Of course, Mme Loisel really hoped to go, but unfortunately as in a poor living condition, she did not even have a suitable evening dress to wear. This problem was solved easily. Her husband had enough money to buy her a new dress. After that, she moaned again, not wanting to go, as she had no jewels to wear with the dress. No jewels to wear with an evening dress meant nothing to Mme Loisel because it looked plain. This unfortunately could not be solved as her husband had used much of his own earning on the dress already. Here in the story there is a sense of sorrow as Mme. Loisel and her husband tried so hard to go to the evening party but because of no jewels to wear with the new dress, they weren’t able to go. After thinking for a while, her husband suggested the she should borrowed it from her friend Mme Forestier. This really worked and Mme Loisel borrowed a diamond necklace from her friend. In this middle part of the story, the necklace has been presented to us. This was just with a very limited description; the author didn’t go in great details. This is when the whole story started to come out clearer.
The day of the party came. As expected, she wore her new evening dress and the diamond necklace that she borrowed. It was a gorgeous evening for her; she has attracted all the men in that party including the minister. Up until now, everything seemed to go right but it was when Mme Loisel and her husband returned home that the nightmare began. The necklace was lost; Mme Loisel and her husband tried their best to search for the necklace but to no avail. The irony twists was brought up here in this part of the story. The reader here would think that after the party, Loisel’s life would have become rich. With the lost of the necklace, the whole mind of becoming rich suddenly dropped. The atmosphere sounded as if something terrible would be happening. All of a sudden, this impulsive change made the story more interesting. In this part of the story, it is also clear of why the title “The Necklace” has been given to the story. “The Necklace” has been used because it is the major object in the whole story, which changes the plot and the setting of the story.
Finally they both decided to buy a new diamond necklace, which looked the same as the old one (the one that was lost). This replacement was costly. Mme Loisel and her husband spent their next ten years working very hard day and night to pay the debts. They had borrowed money from their friends and relatives; her husband signed notes, made numerous deals; did business with loan sharks; and also ran the whole gamut of moneylenders. She even dismissed her maid so that they could raise enough money to pay the debts quicker. As of this, Mme Loisel did all the housework herself too. After these ten years of hardships, her hands were untended, her skirts dishevelled, her voice became high pitched. From then on, their worst nightmares ended. Here in this part of the story, a contrast of the characters was shown. Mme Loisel at the beginning was vain, beautiful, never satisfied and was a dreamer. This was recorded in the story by mentioning that she “dream of silent chamber…reception halls…fashionable dinner parties…delicious dishes”. In the end we have been told that she became a peasant woman as said in the story that she turned “heavy, rough, harsh…poor…voice shrill”
One Sunday when Mme Loisel went shopping she saw Mme Forestier. She went up and told her about the whole story that she lost her necklace and spent the last ten years paying back the debts that she went into because of the need to replace the diamond necklace. Mme. Loisel was shocked when she heard Mme. Forestier’s reply. She was told that the necklace she had lost was made from inexpensive glass, which was only worth five hundred francs. This would mean that the hard work that she had been doing for this ten years was not wasted. In this ending the author uses the plot of having a surprising ending on what the Loisels mistakenly thought they had to do to replace the lost necklace. This details of how Loisels went into the hardship was depicted excessively in the story: “signed notes…ran the whole gamut of moneylenders…compromised the rest of his life…risked his signature…terrified by the outlook for the future…blackness of despair…tortures of the spirit.” The effectiveness of the story also lies in the point of view behind the story using a third person to focus on Mathilde’s thoughts and responses because we as readers do not know until the end of the story that Mme Forestier always knew that the necklace was only made from paste, which is a bright but cheap glass. This was shown in Mme Forestier’s speech at the last paragraph “But mine was only paste. Why at most it was worth only five hundred francs!” Last but not least, the author added the impact of the work to contribute to the effectiveness of the story’s ending too by generally making the reader feel pity for the foolishness of Mme Loisel, who thought a twist of fate and losing true worth by pursuing simple appearances. This has been brought out in the story by questioning that “What would happened if she had not lost that necklace? Who knows? Who can say?” and also by saying that “How little there is between happiness and misery!”
By Patrick Wong