value point of the chapter the necklace
Answers
Answer:
We should be be happy with what life offers us. Matilda was always unhappy and she felt that she was born for all the delicacies and luxuries of life. she disliked being in her current circumstances.This led to ruining of her life,She could have avoided this ruin by being satisfied with whatever she had.
Answer:
Be happy with what you have.
Explanation:
Analysis
As writer in 19th-century France, Maupassant writes in a style called Literary Realism. The clearest example of this style comes in the final third of the story, when he describes the poor, working lives of the Loisels. Maupassant contrasts this with the almost romantic description of the party that the Loisels attend, at which Mathilde wore the titular necklace.
As gender played an important role in 19th-century French society, so too does it in "The Necklace." Women of the middle and upper classes did not work, instead being taken care of by their husbands. Thus, many of the Loisels’ problems involve money. Not only is Mme. Loisel bitter about her inability to improve her social class, but the Loisels also value different things, with those values mapping along gender lines. When invited to the party, Mme. Loisel begins to weep, asking her husband to lend her the money for a new dress, as clothing and jewelry were especially important indicators of status for women. In contrast, M. Loisel thinks to himself that he had wanted to save that money to buy a new gun, a manly pursuit that he could have used to bond with male friends and relax from his busy work schedule.
Beauty is treated in "The Necklace" at times as objective and at times as quite subjective, dependent on social class. On one hand, Maupassant writes that beauty was the way women could advance their place in society. On the other hand, Mme. Loisel sees Mme. Forestier's necklace as beautiful largely because of its supposed worth and the social capital it provides. At the party, it is said that Mme. Loisel felt and looked quite beautiful, and that many men desired to dance with her. In this case, the reader must ask whether this is because of her natural beauty, the upper-class attire she was able to acquire for the event, or perhaps simply her confidence from her clothing.
Until the end of the story, Mme. Loisel is not presented as a particularly likeable or sympathetic character. One example of Mme. Loisel's flaws comes when the couple has just gotten home from the party: Mme. Loisel says, "I have--I have--I no longer have Mrs. Forestier's necklace."(p.35) In this moment, it seems that she is trying, even in her panicked state, not to take the blame of what has happened, refusing to admit that she lost the necklace.
In setting up the eventual irony in one of his classic twist endings, Maupassant is careful to write that the necklace "seemed to them exactly like the one they had lost"(p.36). This is not enough to alert the reader to the eventual irony, but it points to the couple's inability to tell the two necklaces apart precisely because they were not accustomed to lavish jewelry. This in turn raises the question of whether Mme. Forestier would have recognized the substitution; though she does not let on that she recognizes any difference upon seeing the replacement for the first time and seems genuinely surprised when she hears Mme. Loisel's tale after ten years, it is suspicious that a woman of a higher class would not be able to tell the difference.
Finally, the fact that the characters never find out what happened to the necklace points toward the randomness of life and importance of circumstance. As Maupassant writes, "How would it have been if she had not lost that necklace? Who knows? Who knows? How singular is life, and how full of changes! How small a thing will ruin or save one!"(p.37) This moral of the story may be seen as a critique of the importance of social class, since the story demonstrates that a simple accident or circumstance forced upon a person (since the necklace could have been stolen purposefully) can doom a person to a completely different way of life. At the same time, Maupassant demonstrates that social class does not correlate to happiness, as Mme. Loisel seems more content in her life and her marriage when in the poor class than when behaving either as a middle- or upper-class woman.