Module in ENG 306

LITERARY CRITICISM

VIOLETA B. FELISILDA
Instructor

Passed by:
Lyka M. Aseniero BSED-301 Eng
 LESSON 3 : THE AFFECTIVE THEORY

Let’s Launch the LC Starship!

How are you doing so far? You just got off one space mission for Mimetic Theory.
This time we are launched to explore the Affective Theory of Literary Criticism.

Have you ever cried, got angry, or elated while watching a movie, reading a story or a
poem? There is nothing wrong with that. A good literature can serve as a catharsis for pent-up
feelings. There is also that feeling that one has to do some actions, to change plans, to redirect
goals, or simply to be comfortable with the status quo. These aspects and the implications and
inherent aspects that they bring involve the affective theory of literary criticism, also known as
reader-response criticism.

Let’s go back to “When I Was One and Twenty” by A.E. Houseman in Lesson 2 and try to
answer some questions on the aspects of the Affective Criticism.

1. How does the advice of the wise man in “When I was One And Twenty” affect your
status of being a grown-up?
The advice of the wise man in the poem highlights the naivety of youth and as a
young adult, we ought to practice of being cautious about our decisions. Personally, I
was greatly moved by the message that this poem is trying to say. Being a young adult,
who is still, unfortunately, making immature moves and decisions, found the advice
very relevant and learning. In my teenage years, looking back to it now makes me
cringe so much that I want to slap my past self if possible. Like how the first stanza
depicted, I was very oblivious of how naïve I am, and very stubborn when it comes to
advices from adults. It took me until I was twenty to recognize my naivety and resolve
to better myself from then on. Not just because of the advices I heard from older
people, but because I first-hand experienced the consequences of being reckless when
it comes to love – or, as I have discovered, infatuation.

2. Cite an instance in your life where you have the same realization with that of the
young person in “When I was One And Twenty” when he said:
And I am two-and-twenty,-------------------- 15
And oh, ’tis true, ’tis true.---------------------- 16

I remember when I was almost nineteen when I have a huge disagreement with
my mother about something that I decided for myself, which that time I thought was
 under my control and was completely alright, that eventually became out of hand as my
mother had expected. Looking back to it now made me realize how stupid it was and how
naïve I was that time. It’s not because of the older you get, the more mature you become.
It is just there is no predictable moment that time can give us life lessons – some given too
early, and some given too late. And when you realized something too late, the only thing
that you could do is to just maybe regret it for the rest of your life, or apply it and become
a better version of yourself as you get older.

Let’s check the Log!

Now, it’s your turn to write an Affective Analysis of the short story, “ The
Necklace” by Guy de Maupassant. Provide a short background of the author. The
links for the story are given below.

Title : The Necklace

Author: Guy de Maupassant

Links: http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/Neck.shtml

Facebook Messenger Group Chat: LC Starship

Affective Analysis: THE NECKCLACE

By Guy de Maupassant

Henri Ren Albert Guy de Maupassant, better known as Guy de Maupassant, was a well-
known French novelist who wrote under the pen name Henri Ren Albert Guy de Maupassant. He
is regarded as one of the modern short story's forefathers as well as one of its best practitioners.
His prolific and highly regarded body of work impacted a large number of writers. "The Necklace"
is probably his most well-known piece.
The story is about a married couple, Mr. and Mrs. Loisel. Mathilde Loisel is a lovely
woman, but she feels she was born into a low-income family. She was married off to a lowly
Ministry of Education employee, Monsieur Loisel, who can only afford to provide her with a
modest but not unpleasant lifestyle. Mathilde's poverty is a major source of stress in her life. For
hours on end, she laments her lot in life and fantasizes of a more opulent lifestyle. The main hurdle
of the story is when Mathilde lost Madame Forestier’s necklace that she wore into a formal party.
To replace it, the married couple spend a week scrounging money from various sources.
Eventually, they fell into poverty spending ten years to pay off their debts. Only to find out that
the borrowed necklace owned by Madame Forestier is a fake one, and they had just returned in
the original value of the jewelry.
The story depicts how looks may be deceiving. The truth of Mathilde's condition is that
she is neither affluent nor a member of the social class to which she aspires, but she tries
everything she can to make her life look different than it is. She lives in an unreal world in which
her real existence does not correspond to her ideal life in her thoughts; she feels that her beauty
and charm qualify her for bigger things. Relating to this theme as well, Madame Forestier's
necklace, which looks to be made of diamonds but is actually costume jewelry, exemplifies how
deceiving appearances can be. Madame Forestier, the embodiment of class and money in
Mathilde's opinion, wears a necklace composed of fake gems, implying that even the wealthiest
people of society appear to have more wealth than they truly have. Both ladies are eventually
duped by appearances: Madame Forestier does not inform Mathilde that the diamonds are false,
and Mathilde does not inform Madame Forestier that the necklace has been changed. The
necklace's transformation from worthless to priceless occurs undetected, implying that actual
value is ultimately determined by perception and that looks can readily deceive.
The perceived power of objects is another issue explored in the story. Mathilde believes
that materialistic objects have the ability to improve her life, but when she finally obtains two of
her most desired objects, a dress and a necklace, her euphoria is short at best. She scorns the
things she does have: a comfortable house, hot soup, and a loving husband. Mathilde basically
surrenders control of her happiness to objects she does not even own, and her fascination with
the trappings of the rich leads to her continual dissatisfaction. When she eventually obtains the
dress and necklace, they appear to have transformational power. She has finally become the
woman she feels she was born to be: joyful, admired, and envied. She achieved what she desired,
and her life has altered as a result.
I had been interpreting Mathilde's ten years of poverty as punishment for her snatched
night of pleasure at the party and her thoughtless loss of the borrowed jewelry until now. The
ending shatters that illusion, exposing that the ten years of hardship were needless and might
have been prevented if Mathilde had told Madame Forestier the truth. Mathilde's ultimate error
appeared to be losing the necklace, but it was her refusal to be honest with Madame Forestier
that sealed her destiny. This startling ending casts new light on the past occurrences and shows
that, despite the fact that her debts have been paid, Mathilde's future is far from bright. The
dreadful irony of the Loisels spending years paying for a replacement for a jewelry that was
actually worthless is only one example of irony in the short story. The fact that Mathilde's beauty,
which had been her only valuable commodity, vanishes as a result of her effort for the necklace is
also ironic. She had borrowed the necklace in order to add her attractiveness, but she ends up
entirely losing it anyway. The most painful irony of "The Necklace" is that the difficult life
Mathilde is forced to live after losing the necklace makes her previous life—which she despised
so much—appear sumptuous. She borrowed Madame Forestier's jewelry to create the
impression that she has more money than she actually does, only to lose it all. She pays twice for
something that had no worth to begin with, with both her money and her appearance.
The unexpected and ironic ending of the story is what makes it very interesting to read. It
not just talks about how appearances can be deceiving, but it most importantly also talks about
the reality of perceiving happiness and power as equal to obtaining materialistic objects. We
frequently equate pleasure with possessing materialistic objects and the potential to acquire
more possessions at any time if desired. We think that if we see a lot of people strolling about
wearing fancy clothes or dining at expensive restaurants, they must be leading a good and happy
life. But in the story, it sure proved us wrong.