There were three settings in which one was the original setting; this was a run-down but decent apartment. The next was a major upgrade from before; it was a rich, elegant reception. The ending to this scene showed Mathilde come back down to reality. The last setting was a rented attic room which showed the dramatic changes to the character’s lives in that point of the story. The first setting created an atmosphere of unhappiness. The second setting felt happy and triumphant whilst the last setting made you feel depressed, run-down and regretful.
The key events where when Mathilde’s husband had managed to get invites to a rich and famous reception. The other is when Mathilde loses the necklace she borrowed of her friend. The final key event was the twist of Mathilde finding out the necklace she borrowed was a fake. The events are linked together by the working of the characters towards it.
The major twist is at the end of the story when Madame Foriester (The friend Mathilde borrowed the necklace of) tells Mathilde and finds out about the truth about the necklace. Which the Losiel’s worked ten years re-paying a real copy of the necklace.
The time covered is about twenty to thirty years. The events moved fairly simple, just forward moving events with the narrator explaining the information within the jumps in time. The story is quite realistic as it could happen and no character where completely artificial.
The main character’s where Mathilde Losiel and Monsieur Losiel. The most important minor character was Madame Foriester who was Mathilde’s rich friend from her convent days. Guy de Maupassant shows their personalities mostly by dialog. For Monsieur Losiel a small description of his status is given, the rest is pointed out by dialog said and actions towards his wife. Madame Foriester is shown with admiration and dialog. Whilst Mathilde Losiel’s personality is shown by her own dreams and her reactions.
Mathilde is intersting as she dreams of being rich, beautiful and popular but when he has done something wrong surprising she does not complain but pays it off. Monsieur Losiel is interesting because of his loyalty and hard-working ethic. He also does not blame or put this wife down when she makes mistakes. He also is very calm and collective.
Mathilde Losiel does develop as she becomes a woman that would have been her worsted nightmare. She understands it better to be happy with what you have, then to dream.
The author is telling the story as a witness but also sharing his views on the situation. It is in third person, this narrator has a very distinct dialect, he involves you closely to what the feeling and actions are being performed in the story. The attitude from the narrator to Mathilde was displeased and angry at her actions towards her believing husband. The narrator however did agree to their actions to the problems they faced.
The story ended with a tragic twist. It did not end as expected. The end was not satisfying because not all the ends met. You did not find out what happened to all of them. You did not discover if Madame Foriester gave them back their money or they carried on living like they were. The atmosphere changed from satisfaction of their hard-work to shock and dismay at the news.
I appreciated the writer’s skills of being able to show the personality of the characters well but in a short time. I also admired his description of places and thoughts. He has special skills of description of attitudes and reactions. He was able to get under the character’s skin. He organised the plot very well, making great use of time. His style is witty in some parts but usually judgemental. He uses rich language when in description in Mathilde’s dreams. The writer does credit himself on has description and imagery of places, as he gives you a bit of the place and the rest follows. He is very clear and direct in his story too.
The author is interested in the hierarchy of women and their ability to get a better place in tit without connections of a high birth right. He also says that you should try to be something your not in one day. It is very relevant and not may attitudes have changed towards this. Although his thoughts on women would have ridiculed now. He is quite pessimistic. The story was set in around the early 1900’s. Its shows the rich way of house decoraction and the traditions.
I thought it was a decent story with an understandable simple plot. I learned more about Parisian nights, lavish decorations at that period, the common way of living and views on women at that time. I did not like his thought on women but I liked his story-telling skills and description.
