A Rose For Emily

[Scheherazade]

For those who are interested, the e-text is available:

http://www.eng.fju.edu.tw/English_Li...ext-E-Rose.htm

[Newsun]

Funny that one of the reasons I began looking for a literature forum to join was this story and on my second day here I see this thread.

I recently took a community college level literary interpretation class. Part of the class was a discussion of theme and motif in short stories. This story really helped me to understand those concepts - most likely because they are so easy to see in every part of the story.

On another note, I never really gave Faulkner much attention in the past. For some reason I just did not get to him. After reading this story my attitude has changed.

There are a few comments about the story that I would like to make but for now I want to hold off and see what direction the thread goes in. Thanks for starting it.

[tractatus]

I was the poster who asked about opinions, because it is mentioned here in the forum three or four times in one week, so I thought there must be something special about it.
I have read the story, well, for I know who is Faulkner and love him, I cant say it is medocre but however didn't hit(impress) me much. Story somehow predictable and not very special/poetic proses.
So I prefer to be a reader here more than poster, at least for now, I would like to see the details of the story. And I will try to read it in English now, hope I can.

[Virgil]

Oh I would like to also if you can give me some time to read it.

[mortalterror]

I'll take a stab at it. The story is silly and unrealistic. It's got all of the grotesque shock value of a Poe story, but none of the charm. I really liked his stories in Go Down, Moses better. Now there is some beautiful writing.

Emily reminds me of Miss Havisham from Dickens Great Expectations. I wonder if that's where Faulkner got his ideas or if he thought them up himself. Either way, the characters and their behavior are pure camp.

[Virgil]

I'll read it over the weekend. Can we start discussion on Monday?

[mortalterror]

Your opinion is your opinion and therefore valid. All opinions have validity. However, you didn't tell us why, precisely, you find it silly and unrealistic and even campy. I find it very realistic. It is written in the Southern Gothic tradition and of course it embodies qualities of the grotesque.

I didn't want to spoil the story for people who hadn't read it yet; so I held back and didn't get specific.

You and I just come to literature expecting different things Antie. I love Hemingway, but can't stand Dickens, Proust, Austen, and Morrison, whereas with you all of that is reversed. This is an interesting case where we both like an author, Faulkner, but for different stories and for different reasons. I find those differences refreshing.

The first story "Was" from his Go Down, Moses is one of my favorite stories, because I feel drawn to some of the masculine attitudes in it. I also deeply enjoyed "The Bear" because it was about a bunch of guys hunting. I suspect that what draws you to Rose might be some of the feminine aspects of the piece, although I could be wrong.

I know it's one of his most popular stories academically, but I think that the academics frequently teach the modernist movement all wrong. I also didn't care for "Barn Burning" another popular Faulkner short story, but for different reasons. I thought the ending was wrong, and I didn't believe that the boy should have ratted out his pop.

I own copies of The Sound and the Fury, As I Lay Dying, and Absalom, Absalom; but the openings don't strike me, and I've never read them all the way through. I've had more success with his short fiction. I like his style and his diction, but I often have trouble getting into his characters. I also think that he prized experimentation and originality a little too highly, which led him into all types of excesses such as his endless run on sentences.

I've heard that he would sometimes compromise his work, especially his short stories, writing in a popular commercial style when he needed the money. I'm not sure if he wrote Rose that way or not, but I know that sometimes the characterization seems a little thin, and the people don't act in a way that I would describe as rational. I'm also not a fan of stories that end in twists. That strikes me as trickery, as does melodrama, which aims to manipulate it's audience. The extreme always makes an impression, but it usually doesn't leave a lot of room for subtlety or nuance. I don't want to go into more detail until everyone has had a chance to read the story, but I will later.

[Chester]

I read it about a year or so ago and it just didn't make an impression on me one way or the other. Now I'm intrigued. "Genuine masterpiece" is a pretty bold statement.

Okay, Monday. I'll find some time this weekend to read it again.

[moose gurl]

Faulkner is by far my alltime favorite author. However, I didn't particularly like A Rose for Emily, but I didn't hate it. IMO, it has faults, but there is still some Faulkner-ian concepts and styles there. I will admit that there are better Faulkner short stories.

