There you go Little Angel
Buy custom There you go Little Angel essay
“There you go little angel!” I boomed merrily that evening tossing torrents of popcorns over to my sibling.”Suit yourself.” She replied tartedly dodging the flying crumbs. I was puzzled by my sister’s unusual temperament. Little did I know the surprises she had for me? She groused over poverty limiting her realization of her grandeur dressing. The more she educed her agony, the more I sympathized with Mathilde in "The Necklace" by Guy De Maupassant and who unlike Miss Grierson in “A Rose for Emily" by William Faulkner, in Roberts Edgar V’s. Literature: An Introduction to Reading and Writing enjoyed the same agony with my sister. An examination of these two stories reflecting on the characters of two different protagonists reveals extensive differences. This is heralded by their perceptibly distinct childhoods, parents, their parenting responsibilities and influences in their ripe years.
Miss Emily Grierson hails from an opulent family. Their house is said to have been “decorated with cupolas and spires and scrolled balconies in the heavily lightsome style” (Roberts 75). In addition, it was located on “most select street” (Roberts 75).On the contrally, Mathilde, in "The Necklace" was a pauper, born “as though fate had blundered over her, into a family of artisans” (Roberts 4).She had no dowry or vital connections to nab an affluent young man into marriage. In fact, she had to contend with being married of to a socially low clerk in the ministry of education. Her husband animatedly confessed to her that among the minister of education and his wife’s invitations, only “very few [went] to the clerks” (Roberts 6)
Apart from their uniquely separate childhoods, the two antagonists had utterly diverse parents. To start with, Mathilde’s parents married her off to a little clerk in the ministry of education. They were equally poor to surmount adequate dowry for their daughter. After all they were artisans. However, Miss Grierson’s father must have been a wealthy man. He lived a life of ambience and elegance. He had, “a big, squarish frame house….decorated with cupolas and spires and scrolled balconies in the heavily lightsome style of the seventies” (Roberts 75).He loathed young men who attempted to court his daughter. Actually when he died, the society felt her daughter justified to malignantly treat the corpse the way she did. It was primarily because of the “young men her father had driven away” (Roberts 78).
The ripe lives of these two protagonists in the two short stories further lengthen the divide. Miss Emily in her heydays was a vibrant female who “carried her head high enough--even when we believed that she was fallen” (Roberts 79). However, she became a withdrawn recluse and dejected female who “looked bloated, like a body long submerged in motionless water and of that pallid hue” (Roberts 76). On the other hand, Mathilde previously a disillusioned, unhappy and hallucinatory female in her earlier years became a hopeful, energetic and confident woman in her senile age. She gallantry approached her long ago friend, Madame Forestier and revealed to her about the lost necklace, amid the latter’s protests that she was not an acquaintance to her. Besides, she assiduously propped her husband in payment of the financial obligations that had accrued with the lost necklace. On the other hand, Miss Emily naively becomes “a tradition, a duty, and a care; a sort of hereditary obligation upon the town” (Roberts 75) when it was apparent that she got no legacy from her father apart from the house.
Lastly, the two set of stories reveals crucial discrepancies between them least to the opinions of many. However, most will conquer that the characters of the two are heaven and earth apart.