Select either one of the questions below and comment on it. Please be specific as the question asks you to be, so we all understand exactly what you mean. Thank you.
1. How does Faulkner's " A Rose for Emily" continue the theme of enslavement in ways similar to Banks' and Hemingway's stories? Specify the similarities.
Are there any significant thematic differences? If so, please state them, and explain their importance.
2. What do you believe is the purpose of this story? Why does it exist? What impact does it have on you? What is its goal? What does it convey to you, and why is that significant? Why should anyone care about some former Southern aristocratic lady who lost her fortune and disobeyed the standard expectations and mores of her culture? Why should we care about some lady who poisoned a Northern day laborer and slept with him after he was dead? What's the point of this piece? Explain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do love Faulker, however, I have never been a big fan of Emily. I think she is definitely a murderer. She enslaved herself by refusing to accept progress, social change, personal hygiene. She was spoiled and overindulged, but as an adult it was her responsibility to break out of that. Emily represents the South with her traditional values; she is unwilling to accept change and that's why she lives such a pathetic life. Take her servant, for example, he hightailed it out of there as soon as he could. And poor Homer never saw what was coming. He was a Northerner with a more progressive approach to life and the unyielding Emily, used to getting her own way, probably didn't like that he didn't want to settle down with antiquated values, morals and way of life.
ReplyDeleteI've always questioned the title "A Rose for Emily." What does that mean? Apparently Faulkner meant a rose for her, like you would present any lady. In other words, we can't fault her for the way she was raised, so we honor who she was. I don't buy that and I've always tried, unsuccessfully, to find a better meaning for that title.
Robin
Robin,
ReplyDeleteI am so thankful for you! Your enthusiasm always delights me. I am so accustomed to your being the first to respond to my blogs that if you ever weren't the first I'd worry. Anyway, yes, your reading works, and I like what you say about the title most of all. I don't know whether I see very much that is progressive about Homer. I'd need evidence from the story and some convincing, so I'll open that up to the rest of the GA's. Okay, everyone -- convince me that Homer is progressive and represents the North by providing evidence from the story itself. Thanks.
Read what Faulkner says to the interviewer in the article toward the back of our book when asked about the story and the North/South parable. In some ways it reminds me of what Ibsen said when asked if he was writing about women's rights.
Finally, I am not sure we'll even get to Emily on Monday since I think I will need to teach something about thesis statements and paragraph development on Monday to make up for the second class we missed unless I hear otherwise on this blog or by email from you, my Core Group of Instructors, before Monday. I hope you are reading what I am writing!!
I'd like to stay on schedule with due dates, even if we get behind with the stories; we can cover less stories, but the number of papers and the content of the lectures and what we learn about writing, education, and life are what matter most, I think.
Finally, my personal way into this story is through the damage Emily suffered at the hands of her father which gives the story a totally different perspective. You can think about that too if you wish.
Happy Thursday night to everyone. Enjoy your classes tomorrow!!! Try to get the energy back in the classroom tomorrow. Don't let the cancelled classes stop our momentum. I will see all of you on Monday, and I look forward to it!
I think that focusing Monday's lecture on writing thesis statements and body paragraphs is definitely the way to go.
ReplyDeleteI found the interview with Faulkner very helpful, and I enjoyed how frank and open he was when speaking about his own work. Take that, JD Salinger!
It seems like Emily is primarily enslaved by her father--that's what I plan on putting the focus on when we cover this story in class. Consider the portrait of her father in the parlor, "[o]n a tarnished gilt easel before the fireplace" (392). Her father had always chased away her potential lovers, and his conspicuously placed portrait is an indication of the influence he continues to exert over her life. This is just a speculation, but it seems to me that Emily is damaged--badly damaged--mostly because of him--I have very little textual support for this, so don't ask!
First and foremost, this is a ghost story. Faulkner says as much. But what ghost is lingering in these pages? Or perhaps there is more than one? I feel the ghost of Emily's father hanging about the family home, certainly... Homer's spirit never really leaves the house either. The narrator recounts that when her father died, Emily wouldn't admit that he was dead, and for three days wouldn't allow him to be buried. This is just plain creepy, but it also shows how Emily holds onto his ghost. The ghost of Southern decadence also haunts the Grierson's--something pale, dusty, fly-blown and fading.
