A Rose For Emily [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

mortalterror

05-02-2008, 04:34 PM

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

05-02-2008, 05:24 PM

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

05-03-2008, 01:14 AM

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

05-03-2008, 01:55 AM

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

05-03-2008, 06:17 AM

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

05-03-2008, 07:03 AM

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

05-03-2008, 11:39 AM

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

05-03-2008, 12:48 PM

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

05-03-2008, 01:43 PM

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.

mortalterror

05-04-2008, 05:10 AM

Chester

05-04-2008, 06:58 AM

"To me it is a cheap idea, because it was deliberately conceived to make money. ... I took a little time out, and speculated what a person in Mississippi would believe to be current trends, chose what I thought would be the right answer and invented the most horrific tale I could imagine and wrote it in about three weeks..."- William Faulkner in his Introduction to the 1932 edition of Sanctuary

There's such a thing as writing to make a living, but it's quite another to compromise your artistic integrity and produce work you recognize as sub par. For his part, Faulkner owned up to what he tried to do, and I think his remarks are telling. The work isn't bad because it makes money, or because it's popular. It's bad because no effort went into it's crafting, the artist didn't believe in it, and so he deliberately sabotaged himself by not developing things and making the work as good as it possibly could be.
I found the same quote in a New York Times article titled
"FAULKNER WAS WRONG ABOUT 'SANCTUARY'"

You can find it here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE1DB1739F931A15751C0A9679482 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

The article goes on to say:

Faulkner was so discouraged that he didn't even ask Smith to return the manuscript. When the novel was published by Cape & Smith in 1931, and then reprinted in the Modern Library, Faulkner's introduction set the tone for critical evaluations during the next 30 years. Being a ''cheap idea'' hastily executed to make money, ''Sanctuary'' could be brushed aside. Critics and readers didn't suspect that Faulkner mightn't be telling the complete truth about it, given his early passion for astounding the public. As Noel Polk, a Faulkner scholar and an assistant professor of English at the University of Southern Mississippi, reminds us in his afterword to the present edition, even the original text wasn't written in ''about three weeks'' but in four months - from January to May 1929 - with painstaking revisions.

I added the bold. This is the arrogance of which I speak. Critics had their minds made up about it even before they left the introduction. They believed Faulkner when he said he “speculated what a person in Mississippi would believe...” And of course we musn’t go in for the same things that the average person in Mississipi would go in for...

Meanwhile, I think we’re taking Antiquarian’s thread off topic. (But what else are we to talk about until Monday?)

mortalterror

05-04-2008, 08:14 AM

Then let it go off topic. They aren't discussing Rose until Monday, and last I checked, we are in a literary forum. I had more remarks I wanted to add to my post anyway:

On it's face, the question is not even about whether the author believed that his own work was good or not. History is replete with artists who were mistaken about the relative value of their work. The main concern seems to be the way in which integrity is tied to quality. Can a good writer compromise his artistic principles and create a work of genius? Furthermore, can a great writer compromise his work without compromising himself?

When he sets himself before a typewriter, a keyboard, or takes pen in hand, it is assumed that the writer has already made certain decisions about his work. With most writers of merit, we assume that he has decided to write a great work of literature, or at least that he has determined to write something to the best of his abilities. The prologue to any work is a series of assumptions the writer makes about himself, his audience, and the work he's preparing to make. The optimal condition, in such cases, is for the writer to believe that he is a good writer, that he's writing for an intelligent, receptive, well educated audience, and that his story will be a masterpiece. Concerns beyond this, have a way of intruding upon the work, often to detrimental effect. When the author begins to doubt first the one, then the other, you have a serious crisis on your hands. The mark is lowered. Your hypothetical writer has stopped trying to write well and started writing well enough. Once a man has lowered his expectations, mayn't he lower them yet again, and still further subsequently? And again, why should he make the assumption that there is more money to be made by lowering his standards, by diminishing his powers, than could be made by raising them?

Let's consider the possibility that Sanctuary is a good piece of writing despite whatever Faulkner himself might have thought about it. I mentioned briefly above, that authors are often mistaken about which of their works will be the most enduring, or will have the most merit. But was he at least trying to make it as good a book as it could be made? This opens up the question of effort and intent. Great writers do write bad books, which they intend to be good. Could they also write great books which they intend to be bad? Is it all a crap shoot? Can bad writers write great literature, and can God create a rock so big even he could not lift it? I want to say that only great writers can write great literature, that they possess some spark, or specialized knowledge which other lesser authors simply do not possess. But I know that's not true. We have the example readily before us of any number of one hit wonders who create a single superlative work and then vanish into mediocrity forever, or even of astonishing virtuosos who never fulfill their potential. The difference between one of these geniuses and the men of a solitary book seems to be professionalism, the ability to reproduce a previous success, to properly interpret the factors that made their initial effort successful, the proper critical judgement of a work of art. Every dog has his day, but a genius has a career.

Be that as it may, whether a good writer can write below his ability or a bad writer can write above it still does not get to the heart of what we are discussing. Whatever their level of ability, or their capacity to reproduce those results on command does not satisfy the initial question relative to effort. Masterpieces have been tossed off, or labored forth in difficult birth of toil, effort, and length of days. But we must beg the question, what kind of writers pour forth streams of effortless majesty, and what type must slavishly grind to uncover a solitary gem? I believe that the reason some efforts are less taxing is because the authors have already spent their time in preparation. They've written dozens of books and covered much of the ground they are seeking to cover before. Or they've already worked out much of what they were going to do in their minds. I do not believe that a person unaccustomed to greatness and success could be so fortuitous as to stumble upon literary gold all at once, through accident, and without much striving beforehand. When an author rapidly develops a treasure, he does so with the weight of experience behind him. A mediocre writer has nothing but mediocre experience behind him, and so if he seeks to attain the heights of Olympus he must first scale it's lofty peeks. But enough metaphors. Can a writer create a work of genius in spite of himself, à la The Producers? Now that I really don't know.

As far as Sanctuary is concerned, Faulkner seems to have realized the danger he was in, bought back the manuscript and rewritten it. Whether he ever tried such a stunt again, or recovered from his lapse is for Faulkner scholars to decide.

P.S. What a bonehead I am. I forgot to address the primary motivating factors of mankind (money, power, fame, and pleasure), how they compete, and the differing results they produce. Well, I guess I'll leave that to some other occasion.

Whether Faulkner's judgement of the American audience was correct is another thing worth wondering about. When the Portable Faulkner came out in 1946, fifteen years later, Sanctuary was the only one of his books still in print. The Sound and the Fury, Absalom, Absalom, As I Lay Dying, and Light in August had all been relegated to the bargain bin of your local used bookstore. How much does the reversal of critical opinion owe to his winning the Nobel Prize in 1949? Now, it's like he can do no wrong, or he never wrote a lousy word.

We make false idols of these men, and pretend their works shouldn't be read with the same critical appraisals as we would give to other books by other writers. I suggest that Proust had some problems with plot, pacing, and narrative setting and people jump all over me. They can't accept that their favorite books could be anything less than perfect, or that their favorite artist wrote anything less than a masterpiece. There is the fallacy. They stop looking at the books critically, accepting either the common opinion or their own hasty judgement as a substitute for reason, continued observation, and an open mind.

In regards to an earlier poster who mentioned that Balzac wrote extremely fast, I have to agree that some of Balzacs books are excellent, with the caveat that we only read three or four of them these days. I'm guessing that about seventy of them were probably worthless garbage and another twenty or so ran the gamut from good to alright. He wrote an awful lot of books without much effort in the hope that one or two of them would stick in the public consciousness. Then you have writers like T.S. Eliot or Ernest Hemingway who produce extremely few works but of a higher quality. Scientists actually have term for this kind of behavior as it exists in nature. It's called r/K selection theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-selection

Chester

05-04-2008, 10:15 AM

Excellent posts. And I don’t see much I would disagree with, mortalterror. My interest is specifically in “Faulkner’s judgment of the American audience” and I would just emphasize that his second sin, assuming his first was to compromise something of his artistic integrity and lower his expectations of himself, was to make the assumption that doing so was the quick way to gain a popular market for his work. That assumption is what drove the lowering, and I would argue that that mindset is the more egregious offense of the two.

Admittedly I know little about Faulkner and so I’m probably out of line in making my own assumptions about the man’s assumptions. As you say, he caught himself in time and rewrote the manuscript. One wonders, though, if he did so as a result of rethinking his opinion of the typical American reader.

That's about what every living writer today does. Almost no one writes for himself/herself and remains true to his artistic vision.
How do we know this? How do we know what the "artistic visions" are of today's writers? How do we know that their artistic visions are not what they are putting in print? And how do we know that their artistic visions do not match what the typical reader enjoys reading?

Kay Scarpetta might not embody Cornwell’s "unique vision of life" but she may well be Cornwell’s artistic vision. I can’t say for sure that these "formula" writers, as you suggest them to be, have a vision beyond what they are actually writing. Do we know, in other words, that they have some kind of artistic inclinations which they are willingly sacrificing to make money, as is the underlying assumption? Maybe they do, but I don’t know how we’d know that. It seems – and this is where I bristle – that we don’t find their work "artistic" enough to our liking (notwithstanding what the general population feels about it or, worse, because of what the general population feels about it) and so we presume they must be forfeiting their "integrity."

I think in the end the most we can say is that these people don’t share our artistic vision.

Nossa

05-04-2008, 12:42 PM

mortalterror

05-04-2008, 01:20 PM

The problem is not that they lack originality and base their writing on a form. Some of the best stuff gets written that way: The Aeneid, Paradise Lost, Jerusalem Delivered, The Lusiads. And it's not that they re-use themes or popular characters: Don Quixote, The Merry Wives of Windsor, Sherlock Holmes. It's that the models they base their work on are poor models in themselves.

I think that the major problem facing novelists today is that they don't have a proper form. Tradition gives direction and can inform a work in many ways. Anyone who's played a modern video game will understand the difference between sandbox gameplay, free form, and games which are "on rails" carefully regulated, restricted design. There's a lot of latitude in between the two which doesn't often get explored. Personally, I am deeply troubled by the amount of preference creative people show toward sandbox style writing. The novel is often such a formless mass it's hard to tell what it is trying to do.

Dante's Divine Comedy is 100 cantos, 33 cantos a book, with one canto introduction. The story is told in three books in terza (three) rima. The form re-inforces the tri-part nature of God (the father, the son, and the holy spirit) which is a major theme in the poem. I personally love that Jame Joyce structured Ulysses on Homer's Odyssey. I think there's a lot to be said for the well-made novel, and Scribe's well-made play. Plotting is perhaps the single most important element of a story and we neglect it at our peril.

Henry James once lamented that although Tolstoy's writing was good, his novels were like "loose baggy monsters." Nobody could say that about James Patterson. He does economize on his words. His sentences, paragraphs, and chapters are all short, which many people like. It zips the narrative along, keeps readers turning pages, creates a light energetic tone, and doesn't demand too much thought from his audience. There are a lot of things he does well. His problem is that he started life in marketing, and now he sees the novel as another product to be manufactured assembly line style, focus grouped, sensationalized, dumbed down, farmed out to other writers, ghost written, mass produced, and then sold in lavish ad campaigns.

I don't know what form Stephen King could be said to follow and I don't think that he repeats his characters. I would say that as opposed to Patterson King actually shows some traces of betrayed talent and a questioning mind. His cast of artistic misdeeds follow a wholly different arc than those of Patterson and we should be careful about lumping them in together. However, the place where he's distinguished himself and perhaps his true calling is in business. I couldn't say too much about the rest Antiquarian's rogues gallery but I doubt it would be terribly informative if I could; so I'll just shut up.

Virgil

05-04-2008, 03:05 PM

I know I'm probably a bit behind here, cuz I just started reading it today. I'll hopefully join in tomorrow. I just wanna say that so far it's a very good read. I think Faulkner's style is not as difficult as people say, but maybe it's just cuz it's only a short story. I never tried reading a whole novel by him, but this should be a good start for more Faulkner reads :D

Actuaoly Nossa this will be an excellent place for you to start on Faulkner.

As to the other discussion, history is filled with great writing that is popular or unpopular in its day, history is filled with writers who wrote for money or worte for themselves. Actually other than poets, I can't think of a single fiction writer that did not intend to write for money. It makes no difference to the writing's value as art. Don Quixote was sold for lots of money. Cervantes considered himself a playwright first, but was not able to earn a living, so he decided to write something that would be popular and make money. Shakespeare constantly picks up stories that were popular. In fact he was not the first to write a Hamlet type of play or Julius Ceasar or many other. He knew what his audience was interested in and he satisfied them. As to Sanctuary, yes Faulkner wrote it in a popular/sensationalistic way for money. And he was criticized for it and the work was not rated highly at first. However, literature is constantly going under revision and now that critics have gotten distance from the time it was written have upward rated Santuary. Despite its sensational scenes it is considered a fine work today by many Faulkner scholars. As to sensationalism, give me a break. No one was more sensational than Shakespeare. Actually Faulkner's model was Shakespeare.

