"The Necklace" (in French, "La Parure") is perhaps the most famous short story by French

authorGuy de Maupassant. It's been called Madame Bovary in miniature, and tells the tale of a
dissatisfied middle-class woman whose dreams of wealth and glamour end in disaster.
Maupassant first published it (in French) on February 17, 1884 in a daily newspaper called Le
Gaulois, where he worked as an editor.
So just who, you ask, is this guy, Guy, with the hard-to-pronounce French name? (By the way,
it's roughly "Gee du Mow-pass-on" with the "g" at the beginning sounding like the "g" in
"goat," and the "n" at the end having that French nasal sound). As it turns out, he's a big deal.
Maupassant is the father of the French short story. Some would even say that he is the father
of the modern short story (or at least one of the fathers). Though he didn't invent the short story
genre, he perfected it, popularized it, and greatly expanded his audience's understanding of
what could be done with it. It helped that he wrote some three hundred short stories, all mostly
between 1880 and 1890.
Maupassant was also famous for his use of the twist endings. Guy didn't invent that either, and
he certainly didn't use it in every one of his stories. But when he did use it, he was good at it,
and it was he, more than anyone else, who made the twist ending big.
We mention that because "The Necklace" has the most famous of all of Maupassant's twist
endings which is also why it's his most famous short work. Though he was already wellknown in France by the time he wrote it, in the English-speaking world his initial fame rested
largely on this little jewel of a story. It was a particular hit with Americans, who couldn't get over
how cool the ending was. In fact, the story led to something of a twist-ending fad in popular
literature. It wasn't too long before the U.S. produced its own version of Maupassant, O. Henry,
whose story "Gift of the Magi" may have theother most famous twist ending of all time.

Why Should I Care?

Think of Mathilde Loisel as the 19th century Paris version of the "desperate housewife." She's
middle class, a maid, and a kind husband. But she's cooped up in the house all day
with nothing to do, and her days are marked with boredom beyond belief. Her only way out of
dealing with it is to live in a fantasy world of glamour, wealth, and beautiful people.
Does that situation really seem all that far-removed from today? In many ways, the figure of the
dissatisfied housewife is just as relevant now as it was then. Just like Maupassant's
contemporaries, we're still fascinated by it, perhaps because we're troubled by it. Why else
would a show actually called Desperate Housewives be so popular? And can't we all relate in
some way to Mathilde's desire to live a more exciting, glamorous life, even if we can only do it
in daydreams?
You also won't find a more perfect encapsulation in story form of an experience we
can certainly all relate to: the "if I hadn't lost that one thing!..." experience. That's right, if you

think losing something once ruined your day, just wait until you see what happens to Mathilde.
It's painful to read about, yes, but sometimes it's good to have a reminder of just how badly
chance can ruin your life.
Finally, if you like interesting plots and crafty endings with a twist, they don't get much more
classic than this one. Plus the story's just five pages. And like we said earlier, it's kind
of like Madame Bovary writ small. So if you want to get a sense of the classic situation of a
desperate housewife, why not read "Madame Bovary in miniature"?

The Necklace Summary

How It All Goes Down
At the beginning of the story, we meet Mathilde Loisel, a middle-class girl who desperately
wishes she were wealthy. She's got looks and charm, but had the bad luck to be born into a
family of clerks, who marry her to another clerk (M. Loisel) in the Department of Education.
Mathilde is so convinced she's meant to be rich that she detests her real life and spends all
day dreaming and despairing about the fabulous life she's not having. She envisions footmen,
feasts, fancy furniture, and strings of rich young men to seduce.
One day M. Loisel comes home with an invitation to a fancy ball thrown by his boss, the
Minister of Education. M. Loisel has gone to a lot of trouble to get the invitation, but Mathilde's
first reaction is to throw a fit. She doesn't have anything nice to wear, and can't possibly go!
How dare her husband be so insensitive? M. Loisel doesn't know what to do, and offers to buy
his wife a dress, so long as it's not too expensive. Mathilde asks for 400 francs, and he agrees.
It's not too long before Mathilde throws another fit, though, this time because she has no
jewels. So M. Loisel suggests she go see her friend Mme. Forestier, a rich woman who can
probably lend her something. Mathilde goes to see Mme. Forestier, and she is in luck. Mathilde
is able to borrow a gorgeous diamond necklace. With the necklace, she's sure to be a stunner.
The night of the ball arrives, and Mathilde has the time of her life. Everyone loves her (i.e.,
lusts after her) and she is absolutely thrilled. She and her husband (who falls asleep off in a
corner) don't leave until 4am. Mathilde suddenly dashes outside to avoid being seen in her
shabby coat. She and her husband catch a cab and head home. But once back at home,
Mathilde makes a horrifying discovery: the diamond necklace is gone.
M. Loisel spends all of the next day, and even the next week, searching the city for the
necklace, but finds nothing. It's gone. So he and Mathilde decide they have no choice but to
buy Mme. Forestier a new necklace. They visit one jewelry store after another until at last they
find a necklace that looks just the same as the one they lost. Unfortunately, it's
36 thousand francs, which is exactly twice the amount of all the money M. Loisel has to his
name. So M. Loisel goes massively into debt and buys the necklace, and Mathilde returns it to
Mme. Forestier, who doesn't notice the substitution. Buying the necklace catapults the Loisels

into poverty for the next ten years. That's right, ten years. They lose their house, their maid,
their comfortable lifestyle, and on top of it all Mathilde loses her good looks.
After ten years, all the debts are finally paid, and Mathilde is out for a jaunt on the Champs
Elyses. There she comes across Mme. Forestier, rich and beautiful as ever. Now that all the
debts are paid off, Mathilde decides she wants to finally tell Mme. Forestier the sad story of the
necklace and her ten years of poverty, and she does. At that point, Mme. Forestier, aghast,
reveals to Mathilde that the necklace she lost was just a fake. It was worth only five hundred
francs.