As a ghost story, I love its construction. Faulkner has us guessing what the bad smell and the arsenic are about until the very end. Chronologically, the story functions like a Tarantino movie, all out of order. The narrator frequently says things like "this was a year after her sweetheart abandoned her, the one we were sure was going to marry her," long before introducing Homer. These devices increase the reader's suspense and collectively build toward the climatic image of the hair on the pillow, an image to which Faulkner assigns particular importance (1446).
One question I had--is Homer a homosexual? Is this an important question? "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" (395). If he is gay, what does this say about his motivations for romancing Emily?
Dr. Pruss, you invoked Ibsen regarding feminism, and I was reminded of Ibsen's "Ghosts" when reading this short story. "The sins of the fathers," yes? Is Emily's sickness, in some sense, hereditary? The inevitable result of her past, and her father's past?
Ahhh, I just deleted my whole damn comment.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, my first response stems from Chris's inquiries - I believe Homer was homosexual, and that's why Emily killed him. She could never fully have him. As for why Homer spent so much time with Emily if he wasn't courting her - most likely, he was intrigued by her, though not in a sexual way, being a charismatic man full of charm and stories, and she was a withdrawn, damaged women from the South. Stranger relationships have developed, I think. It most likely came out in the very end that Homer was actually gay, as he would not be likely to divulge this information unless he was absolutely forced to, like when Emily began preparing for a wedding between the two.
Emily is a murderer - she ended a human life. No matter her past or her damage, this does not change the fact she slipped her love poison. This is often the case when a criminal's past is researched after a tragedy ensues. Most people who kill other people aren't happy and satisfied with life, correct?
I always thought Homer was the "rose" for Emily, the surprise, the flash of joy before the dark became ever thicker after his death. I also think Robin's interpretation works fantastically.
Emily is twisted, Emily is a killer, Emily is admirable in her passion and dedication to her love, letting her home fill with the rot of flesh just to keep Homer close to her. I love how we read this right around Valentine's Day.
Delicious.
In response to the 2nd Question:
ReplyDeleteI find that what this story does best—which perhaps gets at the purpose of this story or its reason for existence—is craft a character from the vantage point of collective history. The narrative voice speaks from the plural first person; it is the sum total of Southern values, gossip, and society. To Chris’s point about Faulkner’s interview and “ghost stories,” I feel that Emily is the most prominent ghost in Faulkner’s story. “A Rose for Emily” opens with: “When Miss Emily Grierson died” and proceeds onward. Her father indelibly haunts her lifetime, her experiences, and the house. certainly, but she haunts the pages. This story functions as a tribute, or a rose, to this troubled spirit and I would agree that with Faulkner that it doesn’t pass judgment on any one presence. If there seems to be an evaluation of the characters or their society, then I think this is probably the metaphysical judgment that hovers over Emily’s life story, which mirrors, in effect, the real society that crippled her development.
I agree that Emily is a murderer, but I think there is still room to pity her. Although her personal tragedy does not excuse murder, she is still a victim of the others in her life. Her father caged her, turning away the suitors who may have rescued her from her solitude. Her other family members had to be persuaded to come to her aid, and when they arrived, they proved more harmful than helpful. Homer, whether gay or not, openly courted Emily. He doomed her to the status of a fallen woman (though she, too, could've given in to the rules of her culture and avoided that title). The women of the town, along with its men, allowed her to fall into complete isolation.
ReplyDeleteLike the "girls" of Banks' and Hemingway's stories, Emily has only a limited control over her own life. Many of her important decisions are made by others. In Bank's story, the girl allows her mother to make the life-altering decisions, while in Hemingway's story, the girl allows the views of her American lover to control her life. Emily has to deal with societal judgement and her father's influence. The biggest difference with "A Rose for Emily" is Emily ability to make choices that are her own. Unfortunately, those choices include the murder of the man who was going to leave her. Emily didn't need her mother to make an appointment or pick up the arsenic. She didn't need a man to choose her poison or even tell her what would be a good drink. In a disturbing way, Emily proved capable of making big decisions for herself and living with the consequences (quite literally).