HerGuardian

05-04-2008, 03:13 PM

waiting for tomorrow to see what is special about this short story

i didn't find it that unique to cause all this fuss. too eager for Monday

tractatus

05-04-2008, 04:13 PM

waiting for tomorrow to see what is special about this short story

i didn't find it that unique to cause all this fuss. too eager for Monday

Well, I am waiting too, and I think Australian's are ready to start !

Janine

05-04-2008, 04:36 PM

Wow, Antiquarian...I didn't know you started this thread. How did I miss it? I read this story recently at your suggestion, so I am sure I can comment some on it, even if briefly, because I am a bit too busy right now with the other threads, to add on more; so sorry. Good for you,
A starting this new thread and short story - great! Will be interesting to me to see what other people say. I may just be a spectator on this thread - is that ok?

DapperDrake

05-04-2008, 05:03 PM

mtpspur

05-04-2008, 08:00 PM

A thread now I see. As I PM'd you last week I think I read it because of your high regard for it. I liked it more for the surrounding mystery of it and speculations and WAS NOT expecting thesecret to be what it was. By the by I had picked up the caretaker makig a quiet getaway. I vaguely remember reading a Faulkner short story in junior high English call but all I remmber is a little brother thinking about his older sibling going off to war and feeling how stiff his back was. That impression never wore off because my brother would have clobbered me if I touched him and for THAT silly reson disdained the story--can't remember the title. There was of course The Long Hot Summer (movie) and TV show no one recalls (Roy Thinnes). And that's my entire experience thus far. But curiousity has paid off before. We shall see. A thmbs up to showing me this little gem. But I still like Dave Keller's A Piece of Linoleum better.

papayahed

05-05-2008, 07:49 AM

...Well its practically Monday, shy a couple of hours.

I really don't know what you see in it Antiquarian, my first impression on finishing it (a few minutes ago) was "so what?", its bland and pointless.
I don't really know what else to say about it because it has so little going on, there is one simple and predictable plot thread that goes out with a whimper, so what if the woman was lonely and a little crazy, what do we care? the story doesn't give us any reason to care.
Perhaps I'm missing a whole other level of meaning here, I'll anticipate other peoples views.

I have to agree somewhat with Dapper, the whole beginning of the story built on the fact that she as "a little off" so the end is no surprise. We never got close enough to Emily to even care, it as like we were looking at here through a window.

I do like the story though, it's very southern.

Virgil

05-05-2008, 08:02 AM

I'll let Antiquarian take the lead in starting the discussion. But let me say i enjoyed the story very much, and as we get into it I hope to point out much of the craft that went into the story. It is finely crafted. It's a credit to Faulkner that he can write a gothic story line such as this and frankly make it so believable that it's within the realm of possibilty. I almost can believe it really occurring. :alien: :)

Chester

05-05-2008, 11:27 AM

the nameless narrator shifts his/her point-of-view from one character to another. I wonder if any of the posters who didn't like the story even wondered who the nameless narrator of the story was. Faulkner never lets us know and I don't think, in his personal writings, he ever gave any indication of it.
Yes I thought a lot about the narrator since reading it yesterday for the second time. What occurred to me that didn’t occur to me on the first reading was that the story seems more character sketch than anything else. Not about Miss Emily or any other specific character, but about the town itself. And telling it first person from a town representative made for a very effective way to fill in the sketch. “We thought” this and “we did” that seemed like the town itself speaking. And so we have a picture of a small, southern town. Interesting. And a good story to boot. But that’s as far as it reached for me. I do appreciate the craft.

Virgil

05-05-2008, 12:28 PM

As I said once before, I think the core of the story lies in the contrast between Miss Emily's aristocratic bearing and her terrible, dark secrets as well as her relationship with her father.

Actually that may be only one of the cores to the story. I took the core to be the contrast between the social constraits and Emily's individual desires. That's why the choice of narrator is so important. And like Chester I think implies the narrator is not just a person but the town itself. The story is told through the point of view of the town. The social constraints are imposed on her, both from the father and the town. Perhaps it may be the very same thing. I don't think we're privy enough to the father's issues (it is a short story, but amazing how much Faulkner puts into this little gem!) but they may parallel the town's issues. So we may be saying the same thing. Also there is a generational gap between the values of her father's and the current town. So perhaps there is a distinction between the father's constraints and the town's constraints.

I think some posters might have had a "so what?" attitude toward the story because of Faulkner's superlative craft. He sets up the ending so marvelously and seemlessly that it really comes as no surprise that Miss Emily did what she did. Rather than be disgusted, most readers think, "Yes, I can see Emily Grierson doing that." And instead of seeing the marvelous craft that went into the writing of the story, they think, "Well, so what?" But that's exactly how a story that's perfectly constructed should end, with the reader being convinced that the character could well have done what he did.
It's magnificently done. If anyone thinks they could do this in five pages please show me. I'm not sure if I can think of a single short story with this complexity in five pages.

I think Faulkner uses two sophisticated literary techniques to make this story intriguing and also make it ring true: the fact that it's non-linear and the fact that the nameless narrator shifts his/her point-of-view from one character to another. I wonder if any of the posters who didn't like the story even wondered who the nameless narrator of the story was. Faulkner never lets us know and I don't think, in his personal writings, he ever gave any indication of it.
I'll have to read it again for point of view shifts. I thought it was told pretty much through a vague member of town. The narrator keeps saying "we" and perhaps that implies a different member of town seeing various parts of the story and then they coming together to interweave the parts they observed. Magnificent!! I've seen Faulkner do this in places in his novels, but to do that in a five page story is incredible craft. The time shifts also work perfectly to get the maximum out of the story. If you like, I can untangle the time shifts tonight when I get home and have more time.

All though the story, there's a contrast between the past, in which Miss Emily lived, and the present.
There a slew of contrasts throughout the story. The approach is extremely dualistic: black/white, individual/society, older/younger generation, father/child, life/death, union/confederate, babtist/episcapal, north/south, man/woman, youth/age. I believe there is thematic significance to the dualities. But let me hold off on that for now.

When the story opens, Miss Emily's funeral is being held in her own house, and the whole town attends, not because they were close to Miss Emily, but because the men want to pay their respect to a woman they considered a "real Southern lady," the women out of curiosity about her house. And the house is as decayed as Miss Emily was, instead of being a great Southern mansion as it once was, it's falling apart, a remnant of the Old South. It's described as having "stubborn and coquettish decay."
The story then returns to complete a circle. I'm not sure if that has any significance. I haven't come to any conclusion on that. I'm open to thoughts. I actually see the power of the story's events as coming from its linear trajectory, despite it's tangled time shifts.

Chester

05-05-2008, 12:52 PM

I'll have to read it again for point of view shifts. I thought it was told pretty much through a vague member of town.
That was my impression as well. I didn’t see any evidence of shifts. The narrator, so I thought, was just a representative. It is his (her?) observations that betray the feelings and nuances of the town. We learn about the town this way. This would have been ruined in third person. Frankly I found the town more interesting than Miss Emily. But that’s just me.

If anyone thinks they could do this in five pages please show me. I'm not sure if I can think of a single short story with this complexity in five pages.
I don’t want to make this into a contest, and maybe it’s apples and oranges, but pound for pound, relatively speaking, I think Virginia Woolf did more with 700 words in “A Haunted House.”

Virgil

05-05-2008, 01:14 PM

That was my impression as well. I didn’t see any evidence of shifts. The narrator, so I thought, was just a representative. It is his (her?) observations that betray the feelings and nuances of the town. We learn about the town this way. This would have been ruined in third person. Frankly I found the town more interesting than Miss Emily. But that’s just me.

:lol: Well if you don't find someone who kills her lover and then sleeps with his body for thirty years interesting then you must know some pretty interesting people. :p

I don’t want to make this into a contest, and maybe it’s apples and oranges, but pound for pound, relatively speaking, I think Virginia Woolf did more with 700 words in “A Haunted House.”
I've never read that or any of Virginia Woolf's short stories. I'll have to look it up, thanks. :) No let's not make it a contest.

DapperDrake

05-05-2008, 01:17 PM

There definitely are lots of contrasts, personally I thought the core of the story was the contrast between the "we" of the town which represents social life and miss Emily whom we never meet, who is pretty much the embodiment of seclusion and introversion.
You're right, there is a lot packed into the story and its cleverly done. perhaps I'll go back and read it again with these things in mind.

Chester

05-05-2008, 01:27 PM

Well if you don't find someone who kills her lover and then sleeps with his body for thirty years interesting then you must know some pretty interesting people.
Well, I didn't say she was uninteresting. Just that the town was moreso. She was interesting. But she was a wacko. That's all I saw. I know, I know...there was much more depth to it than that and all kinds of complexities, etc., etc.

It was Faulkner and I'm a blasphemer. ;)

Meanwhile here's "A Haunted House" if you get a chance: http://www.online-literature.com/virginia_woolf/856/

Janine

05-05-2008, 04:42 PM

Antiquarian, I truly enjoyed your post and think you pointed out some very good things about this finely structured story. I read the story about a week ago; I thought it reminded me of a very early Hitchcock tale and one that was packed full of symbolism and little details, which make it intriguing. I say this 'positively' about the story, concerning Hitchcock; ever see his early TV dramas - they are great and reminescent of the characters in this story. It would make a fine play. I like the way it builds up to the last scene. I liked the descriptions, as we encounter that attic room; it recalled me to my own grandmother's attic for she was a bit eccentric, to say the least; but of course, she did not harbor a dark macabre secret in her attic, as Emily does.

Antiquarian, I think it would be very beneficial to post some sections of text, from the beginning and talk about the various elements and the way in which Faulkner firstly sets the scene of the story and presents the characters. If everyone just jumps back and forth between the parts of the story and even the ending, how will that be a discussion of the story and it's fine structure?

I am anxious now to take a closer look at the text and understand the story on a deeper level.

HotKarl

05-05-2008, 06:27 PM

For those unfamiliar with this narrative point-of-view, it’s called the corporate narrator. As so many people have mentioned, the narrator is not a he, a she, or I—it’s a WE.

And I think this is a very telling detail of the story. One of the main gripes the story’s detractors have is “we never get a good look at Miss Emily.” And they’re right—we don’t. But look at it this way: Faulkner is showing us the inaccuracy of town gossip. Because the story comes from so many different people—the aldermen who come to collect taxes, store keeper who sells her the Arsenic, the aldermen sprinkling lime on her lawn, etc.—can we conclude that the town’s portrayal of Miss Emily is accurate? Probably not. For example, they assume she’s lonely. But what evidence of that comes directly from Emily? These people have had minimal communication with her over a forty year period. They can’t possibly know her thoughts. We have to remember much of what is said about Emily is gossip and rumor.

And the non-linear plot line proves just how clueless the townspeople are. I really have to commend Faulkner on this plotline. Not only does it show the townspeople’s ignorance, but it also does a great job of foreshadowing. The narrative drops serious clues to where this story is going. Upon rereads, I have to laugh at the scene when the aldermen are sprinkling lime on Emily’s lawn because they don’t want accuse a lady of stinking. Let’s see . . . Emily bought Arsenic, Homer Barron just disappeared, and now a serious funk is coming from her house. It’s good to see that the townspeople are on the ball.

There has also been some discussion about the generational gap between Miss Emily and the townspeople. I think this gap is the story’s main theme. Southern gothic carries this theme a lot—the lower class usurping the aristocracy.

And that’s what’s happening here. The story begins by describing Emily’s house, talking about how her home, which was once among the county’s finest, is now an “eyesore among eyesores.” Miss Emily’s gravy train is over folks. I would imagine it’s difficult going from riches to rags. So when I see Emily clinging to old traditions—refusing to pay taxes, chasing away address number men, etc.—I see a woman attempting to stop time. Sleeping with Homer BARRON’s corpse (wink wink, nudge nudge) is persuasive evidence of that. In Emily’s demented mind, she somehow thinks marrying and killing Barron will somehow preserve her family’s power. There’s no arguing one thing—Emily is a wacko.

But none the less, her attempts to stop time are obviously unsuccessful, little more than desperate grasps for preservation. I’ve already mentioned how her house is “an eyesore among eyesore,” but the text provides much further evidence. Her furniture is dusty and cracked, she keeps an aging picture of her with her father, and Emily herself ages poorly. Yes, Emily and her estate are the very image of decay. Emily’s fall isn’t just her own; her fall is representative of the entire southern aristocracy.

papayahed

05-05-2008, 07:40 PM

I think some posters might have had a "so what?" attitude toward the story because of Faulkner's superlative craft. He sets up the ending so marvelously and seemlessly that it really comes as no surprise that Miss Emily did what she did. Rather than be disgusted, most readers think, "Yes, I can see Emily Grierson doing that." And instead of seeing the marvelous craft that went into the writing of the story, they think, "Well, so what?" But that's exactly how a story that's perfectly constructed should end, with the reader being convinced that the character could well have done what he did.

mmmmm I don't think that's it, At least not in my case. I don't say so what because it's plausible for Emily to murder her man, I'm thinking so what because I have no connection to Emily. I don't care that Emily killed her man. The story is written in such a "standoff-ish" way. It's like Emily is being held at arms length. I feel more sympathy for the town when they have to deal with Miss Emily.

