Throughout "The Necklace," the narrator frequently personifies abstract concepts like beauty, grace, or misery. Take, for example, this description of Mathilde:
She was one of those pretty and charming girls who, as if through some blunder of fate, are born into a family of pen pushers.
In this passage, fate “blunders” Mathilde’s life by making her beautiful but not wealthy. In turn, the story suggests that this abstract concept of fate can assert real power over Mathilde. This use of personification reveals Mathilde's tendency to attribute her misfortune to forces beyond her control. Indeed, Mathilde blames fate for her unhappiness—if she had been born wealthier, by her own reasoning, she would be happier. It is true that Mathilde’s life would be very different if this were the case, since she would most likely have more financial stability, but it's not necessarily evident that she would be happier; it's quite possible that she would still pine for things she doesn't have or lifestyles that remain beyond her reach.
To that end, the story casts doubt on whether material conditions alone determine happiness. M. Loisel is extremely happy in his humble life as a government clerk and has no trouble taking pleasure in the very small luxuries his position affords him—like, for instance, a good bowl of stew. The story suggests that it is Mathilde’s insatiable greed for material possessions and status that makes her unhappy, not the fact that she doesn't have these things. By personifying fate as something that is actively responsible for her unhappiness, then, she avoids acknowledging the ways in which she makes herself miserable.