I am very curious to understand more about Tobe, the "Negro" that lived with Miss Emily. What is his significance? He is the only one who is aware of the truth of Miss Emily's house, and he is unquestioningly loyal to her. Faulkner makes a point of following his aging as it parallels Emily's: highlighting when Tobe was still "a young man" (392) and when he became "grayer and more stooped" (396). He is part of Miss Emily's tax remittance success, being the one who ultimately shows the two men to the door. He enables Miss Emily's self-imprisonment by bringing her food and taking care of her other needs. Finally, he disappears on the day Miss Emily's secret is revealed. I'd like to know what everyone else sees in that.
In discussion of what to teach on monday...I think a brief overview of thesis statements and paragraphs is good, but not too much. I've already discussed these with my students.
ReplyDeleteIn answer to question 2:
I believe the purpose of the story exists to show the ability of both a person and a culture's ability to enslave. Faulkner stated in the interview that the story comments on human nature and not much more, yet it does do more.
The reader sees the enslavement of Emily by her father and ultimately, like Robin said, herself. Even though she 'craves' companionship, love and a family; she enslaves herself by not allowing herself to evolve with the times.
I like Chris' analogy to a ghost story and I can definately see that. Faulkner does use the construction of the ghost 'haunting' Emily. We have her father's ghost, the 'ghost' of the family fortune, the 'ghost' of the illness of her great-aunt, and also the ghost of the Southern Culture. I did not, unlike Chris, feel that the images of the smells or the arsenic were to keep the reader guessing about their outcome. I immediately believed that she killed her lover and most likely that he was still in the house only based on the foreshadowing that Faulkner uses with the town never seeing Emily.
The final image of the single hair on the pillow, is as Faulkner says in his interview, the most concrete image in the entire story. I liked the pity and emotion that it envokes. Emily, as enslaved to her longing for a family and Husband, felt the only way to have one was to kill and Keep Homer. The image of her sleeping next to a decaying corpse was sad, yet capsulated the entire purpose of the story.
I really hope you will focus your discussion on thesis statements and body paragraph in detail on Monday. Even though I have provided my students with reading material on these topics, I had little time to discuss the same in my previous class.
ReplyDeleteWell, I think that Emily is enslaved by her own ideals of what society expects of her. I think Robyn is right in that she is unable to accept social change and progression. By being unable to the fulfill the requirements that she believes is expected of her, she secludes herself. Homer was her last chance and when she couldn't mold him into her husband, she killed him. It's as though she becomes enslaved to her own psychosis. She made Homer her family, even in death. Judging by the hair on the pillow, she slept with him, with his corpse.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePlease remove the last sentence. Thank you! No more _ad hominem_ comments not even against ourselves please.
ReplyDeleteAny comments on Daniel Mortensen's words about the "metaphysical judgment" mirroring the "real society that crippled her development"? What exactly does he mean? I wonder if it's tied to my new question for this week. I think so. I will post two questions on "Rose for Emily." On the weekend, I may put up some information (if I can think of what you need; feel free to email me).
Emily is a victim and a murderer. I agree with Robin that Emily is a pathetic victim who fails to do anything positive with her life. Even though she was victimized, she did have options and could’ve shown some gumption towards bettering her life even under limited circumstances. She had an option to make her life relatively tolerable instead of her almost deliberate attempt at self sabotage. The evil manner in which she plots Homer’s murder is sufficient evidence to suppose that she’s demented and cannot seem to help it because she is decidedly stubborn. Her upbringing and her general stifled existence has snapped something vital in her and has triggered some sort of a destructive mechanism within her.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand she seems to have run amuck with her murderous intentions and on the other she seems to have her faculties intact, although only for the wrong purpose (the manner in which she plots Homer’s murder definitely requires some acumen).I couldn’t help wondering – if only she had put her formidable faculties to better use, the title would be befitting her. The title evokes a completely different sensation in comparison to the story itself.
I think Emily’s perception of herself is terribly distorted and is not ground in reality. Emily’s confused, abused and shaken mental world is in dangerous conflict with the reality of her situation. It is a sorry state of affairs and she sadly doesn't have any solid example of a figure she could emulate for the better. Still it's no justification for her callous irreverence for human life including her own.
Perhaps Freud could tell us how and why she deserves our true empathy?