Week 2 Blog

Week 2, Question 2

What is unmistakably absent from “A Rose for Emily” is the rose. Figuratively or symbolically, it is possible that her ‘true love’ can be viewed as the rose, but never once is this analogy solidified to the reader. It could also be argued that Emily needed a rose or two to quell the stench that arose as the decomposing body of Homer Barron permeated the air around her home. Although Faulkner, narrating through the townspeople, refers to her as “Miss Emily” throughout the story, giving some semblance of respect for her, his descriptive words lead the reader to believe otherwise. This is only one of the mysterious aspects of this story.

The narration is completely one-sided throughout. General consensus from the townspeople is certainly not enough insight to formulate an honest opinion about what really happened within the Grierson home. Faulkner mysteriously gives only exclusive observational opinions and any speculation generated is from the outside looking in, rather than a firsthand account. Reliability in this type of narration is very low and actually seems to possess a mob mentality at times. In the beginning of section four, shortly after Emily has purchased arsenic poisoning, Faulkner initiates a generalized public opinion by saying, “She will kill herself” which is being voiced by the narrator who proclaims, “We all said”.

Although obviously within close proximity to her, the story is being told as though it’s a brief biographical account, but uniquely enough, the narrator never actually interviews the subject. In gossipy housewife fashion, Faulkner tells the story as though he simply nosed around the neighborhood to catch quips and pieces of conversations about Emily. If the work is viewed from a biographical lens, then Faulkner grossly overlooks and ignores the story from the subject, Emily’s, standpoint. Although there are plenty of specific examples and circumstances to support his generalizations, the reader is left with only a small glimpse of the bigger picture.

Week 2, Question 6

A happy ending to “The Storm” quite brilliantly captures what could be interpreted as Chopin’s opinion of ambiguity about a married woman’s sexual rendezvous with another man. This concept questions whether a woman’s sexual freedom is in fact costly or punishable. In the current temperature of our societal boundaries, the idea of an encounter like this one is certainly not as scandalous as it may have been in the era in which this story was written. Although it was not published, what can be immediately appreciated in this work is the writer’s gumption to postulate the idea of promiscuity or sexual freedom – however the reader decides to view it – within the boundaries of marriage. A sexual encounter that, even by today’s legal standards, is considered adulterous, is blatantly glorified, romanticized and of little consequence in this story. Quite the refreshing peek into the boundaries of what a monogamous relationship could or should be.

Often, when a society is completely enchained by their moral standards, it takes a fictional account to break through these boundaries and familiarize the audience with what may be considered taboo. More important than simply reflecting a society’s value systems, this story questions those values and does so without entangling any repercussions to the questioning.