Answer:
In Guy de Maupassant’s The Necklace the author utilizes a third person narrator who possesses a limited omniscience (1010). This narrator is exposed through the fact that there is never an “I” in the story. It seems as though the story is being told in retrospect, by on who has some connection to each and every character in the story. This is evidenced in the very beginning of the book where Maupassant writes, “She dressed plainly because she could not dress well, but she was as unhappy as though she had really fallen from her proper station…” (524). The narrator is obviously in tune with the feelings o Mme. Loisel, beyond that of a bystander, which would suggest an omniscience to some extent. However, the narrator seems unable at times to examine the thoughts or feelings of a specific character. When Mme. Forestier meets Mme. Loisel after years of hard work have faded Mme. Loisel’s beauty, there is no discussion of her surprise or inner thoughts, merely the words that were spoken (529). Therefore, there is but limited omniscience, which is used chiefly (although not always) on Mme. Loisel. This selection of which character’s mind to pry into is sound, as Mme. Loisel is the main character whom the story revolves around.
In choosing a third person, limited omniscience narrator, Maupassant grants the reader a deeper insight into the characters than a narrator who is only concerned with the facts. “She had no dresses, no jewels, nothing. And she loved nothing but that; she felt made for that” (524). This knowledge essentially sets the stage for things to come, without it we would lack understanding of what in Mme. Loisel’s character drives her life.
Even though insight into a character’s mind is enlightening, without leaving parts of a character to he imagination, the reader may not feel as though they have been given a fair chance to imagine the character. Maupassant does a good job in informing us of necessary information while still giving free reign to the imagination.
Explanation:
