Guy de Maupassant's piece The Necklace, is constructed to present multiple interpretations 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, examining the text thoroughly through close reading helps analyze the story on a deeper level. In order to prove his point, de Maupassant uses specific word choice, descriptive language to illustrate Mme. Loisel's craving for luxury, and effective exploitation of juxtaposition to show the contrast between wealth and poverty. The literary techniques de Maupassant uses prime the story for two ironic climaxes that sate the reader's pallet tremendously and make clear the hidden moral. The moral of his story is to be grateful for what you have rather than worry about what you do not have.

As one reads over the passage, they notice de Maupassant places words in sentences very intentionally to support the moral of his story. Early in the story, he uses specific words to describe what it is like to be an impoverished woman in this time period, which helps to deepen the readers' sense of Mme. Loisel's unhappiness. He labels Mme. Loisel as having "no dowry, no expectations, no means of being known, understood, loved, wedded, by any rich and distinguished man" (de Maupassant 22). Which places a heavy negative connotation on being poor, which he uses to foreshadow Mme. Loisel's unhappiness in poverty. Every aspect that she is unhappy with, from simple household items, to the more elegant accoutrements, is made clear. 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" (22). This particular line is one that stands out significantly. It tells the reader that she cares not for the life she has, or the husband with whom she is wed, but that she only wants what she perceives as bigger and better.  The author's words paint Mme. Loisel a deep envious green, reflecting her longing for a more prestigious lifestyle. 

de Maupassant utilizes descriptive langue to reveal Mme. Loisel's perception of value of her own life, in comparison to that of the wealthy. An opportunity arises for Mme. Loisel to have a grand night of luxury and fun with society's wealthiest, but 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. In regards to her 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). He uses the words "enveloping" and "costly furs" to provide a visual image of large luscious layers of fur wrapped around these high-class women. This only reinforces Mme. Loisel's life as being trivial in comparison to the wealthy. 

Additionally, de Maupassant uses the characters feelings about poverty to create two juxtapositions that fit very well into the development of the story. Mme. Loisel becomes overly emotional because, she is embarrassed to wear flowers amongst women wearing jewels. (de Maupassant 24). Flowers are not representative of wealth and power in the same way that jewels are. De Maupassant's strong contrast between flowers and jewels enables the reader to view the two as unequal in value, although many perceive them as equally beautiful. Mme. Loisel could have flaunted the flowers, but due to her state of unhappiness, she couldn't get past the difference in financial value. Then, right before Mme. Loisel loses the necklace, de Maupassant doles out one more contrast of poverty and luxury. 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 her greed and sour outlook on life comes back to get her. 

de Maupassant's use of irony is a very effective way to end the story in a way that mirrors the beginning.  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 off her debt.  This story was particularly interesting due to the second ironic surprise that de Maupassant gives the reader. In someways, the story was somewhat predictable, ending with Mme. Forestier saying "Oh, my poor Mathilde! Why, my necklace was paste. It was worth at most five hundred francs!" (28).  de Maupassant's earlier use of irony can lead one to believe that all the hard work put into replacing the necklace, may evidently be for nothing. The use of a second ironic climax really drives home his point. Had Mme. Loisel been more humble, not yearned for money and stature, or attempted to gain them using dishonest measures, then her fate may not have been so unfortunate. 

Guy de Maupassant's use of literary elements such as word choice, juxtaposition, and irony helps portray a deep lesson for the reader to take away. His techniques highlight the main characters poverty, dishonesty, and greed to show that those are what lead to the character's demise. Through close reading, the reader is able to fully understand the root of the story, that if you are thankful for what you have, and try not to brew on what you do not, life can be luxurious in your own way.
