"The Necklace," written by Guy de Maupassant, features only two main characters and how they go about their lives. While it gives insight to other townspeople and their daily lives, the two characters, Mathilde Loisel and Monsieur Loisel, compare their lives to their community's. This story opens talking about Mathilde, who drastically changes over the story. Monsieur however, remains faithful to his wife throughout it. While Monsieur only wants to make his wife happy, she really only cares about having riches. This short narrative has the theme of materialism, which is shown through examples of the first impression of Mathilde Loisel, her shallowness during the story, and the irony at the end. 

In the beginning of the story, de Maupassant does not mention any names of the characters, but instead refers to Mathilde Loisel by using the pronoun "she." With the use of third person pronouns, it can be interpreted that de Maupassant wanted to keep the story simple in the first couple paragraphs and not mention the names of the characters. The opening sentence, "She was one of those pretty and charming girls who are sometimes, as if by a mistake of destiny, born in a family of clerks," immediately mentions the main character's appearance and that she was not born into a wealthy family (de Maupassant, 33). The story starts out talking about the materialistic things Mathilde wishes she had, such as money and belongings, but then talks about her appearance because that is the only thing she really owns. The narrator uses "she" in replace of her name, because Mathilde Loisel does not have any fancy belongings, though she longs to have some. The first several paragraphs explain how Mathilde was unhappy with the life she was living, because she did not have luxuries like the other members of her community. Mathilde was obsessed with wanting more and having as much as the other women of the town, yet she was left without fancy dresses or jewels. By using the pronoun "she" to describe Mathilde and not giving her a name in the beginning, de Maupassant portrays how simple and plain she was. 

The idea of materialism is shown through Mathilde Loisel, but it is not however displayed through her husband. In many times, Monsieur Loisel is content with his earnings and tries anything to make his wife happy. For example, Mathilde Loisel was given an invitation to a fancy event, and "instead of being delighted, as her husband hoped, she threw the invitation on the table with disdain," showing how selfish she is (34). She was angry because she knew she had nothing to wear to an event like this, and could not go out in something that would be of embarrassment to her. She was displeased with with her life and wanted an elegant dress like the other wealthy women. Her caring husband offered to give his savings so she could buy a new dress and fit in with the crowd, yet she still wanted more. She wanted jewelry to wear with it, but Monsieur Loisel offered an alternative solution: flowers (35). Because Mathilde was greedy and shallow, she was not amused by the idea of flowers. Any woman could wear flowers, but it did not show what class someone was in. Therefore, no ladies at the ball would wear flowers, because they wanted to flaunt their wealth by displaying the expensive jewels around their necks. Mathilde did not want to look like the poor, and she wanted to seem like she fit in with the other extravagantly dressed women by doing the same. Her husband suggested she borrow jewelry from one of her upper class friends, because of her attitude towards the flowers. She wanted to acquire valuable riches instead of natural beauties. Mathilde Loisel listened to her husband and went to her friend, so she could appear just as wealthy at the ball by wearing the beautiful diamond necklace. Her desire to want jewels and elegant belongings did not stop until after the event, where she lost her friends necklace and was too humiliated to admit to Mme. Forestier for losing it. 

At the conclusion of this short narrative, Mathilde Loisel and her husband spend their time working tirelessly to pay everyone they borrowed money from back. After the ten years of endless work, Mathilde ran into her old friend whom she borrowed the necklace from in the first place. She explained to Mme. Forestier that she looks this way because the necklace Mathilde gave her was not her original one and she has been working off her debt. The irony at the end when her friend said, "Oh, my poor Mathilde! Why, my necklace was paste. It was worth at most five hundred francs," shows that she spent her last ten years working and growing old to repay people for the thirty-six thousand francs, when it was not even worth that amount (39). Because Mathilde borrowed a necklace from an upper class woman, she instantly assumed that the necklace had great fortune. She wanted to believe that she was wearing something expensive and that she belonged with the other elegant women at the event. However, even if someone is wealthy it does not mean everything they own is expensive. Mathilde was so absorbed in trying to appear to be wealthy and obtaining luxuries, that she did not even stop to think that the necklace might not be worth thirty-six thousand francs. Because she spent the past ten years working exhausting hours, she lost the only thing she truly had. She did not have money or jewels, but she had beauty. If she did not spend her time obsessing over wealth, she would still be left with something valuable. 

"The Necklace" teaches a valuable lesson. For instance, Mathilde could have been saved a lot of trouble if she was honest about losing her friend's necklace. She was too worried about having fancy possessions and wanting people to view her as wealthy, that she could never admit to her friend what had happened. It would be too humiliating to her to tell Mme. Forestier she lost it and did not have the money to buy a new one. The idea of materialism in "The Necklace" is observed in the character Mathilde Loisel, when she has nothing but desires to be wealthy. Her shallowness is apparent throughout the whole story until she learns her lesson through the use of irony at the conclusion. 

