Sunday, January 27, 2008
A Rose For Emily
While I was reading "A Rose for Emily", I saw all of the townspeople as being one character. The reason for this is because the narrator referred to the townspeople as "we all" throughout the whole story. For example, the narrator said, "So the next day we all said..." (471), when he/she was talking about what the townspeople thought after Emily bought the poison from the drug store. When the narrator does refer to the townspeople as "we all", it is at a point in the story where they are making an assumption about Emily. They try to predict what she will do next even though they dont know her. Throughout the story, they sneak around to spy on Emily to try to see what is wrong with her when they could leave her alone. It seems as though the townspeople have nothing better to do than to spy on an old woman. They even try to eaves drop on her relationship with Homer Barron and they make eachother believe that they are getting married just because someone saw her go into the jewelry store.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Brittany,
Interesting insight here about the use of "we" to make the entire town into "one character!" I think Faulkner used this point of view intentionally; this collective narrator really makes it seem like it's Emily versus the entire town. How would the story be different if we knew the individual identity of the narrator?
I agree that the townspeople had no right to sneak around and spy on Emily. Being from a small town myself, it's the most annoying thing how everyone always knows (and feels the need to know) everyone else's business. However, Emily did not exactly fit the description of an innocent old woman. Had this incident happened today, Emily would have spent the rest of her life in prison. Unfortunately, the town lacked the technology and know-how to investigate a missing person or murder. Snooping around was all they really knew how to do.
Post a Comment