Examine the language of absence and loss in this story. Write down as many images as you can. Study the way Faulkner, the writer, makes these images. What functions do absence and loss have in this story, and what is Faulkner conveying to us about them (that is more than the obvious)? How would you put together a sentence about the story's insight about loss that would be respectful of Faulkner, the writer ( and not insulting to his sensibility)? Try your hand at it. Think before you post.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Final Two Questions on Faulkner's "Rose for Emily"
If American society is truly based on the individual, why would Faulkner have the narrator of the story blame the townspeople for Miss Emily's plight? Why would this story offer such a powerful critique of society? Since when is society responsible to such a large extent for the plight of the individual? Think about your response, and find evidence to support your viewpoint. What is Faulkner doing or saying in this story????
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi,
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm missing something here, but it doesn't appear that the townspeople are to blame for Emily's demise. The father is more to blame for oppressing Emily and alienating her from society. She never developed any social skills, so it was difficult for her to be involved in the community. She created a world within her home and created her own rules, hence her not paying taxes.
The townspeople, on the contrary to the question, tried to reason with her about her taxes but eventually let it go -- out of compassion. If they had been against her or had not understood her, they gotten the money by throwing her out of her home. After her father's death, the townspeople pitied her and said "she had become humanized" (393). People called on her during the funeral. Then they were excited about her relationship with Homer and they were shocked at the discovery at the end of the story. If Emily had reached out to the townspeople, she could have reintroduced herself to society; it was her responsibility to overcome her past and step into the future. She choose not to do that. How can society be blamed for that?
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it -- I was thinking about loss as in Homer's loss of life; the servant's loss of freedom; a general loss of choice; and Emily's many losses: freedom, parenting, role model and her dreams for the future. Is Faulkner saying that loss can alienate us from each other? I'm at a loss.
Robin
Sorry, there are a few typos in my masterpiece. I tried to edit, but couldn't figure that out. (choose = chose).
ReplyDeleteR
#1
ReplyDeleteTo Robin's point: yes, surely the father is more directly responsible for the actions he personally took to diminish Emily's agency than society is. However, what I tend to look at when confronted with these questions of responsibility are what structures or constructs enable the continuation of her treatment. It appears that, as far as the direct oppression is concerned, the way Emily was treated by her father was at least sanctioned by the townspeople and the social mores of the period. For example, her father was well known for chasing away "young men" from her when she was at a marriagiable age. Do not the pressures of the society that says "Poor Emily" in chorus, that her interactions with Homer Barron (perhaps the one light of her life) were called "a disgrace to the town," and states, with the strangest familial essentialism, that "the two female cousins were even more Grierson than Miss Emily had ever been" factor into the mind that poisons their Yankee lover? As I mentioned in my last post about "A Rose for Emily," the narrative style is troubling; it speaks from a judgemental and gossipy collective, one that is completely removed from the actual life and existence of Emily Grierson (and certainly unwilling to acknowedge their effects on her). It is this collective that sees fit to write a sordid biography.
-Daniel Mortensen
What I think is one of the largest tragedies this story comments on is how society often uses tragedy as a vehicle to relate to people who have previously been viewed as unreachable. I view the "gossipy" narrative as a way to express this way that communities create outsiders. I don't think Emily ever particularly needed to be part of the town to be whole, but the external judgements were unnecessary and most likely impossible for her to ignore.
ReplyDeleteI think, most likely, she just never wanted to be "pitied." Even when the townspeople thought they were doing her a favor by reaching out to her in a time of tragedy, I believe Faulkner is making a comment on this particular phenomenon of the human condition.
Like Robin, I'm a bit confused by the last question. It's insinuating that Faulkner has somehow failed in this story, and is inaccurate in its portrayal of human behavior. I don't ever pity Emily in this story, as she proves her ability to make a decision when she kills Homer. I view this story as more satire, with the narrative style, and the extremity of Emily poisoning her lover, and the townspeople sprinkling lime around her house as she watches.
The American society celebrates the individual but the individual is still part of a whole – society, a web that’s connected. The individual and society are interdependent since the individual is to a certain extent a product of that society, and society reflects the collective psyche of those individuals. I think that Daniel has surmised his views upon the question effectively. I agree that even though the father is directly responsible for Emily’s stifled existence to begin with, it is sanctioned by society. In this story, society seems to take interest in Emily’s plight and also seems to somewhat care for her well-being. But then, it is also unwittingly judgmental of her. She is portrayed as one who neither belongs nor is a total outcast. Instead she’s somewhere in between and her own sense of herself or lack of it rather gets in the way of a harmonious interdependence between the individual and society. She persists in being a separate entity and alienates society for she’s not skilled to be a part of it.
