The three tales that this essay will embrace are “The Necklace” by Man De Maupassant, “Bartleby, the Scrivener" by Herman Melville and “The Metamorphosis" by Franz Kafka. All of these stories are involved with the societal problem of perceiving the world by the materialistic prism. Those stories are depicting the problem in different methods via the examples of people suffering in situations they find themselves in.
The lawyer within the famous story by Melville is a representation of the bourgeois a part of the society, who speaks of himself in such a fashion “All who know me contemplate me an eminently protected man” that means that he selected a safe path in life and endures a career that may undoubtedly convey him profit and steady position in the society. There is a scrivener in his agency who is of a unique standing, a rather existentialist one who isn't prepared to confirm to values of society within the face of his boss. The 2 of them won't ever find a common language, as one is surrounding himself by the walls of egoism and material things in his Wall Avenue workplace whereas the other is trying to find that means in nonexistent imaginary issues. Bartleby additionally builds partitions from the skin vicious world that’s not a secure place for those who don't verify, in this approach Melville states that whoever is unwilling to agree must depart, which it true because poor scrivener dies unable to survive. Non-conformity to the materialistic values doesn't serve good for the hero and neither explains anything to the egocentric lawyer , thus leaves issues as they have been and solely the author makes his point of view clear.
One other story with an ironic and merciless ending is “The Necklace”. Madame Loisel “had no garments, no jewels, nothing. And these have been the one things she beloved” , so the author units the main idea of the story in those lines. Madame was a very unhappy lady with a loving and caring husband whom she didn’t discover however. The light of the diamonds and warmth of pricy furs were the one issues she was striving for but could not obtain as she was poor. Her understanding of happiness was brutally laughed at by the writer in the course of the story. He makes he rethink the that means of her life when she loses an inexpensive necklace but has to repay 1000's of franks. The borrowed necklace in this story represents unsuitable treasures that Madame Loisel is keen to get, it costs nothing and the diamonds are fake although they are sparkling as actual. Materialistic pleasures bring solely struggling and despair which our heroine is experiencing in full while working to pay the debt off. Maupassant criticizes such understanding of happiness and makes the girl rethink her values by means of distress and poverty that she never knew before that sad evening. Clearly the ending of the story when Loisel meets her old good friend with a child proves the purpose that the author found joy in numerous things apart from money. “Madame Forestier, nonetheless young, still lovely, nonetheless engaging.” was strolling with a child and this youngster was a source of her wealth and beauty not jewels that have been hidden within the packing containers. Paradoxically sufficient the writer makes her a rich one and Madame Loisel a “poor” buddy, in this method showing his angle toward those who search material wealth.
Post a Comment