Is the narrator of "The Necklace" third person omniscient or third person limited?

Question

Is the narrator of "The Necklace" by Guy de Maupassant, third person omniscient or third person limited? Why?

Answer 1

The above poster is incorrect. The narration is absolutely Third Person Limited - because the narrator is only reporting on the story through the eyes of Mathilde. We do not learn that Madame Forestier's necklace is paste until she does. If the narrator was omniscient, we would have known that information at the time she gave the necklace to Mathilde. That is the advantage of third person limited narration - the element of surprise. If it was omniscient, then de Maupissant would have had no story. It would have read like "Madame Forestier opened the drawer of imitation diamond necklaces and asked Mathilde to choose one." The reader would have known they were fake, but Mathilde wouldn't. Since neither the reader nor Mathilde knows that until the end, the narration is Third Person Limited.

Pax - C

Answer 2

I'd go with limited.

The scene of the party, everyone's just having fun and the narrator never lets on that this is the last time the main character and her husband will be carefree or that her beauty will soon fade through hard work.
We also never have any idea that the necklace is fake until the owner tells her so.

Answer 3

Third Person Omniscient

Answer 4

first man or woman: makes use of "i" while speaking/writing, is aware of simplest your ideas omniscient: all realizing, is aware of everyones ideas 3rd man or woman restricted: is aware of extra then first man or woman however much less then omniscient, you already know youre ideas and stuff and now not different peoples however you already know extra approximately them than first man or woman? sorry, im now not very well at explaining. wish this helped a bit of even though