The Necklace The Necklace Summary

The narrator introduces us to a girl. We don't know her name yet, but apparently she's
charming, attractive, and, believes that sheshould have been born into a rich family.

Instead she wound up in a family of "employees" and ended up marrying a "little clerk"
in Department of Education (1).

Our ordinary girl is convinced that she's meant for the extraordinary life of a fabulously
rich girl.

She hates her own humble surroundings and spends her time dreaming about fancy
tapestries and tall footmen. While her husband slurps his stew she imagines grand
banquets.

A life of luxury is all the girl wants it's what she's made for. But sadly, she doesn't lead
the luxurious life of which she dreams.

Consequently, she spends all her days weeping and feeling sorry for herself.

One evening, the girl's husband comes in with a large envelope.

She tears it open to find that she and her husband M. and Mme.
("Monsieur and Madame) Loisel have been invited to a fancy party at the Minister of
Education's palace. Her husband can't wait to see her reaction.

Mme. Loisel is not happy about this. She's got nothing to wear. This is enough to send
her into tears.

M. Loisel feels awful, and asks his wife, Mathilde, how much a simple, pretty dress for
the ball would cost.

Mathilde stops to think it over how much can she ask for before her husband flips out
and at last tells him four hundred francs would probably do it.

M Loisel agrees to give Mathilde four hundred francs. There goes that new gun he'd
been saving for.

The date of the party approaches, and Mathilde is in a bad mood again.

This time it's jewels: she doesn't have any to wear over her dress.

M. Loisel suggests she wear flowers, but Mathilde will have none of that.

M. Loisel suggests that Mathilde borrow some jewels from her rich friend Mme.
Forestier. Now there's an idea.

The next day, Mathilde visits Mme. Forestier and tells her about her situation. Mme.
Forestier brings out a big box of jewels and tells Mathilde to pick whatever she wants.

Mathilde isn't satisfied with anything she sees, but then Mme. Forestier brings her
another box containing a spectacular diamond necklace.

Mathilde is beside herself. It's the only thing she wants! Mme. Forestier agrees to let
her borrow it.

The evening of the party arrives, and Mathilde is a smash hit. All the men including
the Minister notice her. She's in heaven. Her husband, meanwhile, has also been
having a great time: he's been off dozing in a corner since midnight.

When it's four o'clock and at last time to go, M. Loisel brings the coats. But Mathilde is
self-conscious: her coat is so shabby compared to the rest of her appearance. So she
dashes off into the street to avoid being seen.

M. Loisel follows Mathilde into the streets, and they spend a long time wandering
around, shivering, and looking for a carriage.

At last they find one and head back home, glumly. Mathilde doesn't want to go back to
her ordinary life, and M. Loisel doesn't want to get up for work at 10am.

As soon as they enter the house, Mathilde rushes to a mirror to see herself all deckedout one last time. But the diamond necklace is missing. She screams.

M. Loisel wants to know what the matter is, and Mathilde tells him. They search
frantically through her dress and coat for the necklace, but it's nowhere to be found.

The Loisels review all the places they've been to figure out where the necklace could
have been lost, and M. Loisel decides it must have been left in the cab. But
unfortunately, neither of them has the cab number.

M. Loisel goes back out in search of the necklace, and returns at 7am with nothing. He
spends all of the next day searching, visiting the police HQ, the cab company, and still
has nothing.

Mathilde, meanwhile, spends the day stuck in a chair, too traumatized to do anything.

When he returns, M. Loisel has Mathilde write to Mme. Forestier to say that they broke
the clasp of the necklace and are having it fixed. They need to buy more time.

A week passes, and still no sign of the necklace. M. Loisel, who already looks five
years older, decides they have no choice but to replace it.

He and Mathilde go to see the jeweler whose name was on the necklace box to see
about a replacement. The jeweler says that he did not sell the necklace, just the case.

M. and Mme. Loisel start going from jeweler to jeweler, hoping to find a necklace just
like the one they remember.

At last they find one in a jewelry store at the Palais Royale.

There is just one problem: It's forty thousand francs (thirty-six thousand after
bargaining), which is a ton of money. M. Loisel asks the jeweler to hold the necklace for
them a few days.

It turns out that M. Loisel has only 18,000 francs to his name, in the form of his
inheritance from his father. All the rest of the money to buy the necklace he has to get
by taking out loans.

So he takes out enough loans to pay for the necklace and to ensure that his life will
be ruined forever and then goes back to the jeweler's to buy it.

Mathilde takes the replacement necklace to Mme. Forestier, who's miffed that she
didn't return her necklace sooner. Mathilde's worried she'll notice the substitution.

Mme. Forestier does not open the box, and does not see the substitution.

Now Mathilde and M. Loisel are poor. They have to dismiss the maid and move into an
attic. Mathilde starts to do the housework, and run the errands, haggling at stores over
every cent. M. Loisel works two night jobs.

This goes on for ten years, until all the interest on the Loisels' loans is paid. Mathilde is
now a rough, hard woman, and her looks are ruined. She occasionally thinks of how
her life might have been different if she hadn't lost the necklace

One Sunday, Mathilde goes for a stroll on the Champs Elyses (main street of Paris
that you see in all the movies), and notices a beautiful young-looking woman walking
with her child.

It's Mme. Forestier, who hasn't aged one day. Mathilde decides it's time to tell her
everything that happened.

When Mathilde greets Mme. Forestier by her first name, Mme. Forestier does not
recognize her former friend, because she looks so different She gives a cry of surprise
when Mathilde reveals who she is.

Mathilde tells Mme. Forestier that her life's been hard, and all on account of her. Mme.
Forestier doesn't understand.

Mathilde explains that she'd lost the diamond necklace, but replaced it, and has spent
the last ten years paying for the replacement. (Mme. Forestier apparently hadn't
noticed the difference)

Mme. Forestier grabs Mathilde by the hands, shaken.

Her diamond necklace, she tells Mathilde, was a fake. It was worth at most five
hundred francs.

