Guy de Maupassant's piece The Necklace, is constructed in a way that leaves the interpretation up to the reader. At a glance, one might take away the obvious lessons of, honesty is the best policy, or perhaps, be careful what you wish for, as these are heavily suggested on the surface of the text. However, after examining the text thoroughly through Close Reading, it's helped me analyze the story on a deeper level.  The point that I pulled out of his story is to be grateful for what you have, and don't stress over what you don't have.  I see him using the two more obvious lessons to support his main argument, because they are related to the overall theme.  Personally I believe de Maupassant's word choice is the most effect element implemented to get his point across. He uses very descriptive language to illustrate Mme. Loisel's craving for luxury.  In combination with the word choice, de Maupassant exploits juxtaposition quite effectively to show the contrast between wealth and poverty. Those two literary techniques prime the story for two ironic climaxes that sate the reader's pallet tremendously. 

Utilizing the techniques of Close Reading has helped me analyze the text in a way that wasn't so clear to me before.  As I read over the passage, I noticed how words were placed in sentences and why they were placed there. Early on, de Maupassant gives the reader a detailed insight on what it is like to be an impoverished woman in this time period. He labels Mme. Loisel as having "no dowry, no expectations, no means of being known, understood, loved, wedded, by any rich and distinguished man" (22).  I found this intriguing because it puts such a bad connotation on being a poor woman, and doing so sets the reader up for what comes next, which is Mme. Loisel being unhappy with her poverty. You see every aspect that she is unhappy with, from simple household items, to the more elegant accoutrements.   This longing for riches can easily be interpreted as greed, "She had no dresses, no jewels, nothing. And she loved nothing but that; she felt made for that" (de Maupassant 22). I think this particular line is one that stands out significantly. It tells me that she cares not for the life she has, or the husband with whom she is wed, but only wants what she perceives as bigger and better.  Her greed, although not intended to be harmful, turns out to bite her when she finally seems to get what she wants. 

An opportunity arises for Mme. Loisel to have a grand night of luxury and fun with society's wealthiest, alas that is not good enough for her liking. She almost immediately turns down the opportunity for the lack of a suitable outfit. Only if she had something to wear, would it be okay to attend this event. De Maupassant uses the characters feelings about poverty to create two juxtapositions that fit very well into the development of the story. He has Mme. Loisel throw a bit of a tantrum over the fact that she couldn't possibly wear flowers next to women who wore jewels, because it would simply be embarrassing (de Maupassant 24). His next use of juxtaposition, I think, leads fairly well into his use of irony.  Right before the first climax of the story, Mme. Loisel loosing the necklace, de Maupassant throws one more contrast of poverty and luxury at us.  Referring to the obviously cheap wraps, de Maupassant writes "She felt this and wanted to escape so as not to be remarked by the other women, who were enveloping themselves in costly furs" (25). This final kicker is the only physical contrast shown, where the character has a physical reaction to pull away from the embarrassing impoverished lifestyle. Then of course, Mme. Loisel loses the necklace, and it is at this point, that all the greed and sour outlook on life, comes back to get her. 

Irony is a great way to pull this story around full circle.  All her life Mme. Loisel has hungered for luxury, and she finally gets it. Everything seems fine, until ironically her one good night turns into a nightmare that will haunt her for 10 years to come. The reader most likely sees this as "just desserts" when Mme. Loisel removes her wraps to admire herself just one last time, only to find that the necklace had disappeared (de Maupassant 25).  I find the use of irony here to be extremely satisfying, doubly when de Maupassant ties in yet another climax at the conclusion of the story.  As a result of losing the necklace, and furthermore lying to her friend about it in a scrambled effort to fix the problem, Mme. Loisel deals with the consequence of having to work night and day for 10 years to pay of her debt.  This story was particularly interesting due to the second ironic bomb that de Maupassant drops on the reader. It was somewhat predictable; the story ends with Mme. Forestier saying "Oh, my poor Mathilde! Why, my necklace was paste. It was worth at most five hundred francs!" (de Maupassant 28).  I think the use of a second ironic climax really drives home his point. Had Mme. Loisel been content with her life, not greedy, and not dishonest, then she may have faired better in this situation. 

Guy de Maupassant's usage of literary elements such as word choice, juxtaposition, and irony, strings together a well thought out story, with a deep lesson to be taken away. The combination of lying, and greed, are what lead to the character's demise. If you are thankful for what you have, and don't get caught up in what you don't have, life can be luxurious in your own way. 
