To sum up, I liked the short story and I enjoyed the style of the author, his laconic manner of highlighting some human imperfections; I was fascinated by the deep ideas, which lie under the surface of a simple language. In such a way, Maupassant’s style is similar to another famous realistic author – Ernest Hemingway, whom I also adore. 

 Speech characterization provides more ground to make judgments about the protagonists, though instances of dialogues are not numerous. The narrator uses primarily elaborate vocabulary, proving the fact that he is a man from the high-brow society, his language structures are rather formal: “a friend of whom”: “in the course of”; “in a hesitating manner”. The vocabulary is neutral with instances of bookish words and phrases: “rare, ingenious thoughts”; “in astonishment”; “a thought struck”; “a state of mental torpor”; “to compliment on”. In dialogues colloquialisms are frequent: “That is my den”; exclamations: “Ah, ah!”; “By Jove!”; the structures are simple, simple sentences are frequent: “Good living, a good table and good nights!”.

In order to portray the characters and describe the setting vividly and convincingly the author of the analyzed story resorts to various expressive means and syntactic devices. Lexical devices are not numerous in the text. Epithets are found in the text and perform various functions: describe Simon Radevin as a close friend of the narrator as he recollects him, epithets with a positive meaning are presented: “most intimate friend”; “rare, ingenious, delicate thoughts”; “intelligent, clever young fellow”; “an active, living and vibrating man”; “lively, witty, light- hearted”; describe Simon from the point of view of his simple provincial life: “vague contempt”; “vainglorious and simple reproducer”; describe Simon’s wife as fair girl from the province: “little thin, insipidly fair girl”; “weak hands”; “light, vacant eyes”; “clear, silly voice”; “long-enduring happiness”; “a good, tender and faithful woman”; the description of Madame Radevin changes in the course of 15 years, epithets are negatively coloured: “ladies of uncertain age”; “a stout, commonplace mother”; epithets are used to describe the setting, the setting reflects the mode of life of the Radevins family: “a dull, sleepy, gloomy town”; “a dreary, interminable plain”; “a striking and melancholy picture of the life which they must be leading in that house.” The narrator uses a number of metaphors to express his attitude towards his friend and family: “the thought struck me”; “that dream of all those who bury themselves in the provinces”; “I held my tongue”. Metaphors are used in the following functions: render the setting (“an ocean of grass”, “of wheat and of oats”); give characterization to Simon and wife as a unity of a provincial machine (“simple reproducer of his species”; “a human breeding machine which procreates without any other preoccupation but her children and her cook-book.”). A simile is used: “who was exactly like a hundred thousand marriageable dolls”. The narrator is ironic, when it comes to speak about his friend Simon who’s changed a lot and lost a lot of his prominent qualities: “You have not grown thin”.

The majority of epithets and metaphors are used in the context with grandpa: “his trembling clutches at them”; “the piteous appeal of his whole nature”; “inarticulate grunts”; “a tiny morsel”; “he ate with feverish gluttony”. Metaphors, applied to the grandpa, highlight his position in the family, the attitude of the family members towards him: “He is a treasure, that old man”; “he almost kills himself at every meal”; “He devoured the dishes on the table with his eyes”; “at this horrible and grotesque scene.” Similes are few and are used in connection with the grandpa: “the soup, that it was scattered like a spray all over the table and over his neighbors”; “and a movement with his neck as ducks do when they swallow too large a morsel”. All the ridiculousness and misery of the grandpa’s position in the family is highlighted by the following allusion: “saddening and ridiculous Tantalus”. Tantalus was a Greek mythological figure, most famous for his eternal punishment in Tartarus. Similar to the Greek character, the grandpa goes through the same round of torture every day, he is eager to devour all the tasty food, but he is given only a tiny morsel, so he cannot be satisfied, all the tasty food is out of his reach. A periphrasis is used to describe the grandpa: “I saw something trembling”, such description only heightens the pitifulness of his physical abilities and position in the family. Onomatopoeia is used in the context with the old man, when he tries to utter some words: “"Oua, oua, oua," it is no longer a human’s speech, but some kind of a sound imitation.