The Necklace Theme of Wealth

"The Necklace" gets its title from the gorgeous piece of diamond jewelry that drives the story's
plot. The expensive nature of the necklace is not the only way in which wealth is central to this
story. The main character of "The Necklace" is obsessed with wealth. She wants nothing else
than to escape from her shabby middle-class life with a shabby middle-class husband and live
the glamorous life for which she was born. She's so jealous of her one wealthy friend it hurts.
When Mathilde's given the chance to get decked out in diamonds and go to a ritzy party to
mingle with all the beautiful people, it seems like her dreams have finally become a reality.
Then she loses the borrowed diamond necklace, gets cast into poverty, and learns what it
means to truly live without money.

Questions About Wealth

1.
2.

3.
4.

Is Mathilde a greedy character? What signs can you find that she is or is not?
Why does Mathilde want to live the life of the rich so much? Are her dreams
understandable, or do they seem silly and exaggerated?
What difference does money make in the lives of the story's characters?
Does the story itself have a message about whether wealth is a "good thing"? Is it
shown to be worth pursuing, or not worth pursuing? Or is the story's own attitude towards
wealth neutral?

Chew on This
Try on an opinion or two, start a debate, or play the devils advocate.
Mathilde's greed is revealed in her inability to be satisfied by anything.
"The Necklace" takes an entirely neutral stance on wealth.

The Necklace Wealth Quotes Page 1

Page (1 of 4) Quotes: 1

How we cite the quotes:

Citations follow this format: (Paragraph)

Quote #1
She was one of those pretty and charming girls, born by
a blunder of destiny in a family of employees. She had
no dowry, no expectations, no means of being known,
understood, loved, married by a man rich and
distinguished. (1)

The first thing we know about Mathilde is that she seems meantfor a life of wealth and luxury, but instead is
born into a lowly middle-class family. We don't even know her name yet, but we know this other information
about her. The conflict between what she wants (which is quite a lot) and what she has is established
immediately.

Quote #2
She let her mind dwell on the quiet vestibules, hung
with Oriental tapestries, lighted by tall lamps of bronze,
and on the two tall footmen in knee breeches who dozed
in the large armchairs, made drowsy by the heat of the
furnace. She let her mind dwell on the large parlors,
decked with old silk, with their delicate furniture,
supporting precious bric-a-brac, and on the coquettish
little rooms, perfumed, prepared for the five o'clock chat
with the most intimate friends, men well known and
sought after, whose attentions all women envied and
desired. (3)

Mathilde spends her time living in a dream world, in which she imagines all the fabulous things she'd have if
she were rich. The most detail we get in the otherwise sparse story comes in Maupassant's descriptions of the
fancy stuff Mathilde wants. But being rich also means more than just nice stuff to her: it means having the
glamour to attract men.

Quote #3

She had a rich friend, a comrade of her convent days,

whom she did not want to go and see any more, so much
did she suffer as she came away. (6)

Mathilde wants to be wealthy so badly that she's driven mad with jealousy by the one rich friend she has, Mme.
Forestier. She can't bear to see Mme. Forestier, because it brings her within arm's reach of the world of wealth
she wants so badly, but can't have.

The Necklace Wealth Quotes Page 2

Page (2 of 4) Quotes: 1

How we cite the quotes:

Citations follow this format: (Paragraph)

Quote #4
She reflected a few seconds, going over her calculations,
and thinking also of the sum which she might ask
without meeting an immediate refusal and a frightened
exclamation from the frugal clerk. (24)

It looks like Mathilde is milking her husband for all he's worth here. Was her the crying fit put on so she could
seize the opportunity to get a fancy dress from him?

Quote #5
"It annoys me not to have a jewel, not a single stone, to
put on. I shall look wretched. I would almost rather not
go to this party." (33)

OK, so after she's gotten an expensive dress out of her husband, Mathilde refuses to go to the party again.
She's still not satisfied. This time, it's jewels. She needs jewels. Does this mean Mathilde actually expects her
husband to get her a piece of jewelry?

Quote #6

All at once she discovered, in a box of black satin, a

superb necklace of diamonds, and her heart began to
beat with boundless desire. Her hands trembled in taking
it up. She fastened it round her throat, on her high dress,
and remained in ecstasy before herself. (48)

Maybe diamonds are a girl's best friend. Just seeing and touching something expensive and beautiful drives
Mathilde crazy. She's in "ecstasy" over a necklace. The necklace may be a symbol for wealth, or glamour in
the story. Even if it isn't, it certainly seems to equate to those things for Mathilde.

The Necklace Wealth Quotes Page 3

Page (3 of 4) Quotes: 1

How we cite the quotes:

Citations follow this format: (Paragraph)

Quote #7
When Mme. Loisel took back the necklace to Mme.
Forestier, the latter said, with an irritated air:
"You ought to have brought it back sooner, for I might
have needed it." (95-96)

It's interesting that Mme. Forestier reacts so snippily to having the necklace returned late. One would think that
because she has so much, it wouldn't really matter when one particular piece of jewelry was returned. This
could either mean that her wealth makes her more greedy with what she has or that she considers the
necklace one of her best pieces of jewelry. Which is a little interesting, since we learn later that it's a fake

Quote #8
Mme. Loisel learned the horrible life of the needy. She
made the best of it, moreover, frankly, heroically. The
frightful debt must be paid. She would pay it. They
dismissed the servant; they changed their rooms; they
took an attic under the roof. (98)

After losing the necklace, Mathilde now finds herself actually poor. Though she felt herself "poor" before, she
was fairly comfortable, and middle class. Now her life is much harder.

Quote #9
The other did not recognize her, astonished to be hailed
thus familiarly by this woman of the people. She
hesitated
"But madam I don't know are you not making a
mistake?" (111-112)

Mme. Forestier and Mathilde are now greatly separated by their wealth, which translates into social class. The
class difference is so big that it seems improper for Mathilde to even address Mme. Forestier by her first name.
Their classes are also immediately apparent from the way they look.

