| |
When I was in English 102 we only had to write two real papers. The second one was an essay providing our insight on one of the many short stories we had to read from our textbook. In the essay we had to summarize the story, discuss what the author's message may have been, and finally briefly touch on what we felt the story's strong and weak points were. Easy assignment, right? A responsible college student would have no problem whatsoever putting together an excellent paper on such a simple subject provided he didn't procrastinate, right?
Well, I'm a creative writer and an artist, not a responsible college student.
I procrastinated.
I procrastinated like hell.
I believe I set a world record in putting off assignments and doing them at the last minute (not the highest, but maybe one of the top twenty or thirty). I didn't touch the assignment until a half hour before class the day it was due. Obviously I had to work fast and risk suffering the consequences of my (lack of) actions. I was pretty sure I was Major League Big Time "Holy Crap, You Idiot" SUNK, and I felt I learned a valuable lesson in the importance of being a responsible adult in the real world and doing your work ahead of time like you're supposed to.
I wrote the paper in ten minutes and got an A.
I learned another valuable lesson: if you treat an English paper less like "An English paper" and more like "A sample of my work I'm submitting to land a job as a syndicated writer", the paper can turn out to be something with much merit, and you'll have more fun writing it. Granted, I've always treated my essays this way, but this particular gem I'm sharing with you today is living proof of that.
A brief note: I have nothing against Great Britain, or anyone living there. So I hope no one takes offense at my bizarre sense of humor and/or my habit of making fun of absolutely everyone and everything.
***
"The Necklace"; Unplugged
or
Don’t Be British
By
Mike “Probably Likes Tapioca Pudding” MacD
There are certain stories everyone’s had to read at some point in the course of their education. One of these stories, written ages ago by Guy De Maupassant (whose name almost seems like a French description of Mickey Mouse with a drinking habit), tried to teach us in our youth the dangers of wealth and women. I am, of course, speaking of "The Necklace".
"The Necklace" is a tale of the Loisels, Mathilde and Mr. Mathilde whose name is never given to us. I’m gonna refer to him as Tad, short for Tadpole. Mathilde is upset that Tad isn’t a rich bastard, and that she’ll never have anything nice to wear for her friend’s party on the weekend. I don’t remember the lady’s name, so I’ll refer to her as Margaret, after the snooty eight-year-old whore from Dennis the Menace. So Mathilde manipulates Tadpole into shelling out the money for a shitty dress to make her look pretty in. But now she’s bitchy ‘cause she has no jewels and no one will look at her and grope her and sleep with her behind her husband’s back and waaah waaah waaah. At this point, the Tadster says, “For the love of God, will you shut the hell UP!! Nobody cares!!!” in his head, and out loud he says, “Why don’t you borrow Margaret’s necklace you like so much?” So she does, and the party’s a blast, but Mathilde discovers upon reaching her doorstep that (Dun dun DUNNNN) the necklace is gone! Since they can’t find the necklace, they decide to replace it with an exact duplicate, lying to Margaret that they’re having her jewels polished in a shop for her. The plan succeeds, Margaret never knows that they lost her necklace, and the Loisels spend the next ten years of their lives paying for the impostor. After all those years of hard work make Mathilde significantly less stuck up, she meets up with Margaret again and tells her the whole story. Margaret laughs her snobby, rich person laugh and says, “Silly girl! My necklace was only made of glass, not real diamonds!” At this point the audience is shocked, and exclaims things like, “I’m shocked!”
Guy De Maupassant made a wonderful statement with "The Necklace". So wonderful in fact that his story found itself in English textbooks worldwide, giving college and high school students alike a good, easy subject for a last minute English essay (insert nervous laugh here). But what exactly was this statement made with so much paper and ink?
That itself is the subject of much debate. Many people (most with low attention spans and the wits of an ice cube) believe it to be “Don’t lie”. Now, while telling the truth may or may not have made a major difference in the Loisels’ lives, I really doubt this Aesop-esque lesson is worth writing a complicated story over. If we were talking a mid-sixties cartoon episode, then okay, but not a short story. Kids have never had the patience to sit through an entire story, anyway, unless it had visuals and sounds from He-Man and/or Rainbow Bright and/or (Heaven and Hell forbid) Spongebob Squarepants. Still others say that the moral of the story is given right to us in the sense of Leave It To Beaver in the line, “How little a thing it takes to destroy you or save you!”, though I can hardly picture Wally Cleaver saying that. Not with a straight face.
But, no, this is also not the moral of the story, at least if you asked my opinion, and most people learn a quick lesson about doing so. Personally, I think what Monsieur Maussie was trying to say was, “Don’t be a materialistic ho”. Granted, he says it in many more words than that, but that’s the gist of the story. I don’t see why it wouldn’t be, since we’re slapped in the face with foreshadowing in the first paragraph or two, with such subtleties as, “She suffered constantly, feeling herself destined for all delicacies and luxuries”. Personally, I’m disappointed to hear that people can come up with any other moral. Here’s a woman who’s self-absorbed and manipulative and all she cares about is riches, and a piece of jewelry leads to her downfall, and I’m supposed to learn that LYING is bad? Does that mean Of Mice And Men was written to say "Puppies break easily"? Was the moral of The Lord of the Flies “Don’t be British”?
As far as covering the subject of caring less about wealth and not being arrogant, I feel this story is definitely a must read. But how it was executed is an entirely different matter for me. This is a short story; it’s only five pages long. But the only reason it’s so short is because it’s closer to a summary of a story idea than an actual story. Maupassant develops next to nothing other than the fact that the necklace is missing and Mathilde is 100% bitch. He describes most of the events with less than Homer-like class, like the whole thing was supposed to be one of those lengthy dirty jokes but he lost himself while writing it and forgot to include the punchline.
“Her husband came back at about seven o’clock. He had found nothing. He went to Police Headquarters and to the newspaper to announce a reward. He went to the small cab companies, and finally he followed up even the slightest hopeful lead.”
Stephen King he is not. Any more compression and the story would consist of “There was some stuff, and it happened”, and in essence so would this essay, and I’d get an F for plagiarism.
So, ultimately, was this a good story? Depends what you mean by “good”. Is it a good example of what kind of mindset gets you into a lot of trouble and brings you endless misery? I’d definitely say yes. Is it a good example of storytelling that an aspiring writer should take notes on or strive to emulate? Certainly not. If so, then I should be fitting all my works on restaurant straw wrappers. But I give it kudos because it means well, and sometimes that’s all that matters.
That and not being British.
|
Help Us Stop Plagiarism -
Nearly all works at PnP are original. However a few people choose to plagiarize.
To check, choose a phrase from the work, then either drag and drop to the search box or copy and paste.
click on search and works at Google will be shown which match. Just to be sure, please do this before
you recommend or rate the work highly...
|
 |
|
|
|
Select a Random Work
from Stories
|
|
Welcome !
