In the high school elective literature textbook, there is a novel called “The Necklace” by the world-renowned author Maupassant. During class, I noticed some unreasonable plot points, or rather, plot-driven coincidences. Here are some reflections on them.
First, the loss of the necklace by Madame Loisel is quite a coincidence. After hastily leaving the venue post-party, she walks along the street to hire a cab and then takes a cab home. The official explanation is that this sets the stage for Madame Loisel losing the necklace because she is poor and leaves in a hurry to avoid revealing the truth. It is indeed a very ingenious setup, logical and reasonable. But here’s the problem: since they are poor, they would surely cherish such an expensive necklace. In their haste, wouldn’t they have checked the necklace one more time? Could it be understood that they were really careless? (Plot requirement)
The second issue is about Madame Loisel compensating for the necklace. At that time, Madame Loisel and her husband had almost confirmed that the necklace could not be found, so they decided to buy a real one to compensate Madame Forestier (the owner of the borrowed necklace). The question is, why did they hide the truth? Since they had decided to compensate, why not straightforwardly tell Madame Forestier the truth? Were they so humble and self-conscious about their poverty that they didn’t dare to speak up? Clearly stating, “I lost your necklace, but don’t worry, I will buy another one for you.” Wouldn’t that work? How would the protagonist’s fate have unfolded if they did that? (Plot requirement)
The third point is after Madame Loisel returned the real necklace. After returning the necklace, Madame Loisel did not meet Madame Forestier for ten years?! The original text says that ten years later, Madame Loisel saw Madame Forestier walking on the street, and since she had paid off her debt, she confidently greeted her. Madame Forestier was out for a walk, indicating that they didn’t live very far from each other. Did Madame Loisel avoid Madame Forestier for ten whole years?! (Unreasonable)
The last puzzling plot point: at the end of the story, Madame Forestier reveals the truth, saying, “Poor Mathilde! The original necklace was fake!” Question: Why did Madame Forestier reveal the truth and tell Madame Loisel that the original necklace was fake? She could have kept it a secret and kept the necklace for herself. Now that she has revealed the truth, would the Loisel family try to reclaim the necklace? It was an era dominated by the bourgeoisie, and repaying ten years of debt wouldn’t have been a small amount. Even if Madame Forestier were wealthy, who would mind having more money? Why reveal the truth? Why, why, why? (Plot requirement, unreasonable)
(Just passing by)