ReplyDeleteAs for loss, Emily never truly found much to lose. Her world is rendered empty by her unfortunate circumstances and by her own defiance and inability to rectify that situation. She does not even try to acquire anything positive and when she does find a glimmer of hope in Homer, she kills it. I’m not sure but I think Faulkner is portraying the repercussions and dire consequences of the lack of a positive structure in an individual’s life. Perhaps even that Emily is aware of her blighted existence but does not seek the sympathy of society in defiance for she holds it responsible for her having had no real chance at a decent life to begin with. She feels justified in revolting against society.
Sunita's comment: "She persists in being a separate entity and alienates society for she's not skilled to be a part of it," is excellent. That was my point. The biggest societal construction in the story is the tradition of marriage, which Emily obviously felt she wanted to be a part of. However, because she lacked the social skills, she could not attain the goal of marriage -- hence the demise of poor Homer. However, does society have to be blamed for everything? She clearly shunned society and how do you reach somebody who is imbued with a desire to live a basically solitary life? The townspeople gave in to her over the taxes ... are they to continue giving in to her? For those who believe it's a fault in the system, how do you reach people who don't want to be reached? I see that as an impossibility. Maybe I'm just jaded.
ReplyDeleteRobin
Dan--I had no idea what you were talking about when you mentioned essentialism! I did some diligent "google research," however, and found this brief article that seemed to explain essentialism (and it's apparent opposite, constructivism). Maybe someone else will find it handy also?
ReplyDeletehttp://socyberty.com/philosophy/what-is-essentialism/
The opposition between essentialism and constructivism highlights the issue of guilt in this story. When Emily committed the murder, was it because of something dark and evil in her nature, or was it because her society/father/circumstances transformed her into a murderer?
Is Faulkner forcing us to question the radically individualistic nature of our American society? Does he want us to finish the story, and then tell ourselves, "Of course! No man or woman is an island! Of course the story resolved tragically, since Emily just wanted to be loved and married, just like any one of us! Of course Emily withered away in painful solitude, because no one reached out to her and showed her love!" Well let me ask you this, Mr. Faulkner--when does Emily show any love? When does she reach out? The only vaguely compassionate act we see from her is when she orders an engraved silver toilet set for her husband-hopeful.
ReplyDeleteDOES the narrator blame the townspeople for Emily's demise, explicitly or implicitly? I don't get a strong sense that the narrator is blaming ANYONE. It's true that the townspeople don't overwhelm Emily with compassionate gestures--but I'm going to put my faith in an ethic of personal responsibility and say that Emily doesn't deserve any more kindness than she receives. Sartoris remitts her taxes. For a time the town sends its daughters and granddaughters to Emily for china-painting lessons. Presumably, this keeps her afloat financially and, more importantly, keeps her connected to the community. But with NO ENERGY on Emily's part to maintain that connection, it eventually withers away and dies. The inertia of Sartoris' compassion only lasts for so long before it wears out. When the tax-collectors come to talk to Emily, she stares them down and challenges their authority, "Perhaps he consides himself the sheriff... I have no taxes in Jefferson." A tone of social superiority and priviledge inform her words; given her circumstances, this sense of priviledge is absurd. Ultimately, Emily has NOTHING TO OFFER. She is a broken piece of the social machine, she's dead weight, she's dust. She's powerless to overcome her outmoded social programming. She's quite literally a parasite of the town, in the financial sense.
If I lived in Emily's town? I would try not to gossip about her, but I sure wouldn't knock on her door with freshly-baked cookies and invite her out to play.
I have no idea if any of this is what Faulker INTENDED me to get from the story. He had a chance to help me interpret this story and he just gave me some nonsense about it being about God and Satan.
(Just kidding, I found some of his comments were helpful... but definitely not the God and Satan comment. And on an additional sidenote, the first question he's asked in the interview is, "What is the meaning of the title...?" Did anyone else notice how he doesn't actually answer that question AT ALL? Despite his frank and open TONE in that interview, Faulker obfuscated more than he illuminated.)
Chris: I have a different interview with Faulkner that I've used in class before where he touches on the title a little more. It's fun to ask the students, despite Faulkner's response, what they think the title could mean.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Faulkner speaks on "A Rose for Emily" in 1955:
I feel sorry for Emily's tragedy; her tragedy was, she was an only child, an only daughter. At first when she could have found a husband, could have had a life of her own, there was probably some one, her father, who said, "No, you must stay here and take care of me." And then when she 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, which is bad—to go to any length to keep something; but I pity Emily. I don't know whether I would have liked her or not, I might have been afraid of her. Not of her, but of anyone who had suffered, had been warped, as her life had been probably warped by a selfish father . . . .
[The title] was an allegorical title; the meaning was, here was a woman who had had a tragedy, an irrevocable tragedy and nothing could be done about it, and I pitied her and this was a salute . . . to a woman you would hand a rose.
END