The characteristics of the children are few in number, though important to consider. A metaphor is used to render the feeling of pride Simon has towards his numerous children: “in a proud, self-satisfied, almost triumphant manner”. A simile: “where three children, ranged according to their height, seemed set out for review, like firemen before a mayor”, which describes the hierarchy in the family. There is a direct description of the eldest children: “A girl of fourteen, who was almost a woman, and a boy of thirteen, in the dress of a boy from a Lycee, came forward in a hesitating and awkward manner”. The clothing of the boy gives a hint, that Simon’s wife tries to look better in the eyes of the narrator, that is why she dresses her son in a uniform, similar to those, which are worn during secondary education for children between the ages of 15 and 18 in France. What’s more, Simon’s wife plays her role of a decent woman, having “dressed for company, and with company phrases all ready prepared”.

Syntactical devices are also not so numerous in the story and are represented by various means. A case of a catch repetition is found within the text: “Then he married. He married, quite suddenly”, it points the suddenness of Simon’s decision. A simple repetition is detected within the inner thoughts of the narrator: “sad, sad, sad”, the repetition highlights a feeling of deep sorrow and contempt, which the narrator feels altogether.  Zeugma is used while describing the quiet life in the provincial town: “where nothing was moving in the streets except a few dogs and two or three maidservants”. Climax contributes to the understanding of the message of the short story: “How many days? Ten, twenty, fifty, or a hundred?” Parallel construction is used, when nominative sentences with the same structures are repeated: “Oh, ethics! Oh, logic! Oh, wisdom!”

Rhetorical questions and rhetorical exclamations are very numerous in the story, which make it more subjective and create an effect of closeness and direct orientation to the reader. In the beginning the narrator meditates about the changes, which can take place in the appearance and inner state of his friend, his thoughts end up with a rhetoric exclamatory sentence: “What would he be like when I met him again? Still lively, witty, light- hearted and enthusiastic, or in a state of mental torpor induced by provincial life? A man may change greatly in the course of fifteen years!” Highly emotional passage is situated closely to the end of the story, and it indicates the sharpest episode of the story: “Oh, ethics! Oh, logic! Oh, wisdom! At his age! So they deprived him of his only remaining pleasure out of regard for his health! His health! What would he do with it, inert and trembling wreck that he was? They were taking care of his life, so they said. His life? How many days? Ten, twenty, fifty, or a hundred? Why? For his own sake?” The main idea of the short story is expressed in the following rhetorical question: “He had one single wish left, one sole pleasure; why not grant him that last solace until he died?”

Punctuation is preserved according to the norms of language, except for the accidental exclamatory mark within the sentence: “I was low-spirited and sad, sad, sad! and I sat at my window.”

To cut it short, the short story is deprived of numerous stylistic devices and the main idea of it is expressed in a laconic, but very evident and strong way. The most prominent stylistic devices used by the author are metaphors and rhetorical constructions, which help to reveal the main character’s nature and bring to the reader the main idea of the text.

While reading the short story by Guy de Maupassant, I recollect a famous quotation from Tolstoy’s “Anna Karenina”: “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” A little tragedy always hides within the surface of a good family. But in the story “A Family” two main problems come out: the first one is connected with the illiberality and deficiency of the life in province, which narrows people’s imagination and simplifies their desires and ambitions; the second one is about intolerance towards old people, the mocking over their inability. And if the first problem can be understood and accepted somehow, the second one is completely unacceptable and should be eradicated.

The main character of the short story is the narrator; the events of the story are concentrated around him. His name is indicated as his friend Simon approaches him: “George!” The narrator is presented as an ordinary generalized image of a person. There is no information about the narrator provided except for the fact that he hasn’t seen his friend for 15 years. What’s more, the reader can guess that the narrator comes from Paris, where his friend Simon used to live before he’d got married. There is no information about physical appearance, though some traits of his character can be traced: he’s got sense of humour: “By Jove! You have not grown thin!"; he is tolerant towards his old friend at the sight of his house: “so that I might compliment him on it. "It is charming," I replied.”; he can’t stand the fact of humiliation over the old man, but tries not to sound impolite towards his friend: “I held my tongue, and thought over those words.”