The Necklace Theme of Women and Femininity

Mathilde Loisel, the main character of "The Necklace," is a 19th century French version of a
desperate housewife. Because she's a woman in a man's world, she has almost no control
over her life. She finds herself married to a husband she doesn't care for, and cooped up in a
house she despises. What she wants more than anything else is to bedesirable to other men.
And what's particularly irritating is that she has all the "womanly virtues" she needs in order to
be desirable: she's charming, graceful, beautiful. She's just doesn't have the necessary wealth.
Does Mathilde Loisel capture the tragic plight of the modern, middle-class woman? Is she a
victim of the patriarchal society in which she lives? Or is she just a shallow and materialistic
character?

Questions About Women and Femininity

1.

In what ways is Mathilde a typical woman according to the story? How are Mathilde's
desires feminine desires?

2.

How might Mathilde's being a woman be a cause of her unhappiness? Do you think it
is the primary cause of her unhappiness? Why or why not?

3.

How are wealth and femininity connected in "The Necklace"? Where in the story do you
see a connection?

4.

Does "The Necklace" paint a bad picture of women?

Chew on This
Try on an opinion or two, start a debate, or play the devils advocate.
Mathilde's desires are "feminine," because what most interests her is attracting male attention.
Wealth and femininity are intimately bound together in "The Necklace."

The Necklace Theme of Pride

You can read "The Necklace" as a story about greed, but you can also read it as a story about
pride. Mathilde Loisel is a proud woman. She feels far above the humble circumstances (and
the husband) she's forced to live with by her common birth. In fact, her current situation
disgusts her. She's a vain one too, completely caught up in her own beauty. It could be that it is
also pride that prevents Mathilde and her husband from admitting they've lost an expensive
necklace. After the loss of the necklace makes Mathilde poor, and her beauty fades, she may
learn a pride of a different sort: pride in her own work and endurance.

Questions About Pride

1.

What signs are there at the beginning of the story that Mathilde is a proud woman? In
what way is she proud? Of what is she proud?

2.

Is it pride which prevents the Loisels from telling Mme. Forestier they've lost her
necklace? If so, whose pride is it? Or is it something else?

3.

Does Mathilde's experience of poverty humble her? Does it make her proud in a
different way?

Chew on This
Try on an opinion or two, start a debate, or play the devils advocate.
It's M. Loisel's pride that is responsible for the tragedy at the end of the story.
It is not pride, but the Loisels' sense of honor, which is responsible for the tragedy at the end of
the story.

The Necklace Theme of Suffering

"The Necklace" is a difficult story to read. If you think about it, it's about nonstop suffering,
caused by the cruelty of life and chance. At the opening, we meet Mathilde, the classic
dissatisfied housewife, who spends her days weeping about how boring and shabby her life is.
Mathilde finds one moment of real joy when she goes to a ball, but chance is cruel. Her
happiest night becomes her worst nightmare when she loses the diamond necklace she

borrowed. Then she and her husband experience a very different sort of suffering: the suffering
of real poverty. And all of this is just the buildup to one devastating ending

Questions About Suffering

1.

Why is Mathilde so unhappy at the beginning of the story?

2.

What is responsible for Mathilde's unhappiness? Is it her own fault, or is it the fault of
her circumstances?

3.

Is Mathilde's suffering worse when she's a poor woman? In what ways might it be, and
in what ways might it not be?

4.

With all the suffering in "The Necklace," would you say the story takes a bleak view of
life?

Chew on This
Try on an opinion or two, start a debate, or play the devils advocate.
Mathilde is responsible for her own suffering; she just refuses to be happy.
Mathilde suffers less when she's poor than when she was comfortable but dissatisfied.

Protagonist
Character Role Analysis

Mathilde Loisel
No doubt about it, Mathilde's the central character of the story. There aren't many other
characters, and no one else gets anywhere near the screen time. The opening's all about
Mathilde, and it's her dissatisfaction and her desires for wealth and glamour that set the plot in
motion. The story's high point is her moment of happiness, and she's also the character on
whom the good luck falls. She may not be the most sympathetic protagonist, but it's hard not to
feel for her at least a little, especially once her life becomes genuinely tough.

Antagonist
Character Role Analysis

Bad luck? Mathilde's pride or greed? Patriarchal society?

There's no "bad guy" in this story who opposes Mathilde and actively thwarts her desires at
every turn. Mathilde's miserable at the beginning, but just what's responsible for making her
miserable is debatable. It all depends on how you assign responsibility. You could say it's just
her bad luck to be born into a middle-class family, or you could also think it's her own frustrated
greed which makes her unhappy. You could even say that the antagonist is the patriarchal
society in which she lives. After all, it's the man's world that forces her to live the middle
class woman'slife that bores her to death.
Likewise, who's responsible for Mathilde's fall into poverty? You could say it's the pride of
Mathilde or her husband. If they'd only initially confessed everything to Mme. Forestier they
could have avoided the whole mess. You could also say it's Mathilde's greed, which led her to
borrow the necklace and made the situation possible in the first place. Then again, you could
find the actions of Mathilde and her husband entirely understandable, and think it makes no
sense to blame them. In that case, it's probably just a matter of bad, rotten luck.

Foil
Character Role Analysis

M. Loisel to Mathilde
Mathilde and her husband are two fundamentally different people. Mathilde's miserable and
bored in her middle-class life, and always wants grander things. She also doesn't seem to give
a darn about her husband. M. Loisel, on the other hand, is quite happy with his simple life, and
cares for Mathilde, as far as we can tell. He could not be less uninterested in the kind of
glamorous life Mathilde lusts for. At the ball, Mathilde's in heaven and is having the time of her
life. Her husband, however, is in a corner somewhere, sleeping.

