In line with the above answer, it seems only just and reasonable that Madame Forestier should give the Loisels the replacement necklace and that they would sell it in order to have a little security and enjoyment for the rest of their lives. I would assume that Madame Forestier would feel the same way although in Maupassant's world you never know what upper-class people are going to do. I don't know if the Loisel's would have any legal recourse but they would probably threaten to sue if the woman refused to give up the necklace or pay them its market value.
The story has a shocking ending, but after the shock wears off, also begins to wonder what actually happened after Madame Forestier told Madame Loisel that the necklace she had let her borrow was made of fake jewels. This shows the genius of Guy De Maupassant. He has convinced people that these are real and that this really happened, so we are left wondering about the final outcome.As the revelation that the jewels were fakes. On the other hand, what might be more important than the cash value of the necklace could be the psychological reaction of Madame Loisel and her husband to the revelation.
Actually i get a kick out of the ironic ending, as Madame Loisel finds out that the necklace she lost was a cheap piece of jewelry and should have cost very little to replace. Instead,in my ending opinon will be the Loisels mortgaged their entire future to give Madame Forestier a necklace that they thought was comparable to the one they lost.She should tell the fact so that they wont do such things,Loisels should told Madame Forestier about it, so they wont wasting all that money for replaces it.
Comments
Post a Comment