What is the theme of the short story "The Necklace"? And what three points can come from the theme?I am trying to write a paper

cmaster2,

The Necklace by Guy De Maupassant is a classic short story. Full of irony, The speaker states that small things save or destroy people (paragraph 105). The story bears out the idea, for any number of things could be cited as the cause of the disaster, none of them by themselves of major significance: (a) the invitation, (b) the new dress, (c) the borrowing of the necklace, (d) the hurrying away from the party (paragraphs 55–60), (e) the failure of Jeanne to tell Mathilde that the necklace is only a cheap imitation. Whether the story emphasizes Fate or chance, one should probably emphasize chance, for the idea of Fate implies a more systematic pattern of opposition than the circumstances working against Mathilde.

Maupassant also illustrates a view that might be described as "economic determinism" in the story. Maupassant introduces the idea of "the horrible life of the needy" in paragraph 98, and his description of what happens to Mathilde under these circumstances may be construed as an illustration of economic determinism. In addition, the fact that Jeanne Forrestier is "always youthful, always beautiful, always attractive" can be read the same way inasmuch as Jeanne is "rich" (paragraph 6). The clear contrast, together with Maupassant’s paragraph about "What would life have been like if she had not lost that necklace?" (paragraph 105), indicates that in this story at least Maupassant makes a connection between the economic condition of people and their happiness and character fulfillment. 

On balance, Mathilde, the protagonist, is not negative, for in paragraphs 99–104, Maupassant describes the massive effort that she exerts to help pay the debt. The heroism that the speaker attributes to her suggests that readers, finally, are justified in admiring her. The quality of character that is a first cause of the misfortune, however, is her refusal to accept the reality of her genteel poverty and her desire to use the borrowed necklace to appear prosperous.

Though the conversations of Mathilde and Loisel in paragraphs 8–38 indicate that Mathilde pressures and manipulates Loisel, she seems to be less interested in him and in his needs than in her own. Loisel wants to please Mathilde, but is unable to deal with her on a personal level. More to attain his own composure than to give her pleasure, he buys her the dress and suggests that she borrow the jewels. There is no evidence in the story that the two have anything more than a perfunctory marital relationship.

Also, her daydreams are not all that unusual. It is unlikely that Maupassant contrived the misfortune as a deserved punishment, particularly because Mathilde’s good qualities are brought out as the story progresses. Also, the unexpected and ironic ending indicates that the story is less concerned with showing how Mathilde gets her comeuppance than with evoking regret along with surprise. One might still claim, however, that Mathilde deserves at least some shock of grim reality, but certainly not the disaster that occurs. Thus Maupassant succeeds in directing sympathy toward Mathilde, together with whatever criticism she deserves because of her daydreams.