A Specific Theme Portrayed in the Story A Rose for Emily - Essay Example

?Outline Understanding the Shifting Perspective of A Rose for Emily I. Introduction Thesis ment: The narrator does not appear as a ‘first person(I)’ in the center, but he puts his role as the ‘first person (we)’ within the community of folks, and turns into an involved spectator and participant. II. The Involved Narration: The Collective and Individual ‘First Person’ Perspectives A. At first, the unison of the collective is embodied through the expression ‘we all’; afterwards this unison assumes a virtually individual character B. The collective ‘first person’ is still indefinite; it avoids any definite definition or limits and in so doing makes the audience unsure. III. The Title’s Paradox A. In the paradox-filled title the storyteller sustains his detachment from the outlook of the folks who bought the flowers for the funeral of Emily. B. The storyteller senses pity and perhaps also remorse and tries to attain some explanation of Emily’s life through his story. C. An overwhelming conflict is apparent in the facet of the unusual because it is at this point tied to the chilling and tragic. IV. The Humor Within V. Conclusions Name Course Title Name of Professor Date of Submission Introduction The point of view of narration in William Faulkner’s A Rose for Emily is not consolidated. Even though the episode is somewhat neutrally presented by the narrator, he usually gives up the neutral perspective and becomes involved in the plot of the narrative. The narrator does not appear as a ‘first person (I)’ in the center, but he puts his role as the ‘first person (we)’ within the community of folks, and turns into an involved spectator and participant (Staton 1987). Through the experience’s openness, the narration gains an enhanced passion and trustworthiness. Nevertheless, the issue of only who is counted in the group of the ‘second person’ is not evidently distinguished. At this point as well ambiguity prevails, like it does in a number of other features of the short story. The Involved Narration: The Collective and Individual ‘First Person’ Perspectives From the preliminary statement the communal ‘first person’ is revealed by the possessive structure of ‘our town,’ (Claridge 2000) yet again the narrative quality becomes neutral and then it is again substituted by the individual ‘first person’. At the onset the group of partakers of the narrator appears to be distinguished by the collective ‘first person (I)’ because it emerges beside ‘older people’, ‘the ladies’, and ‘people’ (Staton 1987, 88). Afterwards the sentiments and ideas of the ‘we’ circle quite totally mix with those of another group that the notion of a bigger group surfaces, a united group which involves majority of the town folks. At a different scene the entirety of the town, initially called as ‘our’ is evidently denoted as ‘we’. The individually feeble ‘our town,’ which gives the storyteller some extent of detachment from the group, opens up the ‘our’ which permits the storyteller to unite completely with the group (Kirszner & Mandell 1994): “The day after his death all the ladies prepared to call at the house and offer condolence and aid, as is our custom” (Kirszner & & Mandell 1994, 78). The involvement in the scenes becomes more and more thorough, and the collective partakers become a social group where in the person experiences identity problems. At first, the unison of the collective is embodied through the expression ‘we all’; afterwards this unison assumes a virtually individual character (Holland 2001). The collective retreats and the centralized responses are disrupted merely when it is stated about Emily that “she carried her head high” (Holland 2001, 29). The expression ‘some ladies’ function separately, so as to provide supplementary thrust to the event. From then on the communal ‘first person’ once more emerges; the common purpose is hence enhanced and acquires more focus. Soon after the town government, which originally was described as “mayors and aldermen” (Faulkner 2000, 15), is incorporated in the collective ‘first person.’ Town folks and the storyteller relate their roles to the town government; the dominant community appears contrary to Emily and allows her to look like a character immersed in melancholic seclusion: “Each December we sent her a tax notice, which would be returned by the post office a week later, unclaimed” (Kirszner & Mandell 1994, 76). The finale of the narrative also fails to explain the idea, because who can be implied by the collective ‘first person,’ to which but another obscure ‘second person (they) is related to? “Already we knew that there was one room in that region above the stair which no one had seen in forty years, and which would have to be forced. They waited until Miss Emily was decently in the ground before they opened it” (Skei 1999, 161). At the onset definitely