Skip to main content

How is Madame Loisel responsible for her own suffering in "The Necklace"?

Madame Loisel is responsible for her own suffering because she wanted more than she had, and she wanted people to believe she had more.  If she had not been putting on airs, she would not have gone into debt.  If she had told the truth, she would not have gone into debt.


Madame Loisel’s first problem was that she was not satisfied with her lot in life.  Few people are, I guess, but she seemed to feel that she was born into the wrong social class.  She deserved more than she got.  Even when her husband tried to help her feel better by getting her invited to a party for the rich, she was upset because she didn’t have the right dress or jewels.  She wasted all of the money they had saved on a dress, and borrowed a jewel from a friend.



She had no clothes, no jewels, nothing. And these were the only things she loved; she felt that she was made for them. She had longed so eagerly to charm, to be desired, to be wildly attractive and sought after.



At the ball, people do pay attention to her.  She loves it.  Then I suppose you could say she gets an attack of irony, or karma.  She loses the necklace.  Instead of owning up to it, she pretends that nothing happened but a broken clasp.  Then she replaces it with another necklace like nothing happened.  The problem is that this was a diamond necklace, and the Loisels can’t afford it, so they go into debt.


Years later, Madame Loisel runs into her friend and finds out the necklace she lost was fake.



"Oh, my poor Mathilde! But mine was imitation. It was worth at the very most five hundred francs! . . . "



By this time, Madame Loisel looks so old and haggard her friend barely recognizes her.  She has had to fire all of her servants and work hard to pay off the debt.  Whatever beauty and social standing she had is gone.  It’s sad, but it is all her own fault because if she had told the truth they would have just had a good laugh and gone on with their lives.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.