Thank you very much for rereading my review. I really appreciate it. : ) I do however, respectfully disagree with your opinion of my review and I've listed the reasons below. The following line is my opinion of Maupassant's story: This is a story that has stood the test of time and is as relevant today as when Maupassant wrote it in the late nineteenth century. When I state that Mathilde is unhappy with her lot in life, that is my opinion. No where in the story does it say that she is unhappy.

She is portrayed as someone who believes she deserves a better life than the one she has, again the story does not say this, it is just my opinion. When I say that the shame that she feels about her own financial and social status is something that many people can understand and that the difference is that most people are unwilling to make the sacrifices made by Mathilde and her husband for one night of pleasure, these are purely my thoughts about this story. When I explain the setting of this story is late nineteenth century France that is my analysis of the story. Things such as "Maupassant employs the limited omniscient narrative perspective and utilizes third-person narration in this short story that allows his readers an intimate look into Mathilde's life. Utilizing this point of view enables his readers to appreciate the changes that take place in her character" is an analysis. The same goes for the following sentences, Mathilde is unhappy with her lot in life.

She is portrayed as someone who believes she deserves a better life than the one she has. The shame that she feels about her own financial and social status is something that many people can understand. The difference is that most people are unwilling to make the sacrifices made by Mathilde and her husband for one night of pleasure. Again this is my analysis of the story, my thoughts and feelings. My opinion again: Maupassant masterfully portrays the depth of emotion of this character throughout this story especially in the scene when her husband comes home with an invitation to the ball. My opinion: Mathilde does not believe her own possessions to be valuable and believes that people of her social class assume things are only valuable if they are expensive.

An excellent observation of this character: She fails to realize that objects only have value as long as someone prizes them. She spends so much time convincing herself that possessions only have value if they are expensive that she loses sight of the real value of things. This turns out to be a serious error on her part. Again, another analysis.

More analyzing: Maupassant masterfully uses irony to produce a surprise ending in this short story. In doing so, he attempts to teach his readers several different moral lessons. Maupassant asserts that the people who survive the misfortunes of life are somehow stronger and therefore actually benefit from their adversities. In conclusion I would point out that I think this is an excellent review of Maupassant's story. You obviously do not agree with me and that is fine with me. I would like to mention that I have done what you are asking me to do.

Perhaps you do not have a clear understand of what analyzing a work is all about or perhaps you do not communicate your thoughts clearly. If you would like to communicate your thoughts more clearly to me, I would be more than glad to read them and take any suggestions you make into serious consideration. Again, I thank you for taking the time to reread my opinion. Have a great day! : ).