A Rose For Emily

[Virgil]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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. 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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.