With the introduction of her husband, the contrast between Madame Loisel’s character, and that of her husband’s, whom the readers sympathize with more as he is caring and always trying to make her happy. This demonstrates how self-centered and ignorant she is. We first see the contrast between these two characters when Monsieur Loisel sits down for dinner. While he exclaims “‘Ah! Stew! Splendid! There’s nothing I like better than a nice stew!’”, Madame Loisel “dreamed of elegant dinners, gleaming silverware, tapestries which peopled the walls with mythical characters…the pink flesh of a trout or the wings of a hazel hen.” We see here a key difference between the characters of Madame Loisel and Monsieur Loisel. Madame Loisel’s husband desires simplicity and appears to appreciate the little things in his life that he sees are wonderful, such as the stew. However, the vivid descriptions Maupassant provides to us readers the contrast between the reality of Madame Loisel’s life and that of her dream. Her selfishness further demonstrated when she laments that “She had no fine dresses…envied, attractive and in demand.” Maupassant implies that her idea of “nothing” is that she did not have anything that she desires which is things that the rich had. Her superficiality not only extends to her desire for material goods but also to be the center of attention, shown when Maupassant states: “all she cared about…” As readers, we learn a different side of Monseuir Loisel when he “came home looking highly pleased with himself. In his hand, he brandished a large envelope.” Although her husband desires his simple life, he continuosly seeks things that will please his wife, such as showing her an difficult-to-obtain invitation, We, as readers, feel sympathy towards Monseuir Loisel especially when Madame Loisel “looked at him irritably and said shortly: ‘And what am I supposed to wear if I do go?’” Here we see that she is upset and discontent despite the opportunity to mingle with the wealthy because she doesn’t to appear poorer than them. Later on, when Madame Loisel realizes she has lost the necklace, her husband says: “’I’m going to go back the way we came...to see if I can find it.’ He went out.” We, as readers are remminded of how much Monseuir Loisel is willing to sacrifice for her personal happiness and security of mind. Despite knowing that he needs to be at the Ministry by ten, he goes out to search anyways without asking her to look for it with him. His willingness to sacrifice is further demonstrated when he takes the “eighteen thousand francs which his father had left him.” This quote emphasizes just how much he is willing to help her remedy a situation that is caused by her own greed. This is also further developed when Maupassant states that Monseuir Loisel “mortgaged the rest of his life…mental torture ahead.”
Maupassant introduces Madame Forestier, a childhood friend of Madame Loisel, to further exemplify how greedy and prideful she is. Madame Forestier is portrayed as a “a friend who was rich, a friend from her convent days…for she was always so unhappy afterwards.” The reader sees that although Mathilde and Madame Forestier are friends, Madame Loisel feels inferior because Madame Forestier has more money. Madame Loisel is clearly envious of her friend, and because she feels that she has nothing to be proud of, Mathilde does not want to talk to her friend. This, however, changes when Madame Loisel recieves the invitation as shown in the quote: “She gave a delighted cry: ‘You’re right! I never thought of that!’” The invitation gives her an oppurtunity to show it off and because of this, she feels that she is of equal standing to Madame Forestier. We learn more about Madame Forestier when she “went over to a mirror-fronted wardrobe…‘Choose whatever you like.’” Here we see several things. Firstly, Madame Forestier’s generosity extends to (Raghavan, 2010)the point where she trusts Madame Loisel with her possessions. Secondly, Madame Forestier feels and treats Madame Loisel as an equal, as she thinks that Mathilde is her childhood friend and she is willling to help Madame Loisel out in times of need. Thirdly, Madame Forestier is very similar to Madame Loisel’s husband. Contrasting Madame Loisel, Madame Forestier doesn’t seem to care of the material goods that she has, and instead, she is willing to help out her friend in need. When Madame Loisel sees Forestier’s jewellery collection, Maupassant describes her greed in the quote: “She tried on the necklaces… ‘Have you got anything else?’” This shows her dissatisfaction with what she has found as she thinks that these jewels are undeserving of her. As she found the necklace that will ultimately bring about her downfall, the author uses phrases such as “immoderate desire” and “looked at herself in rapture.” Though she has many jewels to choose from, she chose to wear, at least to her, the most expensive necklace. Even later on, Madame Loisel’s character is still prideful. However, this time, she is proud for a ifferent reason. This is shown in the quote: “Should she speak…She went up to her.” This time, she is not proud that she has received a difficult-to-obtain invitation but now, her pride comes from her perception that she is a tragic heroine, because she was able to overcome Fate. In the final lines of ‘The Necklace’, Maupassant reveals the key difference between Mathilde Loisel and Jeanne Forestier. “Madame Forestier looked…more than five hundred francs!...’” Evidently, Madame Forestier is concerned about her friend and the hardships that she had to go through to repay a debt for a necklace that she lost. Madame Forestier is also content to wear costume jewellery in order to match her clothes. However, Madame Loisel is controlled by the monetary value of objects while Madame Forestier does not.