I own copies of The Sound and the Fury, As I Lay Dying, and Absalom, Absalom; but the openings don't strike me, and I've never read them all the way through. I've had more success with his short fiction. I like his style and his diction, but I often have trouble getting into his characters. I also think that he prized experimentation and originality a little too highly, which led him into all types of excesses such as his endless run on sentences.

This strikes me because those three novels are somewhere in my top ten favorite novels ever. I can understand your complaint about the long sentences, but it helps to think of Faulkner as a painter versus a writer, and you are standing very very close to the painting. Eventually, he zooms out a little and you can see what he's describing. It's quite magical once you get the hang of it.
And his characters are probably what appeal to me most of all. Henry Sutpen and Quentin Compson are...oh God, incredible. I actually decided to read Absalom! Absalom! because I heard Quentin helped narrate it, and then I discovered Henry Sutpen. Quite honestly they are my two favorite characters in all literature. But you DO have to get past the first part of The Sound and the Fury (Benji, very difficult few pages). And I can understand someone calling the beginning of Absalom "slow." But if you ever try again, these are some few things to bear in mind, and they both get incredibly engaging.

I've heard that he would sometimes compromise his work, especially his short stories, writing in a popular commercial style when he needed the money.

I will back Anti here because Faulkner openly admitted that the only literature he ever wrote for money was Sanctuary. But I understand what you mean. A Rose for Emily came off, IMO, and considerably dryer than most of his works, and I found very little to which I could relate in the characters there. But the work itself I enjoyed while I didn't love it. More details later.

Has anyone read the obscure short story "Crevasse"?

[HotKarl]

I'll take a stab at it. The story is silly and unrealistic. It's got all of the grotesque shock value of a Poe story, but none of the charm. I really liked his stories in Go Down, Moses better. Now there is some beautiful writing.

I always love it when people claim a story is "unrealistic." Really? This story is unrealistic? Okay. But you know what else is unrealistic? A female astronaut driving cross-country in a diaper to murder her boyfriend's other lover. Or a pervert, pot-smoking, Austrian bodybuilder winning California's gubernatorial seat while his face is still plastered on posters across the country for Terminator III. Those are unrealistic. So is "A Rose for Emily" that far fetched? Yes it is. But many many stranger things have happened than this story's plot.

Besides, "unrealistic" stories are usually the most interesting. Why write about the mundane when you can write about the truly remarkable? Like Antiquarian said, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but I'll take "unrealistic" authors like Shirley Jackson and Ishmael Reed over writers like Hemingway and James any day of the week.

I look forward to really opening up the conversation on Monday.

[mortalterror]

Besides, "unrealistic" stories are usually the most interesting. Why write about the mundane when you can write about the truly remarkable? Like Antiquarian said, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but I'll take "unrealistic" authors like Shirley Jackson and Ishmael Reed over writers like Hemingway and James any day of the week.

Tolstoy peopled War and Peace, and Anna Karenina with interesting, believable, well developed characters who acted in remarkably dramatic ways, while still keeping their behavior within societal norms. The genius of a Tolstoy, or a Flaubert, is that you come to understand the characters, their motivations and their psyche, and imagine that under similar circumstances you might have done the same things that they did.

You raise a good point. Freaks make for good spectacles, and given a choice, I'd rather read about blood thirsty cannibals than a man who worked at Lens Crafters. However, I expect a little restraint and subtlety from my authors. I expect them to take a middle ground. There are other ways to reach those highly taught dramatic situations with the same level of energy as those over the top explosive indulgences so common to pulp fiction.

To me, a man who has to watch his son die of Leukemia is as dramatic a situation as one in which the same man throws his child in front of a bus. The first situation has a universal significance which the other lacks. It's also easier to empathize with an ordinary person, or at least some non-psychopath, who's been thrust into an unusual set of circumstances.

Faulkner has to lay a lot of ground work for the reader to swallow his rather sizable pill, and to a certain extent, I think he succeeds. However, if I did not object to the style, I would still need to raise concerns over his subject matter. I don't find it reprehensible on a moral level, but it does seem tawdry. Faulkner is a great author, and I think he should have challenged himself with a more complex subject.

