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.

Stranger Than Fiction: Interpretations of Melville's "Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street"

by Joe Wenke 

Herman Melville’s “Bartleby, the Scrivener:  A Story of Wall Street” has been a heavily debated short story for a number of years. Critics want to know why Bartleby is the way he is and what the story says about the lawyer who narrates it.  The narrator’s inability to supply biographical information about Bartleby makes it difficult to know what made Bartleby so strange, weird, and depressed.  Critics also wonder about the narrator.  In “Towards ‘Bartleby the Scrivener’” Milton R. Stern argues, “Melville made mirrors. . . .The critical literature concerning ‘Bartleby’ exposes the process of interpretative criticism as very often a narcissistic operation in which each reader sees the tale as a mirror of the Gestalts within his own mind” (19-20). Stern refers to readers who made the character out to be a form of themselves because of their love of themselves, or narcissism. Stern thinks that everyone tries to look too far into the fact that Bartleby acts so indifferently towards everyone, causing them to make radical explanations about why Bartleby is so out of the ordinary. The fact that Melville does not present enough information to portray the true identity of the character is what causes this proliferation of strange explanations.

Stern shows that Bartleby could be seen many ways.  He might be seen as an oppressed worker in a capitalist society. He is even seen to some as a figure of the lawyer’s conscience, a rendition of the triumph of human will, or even Christ, which is one of the more outlandish claims. The thought of Bartleby representing Christ even goes as far as saying that Turkey represents Michael, Ginger Nut represents Raphael, and that Nippers represents Lucifer, which in my opinion is a completely bogus interpretation seeing as Christ was put to death for the salvation of others. The view that Stern believes to make the most sense was that “Bartleby cannot be defined except through a definition of the lawyer,” which makes sense considering we only receive the lawyer’s perspective on Bartleby (22).

Leo Marx in “The Parable of the Walls” does not see it as a story about the lawyer, but he instead argues that the story is an autobiographical parable of Melville’s dissatisfaction with having to write to sell: “It was written in a time of deep hopelessness…it reflects Melville’s doubts about the value of his recent work” (241).  Marx explains that Melville may have used Bartleby as a character who represents his own emotions of isolation, depression, and failure. He also goes on to say that Melville’s choice of Wall Street is a symbol representing the isolation faced by Bartleby: “The walls are controlling symbols of the story, and in fact it may be said that this is a parable of walls” (241).

The lawyer can also be seen in many ways.  In “Narrative Shock in ‘Bartleby, the Scrivener,’ ‘The Paradise of Bachelors and the Tartarus of Maids,” and ‘Benito Cereno.’” Marvin Fisher describes the narrator as somebody able to change: “Despite his limitations, he proves to be capable of considerable moral growth, even though he has to convince himself that his charity will also have some practical benefits” (437). Wyn Kelley, however, concentrates on how the lawyer’s actions towards Bartleby seemed to be more malicious and mean than anything else: “Eventually, after trying every kind of blandishment to get Bartleby to leave, the lawyer moves his offices, and the police remove Bartleby to the tomb’s prison” (105). Kelley shows only one side of the lawyer, making him out to be an awful, greedy man.

These findings are significant because there is no concrete way to figure out what Bartleby, or this whole story for that matter, really stands for. Although some of these explanations make more sense than others, there is still a sense that Melville is the only one who could really know what everything in this story means.

Do you see anything in the story that makes you feel upset?  What happens when you look at a person who seems to be crazy like Bartleby, but who also seems to be doing what he wants to do? What is your visualization of who Bartleby is and what he stands for in the eyes of Melville?

Works Cited

Fisher, Marvin, “Narrative Shock in ‘Bartleby, the Scrivener,’ ‘The Paradise of Bachelors and the Tartarus of Maids,” and ‘Benito Cereno.’” A Companion to Herman Melville. Ed. Wyn Kelly. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. 435-50. Print.

