I reacted differently though out the story.  When Mathilde kept asking Mme. Forester “ You haven’t anything else?” It made me feel like she wasn’t appreciative that Mme. Forester was being kind and lending her jewelry.  It seemed that she was being greedy and selfish, as she always wanted more or the best.  But then my view on Mathilde changed when she paid for a replacement necklace and she had to work of her debt for ten years.  She showed great loyalty and wanted to make up for the lost necklace which makes me think that she really does care for others and not just about herself.  I think I understand that she wanted to replace the jewelry that she had mistakenly lost but didn’t want her friend to get upset.  However, I do feel like she should have been honest with Mme. Forester in the first place and then she would have found out that instead of being worth thirty-six thousand francs the false diamond necklace was only worth five hundred.

I think that it may be possible, however it is also a little unrealistic to "walk with everyone else". I do feel like no matter what background you have, if your rich or poor or your culture, you can do what ever you want to do as long as your willing to work for it.  Although in some countries no matter how hard you work no one will care because that's the way their country is run.   I think all countries should consider meritocracy.   If you really want to walk with everyone else there could be a few sacrifices, like happiness, family, relationships and beliefs.  This is similar to the necklace because Mathilde did what ever she could to fit in with everyone and feel like she belonged with her group of rich friends.