Introduction
The ‘Diamond Necklace’ is a short story written by Guy de Maupassant in 1907. In the story, the focus is on a lady known as Mathilde, who was married to Loisel, an employee at the ministry of public instruction. De Maupassant introduced Mathilde as a humble woman who had not grown up with a fancy and flourishing lifestyle. In the book, the author says that ‘She was distressed at the poverty of her dwelling, at the bareness of her walls ,at the shabby chairs, the ugliness of the curtains’ (de Maupassant, 1907). The purpose of this paper is to discuss what happened to Mathilde in the story, why it happened and how it could be different.
Main body
The story rotates on a chance Mathilde got to attend a party with her husband, and she had to borrow a necklace. When the event was underway, she lost the necklace that her friend Forestier had lent to her (de Maupassant, 1907). The couple spent more than ten years paying debts they had borrowed to pay the necklace for forty thousand francs only to find it was worth five hundred francs. Despite Mathilde having gotten the chance to explore the outside life, which she was not used to, the event gave her an adverse experience that left a notable change in her life together with her husband. Both Loisel and Mathilde would work effortlessly to earn extra income that enabled them to pay debts owed due to the costly jewelry (de Maupassant, 1907). Mathilde had aged mysteriously in just ten years due to the distress of undertaking home chores and economic disparity. Mathilde wonders how the ornament was that cheap compared to the price the sewers had charged them ten years back.
The life of struggling that both Mathilde and Loisel lived in happened because her husband wanted to help his woman discover the outer world even when they had little money. Additionally, the horrible lifestyle happened because the couple had borrowed the necklace from their friend and failed to reveal that it was lost (de Maupassant, 1907). Mathilde did not consider engaging her husband in solving the problem by telling the truth.
It could have been different if Mathilde and Loisel had not attended the ball at first. Additionally, if the two had chosen to tell the truth, they could have lived a life without a major economic crisis. The tribulations they had were caused by a random decision to conceal the truth by substituting the necklace with another one (de Maupassant, 1907). Furthermore, if Mathilde had been keen and careful enough, she may not have lost the necklace hence, avoiding the problems that came later. The couple had a chance to change their life by having other matters to attend to other than paying the debts. If they did not have borrowed money, chances are, the two might have had a positive development in their lives.
In this situation, I would have first regretted the decision to hide the reality of the matter from the owner of the bracelet. Additionally, I would request Forestier to offer the chain to me so that I can resell it to other interested persons and use that money to buy a cheaper one and make life to be normal. However, that would depend on whether or not Forestier agreed with the request and if the necklace would be significantly valuable in the market.
Conclusion
My preferences regarding drama are all about incidences that reveal strange and eye-opening contexts. I usually prefer texts that probe me towards thinking critically, more so, where the characters are presented torn between dilemmas. Such texts like ‘Diamond Necklace’ serve as a major booster towards improving the cognitive ability of readers. Therefore I encourage other people to read the story among others so that they have a revelation of contemporary life issues in the world.
Reference
de Maupassant, G. (1907). Diamond necklace. In P. McCann (Eds), Introduction to language and arts (pp. 21-31). Continental Academy.