Virgil

05-05-2008, 08:28 PM

And I think this is a very telling detail of the story. One of the main gripes the story’s detractors have is “we never get a good look at Miss Emily.” And they’re right—we don’t. But look at it this way: Faulkner is showing us the inaccuracy of town gossip. Because the story comes from so many different people—the aldermen who come to collect taxes, store keeper who sells her the Arsenic, the aldermen sprinkling lime on her lawn, etc.—can we conclude that the town’s portrayal of Miss Emily is accurate? Probably not. For example, they assume she’s lonely. But what evidence of that comes directly from Emily? These people have had minimal communication with her over a forty year period. They can’t possibly know her thoughts. We have to remember much of what is said about Emily is gossip and rumor.

I don't understand why people keep saying we don't get a good look at her. She is decribed in a number of places. Thin in youth, fat as older, iron grey hair, coal eyes. Am I missing something? Yes it's looking from the outside, the corporate point of view as you call it. We don't get to know her because of the point of view and because Emily is so isolated.

And the non-linear plot line proves just how clueless the townspeople are. I really have to commend Faulkner on this plotline.
I think there are positive elements to the towns people and negative. I don't think it's a clear cut one way or the other. Papaya (quoted below) comes away more sympathetic to the townspeople. I think on balance that's right. It's not the townspeople who kill anyone. But we are also made to feel the social constaint placed on Emily.

There has also been some discussion about the generational gap between Miss Emily and the townspeople. I think this gap is the story’s main theme. Southern gothic carries this theme a lot—the lower class usurping the aristocracy.
Finally I agree. ;) That is a regular theme in Faulkner.But it's a little more complex than that. But leave it as it may.

In Emily’s demented mind, she somehow thinks marrying and killing Barron will somehow preserve her family’s power.
Did I miss something? I didn't get preserving family power anywhere. Could be, I'm not arguing. But can you point that out in the text?

mmmmm I don't think that's it, At least not in my case. I don't say so what because it's plausible for Emily to murder her man, I'm thinking so what because I have no connection to Emily. I don't care that Emily killed her man. The story is written in such a "standoff-ish" way. It's like Emily is being held at arms length. I feel more sympathy for the town when they have to deal with Miss Emily.
Yes, I tended to have more sympathy for the town myself. But that doesn't make it a bad story. I don't think Faulkner was after generating sympathy. I think he was after capturing the difference in Emily's individual will/desire against social realities and constraints.

Anti, I think we basically agree. There is sympathy and antipathy on all sides. Thanks for pointing all of that out. :)

Janine

05-05-2008, 09:24 PM

Antiquarian, I agree with you and with Virgil...I have been reading along today, off and on....I am just here 'behind the scenes', so to speak. I liked your last post very much. It makes perfect sense to me and now I understand the story much better; thanks Antiquarian! I will try and post comments tomorrow.

Today I have been having so much trouble with the internet and this site, in particular. Has anyone else had problems? Once I clicked on my desktop shortcut and it kept saying 'no connection' or 'site too busy' or 'experiencing problems'. Before that I kept trying to change pages or run searches and it took over a couple of minutes to get to the page. It was really frustrating. I think that is much better now; let's hope so anyway.

papayahed

05-05-2008, 09:46 PM

While I liked the townspeople in many ways, I didn't feel sympathy for the town because they really didn't have to "deal" with Emily that much, she isolated herself, and when they did, they didn't seem to mind too terribly, but I liked the townspeople in not judging her so harshly (at times), in trying everything they could to help her. They tried to help her when her father died, they spread lime around her gardens and cellar door, they did all they could to help her. However, ultimately, it's the town who forces her hand, I think. They are the ones who judged her relationship with Homer far too harshly.

At first, they're happy for her when she's seen about town with Homer, and I liked them for that unselfish happiness, but when things seem to be turning a bit serious, they condemn her. They say she would never marry him. They said:

Of course a Grierson would not think of marrying a Northerner, a day laborer. But there were others, older people who said that even grief could not cause a real lady to forget noblesse oblige - without calling it noblesse oblige.

So if a Grierson would not marry a Northerner or a day laborer, has the town really moved on?

They said:

She carried her head high enough - even when we believed that she was fallen.

So these townspeople you all have so much sympathy for/with has judged poor Miss Emily, who's lost everything, to be an adulteress, "fallen." She was described as a "fallen monument" in the beginning of the story, Faulkner like to repeat everything. I know the "fallen monument" refers to her as symbolic of the "old South," but "fallen," refers to her as being an adulteress in the "enlightened" town's eyes.

They even send for her relatives from Alabama to put a stop to the relationship, meddling in affairs that are none of their business.

So, in the end, I see the townspeople as doing some good, kind things, but also begin far too judgmental, especially when they consider themselves so enlightened.

Emily's father, as well as the judgmental townspeople have to take some of the responsibility for the poisoning of Homer.

How does it fit in that Miss Emily bought poison and killed Homer rather then lose him have anything to do with the town not condoning the relationship? That flys in the face of what the town/Alabama relatives/by extension her Miss Emily's father wanted for Emily.

I think that Miss Emily may have seen Homer as an escape from her isolation/her fathers will. When she realized he was slipping away she busted out the arsenic.

And for the record I didn't say it was a bad story, I said I liked it. In an odd sort of way it's kind of comforting, it very much reminds me of the saturday afternoon horror stories I used to watch.

Virgil

05-05-2008, 09:58 PM

How does it fit in that Miss Emily bought poison and killed Homer rather then lose him have anything to do with the town not condoning the relationship? That flys in the face of what the town/Alabama relatives/by extension her Miss Emily's father wanted for Emily.

I think I agree. I seem to see a distinction between the town's will and the father's, but I don't have the story in front of me to confirm. I kind of remember the town wanting Emily to marry.

I think that Miss Emily may have seen Homer as an escape from her isolation/her fathers will. When she realized he was slipping away she busted out the arsenic.
:lol: :lol: I like the way you phrased that.

And for the record I didn't say it was a bad story, I said I liked it. In an odd sort of way it's kind of comforting, it very much reminds me of the saturday afternoon horror stories I used to watch.
That was me. Me bad. :blush: I kind of lumped you in with some of the critics. :) Yes, I think Faulkner is drawing on that gothic horror fiction.

Antiquarian, I agree with you and with Virgil...I have been reading along today, off and on....I am just here 'behind the scenes', so to speak. I liked your last post very much. It makes perfect sense to me and now I understand the story much better; thanks Antiquarian! I will try and post comments tomorrow.

Today I have been having so much trouble with the internet and this site, in particular. Has anyone else had problems? Once I clicked on my desktop shortcut and it kept saying 'no connection' or 'site too busy' or 'experiencing problems'. Before that I kept trying to change pages or run searches and it took over a couple of minutes to get to the page. It was really frustrating. I think that is much better now; let's hope so anyway.

Yes I'm having trouble with the site too. It's so slow at times and then it's normal for a minute. I can't figure it out. It does seem to take a long time for posts to go through.

Janine

05-05-2008, 11:35 PM

Glad to hear it is this site and not my computer. At first, I was worried, because I have been experiencing some sluggishness with my own system, but then I checked other sites and all was working much faster, concluding it had to be this site. I wonder what has been going on all day long. The problems seems to be partly solved and posting is some bit faster now but not as it normally is. It is truly odd.

I love the wording in this statement; the way it merely suggests.

..." This behind their hands; rustling of craned silk and satin behind jalousies closed upon the sun of Sunday afternoon as the thin, swift clop-clop-clop of the matched team passed: "Poor Emily."

Good discussion so far....I will keep reading it. For now I am watching a movie and trying to relax a bit. Have fun talking about....Miss Emily....

HerGuardian

05-06-2008, 05:48 AM

I have this point. I'm not sur of if it's right or not.

Was Homer gay??

When she had first begun to be seen with Homer Barron, we had said, 'She will marry him.'
Then we said, "She will persuade him yet," because Homer himself had remarked-he liked men, and it was known that he drank with the younger men in the Elks' Club-that he was not a
marrying man.

The townpeople don't like Emily. It's obvious; it's the same as we dislike people oh high status. Also, I think the narrator is one of the second generation as it is referred to in the last part.

; and the very old men-some in their brushed Confederate uniforms-on the porch and the lawn, talking of Miss Emily as if she had been a contemporary of theirs, believing that they had danced with her and courted her perhaps, confusing time with its mathematical progression, as the old do, to whom all the past is not a diminishing road but, instead, a huge meadow which no winter ever quite touches.

Do you think Faulkner meant that women are of low intellect in the following sentence?

Only a man of Colonel Sartoris' generation and thought could have
invented it, and only a woman could have believed it.

Virgil

05-06-2008, 07:08 AM

Miss Emily's father, her Alabama cousins, and the townspeople did not want Miss Emily to marry Homer (her father wouldn't have wanted it had he been alive).

OK, you convinced me. ;)

I'm not even sure Miss Emily wanted to marry Homer, only that she didn't want to lose his company and for the townspeople to say she was a disgrace for "keeping company" with him, and they did say that, even though they came to dislike the Alabama cousins.
That I think is specualtive, though. I think the lack of knowing Emily's rationales are part of the mystery of the story. It's part of the point of view.

I felt terribly sad for Miss Emily. Everyone seemed to be against her. No one seemed to want her to have any happiness at all.
I don't know. She is off in the head. There are lots of ways to find hapiness. Killing your lover and storing his body is not one of them. :lol:

There is so much reference to the color yellow in this story. I don't understand that. Anyone have any ideas?
I took that as the passing of time, like a yellowing page from a book. A sense of aging. But I need to look at the specifics.

Was Homer gay??

When she had first begun to be seen with Homer Barron, we had said, 'She will marry him.'
Then we said, "She will persuade him yet," because Homer himself had remarked-he liked men, and it was known that he drank with the younger men in the Elks' Club-that he was not a
marrying man.
That struck me too. It's not a developed detail, and it's ambiguous, but it's quite possible. Though he does show some attention to her. I love the paragragh that describes him:

The town had just let the contracts for paving the sidewalks, and in the summer after her father's death they began the work. The construction company came with riggers and mules and machinery, and a foreman named Homer Barron, a Yankee--a big, dark, ready man, with a big voice and eyes lighter than his face. The little boys would follow in groups to hear him cuss the riggers, and the riggers singing in time to the rise and fall of picks. Pretty soon he knew everybody in town. Whenever you heard a lot of laughing anywhere about the square, Homer Barron would be in the center of the group. Presently we began to see him and Miss Emily on Sunday afternoons driving in the yellow-wheeled buggy and the matched team of bays from the livery stable.
On balance though I would say Homer is not gay. He's one of those guys that likes hanging out with the boys. I also liked this sentence:

Later we said, "Poor Emily" behind the jalousies as they passed on Sunday afternoon in the glittering buggy, Miss Emily with her head high and Homer Barron with his hat cocked and a cigar in his teeth, reins and whip in a yellow glove.
The cocked hat and cigar is so perfect. :D

The townpeople don't like Emily. It's obvious; it's the same as we dislike people oh high status. Also, I think the narrator is one of the second generation as it is referred to in the last part.
But I think you can also find sympathy too. They did want her to marry, they were reserved in forcing the "smell" issue, they were worried she might kill herself. What ezxactly does a town owe a person? It's Emily that isolates herself and doesn't meet it half way.

Do you think Faulkner meant that women are of low intellect in the following sentence?

Only a man of Colonel Sartoris' generation and thought could have
invented it, and only a woman could have believed it. [/QUOTE]
I don't know about intellectually weaker, but there is a sense of sexism there. What year was this story written? I noticed it was published in 1930.

Chester

05-06-2008, 07:15 AM

Virgil,

Did your version actually use the word "rigger"?

Virgil

05-06-2008, 07:21 AM

Virgil,

Did your version actually use the word "rigger"?

Not the version I read that Antiquarian posted. But I didn't copy that text above off of that one, off a different one. I didn't even notice that they changed the word to "rigger." Silly.

Chester

05-06-2008, 07:25 AM

papayahed

05-06-2008, 07:50 AM

I just assumed it was a typing error, there were a few of those in the link that was posted in this thread.

Do you think Faulkner meant that women are of low intellect in the following sentence?

Only a man of Colonel Sartoris' generation and thought could have
invented it, and only a woman could have believed it.

I don't know about intellectually weaker, but there is a sense of sexism there. What year was this story written? I noticed it was published in 1930.

I thought it was a sign of the time, women didn't generally get invovled in taxes or business.

Virgil

05-06-2008, 07:57 AM

It's much worse than silly. I understand sensitivities but when we start changing a man’s work, when we start pretending our history didn’t happen the way it happened, then I’ve got a major problem. This is a town (and it is, in some sense I think we all agree, the town itself narrating) that would have definitely used the word "nigger." That’s part of who the town was.
I absolutely agree. As much as I hate that word, it's part of the story.

I just assumed it was a typing error, there were a few of those in the link that was posted in this thread.

I didn't use Antiquarian's link mostly because of those typos. This is the one that I used: http://www.rose-for-emily.com/.

papayahed

05-06-2008, 07:59 AM

Miss Emily's father, her Alabama cousins, and the townspeople did not want Miss Emily to marry Homer (her father wouldn't have wanted it had he been alive).