This kind of story, while interesting, is to real substantive writing, what sugar candy is to a full nutritious meal. What does it teach us about people? What does it tell us about ourselves? I came away from this story thinking to myself, "Well that was kind of weird." And then I hardly thought of it again. Although, to be perfectly honest, I do enjoy a few sensational short stories. The Cask of Amontillado, and The Call of Cthulhu do hold a special place in my heart. There's probably something to the "weird" which resonates deep inside of humanity. Lovecraft wrote a whole book about that called Supernatural Horror in Literature, which I've been meaning to read.

I just don't think of Faulkner in those terms, and so I tend to apply a realist criterion to his work. His world, as much as it is his, for the most part is also ours. It's located in a specific time, in a specific place, and living in the United States that culture is our heritage; so we can be reasonably perceptive about what is and is not out of place for the society he's writing about. The gallantry of the antebellum South is historic and much mythologized, yet the characters that populate this story seem to take this trait to absurd lengths. They strike almost as odd a pose as Emily herself. I'm not sure if Faulkner is being sincere or if he expects us to laugh at them. Maybe, I'm just looking at it wrong and this story isn't supposed to be straight fiction. If so, then I'm open to suggestions about a more proper way to read it.

[HotKarl]

Yes, the subject is tawdry, but it fits perfectly in the southern gothic genre (I'd love to explain this further, but it'll have to wait until Monday out of respect for our fellow forum patrons).

I agree with you that there is a certain elegance in showing character motivation through logic and realism. Those novels you listed are obviously some of the greatest literature ever penned. But I would also add that it takes extreme detail, structure, characterization, and talent to pull off a well-written realistic novel.

But I also think many people who read literature are often over-eager to dismiss flat and static characters as inferior and indicative of bad writing. I wish people wouldn't fall into that trap. Many great novels have been written that are chock full of flat characters:Slaughter House Five, The Robber Bridegroom, The Crying of Lot 49, Being There. I would also add that the short story, due to obvious constraints, relies heavily on static and flat characters. And there's a reason these works have so many flat characters; life is full of flat characters. Can you really tell me that someone like Paris Hilton isn't a flat character? John Madden? George W. Bush?

Sometimes there isn't any motivation behind a person's action--it's simply a mystery. For example, once a friend and I were in a hotel lobby when a bellhop wheeled a luggage cart right next to us. After the hop walked away, my friend ran and jumped onto the cart, sending it and himself flying across the room and crashing into a wall. The hotel manager was none too pleased and asked us to leave. After we were gone, I asked my friend why he did it. His reply? "I don't know. I just did it." My point? Sometimes there is no thought behind our actions. Just ask any teenager.

And that's my problem with much of realistic literature. It wants to make everyone a fully cognate, logical being. And only a select few are. It seems to me that sometimes realism isn't realistic.

[tractatus]

Okey, I ll keep silence till monday on story, but one thing I want to say.

I've heard that he would sometimes compromise his work, especially his short stories, writing in a popular commercial style when he needed the money. I'm not sure if he wrote Rose that way or not, but I know that sometimes the characterization seems a little thin, and the people don't act in a way that I would describe as rational. ....

I think Faulkner, himself, said he wrote Sanctuary strictly for monetary gain, but I've never heard that about "A Rose for Emily."

I know many writers who write their book in need of money, or to keep a promise(to a publisher mostly) etc; but again produce many masterpieces. At least I am sure of Poe and Dostoyevski... Balzac said write a novel in few weeks as well.
Perhaps statistically you are right(if we -can- measure it), a book written in years may be in higher quality than a book written in weeks, but this is not a "always correct" case.

[Virgil]

Need I remind people that William Shakespeare became very wealthy from his plays and consciously wrote for what was popular. It doesn't matter if a work was made to make money or not. The only criteria is whether the work is good or not.

[Chester]

Yes, Virgil's point is excellent. This idea that great works and money-making works are somehow mutually exclusive is a problem for me. It has a whiff of contempt for society that I find unattractive, as though the "masses" (those we look down our noses at) can't appreciate greatness and one can only make money by selling out and providing them garbage. I know people who won't read anything "popular" because popular must be low quality. Arrogant nonsense.