Gender Roles and Marriage - Research Paper Example

? Gender Roles and Marriage of Gender Roles and Marriage Introduction There are various comparisons and distinctions in any given works of literature. The play, “I’m Going! Written by Tristan Bernard and the short story, “The necklace,” written by Guy de Maupassant is well evident with the theme of gender roles and marriage. There are notable differences in the two genres, which can easily be observed but there are similarities that can also be easily noted. In the both write-ups the reader can note a widespread line amidst women who control and betray their men, resulting into a misunderstanding in the family. Gender roles and marriage are the intrinsic theme to both literatures (Kennedy, 2007). From the two stories it is apparent that the theme of gender roles and marriage is evident which calls for married partners to do more, than to sacrifice love in marriage. The following essay will seek to address these differences and similarities with an objective of ascertaining the thesis statement above.. History of the Stories The short story, “The necklace” by Guy De Maupassant was published initially on 17th February, 1884 in a Paris newspaper Le Gaulois and later on included in the 1885 assortment of short stories Tales of Day and Night. Like any other Guy’s fictitious short story, the story had the greatest success becoming one of the most popular and anthologized story. On top of it all the well established characters, well organized plot, sufficient details and ardent social description the story is evident for its application of the “whip-crack” and “O. Henry” summary, in which the development of the story modifies the entire story completely. Even though Maupassant hardly makes use of stylistic devices, its availability in the works has strengthened the story permanently. Even though it is not established the place Maupassant obtained his thoughts or ideas for the story, there are links that can be made between “The necklace” and his other works. On the other hand Tristan Bernard’s “I’m Going” has a similar connection to modern French drama as George Cohan in the United of States. In his short stories the most entertaining form of the present society. The play was published in 1877 in New York by Samuel French publisher. The second publication was done in 1915 by Samuel French. Plot summary of “The Necklace” by Guy de Maupassant Most marriages can only be satisfactory is the bread winner provides more than enough for every member of the family. This can be in monetary terms or material terms. Inadequacy of any this might lead to family conflicts. This is true in the short story which describes of a woman Madame Mathilde Loisel and Charles who is her husband. Mathilde has rottenly fantasized being a high school place with magnificent jewelleries. Nevertheless she possesses nothing in her miserable life and goes on to marry a man who works as a clerk and earns peanuts in form of salary and makes efforts to make her comfortable and happy. After sometime of begging at the workplace, Charles secures two invitations to a party organized by the Ministry of the public instruction. His wife Mathilde declines the invitation to accompany him to the party on pretence that she does not have anything to put on. The husband gets so disappointed to an extent of using the only savings he had been accumulating to buy a rifle to let his wife buy a dress that suits her. He gives his wife 400 francs and Mathilde goes out to purchase the dress. Even though Mathilde has the dress, she is still dissatisfied due to the fact that she has no jewels to wear with the new dress she bought. There is no much money left with the couple to buy the jewels thus the husband offers a suggestion that she should buy roses to wear with it. The wife does not buy the idea a move that compels the husband to suggest borrowing some extra cash from her friend. The wife selects out the best diamond necklace she can set her eyes on and goes for the party. After the party it comes to her discovery that the necklace she wore is missing. Their futile search for the necklace does not yield any desirable outcome. The couple takes out several loans from loan sharks and munificent friends to purchase an exact replacement for the lost diamond. Ten years of hard work is wasted in raising 36,000 francs relevant in paying the loans back. As the story unfolds in the end, Mathilde quits, the relationship, flashbacking on her past and the night she lost her necklace (Michael, 2010). Upon meeting her friend Madame Jeanne whom she borrowed the necklace, Mathilde confesses how she labored to return the necklace. She comes to the discovery that the necklace that got lost was only worth 500 francs since it was not actually made of diamonds. There is irony in this discovery. There is no one who knew the necklace was worth 500 francs as opposed to the 36,000 francs. The artist has managed to keep this from the audience using dramatic irony where the characters were ignorant of the price of the necklace at the same time, the reader was also unaware. The truth is eventually revealed and everyone is left guessing the best course of action the parties involved take. Plot summary of I’m going by Tristan Bernard In the play, “I’m Going! By Tristan Bernard, talks more of sacrificial love in marriage. This is a type of style used by the poet to provide that