Another protagonist is Simon Radevin, a friend of the narrator, of whom he “had lost sight for fifteen years”. The narrator gives a direct characterization to Simon: “At one time he was my most intimate friend, the friend who knows one's thoughts, with whom one passes long, quiet, happy evenings, to whom one tells one's secret love affairs, and who seems to draw out those rare, ingenious, delicate thoughts born of that sympathy that gives a sense of repose.”; “intelligent, clever young fellow”; “active, living and vibrating man”; “lively, witty, light-hearted and enthusiastic”. Such a description makes the reader assume that the two, the narrator and Simon have been bosom friends, who have been almost always together, “we had lived, travelled, thought and dreamed together”, their interests have been the same: “the same books”, “the same authors”; they shared the same sense of humour, laughing at “the same individuals. whom we understood completely by merely exchanging a glance”. But the state of things changes completely, when Simon suddenly marries on a girl from province and moves from Paris to a provincial town. When the narrator again meets his friend, he spots that he have become “a very stout man with red cheeks and a big stomach”; “broad face”. The reason of this change lies in his mode of living: “Good living, a good table and good nights! Eating and sleeping, that is my existence!” But the change is not only in his appearance, but in his character: “his eyes were bright, full of happiness and friendship, but they had not that clear, intelligent expression”; “I no longer see the same expression in them”. But Simon acquires more also in the family life, he has now 5 children and lives in a turreted house in the suburbs of the town. The narrator sees him as a “simple reproducer of his species”. His desire of becoming a candidate for the Chamber of Deputies becomes clear to the narrator and he pities him of such primitive desires as a compensation of him provincial life.

One more character is Simon’s wife, who is presented as a typical image of a provincial woman. In the memory of the narrator she appears “a little thin, insipidly fair girl with her weak hands, her light vacant eyes, and her clear, silly voice, who was exactly like a hundred thousand marriageable dolls”; “a good, tender and faithful woman”. Her image is attractive and it becomes clear why Simon falls in love with her and leaves Paris. Still she appears to be rather a practical woman, who in the search of a husband chooses the most appropriate candidate. Once she is achieved her goal, she is no longer a thin fair girl, but “a stout lady in curls and flounces.” She is a typical image of a woman, “one of those ladies of uncertain age, without intellect, without any of those things that go to make a woman.” Alongside with her husband, “a reproducer of his species”, she fulfills her role of a mother, “a stout, commonplace mother”, becoming “a human breeding machine which procreates without any other preoccupation but her children and her cook-book.” Hew function in the society is limited by her role of a mother and a cook.

One more protagonist is Madame Radevin’s grandfather, who is eighty-seven, a direct characterization of him is provided: “something trembling, a man, an old, paralyzed man”; “shaking old man’s ears”. He is the most pitiful creature in the house, everyone view him as a kind of an entertainment: “He is a treasure, that old man; he is the delight of the children. But he is so greedy that he almost kills himself at every meal; you have no idea what he would eat if he were allowed to do as he pleased. You never saw anything so funny; you will see presently.” Every restriction and every humiliation over the old man is supported by the idea that it is all done “for the good of his health”. For instance, the grandpa doesn’t want to eat soup, but he is forced to do it very violently, making the old man blow the food out, “that it was scattered like a spray all over the table and over his neighbors”. Such a view amuses the whole family, Simon makes a remark: "Is not the old man comical?" Than a question arises: How a miserable, helpless old thing can be treated with such disrespect and intolerance? The old man is not greedy in fact as it is mentioned a number of times, his only happiness lies in the process of eating, his functions in society are limited, he is no longer a lively man, but a poor old thing.

From the point of view of presentation the text is the 1^st person narrative, which is more subjective: “I was then shown to my room.”; “I was to see my old friend…”; “I looked at him closely, trying to discover in that broad face the features I held so dear.” The direct speech presented in the form of dialogues is numerous: "Are they yours?" "Of course they are," he replied, laughing. "How many have you?" "Five! There are three more at home."

In terms of the contextual type, the text is written mostly as narration with the elements of description (“Yet his eyes were bright, full of happiness and friendship, but they had not that clear, intelligent expression which shows as much as words the brightness of the intellect.”; “a garden that was an imitation of a park, and stopped in front of a turreted house, which tried to look like a chateau.”); dialogues ("This is a friend of Simon's, papa." The old gentleman tried to say "good-day" to me, and he muttered: "Oua, oua, oua," and waved his hand, and I took a seat saying: "You are very kind, monsieur."); meditations (“No doubt the bird was singing in a low voice during the night, to lull his mate, who was asleep on her eggs. And I thought of my poor friend's five children, and pictured him to myself, snoring by the side of his ugly wife.”). Narration informs the reader of a sequence of events and is rather dynamic: the narrator travels in the train, gets off and meets his friend, together they drive to the house, where the narrator is introduced to the family, than comes the dinner, when the family mocks at the grandpa, than the narrator meditates about the human values.

