In Guy de Maupassant's short story, "The Necklace," why does the author allow the necklace to not ever be found?
If Madame Mathilde Loisel had not lost the necklace, then there would have been no story and no way for de Maupassant to illustrate the consequences of greed and pride.
So many things led to the loss of the necklace: Madame Loisel was dissatisfied with her natural beauty and middle class station in life. She wanted more, and so she borrowed what she thought was the most expensive necklace her friend owned. When she lost it, she had two choices: swallow her pride and confess the loss to her friend, or pretend all was well and replace the necklace--which took ten years to pay off.
The years of debt and work took its toll on Madame Loisel, making her look old before her time. All those years, she looked back at the ball and remembered it as the best night of her life, even though it cost her ten years of her life. Imagine her feelings when she realized that the necklace she borrowed was a fake, while the replacement was real?
The disappearance of the necklace makes the story meaningful. Sometimes things get lost, and it is important to be honest about what happened; it may not be as bad as it appears. On the other hand, had Madame Loisel been content with her life from the beginning, nothing negative would have happened and she would have retained her natural beauty, her friendships, and her standard of living.