Tools of Characterization
Character Analysis

Thoughts and Opinions

The narrator opens the story with a long look into Mathilde's lively dream world. We see all of
the fancy things she desires: the Oriental tapestries, the footmen, the good food, the fancy
parties. The narrator also repeatedly tells us that Mathilde thinks she was meant for a different
kind of life: the lush life of high society. The opening trip into Mathilde's head gives us enough
insight to form an opinion of her. And by bringing us right away into the world of her thoughts
and dreams, Maupassant makes us feel as if we understand her immediately.

Actions
M. Loisel is the kind of guy who'll work long and hard to get his wife the invitation to a fancy
party she's always wanted, even though he could care less about it. He's also the kind of guy
who then gives up the gun he's been saving for months just to buy her a dress. Mathilde is the
kind of girl who bursts into tears after getting the invitation her husband worked so hard for
because she doesn't have a fancy enough dress to go in. That kind of says it all, doesn't it?

Social Class
Mathilde is the classic "middle-class" woman who's bored with her average middle-class life
and wants to live a rich and fabulous life. Her life is caught up in fantasies about class. Her
middle-class husband, on the other hand, is a classic "little clerk" (1): hard-working,
responsible, and happy with his lot. Also somewhat cowed by his wife. Mme. Forestier is the
rich woman whose money enables her to casually lend expensive (or fake) jewels to friends,
and to stay away from work so she can keep herself young and pretty. By the same token,
Mathilde's fall into poverty seems to transform her character by forcing her to work and
become less caught up in her dream world.

Names
Loisel is related to l'oiseau, the French word for "bird." This seems a fitting last name for
"flighty" Mathilde, who at the start of the story spends her days in dreamland. She wants to "fly
away" from her own world and into a higher one.

The Necklace
Symbolism, Imagery, Allegory
The necklace could very well be just a necklace, but it could also be something more. It's so
flashy and beautiful, and so seemingly valuable. Despite its convincing outside, it turns out to
be "false." It's all show, in other words, with no substance. Doesn't that description sound like it
could fit any number of other things?
For one, you could easily read the necklace as a symbol of "wealth" itself flashy, but false, in
the end. Like "wealth," the necklace is the object of Mathilde's mad desire. Perhaps the
revelation of the necklace's falseness at the end is meant to mirror the falseness of Mathilde's
dream of wealth. Having wealth is not worth the trouble, any more than the false necklace was
worth ten years of poverty. Then again, wealth has its advantages: it certainly seems to do
wonders for Mme. Forestier's looks, for instance, while poverty ruins Mathilde's.

Maybe that connection between wealth and looks is a telling one. Even deeper than wealth,
the necklace might represent appearance, the world in which it's the outside that matters.
Wealth belongs to the world of appearance, because money buys glamour. Mathilde's unhappy
because of the way her own shabby house looks, and the way her lack of money prevents her
from wowing the people she wants to wow with her natural charm and good looks. The
necklace is glamorous, and it also gives her the opportunity to be the woman she wants to be,
for one evening. Beneath the fancy exterior, though, the necklace is not worth anything it's a
fake. In that respect, it fits Mathilde's own situation at the party: though she fools everyone
there, she's not really wealthy. At the end of the day she is still a clerk's wife in a fancy party
dress with some borrowed jewels.
The fact that the necklace is a fake may or may not have some kind of moral meaning. You
could take it to mean that wealth, or appearances more broadly, are false. Against the
backdrop of wealth and appearance, we have the contrast of Mathilde's poverty. Being poverty
stricken may ruin her appearance, but it forces her to become responsible and hard working,
and perhaps makes her appreciate what she had before. You could take away a moral such
as, wealth just keeps you wanting more until you ruin yourself, while poverty teaches
appreciation.
Then again, Maupassant never comes out and gives us this moral explicitly. And it's up to the
reader to decide if giving up good looks, comfort, and your own personal maid for a work ethic
and a little more appreciation is a good deal. After all, the world of wealth and appearances
may be false, but it's still kind of fabulous. Just like the necklace.

The Necklace Setting

Where It All Goes Down

Belle poque Paris

The story's set in Paris, that magical, glamorous city of lights where just about every other work
of 19th century French literature is set.
So that's the where. When's the when? We'd say the 1880s or so, around the time Maupassant
wrote it. Granted, we don't get many specific clues, not a lot of detail on clothing, or important
people, places, or happenings of the time. But if the author doesn't do anything to suggest he's
otherwise, it's usually a safe bet to assume he's writing in his own time.
One thing that's telling, though, is that Mathilde dreams of being rich, but doesn't seem to think
a whole lot about being noble. If the story were set earlier, noble blood would have mattered
more, and Mathilde probably would have thought about it just as much as money. At this point
in time, however, money (plus a little bit of charm) practically makes nobility. Money's what
enables you to pay for the "high life," and surround yourself with fancy, fabulous things. And the

fancy, fabulous things that Mathilde fantasizes about the oriental tapestries, "tall lamps of
bronze," the "precious bric-a-brac" in "coquettish little rooms" all hint at the fashions of the
time, as does the intimate," small-party social life that she idolizes.
In fact, the importance Mathilde gives money, posh "comfort," and fancy, fashionable baubles
makes her fit right in with the Paris of the late 19th century. That period was often called the
"Belle poque" (which you could translate as the "Lovely Age," or "Grand Years" depending
on how you understand it). It was a time of peace and technological innovation (electricity, for
example). It was also a period of spectacular wealth, modish fashion, and what you might call
"high consumerism." Going on expensive shopping sprees at the brand new, super-ritzy, blocksized department stores that had just opened up downtown was all the rage (Sacks Fifth
Avenue-type shopping palaces were a new invention back then).
So if you're one of those folks who thinks a work of literature should capture the "spirit of the
age" in which it was written, "The Necklace" works quite well.

The Necklace Narrator:

Who is the narrator, can she or he read minds, and, more importantly, can we trust
her or him?

