Naturalism and Realism as One in Maupassant’s “The Necklace”

by Kayla Belote

Before the world knew Guy de Maupassant, he was known just a student to men considered masters today. The man behind “The Necklace” would be shaped from his contact with these famous writers, including Gustave Flaubert and Emile Zola, utilizing each man’s unique style of writing, as well as their views on the world.

Flaubert would become a teacher to Maupassant after the death of Louis Bouihet; he would encourage Maupassant’s love for writing, and would impart some of his very own styles on the developing young man (Lerner 71). Although realism was not a new concept in writing, Flaubert seemed to make it his own; for example in his work “Madame Bovary” he actually went to the places that he used in his settings, and made sure to take detailed notes of all that he saw (Lerner 76).To him a documentary style of writing was the best way for his audience to really understand what was occurring in his stories (Lerner 76).This attention to detail and documenting were not the only ways Maupassant was influenced by Flaubert; in fact what were arguably more important are the literary greats that Flaubert would introduce to his young disciple. Turgenev, Daudet, Goncourt, and most importantly Emile Zola, were just a few of the well known authors during Maupassant’s time who frequently visited Flaubert (Lerner 80).

Emile Zola wrote in a style known as naturalism; according to Lerner this form of naturalism aspired to demonstrate “their desire for contemporary, lower-class realism” (122). Maupassant would frequently visit Zola, and would even receive a copy of his novel “La Faute de l’Abbe Mouret” shortly after it was published (Steegmuller 98). It is quite clear that Zola and his ideas of naturalism touched Maupassant during the course of their friendship; Maupassant is even regarded as saying, “I am terribly enthusiastic about it[“La Faute de l’Abbe Mouret”] and few works have made such a forceful impression on me” (Lerner 114). From Zola to Flaubert, Maupassant came into contact with numerous ideologies and seemed to incorporate a mix of naturalism and realism into his stories.

Through “The Necklace” readers can get a sense of just how much realism and naturalism Maupassant actually used in his stories. The realism is apparent in the story, from the descriptions of the rich luxuries Mathilde wished she could be part of, to the work Mathilde and her husband had to perform to meet their loans. Even the descriptions of the street vendors Mathilde has to deal with are described in a realistic manner, providing a vivid picture of Mathilde working her way through the street haggling for necessities. If the reader did not know what they were reading was fiction, they might very well believe that the characters and their situation happened word for word. Naturalism comes into play in how Maupassant describes his characters, and their experiences. In “The Necklace” the audience gets a clear view into the extreme differences between the lower class and the upper class. This can be seen at the end when Mathilde reunites with her friend, Mme. Forestier, and the audience is shown how the youth and beauty of Mathilde is completely gone thanks to the labors of the poor, while Mme. Forestier remains unchanged due to her wealth. This demonstrates naturalism because it gives the audience a real view of the extremes of poverty. The work load was so great that Mathilde, although close in age to her friend, looks like she is years older. “The Necklace” combines naturalism and realism into a harmonious blend, creating a story that not only gives the audience the details, but also the emotion and hardships that come with living in the reality.

Maupassant followed in the steps of his mentors; taking in and utilizing a variety of approaches to writing his works. Arguably, naturalism and realism can be found in “The Necklace” working side by side, and in some cases they may be nearly indistinguishable in the story. In my opinion Maupassant seems to prefer his friend Zola’s naturalism over his master Flaubert’s realism. Although Maupassant pays attention to details that would be present in reality, he focuses more on the emotions and consequences that the environment causes his characters. By doing this the audience can believe in the characters, and feel sympathy or antipathy towards them as well. Does Maupassant favor naturalism over realism? Is there really that much difference between realism and naturalism to distinguish if he is using one over the other?

Works Cited:

Steegmuller, Francis. Maupassant A Lion in the Path. New York: Random House Inc.,

1949.

Lerner, Michael. Maupassant. New York: George Braziller Inc., 1975.