the town folks, but afterwards it ceases to be so, since it states “… for a long while we just stood there [in the open door of the room], looking down at the profound and fleshless grin” (Faulker 2000, 23) of the cadaver of Homer. The collective ‘first person’ is still indefinite; it avoids any definite definition or limits and in so doing makes the audience unsure. One point nevertheless becomes apparent: the storyteller is engaged in the affair, the narrator’s realm and the portrayed reality come together. His presence belongs to the practical entirety of the city; he takes part in the episodes of this social group and draws the audience into this engagement. Mysteriously though, the word ‘rose’ does not appear anywhere in the story. Emily, throughout her life, did not get a rose. However her coffin was ornamented with flowers: she lies “beneath a mass of bought flowers” (Kirszner & Mandell 1994, 76). Genuine compassion cannot be communicated by the flowers. If someone played the role of Emily, then it was the older members and Captain Sartoris who remained reverential towards the aristocratic institution (Staton 1987). Nonetheless, their outlook cannot be seen as something of a genuine human sympathy. The Title’s Paradox If a certain link of the narrative’s name can be developed to the ‘flowers’, then it should be interpreted as a paradox, as paradox which is aimed at the indifference of the city people, as paradox which primarily involves the ‘ladies sibilant and macabre’ (Marius & Anderson 2007, 13) and opens them up to mockery. In the paradox-filled title the storyteller sustains his detachment from the outlook of the folks who bought the flowers for the funeral. There seems to be an intentional aloofness, sustained in relation to the paradoxical purpose of the narrator. Nevertheless, the storyteller cannot completely detach himself, because he was in actual fact his own identity, as the portrayal from the point of view of the collective ‘first person’ suggests, comprised in the circle of the town folks and often shared their feelings and ideas. Hence the confusion of the storyteller, which locates its confirmation in the title, is logical. Via the title and thus via the narrative, the storyteller tries to show his true compassion for Emily and to compensate (Marius & Anderson 2007), for his abandonment of Emily throughout her life. The storyteller senses pity and perhaps also remorse and tries to attain some explanation of Emily’s life through his story. He supports and justifies Emily because her destiny was predetermined by forces and influences which she does not have any power to fight. The relevance of the title of the narrative, like the title of some other literary creations of Faulkner, is of two minds, and this oddity allows the revelation of a fundamental feature of the narrative style of Faulkner (Claridge 2000). It continues to be, like several other notions, complex and diverse and avoids any complete understanding and certainty. An overwhelming conflict is apparent in the facet of the unusual because it is at this point tied to the chilling and tragic. One example of this peculiarity is obviously the ‘odor’ that a person can identify in the surroundings of Emily, the odor whose source continues to be an enigma: “…the smell. That was two years after her father’s death and a short time after her sweetheart—the one we believed would marry her—had deserted her” (Kirszner & Mandell 1994, 72). The odor continues to be a riddle until it is wrapped up by the morbid appearance of Homer’s dead body. Thereby, by means of retrospection, in line with his narration of the story, the connection of the horrid and the humorous becomes evident for the audience; this connection develops from the city government’s respect for the noble lady. As the odor in the area turns into an irritation and a big problem for the community, Judge Stevens follows a young ‘alderman’ who fights for a solution: “Dammit, sir… will you accuse a lady to her face of smelling bad? (Claridge 2000, 55)” The strange impact of the avowal is that an aspect is related with the notion of ‘lady’ which in no way, in the meaning of the notion, be allowed; and moreover, this link is fundamentally not meant—‘smell’ ought not to be immediately pertinent to that individual. Even the choice to dispel the odor turns out to be a strange, haunted process (Faulkner 1977, 492): So the next night, after midnight, four men crossed Miss Emily’s lawn and slunk about the house like burglars, sniffing along the base of the brickwork and at the cellar openings while one of them performed a regular sowing motion with his hand out of a sack slung from his shoulder. They broke open the cellar door and sprinkled lime there, and in all the outbuildings… They crept quietly across the lawn and into the shadow of the locusts that lined the street. By taking into account the emotions of the ‘lady’, these