Third-Person Omniscient
The story's focus is certainly on Mathilde, but the narrator does not speak from her point of
view. Instead, he talks about Mathilde as if he were from the outside looking in. When he
brings her up at the beginning, she's just "one of those girls" (1). It sounds like he's seen
alot more of them than just this one. That's omniscient, all right. Mathilde's also not the only
character whose thoughts he can see into; he's able to speak into her husband's thoughts just
as easily, when he wants to.

The Necklace Genre

Realism, Literary Fiction, Parable (?)
Maupassant was a student of the great French author Flaubert, who was a founding figure of
"Realism" (with a capital "R") as a literary genre. Realism meant more than just writing about
real-seeming situations in a realistic way. More specifically, it often meant writing about
"average" people not super-rich, or famous, or holy, or good, or even happy people. Not
terribly exciting people either. Usually the "average" person meant a middle-class person, and
particularly the bored, unhappy middle-class person who longs to live the more exciting life of
the rich and famous. Sound familiar? You might think of Flaubert's classic Realist
character Madame Bovary as an inspiration for Mathilde.

It also seems fair to call "The Necklace" literary fiction. Maupassant was a big-time innovator of
the short story as a genre of literature. Maupassant is known particularly for his unique talent
for creating compact plots, and this story is one of his finest productions. Not only that, he
practically invented the twist ending and there's almost no twist ending more famous than his
one.
Finally, if you think "The Necklace" has a clear moral message (for example, "Be honest," or
"Wealth is always false"), you might want to call the story a parable, which is a simple work
meant to illustrate a "moral." Then again, you might not think the story has an obvious moral.
You might even say that the uncertainty about whether it does means that it's not a parable,
because the moral of a parable is supposed to be obvious. We'll leave that one up to you.

The Necklace Tone

Take a story's temperature by studying its tone. Is it hopeful? Cynical? Snarky?
Playful?

Observant and Worldly-Wise, Detached but

Understanding
Maupassant writes like a sophisticated fellow who knows the world, and particularly the world
of "society" (high society). He's an excellent social observer who's willing to share his insights
with his readers, casually throwing off large summary statements like:
..she was unhappy as though kept out of her own class; for women have no caste and no
descent, their beauty, their grace, and their charm serving them instead of birth and fortune.
Their native keenness, their instinctive elegance, their flexibility of mind, are their only
hierarchy; and these make the daughters of the people the equals of the most lofty dames. (2)
You also get the sense that Maupassant is detached from what he describes. Though he
understands the society scene, he's not caught up in it, which is why he can describe it so
easily. And he seems to know the world of the poor (when the Loisels fall) just as well as that of
the middle and upper classes.
Maupassant's descriptions of his characters are an interesting mix of detachment and intimate
understanding. He sees into the emotions of Mathilde, his main character, clearly, and can
make us as readers feel "inside" her world. But the narrator doesn't share her emotions, and
we don't either. That doesn't mean Maupassant seems cold or indifferent to the characters,
though. In the few telling moments when he moves beyond detachment, it is to express what
looks like sympathy, or even admiration:
Mme. Loisel learned the horrible life of the needy. She made the best of it, moreover, frankly,
heroically. The frightful debt must be paid. She would pay it. (98)

Maupassant's detachment also keeps his narration from ever being judgmental, which is
remarkable. You might want to judge Mathilde, but Maupassant never does.

The Necklace Writing Style

Unadorned, Economical, Effortless, and Elegant
What's amazing about Maupassant's writing is how economical it is he does a lot with only a
little bit of space. His control over timing and pacing is incredible. Think about the scope of the
story. It begins with an introduction to Mathilde that makes us feel like we know her intimately
in a matter of sentences. Then there's the invitation the dress-necklace-ball sequence. Then
we see the losing the necklace the sequence of searching for it, not finding it, and buying a
new one. Next is the ten long years of poverty and hard living which Mme. and M. Loisel must
confront. Finally, there's the conclusion on the Champs Elyses. That's a ton to cover in only
five or six pages, and Maupassant does it effortlessly. His writing never feels strained or
rushed, or incomplete, even though the story's practically short enough to be its own summary.
How does Maupassant do it? It all comes down to simplicity, and knowing how to make all
these details into a coherent whole.
One trick Maupassant uses is writing lots of really short paragraphs; this technique keeps the
story moving at a clip. Often the paragraphs are little more than a single, simple sentence (the
sentences are usually short too). Check out this passage describing the day after the Loisels
discover they've lost the necklace:
Her husband came back about seven o'clock. He had found nothing.
Then he went to police headquarters, to the newspapers to offer a reward, to the cab
company; he did everything, in fact, that a trace of hope could urge him to.
She waited all day, in the same dazed state in face of this horrible disaster.
Loisel came back in the evening, with his face worn and white; he had discovered nothing. (8083)
That's a whole day, with two characters and lots of scene changes, caught in only a few lines
of text. Note that there's barely any description in this passage, a fact highlighted by the distinct
lack of adjectives, adverbs, and descriptive language. It just says what it needs to. And it reads
like a charm. Even though it moves us along at a fast pace, it flows. Maupassant knows exactly
what he needs to put in a passage to make it work, and uses no more.
When he does write longer paragraphs, Maupassant's got another notable technique. One

after another, he'll string together sentences that begin with the same word and have the same
basic structure. There are a lot of "She did thisShe did thisShe did this" paragraphs (he's
unusually fond of pronouns, it seems). As in:
She learned the rough work of the household, the odious labors of the kitchen. She washed
the dishes, wearing out her pink nails on the greasy pots and the bottoms of the pans. She
washed the dirty linen, the shirts and the towels, which she dried on a rope; she carried down
the garbage to the street every morning, and she carried up the water, pausing for breath on
every floor. And, dressed like a woman of the people, she went to the fruiterer, the grocer, the
butcher, a basket on her arm, bargaining, insulted, fighting for her wretched money, sou by
sou. (99)
If you think about it, starting every sentence with "she learned" or "she washed" seems almost
like an elementary and basic writing technique. If you used this technique in an essay, your
teacher would probably scold you for "lack of variety" in sentence structure. Yet Maupassant
makes it work. When he mixes things up ever so slightly in that last sentence, by starting with
the "And, dressed" phrase before returning to "she went," it's just enough to keep things
interesting, and bring a sense of closure to the paragraph. And all the repetition just feels
ordered, and neat. In Maupassant's hands, simplicity becomes elegance.

