When I read "A Rose for Emily" the first time I noted that Emily Grierson, like many characters in Southern literature, refuses to let go of the past. However, it seems too simple to place a blanket of mild nostalgia over every character with roots in the old South. To wave away their despair and be satisfied with the conclusion that they miss the old ways of the (in many ways imaginary) Southern aristocracy is to ignore the personal grievances, trials, regrets and hopes of each specific person that we read about. For this reason I decided to search more intently for an explanation behind Emily Grierson's actions.
The quote that caught my attention is when the narrator admits that "we know that with nothing left, she would have to cling to that which had robbed her, as people will." Faulkner places this comment in reference to Emily's father, who had driven away many suitors who tried to court her, however after reading the entire piece the line seems to foreshadow Emily's need to keep Homer Barron even after his death. Homer, being not only a "day laborer" but a Northerner, steals the reputation that Emily spends her life trying to maintain. Her status as the untouchable Southern belle who was too good for any man while her father was alive is attacked by the people of Jefferson, who, though they seem to like Homer, still consider him a low-class Yankee with no business courting a Southern woman. After she and Homer are seen together, Emily is trapped in a corner. Without the image of his courtship, she is an old maid, but with it she is seen as having lowered her standards, a notion that does not go unnoticed, or unappreciated, for that matter, by the townspeople. The narrator even goes so far as to comment on Emily's purchase of a monogrammed toilet set and suit for Homer with the mysteriously simple words "We said 'They must be married'. We were really glad. We were glad because the two cousins were even more Grierson than Miss Emily had ever been." I am struck by the idea that many people in the town are either jealous of the Griersons or so tired of the Grierson family's pride that they find satisfaction in watching the last heiress fall. This instills in Emily the fervent need to prove herself as untouchable by their judgement, by the changing world and ultimately by Homer.
I can only guess that it seems fitting in Emily's mind to purchase gifts that would suggest that she is marrying Homer, to prove that she can, in fact, find a husband (the narrator suggests that even after her father's death no one came to court Emily) but then to subsequently murder him so that, at least in her mind, she will not change. With nothing else left Emily clings to the memory of her father, who stole her potential love life as a young woman, then to Homer, who stole her reputation, not to mention his connection to the North, which, as must be noted, was blamed for "stealing" the Southerners' way of life. Despite what she knows they stole from her, Emily's pride does not allow her to acknowledge publicly that she has been wronged or to accept change, even in the form of death, but refuses to bury her father until she is forced to, and when no one forces their way into her affairs, she never buries Homer Barron at all.
Discussion question: Why don't any of the townspeople persist in asking questions about Homer's sudden disappearance? Do they actually respect Emily's pride enough not to ask, and if that is the case, to what extent does stereotypical "Southern pride" play a part in the events and narration of this story?
-Claire Peckham
After reading, A Rose For Emily, I too saw a major theme given by Faulkner as the inability of Emily Grierson to let go of her past. As quoted "we know that with nothing left she would have to cling to that which had robbed her, as people will." My reaction to the story was that she was robbed by both her father and Homer as they conflicted with her way of life. her father made it so she did spend her life living the southern belle type archetype. Among these standards I felt that the people of Jefferson looked up to her as the last true tie to teh old south in town. She was held to a standard of noblesse oblige by the older folks in town who brought in her cousins multiple times to run Homer out and save Emily's reputation. They clung to the southern values of the past and evidently were not moving forward such as how many parts of Jefferson were being renovated unlike the Grierson neighborhood. I agree with you completely on how the younger generations of Jefferson were jealous of Emily and wanted her to fail and fall from the high pedestal she once stood on especially for thinking she was always exempt from taxes after her father's death. Homer's connection to the north to me was threatening to those in Jefferson as they saw it as an attack on her nobility which apparently was not in the form of money as time went on. I found the description of her house quite interesting as it is in vivid detail of its past elegance while surrounded by its present deterioration along with the memoirs of the past such as the cotton wagons and gasoline pumps. To me, Faulkner showed us a glimpse into how many southerns transitioned over time in a post civil war society where many saw northerners as Yankees with no business in the south. Again I agree with you on how Emily showed her inability to let go of the past as she did not want to bury her father's body right away and how she did the same with Homer who evidently was going to leave her and ruin her plans on marriage. Emily proceeded to kill Homer with rat poison and spent the rest of her days sleeping beside Homer's corpse up in the high reaches of the house.
ReplyDeleteDiscussion Questions - At the start of the story Emily was described as a fallen monument as said by the narrator who was a resident of Jefferson. What significance is there in that word choice? In reference to the title of the story what does the rose symbolize?
Considering the consensus derived from the text that Emily Grierson is unable to relinquish her past - specifically that past of her jealous and overprotective father - the entirety of Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily" waxes allegorical. This world of parallels created in the story's Jefferson, Mississippi contains a handful of key actors including Emily, her father, and Homer Barron, but also involved in Faulkner's representation are the lesser characters: Colonel Sartoris, Judge Stevens, the cousins, and Emily's black servant.
ReplyDeleteExamination of these characters yields the most sense in light of the socio-historical milieu of post-bellum part of the 19th century. In this light, Emily becomes an icon for the wounded yet prideful, conquered South, rendered outdated in modernity but tethered to social expectations by her forebears. As a consequence of this ancestral stranglehold, Emily lands past her prime for marriage (and therefore her prime for childbearing as well), the paradoxical product of her father's device. Though her father sought to force his will and his way of life into the future with his whip, his domineering overprotection engendered the isolation and death of his legacy. The introduction of Homer Barron to this situation perpetuates this allegory in the same socio-historical vein.
As a Northerner and a laborer, Homer Barron fulfills a specific role in the town of Jefferson and in the story. Historically, Homer represents the Yankee carpetbaggers who flooded into the South during Reconstruction. Between being a foreman and being from the North, Faulkner gives almost insultingly obvious evidence with which to identify Homer Barron's larger symbolic counterpart. However, that he should become Emily's one last chance at a suitor despite the fact that he "was not a marrying man," complicates Faulkner's message regarding redemption of the South coming from the work of Northern hands.
Discussion Questions - In historical context, what is the significance of the details of the minor characters? For instance, consider the departure of Emily's servant, that the two Mayors of the town are a Colonel and a Judge, and the nondescript presence of Emily's cousins. One minor character who goes almost completely unnoticed is the narrator. How is this style of narration important to Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily" and how would the employment of a different style alter the story?