Her selfishness and her inconsideration towards her husband is demonstrated at the reception. Maupassant shows this in the quote: “Madame Loisel was a success…noticed by the Minister herself.” The lengthy descriptions of how admired Madame Loisel was show how her dream of being of the upper-class has turned into reality. She is desired by men who she feels is superior to her husband and Maupassant emphasizes her own perception of being a member of the wealthy. Her selfishness is gained by obtaining the material goods that maker her happy. Guy de Maupassant further exemplifies this by saying: “She danced ecstatically…sweet to a woman’s heart.” In this paragraph, it is obvious that she is in the center of attention, and we are told that she has not yet danced with her husband. This shows an aspect of her character, the fact that she has discarded a person when they are not of use to her. An interesting thing to note is that her only happiness stems from her perception of the life of the wealthy. Her inconsideration is emphasized in the way she treats her husband. Maupassant states that she “left at about four in the morning” while her husband “had been dozing in a small empty side-room.” She gives no regards to the well-being of Monseuir Loisel, who has to go to work in the Ministry at ten the next day. On the other hand, her husband allows her to stay very late because it has made his wife very happy to do so.
Maupassant demonstrates the end of Madame Loisel’s fantasy at the reception and the harsh reality of her life through the use of contrasts. When Monseuir Loisel fetches her coat, the author describes it as “a common everyday coat…at odds with the elegance of the dress.” The imaginary world in which felt like she belonged to is represented by the reception itself, where Madame Loisel is able experience the lifestyle of the rich while the coat represented by the harsh reality in which she has to wake up to as the ball ends. The use of the adverb “violently” suggest Mme. Loisel’s personal victimization. They hail a hackney cab, which the writer describes as “ashamed to parade their poverty in the full light of day.” The personification can be the same said to Madame Loisel; she is ashamed of being seen with her husband. Another interesting thing to note is the street in which Monseuir and Madame Loisel lives. It is said by Maupassant that they live on “rue des Martyrs”. This ironic phrase, as we see later on, suggests that Madame Loisel percieves herself as a martyr but her husband is the actual martyr for all of his sacrifices.
By portraying Mathilde Loisel as an essentially useless character, the readers feel litle sympathy for her. This is demonstrated through a contrast between the actions of Monseuir Loisel and Mathilde. While her husband goes out in the middle of the night to search for the missing necklace, she “remained as she was…her mind a blank.” Though losing Madame Forestier’s necklace was her fault and not a twist of Fate, she does not even feel remorseful for the loss of the necklace and she gives no thought to her husband who is finding her necklace in the middle of the night. Another example of her inadequacy is shown in the following quote: “She wrote to his dictation.” Though it can be argued that women of her period were supposed to dutifully listen to their husband, she does not demonstrate the ability to remedy a crisis that is caused by her in the first place. As the story progresses, we see that her character has not changed. She tells herself: “What might not have happened…make or break us!” She does not place the blame on herself and pushes it away by saying that it was a twist of Fate that had brought her to her current situation. This paragraph symbolizes her delusions.
There is little sympathy created for Madame Loisel. She yearns for a life which she cannot have and shows no appreciation or contentment with what she does have. She is foolish, childish and ignorant. Everything that makes her happy is shallow, materialistic, therefore, the reader actually feels that she gets what she deserves, because she has devoted her life to the pursuit of a false image, like the necklace that she wore that was fake. Her flaw of judging by appearances rather than depth brings about her downfall as she is blinded by what she believes to be diamonds but does not study them or percieve them to be fake. She is content for the evening with a necklace of glass: the treasure she has dreamed of is never real, but has a high price. Had Madame Loisel not been so petty and too proud to admit her mistake of losing the necklace, her misery could have been avoided. Since her "sacrifice" has been futile and completely unnecessary, she, therefore, deserves little sympathy.