Whats Up With the Title?

The story revolves around the spectacular diamond necklace that Mathilde borrows from Mme.
Forester for a ball. That set of jewels gives Mathilde the best night of her life. It also ruins it a
few hours later, when she loses the necklace and spends the next ten years paying to replace
it. And it's also thanks to the necklace that we get the final, gut-wrenching twist at the end.
Interestingly, the original French title, "La Parure," doesn't exactly mean "The Necklace,"
although that's how it's always been translated. It actually means something more like "the
finery," or "the set of jewels."

Ne

Whats Up With the Ending?

The ending to "The Necklace" may just be the mother of all twist endings. But just how does
it work? What makes it a "twist ending?" The short answer: the twist ending depends upon
suddenly revealing some bit of completely unexpected but hugely important information right at
the close of the story. Somehow, that bit of information radically changes the meaning of what
came before it. Why don't we have a closer look to see how the twist plays out in the story.

Mathilde's problem is that she accidentally loses something expensive and has to replace it. It
seems sad, and maybe a little pointless, that her whole life is ruined on account of one little
necklace, but what else can she do? She's got to make up for the valuable thing she lost. And
so her ten years of hard work, her poverty seems kind of necessary: it has a purpose, and we
admire the way she slogs through it all. Mathilde's experience of suffering appears to have
helped her grow, and it's given her something to be proud of. And now she's ready to move on.
When she meets Mme. Forestier on the street, all she has to do is come clean about
substituting the necklace, and that whole episode of her life will be over. It looks like the ending
will leave us feeling resolved and optimistic, even if it's not exactly a "happy" one.
But then Mme. Forestier reveal that the necklace Mathilde lost was a fake. That's totally
unexpected and it changes the situation completely. If Mathilde and M. Loisel had just known
the real value of the necklace or if they'd just told Mme. Forestier what about what happened
they could have paid for it easily, without any debt. This whole time theythought that they
were suffering necessarily, for a reason, they were actually suffering needlessly. By the way,
revealing that contradiction between what the characters think about their situation, and what
their situation actually is, technically makes this a moment of irony. Irony's often an ingredient
of the best twist endings.
Mathilde's suffering, in other words, is now revealed to be pointlesssuffering (and easily
avoidable pointless suffering at that). And if there's one thing that gets us down, it's pointless
suffering. Not only that, the story's conclusion has suddenly shifted from being optimistic and
forward-looking (anticipating how Mathilde will move on with her life) to being regretful and
backward looking (dwelling on how pointless the last ten years were, and feeling wretched
about it). Just imagine how Mathilde feels right now.
Does this ending have a "point"? According to one common reading of "The Necklace," it's all
about how bad pride is. If Mathilde had just been honest and told Mme. Forestier she had lost
the necklace, she would have learned it was a fake and avoided the whole thing. It's only pride
that keeps her from doing that. According to this reading of the story, it might then seem like
Mathilde did something to deserve this. But we don't think that the pride reading makes much
sense. M. Loisel seems more responsible than Mathilde does for deciding not to tell Mme.
Forestier, and he doesn't seem to have any of her character flaws. It might also not be pride
that keeps the Loisels from telling Mme. Forestier at all. It could be fear, or a sense of honor or
obligation. (Check out M. Loisel's character analysis for more of this.)
On another "moral of the story" reading, it's about how bad greed is. Although Mathilde's greed
is not directly responsible for the loss of the necklace, it's because of her greed that she winds
up with the necklace in the first place. You might also think that the false jewels symbolize the
"falseness" of wealth. According to this reading, "The Necklace" is about how wealth is all
show, no real value, and can be more trouble than it's worth. Mathilde's flaw was wanting so
much more than she had, or needed. That reading, we think, makes more sense, although
please feel free to disagree with us. We're also not sure the story does send the message that
wealth is all bad.

Then again, if you're more of a cynic than a moralist, the take-home message could just as
easily be: people suffer for nothing, and they're slaves to the cruel whims of fortune. There's
nothing they do to deserve what they get. And all it takes is the loss of one little necklace, or
one bad decision, to ruin your life.

Tough-O-Meter
We've got your back. With the Tough-O-Meter, you'll know whether to bring extra
layers or Swiss army knives as you summit the literary mountain. (10 = Toughest)

(3) Base Camp

Maupassant at times uses slightly old-fashioned language (just how old-fashioned it is
depends on the translation). But for the most part, everything about the story is blissfully short
and simple.

The Necklace Plot Analysis

Most good stories start with a fundamental list of ingredients: the initial situation,
conflict, complication, climax, suspense, denouement, and conclusion. Great
writers sometimes shake up the recipe and add some spice.

Initial Situation
Miserable Mathilde
At the beginning of the story, essentially nothing happens. The narrator's interested in telling us
about Mathilde (even though we don't yet know her name). We learn about her back-story, her
character, and her unhappiness with her mediocre life. This represents a classic initial
situation.

Conflict
It's a party and I'll cry if I want to
The action proper begins when M. Loisel (Mathilde's husband) comes home with the invitation
to the fabulous ball and Mathilde reacts by having a fit. Now we have a specific problem:
Mathilde's now has the best opportunity she's ever had to have a taste of the high life, but she
has nothing to wear. That problem sets the rest of the plot in motion.

Complication
Diamonds are this girl's best friend
Mathilde solves the first problem when her husband gives her money for a dress. But then she
runs into a second problem: she's needs to have some jewels. Luckily, her friend Mme.
Forestier is able to provide her with a fabulous diamond necklace. But now Mathilde's been
entrusted with something expensive that belongs to someone else and we have the potential
for disaster. It's true that the complication is often when things "get worse," and that doesn't
really happen here (for that, we have to wait for the climax). In fact, after borrowing the
necklace, Mathilde has the time of her life. But it's when she borrows the necklace that the
possibility opens up for something really bad to happenand it does.