couples need to input all their energy in trying to make marriage work. This style is used in poetry where the reader has to find the meaning in a particular line or lines of a poem or short story. Thus it may be commonly as symbolic style in which it depends on the understanding of the poem by the reader. The play begins with the couple having a conversation together concerning weather in an afternoon Sunday. It is raining which symbolizes the ironic sadness that is filled in the air when Henry wants to participate in the races. On such a day it is expected the weather should be warm and the sun must be shinning bright. Henry has decided to go to the race by himself without his wife. The wife scolds him off and harasses him due to his selfishness. Henry has many methods of telling his wife that she cannot come along. Some of the excuses he makes concerns the costs of the carriage. “When I go alone, I take a cab and pay five francs for it; that’s my total. Now if you go with me, I must get a special carriage, and that costs twenty francs” (Clugston, 2010, p. 15). Besides he also makes an excuse to the wife that since it is raining she might also spoil her dress. The game continues on for some time until each one of them decides what is best for him/her. The story develops on a light and easy mood where humor dominates the entire play. The entire play encompasses the two discussing what everyone intends to do without the other in the entire day. The wife lies about her intentions to see Juliette while as a matter of fact she intended to put new ribbons on her hats. Love is professed between them through kisses and exchange of romantic sentiments. There is no sacrifice for their fun between them to show much they love each other. The play is developed and written through an outside narrator who takes a separate approach to the performances and characters, normally in an interesting way and does involve himself in the minds of characters (Clugston, 2010, p.28). Comparisons of theme of Gender roles and Marriage in the Stories The content of the stories gets the mind of the reader manipulated through the real moves and revelation of the character’s feelings towards each other. There are few surprises for the reader in the twists and turns of the stories. For example, Charles and the wife Mathilde Loisel are at a low social status Jeanne and Henry because the latter have a cook working for them which shows they can afford to pay the cook and meet essential basic needs at ease. This can be illustrated by, “Henri goes up to the window at the back, then comes down stage, sitting on a chair to the right, near a small table, where there is a coffee service” (Bernard, 2009). Through this phrase, it is evident that coffee is served by someone and the setting of the play reveals much of what the couple owns in the play, ‘I’m going’ through the content displayed by both families in the two stories it is clear that the social status is not the same at all. Therefore, in terms of negotiating or deciding where the couples have to go is a big issue as far as money is concerned. In the story Henri has been illustrated as a character with different traits. One of the most striking traits is his indecisiveness. This is because he keeps on changing his decision of where to go at a particular time but ends up not going. He tells his wife that he is going to the horse race but ends up not going. He is also mean and selfish due to the fact that he only minds about his personal welfare (Bernard, 2009). His main intention is to leave his wife at home and go alone. He is in opposition of his wife accompanying him to the horse race in pretence he does not have enough cash. He is also uncaring in the way he treats the wife. He does not care a thing about the wife. He even suspects the wife’s aim to see Juliette and even goes further by warning her against leaving the house. On the contrary, Charles in the play “the Necklace” can be described as generous and caring. He does not want his wife to suffer even though he earns very little in terms of his monthly salaries. He selflessly uses the little savings he had for the main purpose of buying a riffle to buy his wife a nice dress. He is determined to save his marriage at all cost by making sure the wife gets what she wants. Therefore the role of a husband is well displayed by Charles even though the wife demands more than he can provide (Bennett & Royle, 2004). Jeanne in the story, I’m going has been depicted as an emotional character. She does not feel okay with the husband enjoying himself at the horse race while she stays at home. As such she also turns into a schemer at all costs in an effort to lure the husband into accompanying him to the horse race. Nevertheless she is caring in a manner that she is more concerned about the welfare of the husband. She intends to be more accountable for the safety of the husband. On the other hand, Mathilde in the ‘The Necklace,’ is depicted as the type of a nagging woman. She is selfish and uncaring. She does not care where the husband gets money to fulfill her needs. As a matter of fact, she is not contended by what the husband can offer. Her materialistic nature is evident in the way she demands very expensive items from the husband. She does not want to live within her means thus she prefers costly items which she understands the wife cannot offer at a particular time. The husband