The Necklace

Marxist Criticism

The Bitter Twist: A Marxist Reading of Guy de Maupassant’s The Necklace

Guy de Maupassant’s The Necklace was published in 1884 and it contains a twisted
style ending, which was a hallmark of de Maupassant’s style. It is published on February
17, 1884 in the newspaper La Gaulois and is one great example of stories with twisted
endings.

The story focuses on Mathilde’s life. She is born from a low-class family; with no
money for a dowry. Mathilde, a charming, beautiful, but poor woman, is unhappy with
her life and dreams of being a rich, wealthy upper-class woman. The theme suits the
era when the story was made when in 19th-century French Society, women of middle
and upper-class don’t work while poor women work with the men. The Influence of the
time period is greatly exhibited in the story. Mathilde, which is now Madame Mathilde
Loisel, is now with Monsieur Loisel, her husband. M. Loisel work as a clerk in the Ministry of
Public Instruction. Mathilde is rather disappointed with her life, not having beautiful
dresses, not having boxes of jewelry, and not having the riches like of a upper-class
women. M. Loisel, doing all he can, got Mathilde a gift. M. Loisel handed Mme. Loisel a
letter from the Ministry of Public Instruction a letter inviting women in a ball. But instead
of being happy, she threw the letter in disdain. M. Loisel is worried about Mathilde and
asked her about it. Mme. Loisel stated that she has no beautiful dress for the prestigious
event. Mathilde weeps and asks M. Loisel to lend her money for the dress, as clothing
and jewelry are important indicators of social status for women. M.Loisel, determined to
make his wife happy, lends her 400 francs.

Days before the Ball, Mathilde looks uneasy. She felt that there is something missing.
She then borrowed jewels from her friend Mme. Forestier. She could pick any of the
jewels but then she saw a necklace, and with a glimmer in her eyes, decided to borrow
it. The day came and Mme. Loisel got the attention of men and other women. This is
what she is looking for, the feeling of having all the attention. This part conveys the
beauty which is also a standard for women in the French Society at that era. Having the
beauty, the elegance, and the charisma and also equipped with the best of the
clothing and jewelry attracts a lot of attention and it’s a dream life of every
Frenchwoman at that time.

Mathilde’s life went downhill after the ball. Until the end of the story, Mathild is not
presented as a likeable character but rather like a villain of herself. One example of
Mathilde’s flaws is when she came back to her home, she realized that the necklace
was gone. If we look closely at the exact line that she said, "I have--I have--I no longer
have Mrs. Forestier's necklace.”, she is trying to not take the blame and she is not
accepting the fact that she herself lost the necklace. The couple then decided to find
a necklace that is very much “the same” to the one that she had lost. At this point, the
classic twisted ending is slowly building up its tempo. They then found a necklace that
looks like the same as Mme. Forestier’s, but the price is worth 40,000 francs, 36,000 franc
 The Necklace
Marxist Criticism

is the lowest price that they could get. Considering the fact that Mathilde
acknowledge Mme. Forestier’s necklace and the one at a shop near Palais Royal as
the same, shows the fact that they don’t have much knowledge about real and fake
jewelries. The fact that they are poor and unaccustomed in having these kinds of
luxuries adds up to their inexperience. After they’ve bought the necklace and gave it
to Mme. Forestier, they suffered having too many debts for 10 years. After a decade of
suffering, they paid everything, with the rates of usury and the accumulated compound
interests. They had paid the debt but it took a toll in Mathilde’s appearance. From
being a charming, beautiful woman, she became a woman of impoverished
households. One day, she came across Mme. Forestier, still looking beautiful and young.
She tried to talk with her. Mme. Forestier, initially confused, did not recognize that it was
Mathilde that is talking to her. Mathilde, introducing herself again, told Mme. Forestier
the truth. Mathilde wondered what her life would be if she did not lost the necklace,
only to be shocked that the necklace that she lost was fake to being with; a false
wealthy appearance, just like Mathilde herself.

The fact that the characters don’t know what happened to the lost necklace
symbolizes the randomness of life that we can’t determine what all the possibilities and
its future will be. As Maupassant writes, "How would it have been if she had not lost that
necklace? Who knows? Who knows? How singular is life, and how full of changes! How
small a thing will ruin or save one!" The Necklace shows that there is no small thing that
cannot give a big consequence. The necklace is just a petty piece of jewel but it
greatly affected the life of Mathilde and M. Loisel, drowning them in debt for a decade
that if they knew that the lost necklace was just a forgery, would have a better life than
they are in reality. The story also tells us that better social status or any riches doesn’t
provide give real happiness but rather drives people to greed and envy. Maupassant’s
story contains the influences of social class, gender, marriage, and happiness and how
all of it affects the lives and ideologies of people. The story provides bitter twist to the
ending but gives a wide perspective about the situations concerning the classes in
society.