Climax
The necklace is missing!
Mathilde's discovery is the most exciting and dramatic moment in the story (until that crazy
twist in the last line). It's also the turning point in the plot. Before, the story was a build-up to
Mathilde's one glorious night with the rich and famous. Now it transitions into a desperate
search. We have a feeling things are not going to end well.

Suspense
Diamonds, when lost, are a girl's worst nightmare
After the loss of the necklace, we're kept in constant suspense. First, there's the search for the
necklace: will it be found? When it becomes clear it isn't going to be, the question becomes:
what will the Loisels do? Will they find a replacement? And when they do, the question is: how
the are they going to pay for it? It turns out paying for it takes quite a toll on them their lives
are ruined for ten years.

Denouement
A fateful stroll down the Champs Elyses
When Mathilde meets Mme. Forestier on the Champs Elyses, it looks like we're just about to
tie up the last loose end in the story. The main action is over the Loisels have finally finished
paying off their debts for the necklace. All that remains is for Mathilde to see whether her friend
ever noticed the substitute necklace, and tell her the sad story of the whole affair. But then
things don't quite wrap up the way we expect.

Conclusion

Come on baby, let's do the twist

Sometimes critics say that the twist ending is the climax of the story. You could think that the
twist is the most exciting moment of the story, and represents a turning point since it reverses
everything that came before. But we're sticking to our guns, and saying that the twist ending
isn't the climax, but the conclusion. A climax is technically the point of the plot that everything
builds up to, and that's not true of the twist. What makes the twist so effective is that by the
time it happens the plot has already "risen and fallen," and seems to be wrapping up naturally.
Then, right in the denouement, everything changes. Unlike your run-of-the-mill conclusion, this
conclusion is exciting, and it upsets everything.

The Necklace as Booker's Seven Basic Plots Analysis: Tragedy Plot

Christopher Booker is a scholar who wrote that every story falls into one of seven
basic plot structures: Overcoming the Monster, Rags to Riches, the Quest, Voyage
and Return, Comedy, Tragedy, and Rebirth. Shmoop explores which of these
structures fits this story like Cinderellas slipper.

Plot Type :
Anticipation Stage
Mathilde's hates her middle-class life and dreams only of
riches.
The story opens with a long description of how wretched Mathilde is with her middle-class life.
All she wants is to be rich, glamorous, and desired by men. It seems as if this will never
happen.

Dream Stage
Mathilde receives an invitation, buys a dress, borrows a
necklace, and goes to the ball dressed to kill.
Mathilde finally gets a chance to taste the life she's always dreamed of: she gets the invitation
to the Minister's ball. And now she starts to move a bit beyond her normal circumstances: she
gets her husband to buy her a genuinely nice dress, and borrows a gorgeous necklace from a
rich friend (which will set her up for disaster). Then she goes to the ball, and is the most
popular woman there.

Frustration Stage

The necklace is lost.

Mathilde's trip to cloud nine comes to an abrupt end when she discovers she's lost the
necklace. After a week of searching, it still doesn't show up, so and her husband decide to find
a replacement. But now she and her husband are in a real crisis: how can they afford to
replace it? Answer: they can't.

Nightmare Stage
Mathilde and M. Loisel fall into poverty to by a
replacement and slowly repay their debts over ten years.
From one perspective, Mathilde's life is now worse than it's ever been it's a nightmare. She's
gone from an unremarkable but comfortable life to a grueling and difficult one. And this drags
on for ten years. From another perspective, Mathilde's poverty forces her to start working hard,
and she does. The debts get paid off. And Mathilde seems to have grown from the experience.
It doesn't look as if this will actually have to be a tragedy.

Destruction or Death Wish Stage

Mathilde learns the truth about the necklace.
Oh waitit is a tragedy. So much for a happy ending. No one dies, but that doesn't make the
tragic twist any less devastating.

Three-Act Plot Analysis

For a three-act plot analysis, put on your screenwriters hat. Moviemakers know the
formula well: at the end of Act One, the main character is drawn in completely to a
conflict. During Act Two, she is farthest away from her goals. At the end of Act
Three, the story is resolved.

Act I
We meet Mathilde, and learn about her dream of being wealthy and glamorous. M. Loisel
delivers the invitation to the ball to Mathilde, who throws a minor fit and gets him to buy her a
dress. She borrows the diamond necklace from Mme. Forestier.

Act II
Mathilde goes to the fabulous ball. She and her husband return home at 4am, and discover the
necklace is missing. M. Loisel and Mathilde spend the day searching, and find nothing.

Act III
After a week of searching, M. Loisel and Mathilde decide they have to buy a new necklace.
They do, and get buried up to their eyes in debt. The Loisels fall into poverty and spend ten
years paying off their debts. One day Mathilde meets Mme. Forestier on the Champs Elyses
and learns the necklace she lost was a fake.

The Necklace Questions

Bring on the tough stuff - theres not just one right answer.
1. Is Mathilde a sympathetic character? Can you identify with her? Do you care about her
at the beginning, or at the end? Why or why not?
2. What do you think Maupassant/the narrator feels about his characters? Is he
sympathetic? Distant? Judgmental?
3. How does Mathilde strike you as a woman? Does she capture some important part of
what it means to be a woman now? Or is she just an old, bad stereotype?
4. Is there anything Mathilde could have done to make herself happy in her initial
situation? Could her husband have done anything more?
5. Is "The Necklace" a cynical story does it reflect a really bleak and jaded view of life?
Does it have some other attitude towards life?
6. Does "The Necklace" have a moral? What is it, if it does?
7. What's your verdict on the story's ending? Does it affect you emotionally?
8. If the story hadn't ended with a twist, how do you think it would have ended? Could it
have ended in any other way and been as effective (and short) a story?