 The Necklace by Henri Rene Albert Guy de Maupassant can be interpreted in a number of ways however the interpretation that accepted by most is flawed. Most readers deduct that Guy de Maupassant is giving an Aristotle-like parable about the dangers of wanting that which is beyond your means. This interpretation is in fact supported by the story, however the meaning that can be derived from the text is slightly simpler. The Necklace can be applied to so much more than just wanting wine with beer money, because it is a warning about the dangers of not being content with your life, not just your money as many believe. 

The first clue that led to this conclusion was just how seemingly hypothetical in nature the story itself was. In the beginning Guy de Maupassant undersold the main couple's wealth by describing the wife's dissatisfaction with her clothes. The words he used to describe her clothes do not describe the quality, Guy de Maupassant just said her clothes were plain, not that she was uncomfortable or that they were old and ratty. He choose to stress the plainness of her clothes because that is the only concession he can make to paint her as less than fortunate. In reality in the late nineteenth century even plain clothes were expensive by today's standards, and having a wardrobe of plain clothes would firmly plant the couple in the upper middle class. Guy de Maupassant choses the words to make the wife more relatable because when you imagine someone embarrassed or ashamed buy plain clothes when you picture in head the cheaply made poor quality clothing that would be considered plain in 2015. And it is the modern cheap labor dependent clothing industry has skewed the perception on what it means to have plain clothes. Upon realizing that her clothes were by no means shameful one can conclude that he is using her unjustified dissatisfaction as not only a tool to progress his narrative, but also to allude to the thorough reader that it is her perception of life in general that is the problem.

So if the wife's unhappiness with the above average lifestyle is a symbolic warning to the reader to remember how privileged you are then how does the rest of the story fit into the symbolic meaning? In short the husband is a symbol for the appeasement towards unhealthy ideals. Guy de Maupassant conveys the futility of his actions flawlessly in a kind of give a mouse a cookie sort of way. Spoiler alert; the mouse can simply not have a cookie he needs some milk. The husband sacrifices his hunting vacation for her to have a fancy dress worth 500 francs in a time in which the average worker in Paris earned five francs per day. By all means this extravagant purchase should have alleviated her appetite for luxurious clothes however nothing that he did could ever make her feel rich. No amount of pulling strings to get her into a ball that she had no business going to could ever make her feel rich enough to be happy. The husband's good intentions only primes the pump of expensive tastes, because shortly after she buys the dress she asks him for gems to further complete the facade of higher wealth she has created. This yearning for completion drives her to borrow a friend's necklace for the ball since on to her standards is simply too expensive for even her bloated since of self to justify purchasing. Even after all of this, when she gets to the ball in her extravagate dress and beautiful necklace she likes her coat to a rag while observing overtones fine furs at the ball.

So how could anyone with such an unhealthy perception of reality truly be contempt with a life on earth? Guy de Maupassant's lesson to the reader is if you cannot see the goodness in your life now you will see it when it is gone. As the band Cinderella said so eloquently in Don't Know What You Got (Till It's Gone) you don't know how privileged you are until everything you have lost your privilege. Since she lost the necklace the night of the ball she had to lose her servants, clothes, and beauty in the process of replacing that necklace. This is a clear warning for those whom are incapable of realizing the goodness in their lives. In this case in the pursuit of happiness she lost wealth she did have, and at first glance she also lot her happiness. However in the end after the damage had been done she truly accepted her life as a working wife, and that is when readers learn that the diamonds in the necklace were fake.

Does that make her humbling journey from spoiled brat to woman in vain? Will she go on to regain the wealth? Was it worth it? The problem with twist endings is that nothing that could be said is cannon to the story, however we can infer that her quality of life improves. Maybe the Madame gives back the necklace and she can finally have the life that she took for granted ten years prior. One thing that can certainly be taken form the ending of this short story is how important it is to be comfortable with your life. It can be seen that the way the story is told not only expresses the narrative of income complacency, but also to this parable-like interpretation of The Necklace that warns against the dangers of being unhappy with your surroundings in all aspects of life. 

