William Faulkner's short story A Rose for Emily, a title which he says is an allegory on his sympathy for his constructed character in Introducción a la narrativa breve de William Faulkner, presents what was to me at first a strangely descriptive account of a physical entity and a physical space.
The narrator in the fragmented, non-linear telling takes the role of one of the community members. His voice is at first questionably sexist, favoring the view of the men in their reasons to attend her funeral "out of respectful affection for a fallen monument", while the women are presented as favoring the less important, "to see see the inside of the house". This was extremely impressive to me after a second read, when I (and perhaps the audience in general) sees that the women truly cared for what was important in the story (to find out what was in the house).
The description of the house is gaudy, archaic with "cupolas and spires and scrolled balconies", all which seem to be in ugly contrast with one another. The description of the house also seems to fit the attitude of the community toward Emily herself, as the house holds "stubborn and coquettish decay".
I think the tension presented between men and women relates to the comparison of the two popular conceptions of Emily. She was a monument of the past, archaic and important, magnified, venerated, and important to the history of the city. This is also presented with Colonel Sartoris relieving her of her tax duties, seemingly because she was of his time, the old South, and his traditional disposition led him to feel an obligation toward helping this sympathetic character. Once again, in contrast, "Only a man of Colonel Sartoris' generation and thought could have invented it, and only a woman could have believed it". This grouping, generalization, and mindset continues throughout the narrative and presents reactions to events in Emily's life. It is important to realize that this narrative view presents a subjective one, and thus may not characterize Emily as well as an omniscient point of view may have. It does, however, characterize the townspeople, and thus characterizes what Emily is for them. She is hardly a responder, and more of a statue, an idol, and a representation of the old. She allows the town to have a converstaion with itself upon her. She is the subject of their "porch conversation"
It seems as though Emily is clinging to something from the past, with her old house. We later learn that she is actually in poverty, and thus does not have the means to change her house to the new of the block. She also must remain due to the death of her former sweetheart. The aesthetic value assigned to her through this house, and through her china-painting lessons, are misconceptions. She taught the lessons to relatives of the Colonel, and once he dies, the lessons stop. He seemingly set this up for her to have financial help.
Emily is also connected to an "invisible watch", where time is present, but has no continuation within the world of Emiliy. Her father's portrait remains visible in her home, linking her to tradition and the past.
But why does Emily kill her sweetheart? Her kin comes to try to rid her of him, as the townsfolk called them for such a duty. He did not fit the framework in which the town pieced her in. She was poor, but marrying "a day laborer" was supposedly against "noblesse oblige", let alone the fact that he was "a Northerner". His appearance and mannerisms are quite southern to me, "with his hat cocked and a cigar in his teeth, reins and whip in a yellow glove", but that isn't enough for the town.
The fragmented time line aids Faulkner in disorienting the reader from the connection of events. It is difficult to connect the Arsenic purchase and the peak of the love affair as well as the relatives' visit. This adds to the surprise of the decaying body. But why does he have to die?
Discussion Question: What do you think is Faulkner's reason for killing of Homer Barron. What does he represent in Emily, in the townsfolk, and in terms of history?
-Adam Amrani
The narrator in the fragmented, non-linear telling takes the role of one of the community members. His voice is at first questionably sexist, favoring the view of the men in their reasons to attend her funeral "out of respectful affection for a fallen monument", while the women are presented as favoring the less important, "to see see the inside of the house". This was extremely impressive to me after a second read, when I (and perhaps the audience in general) sees that the women truly cared for what was important in the story (to find out what was in the house).
The description of the house is gaudy, archaic with "cupolas and spires and scrolled balconies", all which seem to be in ugly contrast with one another. The description of the house also seems to fit the attitude of the community toward Emily herself, as the house holds "stubborn and coquettish decay".
 |
| How I like to envision her house |
It seems as though Emily is clinging to something from the past, with her old house. We later learn that she is actually in poverty, and thus does not have the means to change her house to the new of the block. She also must remain due to the death of her former sweetheart. The aesthetic value assigned to her through this house, and through her china-painting lessons, are misconceptions. She taught the lessons to relatives of the Colonel, and once he dies, the lessons stop. He seemingly set this up for her to have financial help.
Emily is also connected to an "invisible watch", where time is present, but has no continuation within the world of Emiliy. Her father's portrait remains visible in her home, linking her to tradition and the past.
But why does Emily kill her sweetheart? Her kin comes to try to rid her of him, as the townsfolk called them for such a duty. He did not fit the framework in which the town pieced her in. She was poor, but marrying "a day laborer" was supposedly against "noblesse oblige", let alone the fact that he was "a Northerner". His appearance and mannerisms are quite southern to me, "with his hat cocked and a cigar in his teeth, reins and whip in a yellow glove", but that isn't enough for the town.
The fragmented time line aids Faulkner in disorienting the reader from the connection of events. It is difficult to connect the Arsenic purchase and the peak of the love affair as well as the relatives' visit. This adds to the surprise of the decaying body. But why does he have to die?
Discussion Question: What do you think is Faulkner's reason for killing of Homer Barron. What does he represent in Emily, in the townsfolk, and in terms of history?
-Adam Amrani
No comments:
Post a Comment