I'm not even sure Miss Emily wanted to marry Homer, only that she didn't want to lose his company and for the townspeople to say she was a disgrace for "keeping company" with him, and they did say that, even though they came to dislike the Alabama cousins.

Exactly, Miss Emily went against everybody's wishes. That's why it's my contention that Miss Emily saw Homer as her chance to escape the rigidity of southern society.

I know you said you liked it. It doesn't remind me of horror movies, though. I felt terribly sad for Miss Emily. Everyone seemed to be against her. No one seemed to want her to have any happiness at all.

I'm not sure I'm willing to make that leap, I don't think the townspeople actively wished for her unhappiness I think they called the relatives out of a misguided sense of duty.

I absolutely agree. As much as I hate that word, it's part of the story.

I didn't use Antiquarian's link mostly because of those typos. This is the one that I used: http://www.rose-for-emily.com/.

:eek: oh.

Virgil

05-06-2008, 09:46 AM

I never got a sense that Homer was gay. I think he just liked to drink with the other men, but I could certainly be wrong.

I have to disagree. I think the towspeople did like Miss Emily. They didn't like everything she did, but I think they liked her to a point and felt sorry for her. They came to comfort her when her father died, they wanted her to marry, though not Homer, they felt bad for her when people stopped coming for China painting lessons, etc.

I don't dislike people of high status. LOL I don't dislike people of low or middle status. (If I did, I'd have to move from my middle status neighborhood. LOL) I think they saw Miss Emily as a symbol of the "old South," though, and while some of them respected her for it (remember the judge), there were some who even revered her for it.

No, I don't personally think Faulkner thought women were of low intellect. I think he was simply referring to the customs of the old South, of which Miss Emily was a part.

Anti, I'm not sure most of the non-Americans understand the North/South divide of this country we had. Even in recent years there's somewhat of a cultural divide. I'm not sure I can explain it well. But non-Americans need to be aware that the US had a civil war in 1860-1865 between the north and the South. North had a culture of industrialism, academics, business oriented so that economic classes were more fluid, immigrants. The South had a culture of agriculture, farm laborers, newly freed black slaves, and a history of aristocracy similar to European class structure. The defeat of the South in the Civil War was cataclysmic to the South's culture. Like most of Faulkner, this story is rooted in that history and identity.

Miss Emily didn't go against her father's wishes when he didn't want her to marry, and that's what brought about all the trouble in the story. Had she gone against his wishes and run off with one of her "more suitable" suitors, she never would have met Homer Barron and probably would have never "lost it." But she felt she couldn't go against his wishes.

I'm not sure if Miss Emily wants to escape Southern society or if she just doesn't want it to change, but you could be right. She certainly wasn't going to escape with Homer dead, though, so now I'm getting confused. I admit it. She resists progress when she refuses to let postal numbers be put on her house. She certainly knew she would have to deal with progress in the north. I think time stopped for Miss Emily when her father died. I think she became "stuck" in that time.

I think the way to understand Emily is that she is bound and constrained by her identity, whether it be by her father on one issue or the town on another. You're right she could have run off with one of her suitors. In fact it reminded me of Lena from Faulkner's great novel (Oh how I love that novel) Light in August, where Lena is pretty much unbound by her identity and runs off with a fast talking ladys man. Of course he winds up abandoning her, pregnant no less. But Lena is savy and survives. Actually Lena is the complete opposite of Emily.

papayahed

05-06-2008, 10:40 AM

Miss Emily didn't go against her father's wishes when he didn't want her to marry, and that's what brought about all the trouble in the story. Had she gone against his wishes and run off with one of her "more suitable" suitors, she never would have met Homer Barron and probably would have never "lost it." But she felt she couldn't go against his wishes.

I'm not sure if Miss Emily wants to escape Southern society or if she just doesn't want it to change, but you could be right. She certainly wasn't going to escape with Homer dead, though, so now I'm getting confused. I admit it. She resists progress when she refuses to let postal numbers be put on her house. She certainly knew she would have to deal with progress in the north. I think time stopped for Miss Emily when her father died. I think she became "stuck" in that time.

The narrator says:

Thus she passed from generation to generation - dear, inescapable, impervious, tranquil, and perverse.

The word, "pervese" meaning of course, her refusal to pay taxes, etc., but Faulkner is also setting up the ending.

I think Miss Emily wanted things to remain just as they were in her father's day. Some things are ambiguous partly because the narrator goes back and forth in time so very much.

I don't know, she would rather poison Homer then let him leave.

Anti, I'm not sure most of the non-Americans understand the North/South divide of this country we had. Even in recent years there's somewhat of a cultural divide. I'm not sure I can explain it well. But non-Americans need to be aware that the US had a civil war in 1860-1865 between the north and the South. North had a culture of industrialism, intellectual, business oriented so that economic classes were more fluid. The South had a culture agriculture, farm laborers, newly freed black slaves, and a history of aristocracy similar to European class structure. The defeat of the South in the Civil War was cataclysmic to the South's culture. Like most of Faulkner, this story is rooted in that history and identity.

Still today there is a bit of that genteel society vibe. People still use "Miss" in front of womens names, it took a while to get used to being called Miss Papaya and it's taking even longer to remember to call people Miss So-and-So.

Gaiam

05-06-2008, 10:53 AM

Virgil

05-06-2008, 10:58 AM

I must say I never felt shunned in the South. I happen to like the southern culture. Whatever racism was there I think it's pretty much gone. I got along quite well in the south, and I'm very much a northern yankee. I think it depends on your approach. Homer in the story got along very well. Perhaps I'm a bit like Homer, "cocked hat and cigar" and drinking with the boys. :p :lol: Lucky i never met a Miss Emily type. :D

Gaiam

05-06-2008, 11:04 AM

When Homer arrives, the stage is set for the ending. Almost. After Miss Emily buys the poison, Faulkner writes:

She bought the arsenic while the two cousins were visiting her. I think this is important. The narrator says:

Like when she bought the rat poison, the arsenic. That was over a year after they had begunt o say "Poor Emily," and while the two female cousins were visiting her.

When she goes to the pharmacy, Faulkner again describes her as rather corpse like:

...thinner than usual, with cold, haughty black eyes in a face the flesh of which was strained across the temples and about the eye sockets.

Just like a corpse.

But I have to wonder why she bought the poison when the female cousins were there, and she clearly did. Now, I have to wonder if she killed Homer at all, or if he just died. Why does Faulkner even bring the cousins into the story? What purpose do they serve? They come and they depart, this time with the town's blessing, as they were even more Grierson than Miss Emily had been.

Maybe Emily initially purchased the rat poision intending to kill herself?

papayahed

05-06-2008, 11:48 AM

Oh, I loved Savannah, Virgil. I didn't personally feel shunned at all there, and never shunned anyone myself, but I made myself "one of them." I would move back to Savannah today. I just meant the culture is very different there. It's a lot slower paced and more focused on manners and decorum, etc. At least in Savannah.

I would agree with that. Last week I was complaining about the customer service I was receiving from one of our suppliers, two of my coworkers rave about the customer service and love Beatrice. We determined that I don't chit chat with Beatrice, my coworkers know all about Beatrices family and home life I know nothing. Me and my northern ways wanting to get right to the point.

I don't think so, but I don't know. ;) She did purchase it knowing Homer was coming back after the cousins went home to Alabama. I think it's more likely she knew by then that Homer wasn't the marrying kind and wanted to eventually "move on," so she got the cousins out of the house by telling them she and Homer were marrying, and she ordered the toilet with the initials H.B., then she killed Homer when he returned.

I think if Miss Emily were going to kill herself, she would have done it after her father's death. Right afterwards.

But I'm not sure. ;)

I agree. I think when the cousins showed up she forced Homers hand on the marriage issue and that's when she realized it wasn't going to happen and bought the arsenic.

HerGuardian

05-06-2008, 12:21 PM

I agree with that, Virgil. It's a story that very, very American and very, very southern. It embodies so many qualities of the "old South," that I'm not sure a non-American who hasn't lived in the US could fully understand it.

I totally disagree with you in that. The South almost has the same charateristics of the Arab world. We have those constraints and manners that sometimes are more of hindrance than valuable. While the North is similar to the Western world with its somewhat loose and liberal characteristics. Finally, I think it's clear to most non-Americans what differences are there between the South and North.

Virgil

05-06-2008, 12:52 PM

I totally disagree with you in that. The South almost has the same charateristics of the Arab world. We have those constraints and manners that sometimes are more of hindrance than valuable. While the North is similar to the Western world with its somewhat loose and liberal characteristics. Finally, I think it's clear to most non-Americans what differences are there between the South and North.

I'm glad you understand HerG. I wasn't sure if non-Americans understand the differences and history between our north and south. I guess you can think of it in the sense of European and Arabic customs, although there are distinctions. Actually you might see it as a difference between Americans and Europeans too. But I think these are all superficial similarities. There are very specific distictions between American South and North - the history slavery for instance and the terrible war that was faught over it. I thnk the American civil war may have been the bloodiest war to date, finally surpassed by WWI.

HerGuardian

05-06-2008, 01:07 PM

I'm glad you understand HerG. I wasn't sure if non-Americans understand the differences and history between our north and south. I guess you can think of it in the sense of European and Arabic customs, although there are distinctions. Actually you might see it as a difference between Americans and Europeans too. But I think these are all superficial similarities. There are very specific distictions between American South and North - the history slavery for instance and the terrible war that was faught over it. I thnk the American civil war may have been the bloodiest war to date, finally surpassed by WWI.

I didn't jump haphazardly at the comparison between the south and the Arab world. Maybe it's due to the lack of historical information you have about Arabs. Here, the society used to be and somewhat still divided into two distinct parts, especially in my country Saudi Arabia. We have the tribal people and city dwellers. The tribal people are very strict concerning customs, apearances and values for both men and women. For example, a man should not allow his cousin female marry people from outside the family. Yet, city dwellers are more open-minded and adjusting themselves to what changes the world may force.

Concerning wars, I think no place over this earth suffered from wars as we had in the Arabian Peninsula. For instance, there was a war between two tribes. It lasted for over 40 years. Many people died and a new generation appeared but it continued. War is an integrated part of our history.

Finally, sorry for the digression but I seized the opporunity of what you said to introduce something about our history and culture. LOL.

When she opened the package at home there was written on the box. under the skull and bones: "For rats."

The druggist suspected that she was going to commit suicide;however, he supplied her with the arsenic. Why??

So the next day we all said, 'She will kill herself'; and we said it would be the best thing.

How come? She isn't an old wounded mule that you better get rid of it. They couldn't keep their traditions and customs; therefore, they wished she kills herself rather than she, as a last representative of the South Values, too gets rid f those constraints.

NickAdams

05-06-2008, 01:52 PM

Thanks for the flag Virgil.

Good or bad, I haven't seen so many lengthy replies in so little time. I need time to read through it all, before I comment on the story.

I know this has been cleared up, but Faulkner wrote the first draft of Sanctuary for money, but the book that is in print now, was done with artistic care. Read it if you don't believe me. It is like comparing Stephen Hero to Portrait.

I agree with Virgil, in that so much is done in this story. It satisfies like a novella.

Virgil

05-06-2008, 03:24 PM

Finally, sorry for the digression but I seized the opporunity of what you said to introduce something about our history and culture. LOL.

Thanks. I'm always interested and trying to learn. Yes, I should have mentioned our north was more urban versus the agrarian south. That's a very good comparison and the distinction holds for most places around the world.

As to our civil war, you can read a bit about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War. It lasted four years, but there were 620,000 deaths. And a huge number of maimed soldiers. It was practically a generation of men with missing limbs. It was the beginning of automatic weapons.

Nossa

05-06-2008, 03:32 PM

I can see that I missed much in the discussion, but I didn't have time to finish it till now.
I didn't read the whole dicussion yet, so I'll write my personal impressions then read what you guys said :D
I have to start by saying that Faulkner's way of writing is just amazing. I always thought that a good literary work is that which you can see in your mind. In this story, you can see the people, the description is so vivid and precise, the events are realistic, cuz I know we had people like Miss Emily and her father in our country back in the 40s and 50s, people who cared so much about customs and social status.

'Alive, Miss Emily had been a tradition, a duty, and a care; a sort of hereditary obligation upon the town...'

This is one of the things that sort of left me with feelings of longing. We don't see it now much, not even in the American South I believe, that one person is cared for the way Faulkner depicted Miss Emily's life in her town. My father always tells me of old people who lived in the town where he grew up, and it amazed me how one person can have the care of a whole town. Being a city girl (in one of the biggest, most crowded capitals on God's green Earth..lol) I always found it hard to believe, but I always wished for something like it.

'... Then we knew that this was to be expected too; as if that quality of her father which had thwarted her woman's life so many times had been too virulent and too furious to die.'

I think my first encounter with Miss Emily, when the deputation was in her house, and how she met them. I personally felt that maybe she was a bit of a cold person, but then afterwards, I couldn't help but feel really sad for her, thinking how Homer left her and all (before I knew about the corpse), how she never went out and how the house door remained closed, it made me feel sad for her, and I kept hoping that maybe at some point something or someone would make her life a bit better.

