Guy de Maupassant's "The Necklace" tells the story of Mathilde Loisel, a beautiful, yet painfully unhappy woman who desperately wants to escape her middle class life.  Mathilde feels that she was meant to live a life in the upper class with a wealthier husband and more expensive possessions.  She is unable to appreciate any of the good things in her life, such as her faithful husband, Monsieur Loisel, who, unlike Mathilde, is able to enjoy little things such as the soup he eats for dinner.  When Monsieur Loisel goes through "awful trouble" to get his wife an invitation to a fancy ball, Mathilde cries for not having an expensive dress to wear to the occasion (34).  This ingratitude commences the downhill spiral of their lives.  In "The Necklace," Maupassant uses diction, hyperbole, reoccurring key concepts, and irony to prove that ungratefulness and greed can lead to the destruction of one's life.  

Maupassaunt's word choice in the beginning illustrates how unsatisfied Mathilde is with her middle class life.  First, Maupassant writes that "she let herself be married to a little clerk," highlighting Mathilde's opinion that she is superior to her husband, and that she could have done better, but instead settled for him (33).  He then writes that "she suffered ceaselessly, feeling herself born for all the delicacies and all the luxuries" (33).  The choice of the word "suffered" implying torment or physical pain, is hyperbole. Maupassant reiterates the word in the next sentence: "she suffered from the poverty of her dwelling" (33).  The word "poverty" is another exaggeration of reality, implying that the couple is in the lowest class, when, in fact, the ownership of a home implies that they have at least some means.  He goes on to describe how Mathilde is "tortured" by everything in her home: "from the wretched look of the walls, from the worn out chairs, from the ugliness of the curtains." This language is ironic because someone facing true poverty would probably not possess these items, and if she did, would not complain about them (33).  Maupassaunt's hyperbolic depiction of Mathilde's lack of appreciation for her life is a prevalent theme throughout the story.  

Mathilde's ingratitude and greed are important key concepts in "The Necklace" because they are significant to its overall meaning.  Introduced in the description of her "suffering" at the beginning of the story, the themes recur and accelerate throughout.  While her husband appreciates the simple dinner soup, Mathilde despises it and dreams of "delicious dishes served on marvelous plates."  Her ungratefulness does not end with her material possessions; it relays to her treatment of her husband.  When Loisel surprises Mathilde with an invitation to the ball, instead of thanking her husband for the kind gift, she becomes upset because of her lack of a proper dress for the event. Loisel gives her his savings to purchase a dress and she does not thank him still.  Rather, she greedily requires a piece of jewelry in order to attend the event.  Her inability to recognize and value her own husband's devotion further illustrates her selfishness.  When the couple is leaving the ball, Loisel puts a wrap on her back to keep her warm.  The wrap is described as "modest wraps of common life, whose poverty contrasted with the elegance of the ball dress" (36).   Mathilde is embarrassed by the garment and hopes no one notices it. She  "wanted to escape so as not to be remarked by the other women who were enveloping themselves in costly furs."  This wrap symbolizes Loisel's love and care for Mathilde, poor and meager, but still offering genuine warmth.   Throughout the story, Mathilde's overwhelming greed prevents her from appreciating Loisel's devotion.  

The irony of the necklace being made of fake diamonds is a powerful literary device, also significant to the meaning of the story.  Mathilde goes to Mme. Forestier for a necklace because she is a woman in the upper class and Mathilde assumes she will have a necklace that will make her look upper class herself.  The item she chooses is described as "a superb necklace of diamonds" (35).  Mathilde's "hands trembled as she took it" and she is "lost in ecstasy at the sight of herself"(35).  The reader cannot help but be repulsed by the inflation of Mathilde's confidence in this self-absorbed reflection. This borrowed necklace provides the false sense of assurance she needed to feel prepared to attend the upper class party.  Mathilde has the night of her life, attributing her glory to the piece of jewelry.  But, in the end it is revealed that the necklace is, in fact, fake, and only worth a little more than the dress she bought for the occasion.  This is significant because it shows that Mathilde herself could have purchased a necklace just as suitable as the one she borrows from Mme. Forestier.  Mathilde's greed and self pity lead her to make a judgment error which she will literally pay for the rest of her life.  For, in fact, she misplaces the necklace and spends the next ten years working slavishly to earn the replacement value. 

Guy de Maupassant uses diction, hyperbole and recurring key concepts to demonstrate that it is important to be grateful.  Greed leads to a life of misery.  His use of diction shows how unappreciative Mathilde is of her life and all that she owns.  His use of the reccurring concept of her greediness calls into question whether Mathilde would have ever been satisfied with her lot in life.  Would she not have needed ever more wealth and possessions?  The irony of the ending illustrates the bitter consequences of selfishness. Mathilde never even needed to go to Mme. Forestier in the first place; she could have purchased fake diamonds herself.  In the end, it is Mathilde's own fault that she is thrust into the real lower class. She "suffered ceaselessly" because of ugly curtains and worn-out chairs, however in the end, "Mme. Loisel now knew the horrible existence of the needy. She came to know what housework meant and the odious cares of the kitchen" (38).  Had Mathilde been able to appreciate the value of her earl married life, she would not have driven herself into poverty.

