Sunday, January 29, 2012

SSRJ#1 Faulker


Hey everyone! I’ve decided to write about Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily”, because I must admit; it was the story that left a huge impression on me. To be honest, I was completely bored out of my mind while reading this story (and I love reading) until I reached the ending. When I read that last paragraph, I literally smacked my forehead and said 

 As I was reading, I could not stop thinking about how nothing was making sense. Nothing seemed to go together, I could not see the relevance between events, until I almost reached the ending. Then pieces started clicking, and I realized that Faulkner is a genius. In the beginning, the idea of this piece never struck me as a fiction or horror story. The way Faulkner wrote “A Rose for Emily” made it seem as though I were reading a diary or history record or something of the sort, and it seemed as the story went on, it slowly evolved into a magnificent fictional horror story. This element definitely stood out to me the most.


 The closest situation I’ve had that might bear the slightest resemblance to this piece would be of my ghost hunting ventures. When I was younger, some friends and I would go to supposedly “haunted” houses, located in the most remote and darkest areas of town to try and see spirits and silly things like that. One house in particular belonged to a little old lady whom had been a serial killer. Her old lady neighbor friend came out and greeted us, and I kid you not, suddenly disappeared when we looked again. I imagined Emily’s house to look exactly like this lady’s house.


I think the author’s most important literary element was the setting of the story, because I feel as though it contributed the most to the story and its’ meaning. It gave a sort of old-fashioned, eerie, gothic feel to the piece, as though it could be a true horror story, with the civil war and old traditions and whatnot. Faulkner’s use and description of the setting set the entire stage for the story, as if it were a guide and a hook to lead the reader throughout the piece. I don’t think I could have kept reading if I didn’t wonder about the creepy house, or how the up-tight confederate woman with her willing African American servant got along with the free-spirited union man.


My only question is why her neighbors and the government did not figure out Emily’s strange “behavior” sooner. The unbelievable stench of rotting flesh that oozed out of her house, the sudden disappearance of her “husband” for (6? 7? 8?) years, her willingness to keep her father’s dead body after he had passed? It would be extremely skeptical to me, and I am positive that even though this was back in the day, people should have noticed that something was not right. If I was her neighbor, and the smell of deceased human body and disappearing husband, well let’s just say I would be pretty scared. 

6 comments:

  1. My initial reaction to this story was also to feel rather bored until, like you said, the ending. I hate to admit it, but I think it's the sort of storytelling that demands the story be read twice, because you pick up on all sorts of clues you hadn't known to pay attention to the second time around. This might not be a satisfying answer to your question, but I think the reason the townspeople didn't suspect Emily of murder is because it would have made the story into something else. If they had been suspicious, WE would have been suspicious. It was simply more convenient for Faulkner to write it that way. If you want a less annoying answer, I'd say this: in real life, there have been some people who are literal murderers who, because of the other elements of their lives, no one suspects of any sort of misbehavior. The BTK serial killer is one example; John Wayne Gacy, Jr. is another. Even if evidence might point to them, we are just naively in denial when we think we "know" people, even if we only casually know them. Seriously, if you were in a small town that had some old lady living there, a lady who'd been born and raised there, would you come to suspect her of murder if her boyfriend disappeared? You'd probably blame the stench on the cats you figure she owns.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like how you pointed out the fact that no action was taken despite the signs that were obvious that something was wrong. The smell and the disappearance of the man. I guess it's because she's such an odd lady that no one wanted to mess with her and get on her bad side. However I thought that some family members of the husband would have wondered about his whereabouts after being missing for that long. Also I had the same element stand out to me as well. The stories setting of it being in the south plus the setting and descriptions of the eerie house.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Its funny, because I had the same experience reading this tory, most people who read it could agree also. While I was reading I was wondering what was so interesting about this story, but when the end came i could not take my eyes off the book!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with the story having that boring feeling to it. Haha I like the shit just got real picture because that is how it felt. Emily was being viewed as insane by the ladies around town and I was like she is not insane just a regular crazy old lady, until I found out she is laying next to a dead body every night.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not sure if I interpreted the story wrong, but I believe that the neighbors didn't notice because her house was closed off from the street. I believe her house was gated so there wouldn't be way for the neighbors to notice the order, because they were never able to get close enough. The only insight on them knowing how she was doing would've been through her servant and he wasn't giving out any type of information. He kept his mouth shut. My question would be why he didn’t ever say anything. I'm sure he wasn't getting paid that much if at all. I wonder if Ms. Emily had something on him or what, and I wonder why even stayed to help her out, and participate in that foolishness. I guess Faulkner just left it up to the readers to infer their own interpretations on why that was.

    ReplyDelete