I kinda flinched, though, when they finally discovered Homer's corpse in her bed. But then again, she was probably just too desperate for love or any kind of company, that she kept his corpse with her in the bed!

But there were still others, older people, who said that even grief could not cause a real lady to forget noblesse oblige-

I don't think people of the town wanted her dead and that's why they talked about her committing suicide, they were just chatting, like they always did, about her life (they even stopped caring for her and her news, I think they always just wanted something to talk about, and when there was nothign to talk about, they stopped). That's just how people are, and to a certain extent, wouldn't you agree that maybe that was one of the reasons of her killing Homer, it's all about social status, even after her father's death

I think I'm gonna re-read it, cuz these were just first impressions on the story. I feel that my remarks might be a bit...dunnow, not like your remarks (I'm really not that good in analysing, I'm trying though) but hopefully I'll have more things to discuss when I read it again :D

Virgil

05-06-2008, 03:41 PM

Nossa, your first impressions are excellent. I think they are mostly right on. Let me highlight this:

My father always tells me of old people who lived in the town where he grew up, and it amazed me how one person can have the care of a whole town. Being a city girl (in one of the biggest, most crowded capitals on God's green Earth..lol) I always found it hard to believe, but I always wished for something like it.

I think Faulkner was after that small town life where the town both cares and formulates constrictions that oppose one's idiviualism. My parents came from samll town in Italy and they describe a world where towns people are both caring but also busybodies inserting themselves into your life. (That is completely different world than that of New York City, as a side note ;) ) That is the good and bad, and I think we are both made to understand this duality. We can sympathize and antipathize (is that the right word?) at times with both the town and with Emily.

Nossa

05-06-2008, 04:10 PM

Yes, the south, where the customs and manners and appearances are so important is even more rural than the north, where it's more urban and where the people are open minded. I can see now you understand this aspect of the story well and that's really terrific. People are so different the world over, are they?

I think the idea of customs and appearances exist everywhere, you don't have to be living in the American South or an Arabian tribe to know it. Here in Egypt we don't have tribes, but such ideas existed in the countryside (probably similar to the american south). We had a feudal way of life at some point, and social status were even more important, at times, than people themselves. It's obvious that Miss Emily's social status was more important than her own happiness, and even the life of her lover.

Nossa, thank you for giving us your first impressions. They add a lot. Be sure to come back and let us know anything new you may have gained on a second reading

I will, though I'm not sure how useful my remakrs were...they're pretty obvious to anyone who reads the story :lol:

HerG, I guess they thought it would be best if she'd kill herself since she didn't seem to have anything to live for anymore. Her way of life was gone, her father was gone, Homer seemed to be gone. I don't think the town bore her any ill will when they thought it would be for the best. I think they just thought Miss Emily had lost so much, and couldn't fit into the changing values, etc. of the south.

That's an interesting thought. I think, however, that those who chattered about her didn't really care. Maybe the elder generations did, the people who were once there and died (like Colonel Sartoris). I mean, they wanted to push forward the marriage to get rid of the cousins, that doesn't sound like they really cared about her or what's best for her. It's like when we talk about celebreties and speculate what they'll do and if they'll break up and all.

I don't know. Do you think her social status was more important to her than love? I think surely it was more important to her father, but I'm not sure if it was truly more important to Miss Emily or if she simply couldn't break away. I'm undecided. Of course, she wouldn't let them put numbers on her house for the post office. The would support the theory that social status was more important to her. However, she went riding about in public with Homer, which would suggest that love was more important. She certainly didn't mind being seen with him and he was well below her in status.

I agree. But what did she do eventually? She gave in, or else we would have seen her married to Homer. She tried to defy her social status and the imposed customs, but she couldn't face the reality alone, she couldn't stand against the whole town, not to mention the history of her family especially her father. Her status killed her emotionaly and killed Homer physically.

Nossa, HerG, Nick, Virgil, anyone else, do any of you have any ideas about this:

I suppose Miss Emily ordered the toilet to convince the cousins that Homer was going to marry her, but knowing he wasn't, bought the arsenic to poison Homer.

Do any of you think I'm right here or barking up the wrong tree?

I think she bought the toilet cuz she did think she was getting married. The poison was probably a final desperate attempt to have love, or something like it. She went public with her relationship with Homer, I think if she wanted to convince anyone of her family she would have taken a different method.

Yeah I think a second read is vital at this point...there's much more to the story :D

I just have one remark concerning Homer and his will to get married. I'm not sure that the story was really about whether Homer was going to marry her. It's about showing Miss Emily's attempt to defy the traditions and the failure of it. It's about the outcomes of keeping her social status on the expense of her life. Just a thought.

DapperDrake

05-06-2008, 04:40 PM

Yeah I think a second read is vital at this point...there's much more to the story :D

I just have one remark concerning Homer and his will to get married. I'm not sure that the story was really about whether Homer was going to marry her. It's about showing Miss Emily's attempt to defy the traditions and the failure of it. It's about the outcomes of keeping her social status on the expense of her life. Just a thought.

Hmm.. the author made a point of the arsenic being labelled "for rats", I'd say the inference is that homer wooed Miss Emily and slept with her, Emily then realised he had no intention of marrying her and so when he came back to sleep with her again she poisoned him. partly because she wanted to keep him and partly because of her indignation and fear of judgement and ostracism.
I think its plain that Emily wanted to marry Homer, she was desperate enough, she made a show of going around town with him. The only reason for that could of been her conviction of a firm attachment.

Janine

05-06-2008, 04:51 PM

Hmm.. the author made a point of the arsenic being labelled "for rats", I'd say the inference is that homer wooed Miss Emily and slept with her, Emily then realised he had no intention of marrying her and so when he came back to sleep with her again she poisoned him. partly because she wanted to keep him and partly because of her indignation and fear of judgement and ostracism.

Yes, I just got that 'rat' idea. It is rather witty, actually - Homer was a 'rat', a we call it in the states. He used her, woeing her and leading her along. He must have taken advantage and I suppose she did believe him, being the naive person she is described as. In a sense, she never grew up because of her overbearing father; he kept her a child, she had no real chance to become a woman. So the 'for rats' label ends up being appropriate, even though poor Miss Emily is probably not aware of that idea at all. Her intention is strickly to keep Homer to herself. Afterall, she did try to keep her father, as well when he died, but finally the town's people took him away. This time she would be assured of keeping the man by her always by hiding him in the attic room.

DapperDrake

05-06-2008, 05:00 PM

That's it Janine , I hadn't though of Emily being especially naive but as you say, with her upbringing what chance did she have? She latch on to the first chance of love she had.
One thing in the story makes me wonder though - What was it that transpired with the priest that went to see Emily?

Nossa

05-06-2008, 05:02 PM

I never thought of the word 'rat' in this way actually!
But still, as Janine said, she wanted to keep him for herself, I think it was more about love than revenge.

DapperDrake

05-06-2008, 05:25 PM

It's quite a sad story really, my heart bleeds for Miss Emily, she desperately wanted love but circumstances conspired heavily against her.
I can't help imagining how her life would of turned out if Homer had been a decent bloke and actually married her. I'm not convinced Emily was actually crazy, I think that given a chance for a normal life she might of flourished and it was just her introverted desperation that made her cling on to first her father's corpse and then her lover's.
Yes, I think it was very much more love than revenge.

Chester

05-06-2008, 07:24 PM

There’s no question she’s a sad and tragic character. I called her a wacko earlier but that doesn’t preclude a certain amount of sympathy. But I found her difficult to relate to (the same with the town, the other major character in the story, in my estimation) and the reason I’m lukewarm on the work. I would suggest, Antiquarian, that one’s level of sympathy (mild from me, "profound sadness" from you) might say more about the reader than the writer. Perhaps all of literature is like this. Each story a kind of Rorschach test. For my part, I didn’t find her written in such a way so as to evoke profound sadness.

Nossa

05-06-2008, 07:30 PM

^^ I also wondered about the smell of Homer's corpse...I'm still not decided on how the smell wasn't detected by anyone.

I agree with you in feeling sad for Emily. I just feel that she was wronged and she lived a life that she didn't choose but was imposed upon her by society and family (even her father's death didn't really make any difference, as the people of the town played his role afterwards).

Maybe the story can be thought of as one about the tyranny of society. Maybe Faulkner didn't see much use in holding on to such traditions, that eventually might lead to the unhappiness of the people. And, also, that might be the reason why he wrote such a sad story with such a shocking ending.

I'm gonna re-read the story, the idea of marriage is still unclear to me, though I'm tending towards believing that Homer was going to marry Emily and maybe just left her in the last minute?

And I think Miss Emily's taxes remained unpaid, she always sent back the tax notice unaclaimed.

Virgil

05-06-2008, 07:35 PM

I don't know. Do you think her social status was more important to her than love? I think surely it was more important to her father, but I'm not sure if it was truly more important to Miss Emily or if she simply couldn't break away. I'm undecided. Of course, she wouldn't let them put numbers on her house for the post office. The would support the theory that social status was more important to her. However, she went riding about in public with Homer, which would suggest that love was more important. She certainly didn't mind being seen with him and he was well below her in status.

So, I don't know.

I'm not sure one can tell from the story. It's too short. But knowing other Faulkner works, I would think the answer is that she cannot break away from her identity. She doesn't have what Lena in Light In August has, the ability to recreate herself. And it's not just a woman thing, though her sex plays a part in this story. Quentin Compson from The Sound and the Fury also doesn't have that ability to transcend.

Yeah I think a second read is vital at this point...there's much more to the story :D

I just have one remark concerning Homer and his will to get married. I'm not sure that the story was really about whether Homer was going to marry her. It's about showing Miss Emily's attempt to defy the traditions and the failure of it. It's about the outcomes of keeping her social status on the expense of her life. Just a thought.

Hmm.. the author made a point of the arsenic being labelled "for rats", I'd say the inference is that homer wooed Miss Emily and slept with her, Emily then realised he had no intention of marrying her and so when he came back to sleep with her again she poisoned him. partly because she wanted to keep him and partly because of her indignation and fear of judgement and ostracism.
I think its plain that Emily wanted to marry Homer, she was desperate enough, she made a show of going around town with him. The only reason for that could of been her conviction of a firm attachment.

I think both of you can support your argument, or perhaps neither. ;) There just isn't any definitive detail. Faulkner leaves us to speculate. Knowing how Faulkner worked sometimes, he would know a detail in his mind but leave it out to create a sense of mystery. How many details in our lives of our neighbors do we just not know? We speculate. It makes for a more powerful story. Of course it depends on the detail.

Nossa

05-06-2008, 07:43 PM

Nossa, Miss Emily's taxes were paid, but perhaps not by her. Perhaps by the aldermen, who later had passed away when Miss Emily returns the tax notice unopened.

Oh..I probably didn't notice this. Which reminds me, I shouldn't read Faulkner while I'm studying Shakespeare...too much...literature :lol:

I also wanna state that Faulkner's style and how he writes his sentences isn't that difficult. I think if you try reading someone like Dickens for instance you'll find him more complex and harder to read. Just my opinion.

Virgil

05-06-2008, 07:45 PM

Yes, I just got that 'rat' idea. It is rather witty, actually - Homer was a 'rat', a we call it in the states. He used her, woeing her and leading her along. He must have taken advantage and I suppose she did believe him, being the naive person she is described as. In a sense, she never grew up because of her overbearing father; he kept her a child, she had no real chance to become a woman. So the 'for rats' label ends up being appropriate, even though poor Miss Emily is probably not aware of that idea at all. Her intention is strickly to keep Homer to herself. Afterall, she did try to keep her father, as well when he died, but finally the town's people took him away. This time she would be assured of keeping the man by her always by hiding him in the attic room.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Just leave it to you women to think the worst of men. ;)

Nossa

05-06-2008, 07:48 PM

Perhaps status might not have been so important to her had she found love, but she didn't, and status was really all she had left.

I don't think so. It's true that we don't have a full history of her life, but Miss Emily was miserable because of her social status and the restrictions put on her because of it. We don't have an evidence of this, but don't you think that it's very likely that she loved someone, once in her life, and that someone was dismissed by her father cuz he didn't measure up? I don't think that status was all that's left for her, I think Homer's corpse was all that's left for her, it was all that's left from the 'dream' of a life she would have had, if she wasn't that high in the society's rank.

Virgil

05-06-2008, 07:55 PM

Here's something I'm not clear about, and maybe one of my fellow posters could enlighten me.

After the narrator says:

And that was the last we saw of Homer Barron. And of MIss Emily for some tme.

We have to assume, Miss Emily has poisoned Homer Barron.

But later it says:

From that time on her front door remained closed, save for a period of six or seven years, when she was about forty, during which she gave lessons in china painting. She fitted up a studio in one of the downstairs rooms, where the daughters and granddaughters of Colonel Sartoris' contemporaries were sent to her with the same regularity and in the same spirit that they were sent to church on Sundays with a twenty-five-cent piece for the collection plate. Meanwhile her taxes had been remitted.

So, Miss Emily is paying her taxes?

And why didn't the china painting pupils smell Homer's rotting corpse? Had the lime already been spread? Even so, when the door was broken down, the stench, the narrator says, was terrible. I guess it just didn't drift down to the first floor?

Miss Emily's funeral was held in her home, so I guess no one noticed the smell until they actually entered the room with the corpse.

