial to interpret the significance of her lie. Like what did this lie say about her character?
ReplyDeleteThis lie shows that Mathilde is more focused on what others people think about her. The lie reveals that she does not want to be seen as someone vulnerable as she would be seen revealing she had lost the necklace and was in debt to its owner, so instead she created a lie until she could recieve the a new necklace
ReplyDelete