To what extent does Guy de Maupassant show sympathy for Madame Loisel in 'The Necklace'?

Authors Avatar by milk_candiez (student)

To what extent does Guy de Maupassant show sympathy for Madame Loisel in the short story ‘The Necklace’?

By Crystal Wong

11S

Guy de Maupassant was a  19th century French realist, who is often criticized for being misogynistic in his literature. However, in the short story ‘The Necklace’, he does not appear to be a misogynist but rather, he uses his character’s flaws to show how it was this that inevitably led to her downfall.  We can see examples of this throug h the use of dramatic irony in order to emphasize and highlihgt her flawes not show any sympathy for Madame Loisel; he uses her character and her life to demonstrate the dramatic irony of the situation that she has put herself through. Although he suggests that the hardships that she faced during her life of poverty was, indeed, extremely difficult (as demonstrated by the toll it took on her looks), the characterization of Madame Loisel as a tragic heroine is, as seen through Maupassant’s use of language, only in her own mind. Thus, the portrayal of Madame Loisel is not something that Maupassant is trying to make readers agree with; instead, he tries to show that Madame Loisel’s hardships and “tragic” life are caused by herself.  

Our first impression of Madame Loisel is that she is someone who should be sympathized.  Maupassant describes her as “…one of those pretty, delightful girl who, apparently by some error of Fate get themselves born the daughters of very minor civil servants.” The use of the phrase “one of those”  suggest that she is not as special as the author makes her to be but the author has not yet answered what makes her worthy of this story.  Maupassant also mentions that she was born poor “by some error of Fate,” implying that Madame Loisel doesn’t deserve to be born poor and that because she could not help it, and thus, the readers should feel sorry for her.  He then goes on to say that “she had no dowry, no expectations, no means of meeting some rich, important man.” These next two lines explain how she is poor in the sense of how she is a victim of Fate despite not living a life of poverty.  The author continues to inform of her poor station by saying that “She dressed simply, being unable to afford anything better…”    Guy de Maupassant explicitly states that she cannot buy any better clothes because her parents could not afford it. This makes the readers feel sympathetic towards her as the “pretty, delightful  girl”  who is a victim of Fate, something that she herself cannot control.  

However, as we learn more about Madame Loisel’s character, she comes across as shallow and materialistic. This is shown when Maupassant states that “She was unhappy all the time…intended for a life of refinement and luxury.”  This statement suggests that even though Mathilde is a peasant girl and is living in a middle-class household, she is discontent because she feels that she deserves more because of her looks. Thus, the readers feel less sympathetic towards Madame Loisel.  This idea is further conveyed in when Madame Loisel “made unhappy by the run-down apartment…was torture to her.”  Her superficiality is shown when the author tells us: “The spectacle of the young Breton peasant girl who did the household chores stirred sad regrets and impossible fantasies.” The use of the word “spectacle” suggest that Madame Loisel feels that household chores are beneath her. The author specifically mentions that Madame Loisel is a “peasant”. The irony is that despite Madame Loisel, being of a lower class, still thinks that chores are beneath her simply because she is pretty. Guy de Maupassant becomes less sympathetic in the quote:  “She dreamed of silent antechambers…were much coveted and desired by all men.” As readers, we see that she not only dreams of marrying above her station, but that as a young, pretty, charming girl, she desires a life of nobility because of the material goods  that being an aristocrat will bring her.

Join now!

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 ...

This is a preview of the whole essay