From the point of view of its compositional structure the story consists of the following parts: exposition, where the main characters and the setting are introduced (“I was to see my old friend, Simon Radevin, of whom I had lost sight for fifteen years.”); development of events (the meeting of two old friends, their trip in the carriage, the acquaintance with the Radevins, the dinner); the climax, the sharpest moment in the story, when the family members mock at the grandpa and the narrator is stunned and astonished at the fact; the denouement, when Simon explains that the grandpa can’t be given more food because of his health condition; the conclusion, when the narrator meditates about values of life.

The basic theme of the story is a philosophical question of tolerance towards old people, marriage, friendship, life in provinces, family values, human values. The main idea is to show that people should treat everyone with respect and tolerance, especially their old relatives, who should be given an opportunity to live the rest of their life happily, without any kind of underestimation and humiliation.

The events in the analyzed text happen in some rural location or a small provincial town, where one of the protagonists lives with his family. The setting of the events in the given extract is realistic and is presented in a detailed way. It provides a background for action and contributes to the understanding of the characters. In the introductive paragraphs the narrator travels in the train, so the first location is a car of the train. The next location is a small station, where the train stops. When the two friends get into a carriage, they travel through the town. A detailed description is provided: “the town, a dull, sleepy, gloomy town where nothing was moving in the streets except a few dogs and two or three maidservants.” The description reflects the life of Simon, who is stuck in the province with a stout wife and 5 children, his life is boring and deserted as well as the city itself. Than the carriage reaches the final destination: “the carriage turned into a garden that was an imitation of a park, and stopped in front of a turreted house, which tried to look like a chateau.” The house imitates a decent life of a family like Simon tries to pretend that his life is not deprived of the joy of a big city. The life in the province is highlighted and generalized by the view out of the narrator’s window in his room: “My windows looked out across a dreary, interminable plain, an ocean of grass, of wheat and of oats, without a clump of trees or any rising ground, a striking and melancholy picture of the life which they must be leading in that house.” This is such type of life, when nothing extraordinary happens, when everyone knows everyone in the town and its suburbs.

The plot of the story is devided into 4 parts : the exposition, the story itself, the climax and the denouement. The exposition begins with the narrator talking about his best friend, Simon, whom he is finally to see 15 years after. George, the narrator, tells a reader that  Simon was his soulmate. They were devoted to each other.We observe the story itself when George arrives to the station and two friends meet each other. It lasts to the point when another character appears, a grandfather. Here the climax is noticed. Namely, when the narrator watches the old man trying to reach a plate with suger rice and doing his best to eat as many as possible sweets. Besides, that the grandfather is so feeble that he hardly takes anything with his trembling hands, he is categorically forbidden to eat a little bit more sweets due to his critical state of health. George watches this grotesque picture and just cannot understand why Simon and his wife treat him in such a way. The denouement, being as usual effortless in Maupassant's stories, is observed when after having played cards George comes to his room, sad and low-spirite, thinking about nothing but the last wish of the old man before death which he wants to realize everyday - to swallow a lot of sweets.

The short story deals with an incident in the life of the narrator, who after 15 years of separation meets a close friend of him. He speculates on the matter of how his friend, Simon Radeven, could change in such a long time, paying attention to the fact of his marriage on a simple provincial girl. The expectations haven’t proved to be true, though Simon appears to be rather stout, but still full of wit and energy. He’s got now not only his peasant wife, but also 5 children. The two friends drive to the Simon’s house, where the narrator is given a room and got acquainted with Madame Radevin’s grandfather. All the Radevins mock the old man and the narrator is promised to see a delightful and amusing scene in the evening. During supper the grandfather is given little portions of food, but he is eager to devour all the food he sees on the table. The meals are placed almost within the reach of the man, but he tries in vain to get to them. The continuous torture of the oldman amuses the family. The desired sweet rice is given only a spoonful to the grandpa, so he cannot be satisfied. The narrator gets weary and concerned of the situation, but Simon explains that poor health doesn’t allow the oldman to eat more. The story ends with the narrator’s meditations on the part of the oldman and philosophical questions of life.