gets so disappointed in her materialistic nature which reveals love within the family can only be possible if there is a lot of money to fulfill the secondary needs. Mathilde’s attitude for an expensive lifestyle is also depicted in the unhappiness state within the family and the home setting. She is only concerned by how she will look and what people will think of her. As opposed to Jeanne who only cares about accompanying the husband, Mathilde is not contended with her darkened rooms and fittings (Felski, 2003). She fantasizes of having a large drawing rooms fully furnished with expensive fittings. She dreams of having private rooms with perfumed smell so as to show off to her friends. She continuously frustrates her husband even though she knows that the husband cannot afford these luxuries. Happiness is like a vocabulary in the two families. It cannot be achieved if one party is constantly complaining of one thing or another. Lastly, Mathilde’s thoughts are misplaced. She rejects an invitation to the ministry of public party on the selfish ground that she lacks a nice dress. This is not love from the view point of the reader. She has to wear expensive jewels, nice dress and she must look spectaculars among other women. Contrary to Jeanne, who is ready at any cost to be with her husband in any function, Mathilde can only love her husband if he can provide her with whatever she needs (Burnet, et al.., 2010). Very many people might attest to the fact that money is the root to evil. This is true in the story, ‘The necklace’ Mathilde does not care that she might be hurting other people by her demands. She cannot appreciate what she is given but rather complains more and more about lacking one item or another. In the play, “I’m going!” it is also evident with Henri who only wants to enjoy everything by himself. He refuses the company of her wife. He complains of not having enough cash to spend for two people. It is ironic even in the way he professes love to her wife and yet he is not ready to walk with her and spend money her. Contrary to the Mathilde, who loses everything in the quest to replace the diamond necklace, Henric does not lose anything. Mathilde spends most her life in making efforts to replace the lost necklace only to discover that the necklace was not worth that much spent on it. In both works, some similarities can also be noted despite the literature having tremendous differences. In the first place, both works have a similar form. They are both dramatic and humorous and they keep the audience entertained and guessing what would happen next. In both stories curtains and stage have been employed as opposed to poems, hence the stories indicate exchange of words between them. Fundamentally, both works tend to have same themes which are gender roles and marriage, love and humor which has been portrayed differently by the various characters in the stories. Theme of deceit and manipulation is also evident in the way the couples are making efforts to deny others of their happiness (Edgar, 1991). Besides, both works are filled with the theme of deception and manipulation. In the short story, “the necklace” Mathilde has been depicted as a manipulative woman in the relationship. She wants her husband to provide items outside his means. Though she knows the husband cannot afford she insists she must have them. She demands a necklace and a nice dress which costs a fortune. On the other hand, Henric in the play, “I’m Going” is full of deceit to his wife. He pretends that he does not have enough cash to take her wife out to the horse race when in real sense it is because of his selfish ambitions. Conclusion This essay has steered in demonstrating that though the two literature works tend to be unique, they have considerable similarities. This has been well illustrated in the aforementioned argument in the essay in trying to describe the character traits of the main parties in the stories. The same message has been passed in unique ways in bringing out the true colors of the characters to the audience. Satire is evident in both plays with essential similarities in themes and style of the stories (Reynolds, 2009). In the entire discussion the audience have been left taking sides with some characters and sharing some few sentiments concerning the way they are treated in the entire story. It is therefore, valid to conclude that in any marriage the couple must exercise sacrificial love in order render a marriage successful. References Roberts, E. (1991). Writing Themes about Literature (7th Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Barnet, S., et al. (2010). An Introduction to Literature: Fiction Poetry and Drama. Harlow, UK: Longman Publishing Group Bennett, A., & Royle, N. (2004). An Introduction to Literature: Criticism and Theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Longman. Clugston, C. (2010). Mathilde makes it to the stage. Edinburgh Evening News. University of Glasgow Bernard T. (2009). I'm Going! A Comedy in One Act. BiblioBazaar Dillon, M. (2010). China: A Modern History. London: I. B. Tauris. Felski, R. (2003). Literature after feminism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press Kennedy, X. J. (2007). Literature: An introduction to fiction, poetry, drama and writing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Longman. Reynolds, J. (2009). Literary Works. General Books LLC. Read More