Gaby’s Blog

After reading “The Necklace” by Guy de Maupassant, it seems that this short story is full of symbolism.  I think that Mathilde, the protagonist, is so caught up in her looks and possessions that she feels she is never good enough because she is not as wealthy as some women she sees on the street.  To me, the writer wanted to symbolize the lives of many Americans, as well as people worldwide, who are so caught up in trying to be the best, not intellectually, but materialistically, as shown by the necklace.  When the author says, “She had no dowry, no expectations, no means of being known, understood, loved, wedded by any rick and distinguished man,” (de Maupassant, 523), he makes it seem like Mathilde knows in herself that she does not have to live up to any expectations rather than those she makes of herself.  When she says to her husband, “Give your card to some colleague whose wife is better equipped than I,” (524), readers see the materialization of her not thinking she is ever good enough for anyone, when in reality, she is only never good enough for herself. While wearing the diamond necklace from Madame Forestier, Mathilde felt “prettier than them all, elegant, gracious, smiling, and crazy with joy,” (525).  I think that de Maupassant wanted readers to realize that like Mathilde, the only way we feel confident in ourselves is by what we wear or own, even though we are already beautiful the way we are.  Throughout the rest of the story when we find out about how much hard work and trouble went into paying off the debt from buying the new necklace to replace the lost one, I felt that de Maupassant intended to teach us a lesson about what consequences may occur from being so greedy.  At the end, when Madame Forestier says that her necklace “was paste…and was worth at most five hundred francs,” (529), readers can feel the shock and heartbreak that Mathilde must have felt upon hearing those words.  I think that de Maupassant wanted to leave us with a thought in our minds after reading the last sentence, which is that being possessed in materialism is not worth the trouble it may cause, because what matters most is the person on the inside, rather than the looks on the outside.

            One of life’s teachings is to stay true to yourself, but another is to respect your elders.  “Two Kinds” addresses both those lessons.  The daughter, Jing-Mei, is struggling to convince her mother that being a prodigy is not who she was meant to be.  She says, “I won’t let her change me, I promised myself. I won’t be what I’m not.” This is what comes between any form of agreement between her and her mother.  Once her mother gets the idea that her daughter could be a musical prodigy, specifically a pianist, Jing-Mei “felt as though [she] had been sent to hell.” She goes on to say that “[she] was so determined not to try, not to be anybody different that I learned to play only the most ear-splitting preludes, the most discordant hymns.” However, although to her it is important be just be herself, she disrespects her mother by not even trying and refuses to make her mother happy.  But karma comes back to haunt her, when Jing-Mei has to play in a piano recital only to embarrass herself as well as her family, because she does not play well – at all.  She let down her mothers dream and while “[she] was determined to put a stop to her [mother’s] foolish pride” earlier on, she did not know it would end up creating a barrier between mother and daughter.  I think that Jing-Mei acted immature when she told her mother that she wished she “wasn’t [her] daughter” and that she wished “[she’d] never been born.”  There she crossed the line between standing up for herself and hurting her mom’s feelings.  I was happy, though, at the end when she eventually sat in front of the piano again after more than twenty years, and played the song “Pleading Child” which she “destroyed” at the recital a long time before.  Jing-Mei goes on to play another song, “Perfectly Contented,” with a “lighter melody but the same flowing rhythm.”  I think that those songs represent the person she was and is.  As a child, she “pleaded” to just be herself, but now she is “contented” with who she is and not having to live up to anyone’s expectations.  These were “two kinds” of the same thing, herself.

“Those kids are walking straight into trouble,” I thought to myself.  Seeing them play around between the cars, without a sense of danger, made me reminisce to when I was young too. Always watching, never participating. Little did my “friends” know that one day, one of them would be taught a lesson of how dangerous playing on the subway would be. The craziest of them all, Stan, slipped off the car and broke almost every bone in the body, but miraculously survived.  “They’re so immature,” I thought as I snapped back to the boys messing around right in front of me.  I decided to show them a lesson myself.  As I walked maturely to the emergency cord, I only imagined people shouting at me for stopping the subway, but that didn’t matter to me.  My hands grasped the emergency cord and my fingers tightened around the hard rope.  I pulled hard, the subway went to a screeching halt, and so did the lives of one of the immature boys, all in one second. 

I wasn’t sure if I’m supposed to write them down or put it on the blog so I did both:

Once the clock struck twelve, she ran.

I could not believe my eyes.

For rent: one bedroom, with furnishings.

For Sale: Baby shoes, never used.       

plot – Parents lost their newborn baby or had a miscarriage and want to sell the things that would have belonged to it.

characters – parents

setting – anywhere, any time

point of view – not sure if it’s first or third-person or omniscient

theme – getting over someone or something you lost 

When s/he/it woke up, the dinosaur was still there.         

plot – A person (or thing) was confronted with a dinosaur and ended up falling asleep to wake up and find that it was still there

characters – person or thing waking up, dinosaur

setting – a dream, prehistoric times, future

point of view – third person, limited omniscient

theme – experiencing things that seemed impossible 

without going out: $700

with going out: $1000 

(that’s what my mom said) 

Sit up straight; don’t chew with your mouth open; don’t curse; eat slowly; chew your food all the way; don’t sing at the dinner table; huh?; don’t talk loud in public; don’t talk when you’re not supposed to; be a good friend; pray all the time, especially when you need God’s help; go to Church every Sunday; but what if I’m busy on a Sunday?; you’re saying you won’t make time for God?; don’t do something that would make me regret you; you would regret me?; are you saying that you’re going to do something that would make me?; listen to me when I’m speaking; don’t talk back; but what if I have something to say?; are you talking back to me?; don’t wear clothes that would make me be embarrassed to be with you; don’t lie; but what if the truth is bad?; are you saying you’re going to do something bad?; don’t believe everything you see and hear; make sure you need the thing you want to buy; don’t be spoiled; appreciate what you have already; always strive to be a better person; do your chores; keep your room clean; don’t think that every room in the house is all yours; respect yourself; respect others; but what if they don’t respect me back?; are you saying you’re going to do something or be someone that would make people not respect you? 

I don’t know if I like or dislike this story, probably both.  At first the title gives off this positive vibe – or so you would think.  The first few paragraphs about the people gathering and preparing for this “lottery,” but the writer doesn’t tell you directly what exactly is the prize for lottery, or how it turns out, not a prize at all.  At the beginning of this story, the people of the village seemed somewhat pleasant, like they were getting ready for some sort of celebration.  However after finishing the story and looking back, I found that their actions were very disturbing.  Little did the readers know that these villagers were preparing for a lottery to choose whose life would end that day.  I especially felt taken aback after re-reading how the children were “talking among themselves” and the littlest ones playing around as they “rolled in the dust or clung to the  hands of their older brothers and sisters.”  Although reading this part for the first time wouldn’t make you feel disturbed, looking it over after you know how the story ends made me wonder if these children really knew the meaning of this lottery.  And my answer to that was no.  I don’t think that the children, or at least the younger ones, truly understand what this lottery is for and why it happens.  Of course the adults and elders knew what was really happening but they too didn’t seem to be distraught in any way before the gathering.  At the very point when the author writes, “A stone hit [Tessie Hutchinson] on the side of the head,” my eyes widened  and I was mad, disappointed, but interested.  Even Mrs. Hutchinson’s best friend, Mrs. Delacroix, chose “a stone so large she had to pick it up with both hands.”  I hope that my best friends wouldn’t do that to me if I was chosen to be stoned to death, but let’s hope it doesn’t come down to that.  Overall, after reading “The Lottery” I wanted to know what Shirley Jackson’s message to the readers was or if there even was one.  But I can see how Jackson’s statement of “a graphic dramatization of the pointless violence and general inhumanity in their own lives” fits into the story of how a small village, struggling to become a true community, is overcome by a tradition that lost its meaning and importance over time.

Inside

thinking about a passage