Jacob Miles-Prystowsky
Journal 1

How does “The Necklace” bear out the idea that small things save or destroy people?

In Guy de Maupassant’s story, “The Necklace,” the narrator writes, “How little a thing it takes to destroy you or to save you,” (par. 105) and the story bears this truth out in several regards. In one sense, one might be tempted to point out the deterioration of the main character in “The Necklace,” Mathilde Loisel, as evidence of how little things can destroy a person. Indeed, this would be a valid interpretation, since, after losing the necklace and working diligently for ten years, Mathilde became “the strong, hard, and rude woman of poor households” (par. 104), in contrast to her character at the beginning of the story, who was “one of those pretty and charming women” (par 1).

However, I interpret “The Necklace” differently, and argue that the diamond necklace that Mathilde lost, and the act of her losing it, actually saved her instead of destroying her. Early in the story, when Mathilde is at the party for which she borrowed the necklace, she was “in the triumph of her beauty, in the glory of her success,” (par. 53) from the admiration she received from other partygoers, presumably because of the diamond necklace she wore. However, when leaving the party, she was forced to confront her actual, low, socioeconomic status by her shawl, which was plain enough to make it obvious that she was not wealthy. Mathilde’s response to this confrontation was to “[hurry] away to avoid being noticed” (par. 55).

I believe that the hard work that Mathilde endured after losing the necklace, so as to earn enough money to repay the debts incurred by purchasing a replacement for her friend from whom she borrowed the necklace originally, is what saved her. Initially, Mathilde seemed to be lost in dreams of a wealthier lifestyle. For example, when confronted with generosity from her husband (he worked hard to bring her the invitation to the party in the first place), she behaved rudely, complaining that she didn’t have appropriate clothing for the party. She also thought pretentiously, dreaming of “expensive banquets with shining placesettings [sic]” (par. 4) in place of the more modest food her husband enjoyed. She “loved nothing but [decent dresses and jewels]” (par. 5), and she “burned with the desire … to be envied” (ibid.).

In losing the necklace, Mathilde was forced to give up her dreams of a wealthier lifestyle, confront the fact that she was born “into a family of clerks and copyists” (par. 1), and learn the lessons of modesty and hard work. She became heroic, washing dishes and laundry, carrying water and garbage (par. 99), all to the end of paying back her debts. The effect of this hard work was that Mathilde became “unkempt, with uneven skirts and rough, red hands,” (par. 104), but, more importantly, that she became more modest, confronted with having to learn to live “the horrible life of the needy” (par. 98), and it is in this way that I believe that Mathilde was saved, rather than destroyed.