I'm not sure I can figure out the tax situation. I just thought they let her not pay them. The body would only smell for a few months I believe. Over the course of a year I think the smell dissipate. I could be wrong.

But poor Miss Emily! The narrator says:

They held the funeral on the second day, with the town coming to look at Miss Emily beneath a mass of bought flowers, with the crayon face of her father musing profoundly above the bier and the ladies sibilant and macabre;...

Poor Miss Emily. All she ever wanted was to love and be loved, and in the end, even at her own funeral, she can't escape the father who dominated her so.

I agree with DapperDan. My heart just bleeds for Miss Emily. I wanted her to find love so much.

I find the story so profoundly sad. In killing Homer, Miss Emily also killed any chance she might have had to interact with the living.
Interesting on that last statement. It is sad and tragic. But she did kill someone. Even if he is a "rat." :p In the end, the constraints are self imposed.

Nossa

05-06-2008, 07:58 PM

Nossa, Faulkner's short stories are not written in the long, convoluted style he used for his novels. His novelistic style of writing is much, much more difficult. He tends not to use the pure stream-of-consciousness that can be found in many of his novels.

For my money, The Sound and the Fury is probably the best example of stream-of-consciousness - ever, even eclipsing Joyce. But even in that masterpiece, Faulkner varies his technique. One character, Benjy's parts are pretty uncomplicated, but another character's, Quentin Compson's are very, very complex. Another, character, Jason, has his sections written in yet another style. Part of the genius of Faulkner is that he could adjust his style of writing to fit any character.

And, as Virgil has mentioned, Faulkner always left "holes and spaces" in his narrative for the reader to fill in. (Toni Morrison does the same thing.) In this way, the reader becomes an active participant in the creation of the story.

Hope that helps a little. We can talk more about Faulkner's writing style later. He did use some techniques in this story that he used in his novels.

I never read anything by Faulkner except for this story so I can't really tell if I'll like his style in the novels. I guess I'm just trying to encourage myself cuz I'm kind of intimidated by him lol...But it's a good start that I understood the story, or at least came up with some ideas from a first read...you gotta give me credit for that :p :D

Oh, yes, I do agree. I do think she probably loved one of those suitors her father dismissed as not being good enough.

But, until she murders Homer, I do think her status, or her perceived status, was all she had left. And with the changing times, she even lost that. In the end, I think all she had left was Homer's corpse.

You might be right, but this time when Homer was still alive is kinda vague for me, so I guess I'll go back to the story to get more information on that.

But yeah, I guess one of the saddest things about this story is the discovery of Homer's coprse. It's as if Faulkner is showing that even that dream that was once embodied in Homer, it's dead and rotten in an attic. I think the last part in this story is just too sad, makes you really think what the people thought of as they saw what their traditions did to her.

I give you credit for a lot, Nossa, and I'm glad you're participating in this discussion. You've given us valuable insight into the story, just as all the posters have. I hope you'll have time to read one of Faulkner's novels some day. ;)

I'm sure that I will. I was actually planning on reading one of his novels this summer vacation. I already have 'Absalom, Absalom!' but I've been told it's his most difficult works. So I guess I'll buy As I Lay Dying, cuz I read it's the shortest, and see what happens. :D
Right now I'll go to sleep, cuz it's past 3 am lol...I'll get to the story tomorrow again, and come back with more ideas...hopefully :D

Virgil

05-06-2008, 08:24 PM

I'm sure that I will. I was actually planning on reading one of his novels this summer vacation. I already have 'Absalom, Absalom!' but I've been told it's his most difficult works. So I guess I'll buy As I Lay Dying, cuz I read it's the shortest, and see what happens. :D
Right now I'll go to sleep, cuz it's past 3 am lol...I'll get to the story tomorrow again, and come back with more ideas...hopefully :D

No, don't start with Absalom. It's a great work, but soooo hard. I've always been told to start with As I Lay Dying, but you know that's the one great Faulkner work I've never read. So I can't say. I would actually start with The Sound and the Fury. We read it as a book forum read and discussed it here: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16592&highlight=sound+fury. It's a little hard at the beginning but once someone orients you it's not as hard. just don't be obssessed with knowing every detail. It's more important to understand the general trend of the work. Plus Cliff Notes on this are free on the internet: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/The-Sound-and-the-Fury.id-125.html and they help you orient yourself. Plus I think there are other internet sites that can help. I would also agree with Light In August. That's my favorite Faulkner novel. Once you untangle the time line in that one, it's not as hard. But very powerful and beautiful.

Nossa, this is from Quentin Compson's section of The Sound and the Fury. This is probably as difficult as Faulkner gets;

When the shadow of the sash appeared on the curtains it was between seven and eight oclock and then I was in time again, hearing the watch. It was Grandfather’s and when Father gave it to me he said I give you the mausoleum of all hope and desire; it’s rather excruciating-ly apt that you will use it to gain the reducto absurdum of all human experience which can fit your individual needs no better than it fitted his or his father’s. I give it to you not that you may remember time, but that you might forget it now and then for a moment and not spend all your breath trying to conquer it. Because no battle is ever won he said. They are not even fought. The field only reveals to man his own folly and despair, and victory is an illusion of philosophers and fools.

I don't find it all that difficult, but an entire book written in stream-of-consciousness can be draining.

Really? I thought the Benjy section was harder.

Janine

05-06-2008, 08:47 PM

Gee, now I think I know why I have not tackled Faulkner - too hard! I just read all of your last 4 posts discussing the book. I think I would be lucky reading "Light in August"...doesn't sound as difficult.....anyway, I like the title of that one best, as well. Thanks Antiquarian and Virgil for some insight on the novels, recommendations.

papayahed

05-06-2008, 09:10 PM

Yes, I just got that 'rat' idea. It is rather witty, actually - Homer was a 'rat', a we call it in the states. He used her, woeing her and leading her along. He must have taken advantage and I suppose she did believe him, being the naive person she is described as. In a sense, she never grew up because of her overbearing father; he kept her a child, she had no real chance to become a woman. So the 'for rats' label ends up being appropriate, even though poor Miss Emily is probably not aware of that idea at all. Her intention is strickly to keep Homer to herself. Afterall, she did try to keep her father, as well when he died, but finally the town's people took him away. This time she would be assured of keeping the man by her always by hiding him in the attic room.

I'm not sure we can label Miss Emily as "poor" and "naive". The only concrete notion we have of Miss Emily is her interaction with the town alderman and the druggist and in both cases she appeared to be a woman in control, definately not some poor confused girl. (Not to mention the preacher that ent to visit)

Virgil

05-06-2008, 09:23 PM

Janine

05-06-2008, 09:27 PM

I'm not sure we can label Miss Emily as "poor" and "naive". The only concrete notion we have of Miss Emily is her interaction with the town alderman and the druggist and in both cases she appeared to be a woman in control, definately not some poor confused girl. (Not to mention the preacher that ent to visit)

Yes, you are right, Papayahed; I guess I was reading that into the story. It seems I need to go back and read the story again or parts of it. That was merely an impression I formed because she did not marry. I did not in anyway, think she was out of control or confused - only when her father died and she would not reliquish the dead body, but that was a sort of 'temporary insanity' which passed and was understandable - more like shock. But then again, she did do poor Homer in at the end; that wasn't exactly sane, to keep a body and sleep with it. But she could not have been naive to do this either. She was quirpy I suppose and eccentric, but not naive. Would they be appropriate words to describe her?

Nossa

05-07-2008, 05:03 AM

Nossa, this is from Quentin Compson's section of The Sound and the Fury. This is probably as difficult as Faulkner gets;

When the shadow of the sash appeared on the curtains it was between seven and eight oclock and then I was in time again, hearing the watch. It was Grandfather’s and when Father gave it to me he said I give you the mausoleum of all hope and desire; it’s rather excruciating-ly apt that you will use it to gain the reducto absurdum of all human experience which can fit your individual needs no better than it fitted his or his father’s. I give it to you not that you may remember time, but that you might forget it now and then for a moment and not spend all your breath trying to conquer it. Because no battle is ever won he said. They are not even fought. The field only reveals to man his own folly and despair, and victory is an illusion of philosophers and fools.

I don't find it all that difficult, but an entire book written in stream-of-consciousness can be draining.

I actually understood this part (:D), but I think it's like you said, when it's a whole novel it's harder than one paragraph.

No, don't start with Absalom. It's a great work, but soooo hard. I've always been told to start with As I Lay Dying, but you know that's the one great Faulkner work I've never read. So I can't say. I would actually start with The Sound and the Fury. We read it as a book forum read and discussed it here: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16592&highlight=sound+fury. It's a little hard at the beginning but once someone orients you it's not as hard. just don't be obssessed with knowing every detail. It's more important to understand the general trend of the work. Plus Cliff Notes on this are free on the internet: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/The-Sound-and-the-Fury.id-125.html and they help you orient yourself. Plus I think there are other internet sites that can help. I would also agree with Light In August. That's my favorite Faulkner novel. Once you untangle the time line in that one, it's not as hard. But very powerful and beautiful.

It really depends on the books I can find here. Faulkner's works were always the hardest to find. I'll start looking right after exams :D:D

Virgil

05-07-2008, 07:04 AM

Before we get to the theme, can we talk about the rose. The story is called "A Rose for Emily." And there is no rose in the entire story. What's the significance of the rose?

papayahed

05-07-2008, 07:37 AM

I'd like to mention the poisoning. Arsenic poisoning isn't quick, one dose doesn't kill you. Miss Emily had to give repeated doses and witness the symptoms of the poisoning which include vomiting, nasea, diahhrea, convulsions, cramps, etc.

Nossa

05-07-2008, 07:40 AM

Before we get to the theme, can we talk about the rose. The story is called "A Rose for Emily." And there is no rose in the entire story. What's the significance of the rose?

You're right, I didn't find any reference to any roses in the story. I think that maybe the rose symbolizes the idea of sadness of the story. It's like when you go visit the grave of someone you loved or someone you at least feel sorry for their death, you put a rose on their grave, and hope they're in a better place.

Chester

05-07-2008, 07:56 AM

I just assumed the rose was the story itself. Written from "the town" as a gesture of remembrance.

DapperDrake

05-07-2008, 08:31 AM

Before we get to the theme, can we talk about the rose. The story is called "A Rose for Emily." And there is no rose in the entire story. What's the significance of the rose?

Yes this occured to me last night but I couldn't think of what it meant. What are roses symbolic of? romance, love, and they also have thorns so there's pain there. Maybe its no more than that but that seems a bit weak to me.

I've just gone back to the text and come up this this:

"The violence of breaking down the door seemed to fill this room with pervading dust. A thin, acrid pall as of the tomb seemed to lie everywhere upon this room decked and furnished as for a bridal: upon the valance curtains of faded rose color. upon the rose-shaded lights, upon
the dressing table. "

From the end, plenty of references to the colour rose there. perhaps the "rose" room is Emily's Rose... Her consolation.

Virgil

05-07-2008, 08:37 AM

Yes this occured to me last night but I couldn't think of what it meant. What are roses symbolic of? romance, love, and they also have thorns so there's pain there. Maybe its no more than that but that seems a bit weak to me.

I've just gone back to the text and come up this this:

"The violence of breaking down the door seemed to fill this room with pervading dust. A thin, acrid pall as of the tomb seemed to lie everywhere upon this room decked and furnished as for a bridal: upon the valance curtains of faded rose color. upon the rose-shaded lights, upon
the dressing table. "

From the end, plenty of references to the colour rose there. perhaps the "rose" room is Emily's Rose... Her consolation.

Oh good find Dapper. I hadn't notice that. Could the rose be Homer, dried up and pickled like a preserved flower? Faulkner was very fond of John Keats' poetry and uses images from "Ode to a Grecian Urn" frequently. Could the preserved rose (and therefore Homer) be like a Keats' urn a preserved moment in time, Emily holding on to that one moment in time, as time actually goes by?

Chester

05-07-2008, 09:07 AM

Yep, that makes more sense. I'm officially taking my guess off the table.

papayahed

05-07-2008, 09:56 AM

Papaya, good observation. Do you think Faulkner was aware that arsenic poisoning wasn't quick? I wonder why Homer didn't leave the first time he became ill. He was certainly physically stronger than Miss Emily, and I would think a man who was Do you think the servant physically restrained him? I think his name was Tobe.

I was wondering about that and I came to the conclusion that Faulkner was too good at crafting the story not to know that arsenic poisoning wasn't quick. I read somewhere that in the past arsenic poison symptoms were like the symptom for cholera, Homer probably just thought he was sick.

NickAdams

05-07-2008, 10:09 AM

Thanks for pointing that out Dapper and thanks for asking the question Virgil.

If Emily is the house and the house is Emily. And if Emily represents: "a tradition, a duty, and a care."

I find it interesting that the manservant is both gardener and cook; he tends to both the house and Emily. This is a stretch, but could it represent how slavery preserved a decaying culture?

To continue with slaverya and American history, I would like to quote the first sentence:

"When Miss Emily Grierson died, our whole town went to her funeral: the men through a sort
of respectful affection for a fallen monument, the women mostly out of curiosity to see the
inside of her house, which no one save an old manservant---a combined gardener and cook-had
seen in at least ten years."

