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.