people are compelled to take on a behavioral approach, which, through its specific motion and expression, appear to be like an animal. Individuals skulk around and snuffle like animals because it is rude to draw the attention of a ‘lady’ to an odor for which she is basically culpable for (Staton 1987). The medicine man did not try to ask Emily again about the purpose of the arsenic she asked for. At this point as well the odd impact of concern or respect for the ‘lady’ is apparent. The medicine man thinks that there is something wrong, for he allows the black boy to deliver a bottle to Emily; and he has even put the label ‘for rats’ (Skei 1999) on the bottle himself, as Emily eventually sees at home. The black boy delivered the Emily’s parcel; the medicine man did not return. When Emily opens the parcel at home she sees the words ‘for rats.’ The humorous impact dwells in the unexpected mental reversal of the individual for whom the fatal drug may be aimed for. The idea of looming misfortune makes the humorous component viable at this point (Bergson 2008). Tragic and humorous elements are even related with the outlook of Emily. For instance, some humorous impacts are shown in her actions, with regard to the ‘aldermen’; Emily’s rejection of taxes; the effort not to believe her father’s passing away; the remark “She carried her head high” (Holland 2001, 29); Emily’s behavior in the pharmacy, and so on; actually, her whole behavior to the extent that it bears the mark of a definite passion and firmness. The Humor Within The account of Henri Bergson in Laughter on the humorous form highlights the humorous feature of Emily’s attitude (Bergson 2008, 88): In Moliere’s plays how many comic scenes can be reduced to this simply type: a character following up his one idea, and continually recurring to it in spite of incessant interruptions! The transition seems to take place imperceptibly from the man who will listen to nothing to the one who will see nothing, and from this latter to the one who sees only what he wants to see. A stubborn spirit ends by adjusting things to its own way of thinking, instead of accommodating its thoughts to the things. Productive literary opportunities dwell in the time pattern of Faulkner. Specifically through the combinations of different rigidly sequential order of occurrences can several allusions of the conflict be seen. The episode in the opening section of A Rose for Emily is already history. Merely at the climax of the narrative’s second segment, at the revelation of the death of Emily’s father, is there an effort towards a commonly usual sequential explanation. Earlier, there is a discussion of the ‘smell’, which arose “after her sweetheart… had deserted her (Skei 1999, 157),” yet its mysterious root emerges merely at the finale, through the detection of Homer’s remains. Through removing episodes from their sequential order, the odor problem and the pharmacy episode are filled with the element of enigma. Upon these aspects a main component of the conflict, distinctive to the tale, is founded, in that they are pronounced in their relationship to the humor. This conflict is apparently settled at the finale of the narrative by the unearthing, after the interment of Emily, of Homer’s remains; nevertheless, this conflict resolution is not meant for the audience, for it compels him/her to glimpse back and contemplate further upon the occurrence and its indicative representations and thesis. Conclusions The audience is taken aback, as the storyteller is profoundly surprised, by the discovery of Homer; the reader may sense the necessity to reevaluate Emily’s life and her point of view. One conceptualizes about the intentions for the behavior of Emily. And in the course of this reassessment the reader may try to understand the narrative’s title and will once more encounter the vividness and intricacy of individual notions and the numerous conflicts, representations, indications, and bonds, that unite with the components of the paradoxical, tragic, and humorous. Works Cited Bergson, H. Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of Comic. New York: Wildside Press, 2008. Claridge, H. William Faulkner: Critical Assessments. New York: Routledge, 2000. Faulkner, W. Faulkner Reader. New York: Random House Publishing Group, 1977. Faulkner, W. A Rose for Emily. New York: Harcourt College Publishers, 2000. Holland, N. The Nature of Literary Response: Five Readers Reading. New York: Transaction Publishers, 2001. Kirszner, L. & S, Mandell. Fiction: Reading, Reacting, Writing. New York: Harcourt, 1994. Marius, R. & N. Anderson. Reading Faulkner: Introductions to the First Thirteen Novels. University of Tennessee Press, 2007. Skei, H. Reading Faulkner’s Best Short Stories. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1999. Staton, S. Literary Theories in Praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987. Read More