The beginning of the text is a little bit discriminatory due to how the author threats a family of clerks. The author says "as if by a mistake of destiny", "no dowry, no expectations, no means of being known" (Maupassant) as explanation of social status or household where she (Mathilde) was born. There is not any mistake of being born in a family like that, many people are, and most of those people do have expectations, aspirations, and the opposite to all what the author says about what they cannot be or have. We are in the 21st century, time where everybody is the same and has the same opportunities, and I think it is time to stop supposing that everyone will end up where she or he comes from, or doing the same than her or his parents. Everybody own his or her decisions, and she or he is who decides where to go and what to do. However, sometimes family makes us take wrong decisions.

The author describes Mathilde as a poor, sad, not too smart, unsatisfied woman with her life. I can see it that way due to what words the author uses. He makes me understand how poor she is, both material and spiritual. If the author is trying to make readers feel compassion for her, believe me, he is doing it.

The three first lines on the second page of the text are interpreted as if the author would be explaining one of the many stereotypes of women; this case one woman who wants hardly all what she does not have or see on other to be envied as the ones who have this material goods. 

In real life, inviting someone like Mathilde to a fancy party could end in an uncomfortable or awkward moment, probably one like in the text. When people are that complicated and care about what others say, thinking about going out to an elegant party is hard because people will open their closets and find out that they do not have anything to wear; they actually have, but they do not want to repeat a dress, suit, skirt, shirt, etc. All I say could be supported with a sentence that is found on the text, "nothing. Only I have no dress, therefore I can't go to this ball. Give your card to some colleague whose wife is better equipped than I" (Maupassant). This confirms that many people who open a closet can decide not to go to nowhere.

The actions of her husband shows the reader that he is being patient and trying to find easy solutions to manage to make her go to the desired party. M. Loisel is different from her, he is simple, uncomplicated and easygoing. Based on what he does and says, I can figure out that he really wants her to go with him. He would appreciate if she decides to go without being that demanding. The expressions "the dress you go to the theater in. It looks very well, to me" and "you might wear natural flowers" (Maupassant) support my idea, and show how simple her husband is; although, men usually do not worry about their suits as women do with their dresses. 

When people do not have something they need or money to buy it, they go to someone who is really close to them and borrow what they need, as Mathilde did. Mme. Forestier is a good friend and would lend Mathilde whatever she wants, But Mathilde was never satisfied. Mathilde wants more and more, it is like the more she sees the more she wants. Here is when reader realizes how ambitious she is because she could have been pleased on the first place with the pearl necklace, gold stones or even the Venetian cross. Finally, when people really like something, more than enough, there is nothing that makes them change their minds; Mathilde felt in love with a necklace of diamonds after her body had experienced a sexual act. Situations like that might be seen in life when people think there is nothing else better than that. At the party Mathilde achieve her goal, be the prettiest and most admired woman among all.  

People make mistakes, people have accidents, and this case Mathilde lost the important, precious and borrowed necklace. The despair is fully expressed in the book, and reader can get into the situation when she or he is reading the dialog. Unfortunately in real life, people who lose something that is borrowed, the first thing they do is to try to find it, and if this does not happen, they look for a way to replace it without saying anything to the owner, when they just need to face the problems and see how they with the owner can get a solution. 

Getting a loan is something nobody likes, and everyone is afraid of, now and a hundred years ago. However, when people are responsible like Loisel, and there is nothing else to do, getting loans is the only solution. Nowadays, getting the loan is basically the easy part, the hard part is how to pay it back. The book (on page 38) explains what they had to do to make the money to pay the loans back. I interpret it as a part of my culture, and it make me compare with life out of the book. How many people we see getting loans and credit cards (same things but with different names) to get all kind of luxuries such a new car, the newest clothes, etc. but what we do not actually see is what people have to do to be able to have them, even to keep them. 

Mathilde could pay everything back (lucky her, because there are people who cannot), now she feels good without that weight on her shoulders. Sometimes working hard to pay back a loan has to happen to someone because it is how she or he learns to get up after falling.

The book ends in a very interesting way when Mme. Forestier says "Oh, my poor Mathilde! Why, my necklace was paste. It was worth at most five hundred francs!" (Maupassant) 

This is a common mistake that many people make. They think that when someone has more than them is richer, and that everything she or he has is expensive and genuine. People do not think that those items are not actually genuine, and that is why she or he has variety of them. In this case Mathilde had to work hard to pay something worthless when it looked like it was. That conclusion supports my idea, and I defend the saying "not all that glitters is gold".