Here's the sentence again ... kind of:

"When the South died, our whole town went to her funeral: the men (those who may have seen battle) through a sort
of respectful affection for a fallen monument, the women (those whose gender roles leave little liberty) mostly out of curiosity to see the
inside of her house, which no one save an old manservant---a combined gardener and cook-had
truly seen in at least ten years."

Virgil

05-07-2008, 10:33 AM

NickAdams

05-07-2008, 12:12 PM

Wow, that is excellent Nick. I think it fits except for one thing. I don't think Faulkner had on his mind women's liberation in any way. I think the women are interested in the house because of their domestic role in society. I've never seen Faulkner concerned with feminist issues. At least I've never noticed any.

Lol, you're right. People always say that Hemingway was a misogynist, but there seems to be more reason to believe Faulkner was one. Brett Ashley is stronger than any of the women I have come across in Faulkner's works.

Faulkner's women are naive and are drawn to abusive men: Lena Grove to Lucas Burch (Joe Brown), Joanna Burden to Joe Christmas, ??? to Lee Goodwin and Temple Drake to Popeye.

Maybe it's the death of romanticism in the South. The men out of respect for the southern belle and the women to see what a southern belle was. This is the disillusionment of the upper and middle class of the South, which only the lower-class (manservants) truly saw.

Even thought Faulkner thought the South needed to progress, he mourned for the southern belle.

Virgil

05-07-2008, 01:07 PM

NickAdams

05-07-2008, 02:01 PM

Although I would say that Lena Grove (Light In August) is a powerful woman in many respects and overcomes the attachment to a bad male. But she does it through her feminity not any androgenous sense of being.

I thought you might say that.:lol: I have to be prepared with you Virg. You are right though. Faulkner's titles are important to his works, so it was good that you pointed the rose out. Even though more time is spent with Joe Christmas, Lena Grove is light or the light in august. Do you remember the gender of the child?

Virgil

05-07-2008, 02:09 PM

I thought you might say that.:lol: I have to be prepared with you Virg. You are right though. Faulkner's titles are important to his works, so it was good that you pointed the rose out. Even though more time is spent with Joe Christmas, Lena Grove is light or the light in august. Do you remember the gender of the child?

Well, given that the story paralleled the Christ story I'm going to say the gender was male. ;)

Oh by the way, 'light" also was southern slang for giving birth. Light as in not heavy with child.

NickAdams

05-07-2008, 03:19 PM

Well, given that the story paralleled the Christ story I'm going to say the gender was male. ;)

Oh by the way, 'light" also was southern slang for giving birth. Light as in not heavy with child.

Saved by a male.;) I read that some time ago, that's why I said she is light or the light; the former being slang use.

Lena had a son. But, good as "Light in August" is, let's come back to "A Rose for Emily," okay?

You're right. When discussing Faulkner, it's hard not to refer to his entire cannon.

Does anyone have any ideas about the theme?

We know one of Faulkner's favorite themes is the past versus the present. Or at least he loves contrasting the past with the present, and I think he does a wonderful job of it in this story.

Don't forget "love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice."

Can this be seen as a tragedy? We are moved to pity and fear at the end of the story.

DapperDrake

05-07-2008, 05:24 PM

I'm not really moved to pity and fear, however I found the story profoundly sad and tragic. My heart bleeds for Miss Emily, just as DapperDan said. I definitely see this as a tragedy.

I'm not secure in that conclusion though, like Chester suggested we may be reading that into the story as a reflection of something within ourselves. As Virgil pointed out there isn't enough evidence to draw any hard conclusions about Miss Emily, Faulkner keeps her at arms length the whole time, we never know what she's thinking or what she feels - Possibly because the narrator doesn't know these things either.

I think my main feeling about Emily now is ambivalence, I don't know quite what to make of her or what I should be feeling about the story. That multifaceted quality of the story is I think a deliberate device to keep our focus diffuse. The author has several prominent and important themes that he's making statements about and he doesn't want us to focus on the protagonist. That's a conclusion I'm leaning toward anyway.

Edit:

Having just re-read the last chapter I would say that yes, pity is the prominent feeling, perhaps mixed with a little horror (repugnance?) rather than fear. Its only on reflection that I feel sad for Emily and the tragedy of her life bites, not on actually reading the story - remember my first post which I made moments after reading the story, I thought it was bland and didn't care about Emily :)

Oh good find Dapper. I hadn't notice that. Could the rose be Homer, dried up and pickled like a preserved flower? Faulkner was very fond of John Keats' poetry and uses images from "Ode to a Grecian Urn" frequently. Could the preserved rose (and therefore Homer) be like a Keats' urn a preserved moment in time, Emily holding on to that one moment in time, as time actually goes by?

I think you've hit the nail there Virgil, I didn't get the dried flower analogy, that's perfect. "a preserved moment in time", yes, just like a dried flower; and homer is the focus, though the room is preserved too.
I would never of gotten the keats link, I don't like Keats as a rule and I know nothing of Faulkner, to be honest I hadn't heard of him before I came to this forum. You've inspired me to dig Keats off the shelf though - I'm reading the poem now :)

Virgil

05-07-2008, 08:35 PM

Anti, I've mention many themes throughout the thread. This is from one of my first posts after having read the story. I think this pretty much still states my view of the central theme:

Actually that may be only one of the cores to the story. I took the core to be the contrast between the social constraits and Emily's individual desires. That's why the choice of narrator is so important. And like Chester I think implies the narrator is not just a person but the town itself. The story is told through the point of view of the town. The social constraints are imposed on her, both from the father and the town. Perhaps it may be the very same thing. I don't think we're privy enough to the father's issues (it is a short story, but amazing how much Faulkner puts into this little gem!) but they may parallel the town's issues. So we may be saying the same thing. Also there is a generational gap between the values of her father's and the current town. So perhaps there is a distinction between the father's constraints and the town's constraints.

There a slew of contrasts throughout the story. The approach is extremely dualistic: black/white, individual/society, older/younger generation, father/child, life/death, union/confederate, babtist/episcapal, north/south, man/woman, youth/age. I believe there is thematic significance to the dualities. But let me hold off on that for now.

Yes I still believe the central theme is the inability of Emily to transcend all the contraints about her. And the the dualities are an aesthetic reflection of the split between her internal yearnings versus the external circumscriptions. The story is about individual egocentricity constrained by social pressure.

Yes, I do agree Virgil, but doesn't "change is essential in order to adapt to life" encompass that? Or not? LOL

You've narrowed it down a lot more than I have. ;)

I have trouble with theme. I seem to stick to it in my writing, but I have trouble expressing it clearly, I don't mind admitting.

It's very complex and has several themes. I just picked what I thought was the main one. Oh you should also let the theme come out naturally in your writings. I don't believe a good writer starts with a theme. He starts with a story and understands the theme from the implications of the story and then craft the story.

NickAdams

05-07-2008, 10:19 PM

Do you think Emily intentionally killed Homer, or was it Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy? Was she keeping him sick, so he would be dependent on her. Did the relationship with her father create abandonment issues?

If she wanted Homer dead, she could have used other means. There was never an inquiry into Homer's state. She could have stabbed him with out trouble. Was his death an accident? Had Emily been mourning all those years.

tractatus

05-08-2008, 07:20 AM

Writing style here not difficult yes, though not necessary.
Stream of consciousness; may be It could be done only from the perspective of Tobe, who can observe both town and house. (The narrator here know very less from inside of the house)

- But I am still one of "so what"ters. Okey, this is academically and mathematically well built story, but dont get me after reading. Many concepts in story, is also used by Faulkner in his novels. This is his atmosphere. Nothing original for him.

- The opening sentence and " Only a man of Colonel Sartoris' generation and thought could have invented it,..." are the sentence I underlined, I like them.

- Her father build a strong control over her but Is this enough made her get
loose her mind? Or the Homer's behaviour, enough? If these are the reason, I 'd faced more than this. But what i believe is she carried hereditary mental sickness, as they mention her aunt.

Chester

05-08-2008, 09:14 AM

Oh, by the way, to the poster who mentioned Virginia Woolf's "Haunted House", I read it last night and I do love it. I wouldn't say it packs more in just under 700 words than "A Rose for Emily," but almost as much and it's certainly masterfully written. I don't want to go off topic, but I wanted to thank that poster (I can't remember who it is) for introducing me to the short stories of Virginia Woolf. Previously, I had read only her novels.
You're more than welcome. ;)

It reads almost like a beautiful poem, doesn't it? I'm glad you liked it, Antiquarian.

NickAdams

05-08-2008, 10:57 AM

Well, I definitely don't think it was Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome. That happens when someone makes someone else ill or injures someone to gain attention from others, not the person he or she is injuring. The most common example is a mother who makes her child sick or injures her child so she can interact with emergency room personnel.

We don't know what happened after the townspeople found Homer. Faulkner doesn't tell us.

I think she probably just killed him as fast as she could with arsenic. I think she was probably terrified he'd realize what was going on and leave before he was so sick he couldn't.

I know it isn't it exactly, but I wanted to associate with the concept. I didn't want to say Emily was like Annie Wilkes.

I wonder where the weight gain came from. Was it depression, or just old age. I would think that her appetite would go.

By the time the townspeople found Homer, Emily was dead; it took years to discover the body, so Emily got away with her crime. She knew no one would ask of Homer's whereabouts. She could have bludgeoned him to death or pushed him down the stairs. Why did she choose poison, when there are quicker ways?

Virgil

05-08-2008, 12:04 PM

I wonder where the weight gain came from. Was it depression, or just old age. I would think that her appetite would go.

A sort of symbolic degeneration I think. I'm reminded of Lighttower in Light In August who is heavy in his old age.

NickAdams

05-08-2008, 12:28 PM

I don't really have any good ideas about that, Nick. Perhaps she felt the other ways too violent, or maybe she just wanted to keep Homer sick, at least at first. Emily didn't strike me as a violent woman, just one who was deranged. I felt very sorry for her because of the cause of that derangement, but she was still deranged. She still killed Homer Barron.

You're right: she doesn't seem violent. She played a submissive role in the relationship with her father. Poison is is very passive-agressive. I find the story sad through Emily's perspective. The wrongs she might have felt that were done to her and her desperation.

A sort of symbolic degeneration I think. I'm reminded of Lighttower in Light In August who is heavy in his old age.

Hightower? I'm sure you were thinking of the title as you wrote his name, but I see what you mean.

Virgil

05-08-2008, 12:37 PM

Hightower? I'm sure you were thinking of the title as you wrote his name, but I see what you mean.

Yes, Hightower. Silly me. ;) Memory is not as good as it used to be.

NickAdams

05-08-2008, 02:20 PM

Yes, Hightower. Silly me. ;) Memory is not as good as it used to be.

I had to confirm it through a website myself.;)

We've already established that the narrator is "the town" or is speaking for the town. Do you think the narrator is young or old or is sympathetic or not sympathetic to Miss Emily?

I feel the narrator is older, more of Miss Emily's generation, and is, at least most of the time, sympathetic to her.

I wonder how the narrator knew of her deal with Satoris when the Sheriff didn't and no proof could be found, but it is first stated a fact. I agree: the narrator is from her generation or maybe older. The narrator never condemns Emily for the death of Homer. I think he might be sympathetic to her era.

What do you suppose the sex of the narrator is?

Fualkner names his characters in the manner Dickens did. What do you suppose is the significance behind Emily Grierson and Homer Barron names?

Virgil

05-08-2008, 02:37 PM

I'm not sure, but I get the impression that the narrator is male. Perhaps he was a friend of Colonel Sartoris.

Sentences like this:

We remembered all the young men her father had driven away, and we knew that with nothing left, she would have to cling to that which had robbed her, as people will.

Tell me the narrator has been around as long, or longer, than Miss Emily.

I can't tell the sex of the narrator, but I differ on the age. I felt that the story was a synthezation (is there such a word? ;) ) of a group of people (some young, some old all with various bits of the story) coming together and telling each other parts of her story and this narrator actually knowing less than the total story. The narrator tells us the men looked at her as a monument. That actually suggests someone who didn't quite live through it but accepts the established status.

It's really difficult to tell, isn't it?

Here's one commentary I found, but it isn't necessarily correct. No one knows but Faulkner ;) He's sort of like my hairdresser. ;)

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/Faulkner-s-Short-Stories-A-Rose-for-Emily-The-Narrator-s-Point-of-View.id-110,pageNum-12.html

Yes a hairdresser. LOL. That Cliffsnotes analysis was pretty good. I dont; think they came to a conclusion as to whether old or young. Perhaps we just bring our vision to the story. Something in there threw me though. It says Emily was involved in adultery. Neither her nor Homer are married. Where's the adultery? At least one of the parties needs to be married to be considered adultery. No?

Janine

05-08-2008, 03:21 PM

I had to confirm it through a website myself.;)

I wonder how the narrator knew of her deal with Satoris when the Sheriff didn't and no proof could be found, but it is first stated a fact. I agree: the narrator is from her generation or maybe older. The narrator never condemns Emily for the death of Homer. I think he might be sympathetic to her era.

What do you suppose the sex of the narrator is?