Kelley, Wyn.  Herman Melville:  An Introduction.  Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008.

Marx, Leo. “Melville’s Parable of the Walls.” Melville’s Short Novels.   Ed. Dan McCall. New York:  Norton, 2002.  239-56. Print.

Stern, Milton R. “Toward ‘Bartleby the Scrivener.’” The Stoic Strain in American Literature.  Ed. Duane J. Macmillan. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1979. 19-41. Print.

Finding the Motive in Edgar Allen Poe's "The Cask of Amontillado"

by Matt Hubbell

One of Edgar Allen Poe’s most famous stories “The Cask of Amontillado” relays the story of a man’s murder confession that lacks the key ingredient of a motive for his malicious act. Over the years, both scholars and critics have taken different stances as to why they believe the main character Montresor takes the life of his “friend” Fortunato. The story pans out as Montresor requests Fortunato’s expertise on a newly obtained barrel of Amontillado wine located in his family’s vault.  Upon reaching their destination, Montresor chains his friend to the wall and proceeds to mercilessly mortar and brick a wall in place to seal the exit to the vault and make sure Fortunato will never be seen again. Throughout my research of Edgar Allan Poe and his story of “The Cask of Amontillado,” I discovered many different reasons to explain why Montresor murdered Fortunato.  The two speculations that really caught my attention were that Montresor was mentally unstable and that there was a social class conflict between the two men. 

Based on the absence of motivation for Montresor’s callous act, many critics such as Stuart Levine and Stephen Peithman choose to believe that Montresor is simply insane. Peithman finds support for Montresor’s insanity by suggesting that “if there is any doubt that Montresor is mad, consider how he echoes Fortunato scream for scream, shrieking even louder than his victim” (E. Baraban). Stuart Levine views Montresor as mentally unstable since he “murders because of an unnamed insult.” For this very reason I agree with Levine and Peithman that Montresor is insane because no insult is worthy of murder and I believe any insult regardless of its vulgarity could easily be handled in a more civil manner. 

Although I choose to conceive that Montresor is mad, many critics disagree and support the claim that “The Cask of Amontillado” is instead a story of conflict among social classes that Poe created in this story (Interactions). Analysts such as Burton R. Pollin that credit “The Cask of Amontillado” as a story of class conflict often turn to one particular passage from the story as a clear instance of support. The characterization of Fortunato is revealed in the excerpt explaining that “Luchesi cannot tell Amontillado from Sherry” which hints that Montresor believes Fortunato is unworthy of his “reputation of connoisseur in wine” (E. Baraban). This gives the reader a sense of an arising class conflict that Poe created throughout the story.

I believe this research leaves readers with the opportunity to determine what they believe is the reason for Montresor’s trickery and murder of Fortunato. When Edgar Allen Poe chose to leave the motive of Montresor absent from the story, he chose to give the reader a chance to use their imagination to complete the mysteries left untold in the story. As a reader of Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado,” what do you believe is the reasoning behind the murder of Fortunato and could the class conflict that individuals faced in the 1850s possibly lead to such conditions as insanity?

Works Cited

Baraban, Elana V. "E.V. Baraban: Murder in "The Cask of Amontillado"" RMMLA Journal. RMMLa, 28 Oct. 2004. Web. 12 Feb. 2012. <http://rmmla.wsu.edu/ereview/58.2/journals/baraban.asp>.

Charters, Ann. The Story and Its Writer: An Introduction to Short Fiction. 8th ed. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. Print.

"The Monstrous Power of Speech in Edgar Allan Poe's "The Cask of Amontillado"/Edgar Allen Poe'nun 'The Cask of Amontillado' Adli Eserinde Konusma Yeteneginin Devasal Gucu.(Montresor)(Critical Essay) - Interactions | HighBeam Research." Review. Interactions 22 Mar. 2007. Research - Articles - Journals | Research Better, Faster at HighBeam Research. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. <http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-168090954.html>.