Fualkner names his characters in the manner Dickens did. What do you suppose is the significance behind Emily Grierson and Homer Barron names?

How funny, we see things so differently about who is narrating the story; all along I got the sense it was another (older) woman or women, since as someone said, the person or persons, never condemned Miss Emily, for her final act.

Nick, could 'Homer' be a reference to 'home' and did Miss Emily see him as her baron or was poor Homer barren (impotent)? ;) :lol: He certainly was so at the end, reduced to a mere decayed corpse. Now as far as the name, Emily, is concerned, I can only relate that to 'Emily' Dickenson, who also was deprived of love and wrote her poems in secret and stashed them in an attic. The 'Grierson,' has me miffed, unless it comes close, at least in my mind, to the word 'grief'. Miss Emily certainly had her share of that. I have no idea, if I am even close, but thought I would throw out these ideas anyway.

That is interesting to know about Faulkner and name significance; I will keep that idea in mind as I read his work. Thanks for pointing that out Nick.

Virgil

05-08-2008, 03:49 PM

Janine

05-08-2008, 04:12 PM

Good thoughts on Emily and Barren :lol: Janine. I think you might be right, though we'll never know. It's fun to speculate. :) Grierson reminds me of grey like the color of her hair. Homer reminds me of the author of the Illiad and Odyssey. Perhaps that's an ironic statement.

Thanks Virgil, yes, I thought ' barren' was pretty funny, myself.:lol: Who knows he may have been physically so from the start of his stay in Miss E's house. Maybe she started with that arsnic way back, keeping him ill and nursing him along, as she slowly killed him. We don't know the details. When I suggested 'home' for the name 'Homer' I was thinking in terms of keeping Homer at home. This Miss E certainly did achieve that. He became a very 'homey' kind of guy.;) Yes, 'gray' does fit the idea of a Miss Grierson - but it also seems to me to suggest the word 'gruesome'; other words to consider might be 'grievance', 'grief', 'grieve', 'greivous'....and a whole lot more...So who can really tell, unless we could conjure up the ghost of Faulkner himself, and ask him directly? Can you explain your last statement. I don't see the relationship exactly to this story, but it sounds interesting. I know in the novel "The Human Comedy" by Saroyan, 'Homer' was used in reference to the 'Homer' in Greek legends, but I forget now exactly how they related. That book centered around a small town and a very close-knit family life.

Antiquarian, thanks for your concern; you are always so thoughful. Yes my eyes are better today, thanks to some ointment that helped. I do have to take it easy, so it does not recur again. Bright computer screens are hard on the eyes and change in temperatures don't help either; I will just have to limit my time for a few days, so they get all better again.

Glad to see your thread is going on so well.

NickAdams

05-08-2008, 04:34 PM

I can't tell the sex of the narrator, but I differ on the age. I felt that the story was a synthezation (is there such a word? ;) ) of a group of people (some young, some old all with various bits of the story) coming together and telling each other parts of her story and this narrator actually knowing less than the total story. The narrator tells us the men looked at her as a monument. That actually suggests someone who didn't quite live through it but accepts the established status.

Very true. There are times when a male voice is suggested and other times, like how the telling of Emily getting rid of her cousins sounds like gossip, suggest a female voice. They are legion.:lol:

How funny, we see things so differently about who is narrating the story; all along I got the sense it was another (older) woman or women, since as someone said, the person or persons, never condemned Miss Emily, for her final act.

Nick, could 'Homer' be a reference to 'home' and did Miss Emily see him as her baron or was poor Homer barren (impotent)? ;) :lol: He certainly was so at the end, reduced to a mere decayed corpse. Now as far as the name, Emily, is concerned, I can only relate that to 'Emily' Dickenson, who also was deprived of love and wrote her poems in secret and stashed them in an attic. The 'Grierson,' has me miffed, unless it comes close, at least in my mind, to the word 'grief'. Miss Emily certainly had her share of that. I have no idea, if I am even close, but thought I would throw out these ideas anyway.

That is interesting to know about Faulkner and name significance; I will keep that idea in mind. Thanks for pointing that out Nick.

I was thinking Homer as orator, but I like your connection better.

I found this on wikipedia under Grierson:
Grierson's Raid was a Union cavalry raid during the Vicksburg Campaign of the American Civil War. It ran from April 17 to May 2, 1863, as a diversion from Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant's main attack plan on Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Two examples come from Faulkner's Light in August: Hightower the recluse and Grove the giver of life.

Virgil, It wasn't adultery to me since neither were married. I suppose technically it could have been fornication, but we don't even know if Miss Emily and Homer had a sexual relationship. Some of the townspeople just didn't like seeing them together because he was "lower class" and a Northerner. The did refer to her as "fallen," though.

Janine, It's good to see you back. I hope your eye is better and trust it is.

What are the other connections between Satoris and Homer, besides the Confederate and the Union one?

papayahed

05-08-2008, 05:27 PM

I kinda assumed the narrator was the town itself, kinda like the phrase "if these walls could talk.

So what about Tobe? what's he all about? What happened to him? Where did he go after Miss emily dies?

DapperDrake

05-09-2008, 07:59 AM

The name Homer means "hostage" apparently (thank you babynames.com :D) I wonder if thats a coincidence as homer certainly is Emily's hostage. Of course Homer Barron is barren to emily, his love bares no fruit as he clearly plans to desert her.

With regard the narrator I thought whilst reading the story that the narrator was sexless, not a real person, just a contrivance to tell the story. I didn't notice anything to tie the narrator to anything in the story other that the use of "we" - the narrator is certainly talking from the towns perspective. Like papayahed says I think the narrator is literally the town (or towns people as a collective)

Quark

05-09-2008, 01:54 PM

When asked what inspired him to write "A Rose for Emily," Faulkner describes the story as a "tragic manifestation of man's condition."

In this case there was the young girl with a young girl's normal aspirations to find love and then a husband and a family, who was brow-beaten and kept down by her father,...a natural instinct...repressed which...comes up somewhere else and very likely in a tragic form.

In another interview, he explains why Emily murders Homer:

Warped...by selfish father, [when Emily] found a man, she had had no experience in people. She picked out probably a bad one, who was about to desert her. And when she lost him she could see that for her that was the end of life, there was nothing left except to grow older, alone, solitary; she had had something and she wanted to keep it.

Do you remember when Faulkner said this? It may be important since Faulkner had the habit of redefining his older works in order to fit his new mood. If you've read The Sound and the Fury and then glanced at the appendix, you know what I mean. In this case, I think Faulkner gives a rather Romantic spin to the story by making it about Emily. The Emily we see in the story isn't as developed or as central in the story as Faulkner's summary. The reader is distanced from her character by the narrator's perspective and the town's behavior toward her. It's hard to believe that the story is about her when she's such a shadowy figure. The story seems more about the town's troubled relationship with its past. Most of the details point to the past, memory, or old age. The town is located near the buried bodies of Civil War soldiers, dust appears in many places in the story. The entire story is a rememberance, and within the remembrance there are other memories brought up by the narrator and other characters. The story seems to be more about the town's own struggle with the past, and less about Emily's. Emily is brought up to be emblematic and to give a personal touch to the story. The story, however, is not about what's going on her in her soul.

Janine

05-09-2008, 02:10 PM

In reference to what Faulkner wrote about his story:
Quote by Antiquarian

In another interview, he explains why Emily murders Homer:

Warped...by selfish father, [when Emily] found a man, she had had no experience in people. She picked out probably a bad one, who was about to desert her. And when she lost him she could see that for her that was the end of life, there was nothing left except to grow older, alone, solitary; she had had something and she wanted to keep it.

This is what I meant before about Miss Emily being 'naive'; I meant naive concerning men. How was she ever able to get any experience with the opposite sex, being so isolated by her father? Here is what I meant, Papayahed, not that she was naive about other matters or dumb at all. She was rather foxy I thought about certain things such as her taxes; but when it came to men, her father had kept her like a child.

Antquarian, This short description and explanation, by the author, seems plausible to me.

Quote by DappeDrake

The name Homer means "hostage" apparently (thank you babynames.com :D) I wonder if thats a coincidence as homer certainly is Emily's hostage. Of course Homer Barron is barren to emily, his love bares no fruit as he clearly plans to desert her.

Oh, that's interesting, isn't it? Thanks for looking that up DapperDrake, and further expounding on my idea of being barren. That explanation makes sense to me.

With regard the narrator I thought whilst reading the story that the narrator was sexless, not a real person, just a contrivance to tell the story. I didn't notice anything to tie the narrator to anything in the story other that the use of "we" - the narrator is certainly talking from the towns perspective. Like papayahed says I think the narrator is literally the town (or towns people as a collective)

I share in your thoughts on the narrator. That also was my impression - the narrator was the town's people - a collective. There really was nothing to indicte it was only one person speaking or if it were, they were speaking on behalf of the town as a whole.

Quark, I think the story can be perceived either way. I took this story more personally; others may relate it to the death of the Old South/old ways. To me it seems like a story about each.

Scheherazade

05-23-2008, 07:13 PM

I read the story a few days ago but never had a chance to post (actually I realised that I had read it at university but forgotten all about it... probably because it had gone over my head then! ;))

Going back to the title... I have read some of the suggestions but none of them sits well with me at the moment. I was wondering... As far as I could see throughout the story she is refered as "Miss Emily" but why do you think it is "Emily" in the title?

I agree with the comments that the narrator is "town"... However, they never treat Miss Emily as one of themselves; she (probably the whole family) is like a "sight" for them; something separate to watch and observe.

naphelge

03-30-2009, 01:08 AM

I have read this short story a few times now and I am getting a better understanding of the story. However after reading some online analysis' of the story I keep reading that Miss Emily was highly regarded by the townsfolk in the story. I just get a totally different impression each time I read the story.

I understand most of the town refers to her as "Miss" Emily. A term that might be considered a term of respect if used today but back when the story is written I am thinking this would be a common way of addressing a non-married woman, especially in the southern States.

The other part many analysis' point to claiming great respect for Miss Emily is in the opening line of the story about her funeral:

our whole town went to her funeral: the men through a sort of respectful affection for a fallen monument
Here I think the "fallen monument" refers to the death of the last of member of another great "august" family in town and not necessarily for Miss Emily personally.

There are many mentions throughout the story however, where it appears as though most townsfolk feel "vindicated" and even "glad" when Miss Emily and the Grierson name takes a bit of a topple:

So when she got to be thirty and was still single, we were not pleased exactly, but vindicated;

When her father died, it got about that the house was all that was left to her; and in a way, people were glad.

In another time when she is going through tough relationship problems, and the townsfolk mistakenly, yet still callously believe Miss Emily will be doing herself a service by killing herself with the poison she buys at the drug store.

"She will kill herself"; and we said it would be the best thing.

So I just can't seem to get my head around the fact that the townsfolk actually held a great deal of respect for Miss Emily or her Family name. I think perhaps they ultimately respected the idea and legacy of such "august" families, but even the townsfolk seem to think that the Griersons family held itself in higher esteem than it actually deserved:

the Griersons held themselves a little too high for what they really were.

I am quite a noob at analyzing literature, so any insight would be appreciated, as I am working on becoming more adept at doing so.

Also I was wondering if anyone had a good analysis of the importance of the "two cousins" that come into the story at three different occasions. No great detail ever seems to be revealed about them or their importance to the story.

cheers,
nap

Scheherazade

03-30-2009, 08:07 PM

There has been a discussion on this story if you would like to check it out:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34704&highlight=faulkner

Virgil

03-31-2009, 12:37 AM

Oh good. Scher located the discussion we had on A Rose for Emily. It's a great short story. Welcome to lit net naphelge. And I absolutely love your Keith Richards avatar. :D :D

naphelge

04-01-2009, 01:03 AM

There has been a discussion on this story if you would like to check it out:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34704&highlight=faulkner

Scheherazade thanks for the link. Believe it or not I did try a search before I posted to see what other points of view on the story were and somehow I came up blank. But I just ran another search and now I find all kinds of posts, including this one, of Faulkner and his works.

So I just finished reading most of the posts from that thread and got some great insight on things I didn't even think about including the meaning of the character's names.

I still am wondering about those two cousins. I am also wondering about the "market basket" Tobe (servant) seems to take with him whenever he leaves the house. Could this basket be a symbol for Miss Emily and how she keeps abreast of news and goings-on in town is when Tobe returns after any of his outings? Another thought along these lines I had was the part of the story when the aldermen come to see her in her house and she is "leaning" on her "ebony" cane. Is this meaning here perhaps that the only person she has come to rely and "lean" on is her servant Tobe (ebony=black)?

I was thinking about her "obesity" being symbolic of the insulation between her and the aldermen (aldermen representing the town) who come to see her about her taxes.

What about the mention of "yellow wheels" on the carriage she and Homer ride in on Sundays and the "yellow gloves" he wears. I think the author went out of his way to use the adjective "yellow" her to perhaps describe Homer as "yellow-belly" coward type man. If he truly was gay or even just not the marrying type but leading Miss Emily on was he too much of a coward to be straight with her?

If anyone who has read this story has any ideas or input, I had some other crazy ideas about this story I was hoping to discuss but I don't want to write a marathon post here.

cheers,
nap