Literature Research Paper

profilepancho123
RESEARCHPAPERLIT2000.docx

1 Godoy

Ricardo Godoy

Dr. Meyer

Literature 2000

20 November 2017

“Exit to Nothing”

William Faulkner’s infamous style of writing is evidently shown through the short story, “A Rose for Emily”. Faulkner tends to go back and forth in time through story, a tool that unquestionably intrigues the public to keep reading further, providing the reader with specific evidence on the most dramatic instants. “the story opens with her funeral and proceeds from segment to segment, cording to what seem to be local principles of transition (Perry, 312)

The author manages the chronological order of the story in a curious technique. The writer establishes the story in the old south also known as the reconstruction era, a certain time in history were a group of flush white men reigned, since various of the white leaders owned a vast majority of properties and slavery. The author centralizes the story around the daughter from a powerful marriage, Emily Grierner.

Emily or also known as Miss Emily was born into a tremendously privileged family named the Grierner family. The dominant family gained power due to Emily’s father arrangement with the town which excluded the Grierner’s from paying taxes eternally including Emily, an arrangement that definitely marked the life of Emily. Once the public continues Faulkner’s intriguing story from this point on, the reader’s interpretation concerning Emily Grierner will be divided in basically two different points of view. On one side of the equation, Miss Emily might be identified as a direct victim of the negative pressure stipulated by the Grierner family. Many readers might agree with this specific point of view towards Emily, since Faulkner focus mainly in tragedy. Basically, Emily had no freedom of speech since Mr. Grierner scared all the suitors using a violent horsewhip, being controlled by someone with excess of power can be one of the many reasons of why Emily later committed murder.

The death of Mr. Grierner completed a big negative impact in Emily’s life. A lonely Miss Emily was again surrounded by tragedy, in this instance Emily was extremely hurt. At the lowest peak of mountain and alone is hard to fight for almost anybody. Life comes with various types of tests with no cautions, in this case Emily was brave enough to not give up even at the lowest point which is exceptionally admirable considering all the tragedy. It is worth to mention Emily’s boundless desire to improve in life leaving apart the sadness of losing Mr. Grieiner, which many other individuals wouldn’t be able to stand back again. In this interpretation Emily clearly plays the role of the sufferer, since at an old age Emily lost again a loved one by the hands of the Grierner family, Homer Barron a man who Emily had a relationship before he was frightened by the influential Grierner family.

Society has always been awfully selective no matter what time in history, in this occasion affecting negatively against Miss Emily. Homer Barron a true candidate for Miss Emily was sadly not part of the same elite class as Emily, and that made the Grierner family acted. Injustices were occurring frequently in Emily’s life provoked by the Grierner family itself. This sickened Miss Emily, who killed Mr. Barron. This interpretation of Miss Emily might justify the reason of why Emily murdered and reacted violently. Emily’s morals were completely shattered and alone, leaving Miss Emily with the wrong mental thoughts and really vulnerable of making the worst life decisions. Emily felt hopeless in a world where not even the Grierner family was supportive.

On a totally contrary interpretation, Emily Grierner can be perfectly identified as the anti-hero of the short story, since she is targeted as the killer of Homer. The readers might debate that Miss Emily had all the wealth and advantages to be an educated person and live a prosperous life. Emily being part of the Grierner Family could had done enormous contributions to the community such as an attempt to abolish slavery, which was badly affecting the public in the Old South.

The moment Emily decided to obtain a poisonous substance demonstrates who the real Emily Grierner maybe is. The reader of "A Rose for Emily" realizes immediately the vagueness of the pronoun focus within this story” (Nebeker, 4). This type of mental behavior could easily transform into a really negative influence for a lot of the members of the community, since Miss Emily was grown with a large amount of power and wealth. Proving a large quantity of goods to the wrong type of person can result into a tragedy, which could be the reason that Emily is always bounded by tragedy during Faulkner’s short story. Any individual who has been filled with pure misfortune such as Emily can be more focused on depressing thoughts which could end up bad for everybody surrounding Miss Emily. Folks with such dark thoughts similar to Emily’s tend to be obscure and mysterious trying to evade their true identity in front of the rest of humankind. This is the reason why Emily tried to constantly refuses to pay taxes after Mr. Griersons death.

Emily’s overalls behavior in the short story demonstrates a classic controlling person. Miss Emily kept continuously trying to control the townspeople with evidently the wrong procedures. This is how wrong societies start developing in the sometimes the worst environment, thanks to the immoral leaders spreading the erroneous message, contaminating with negative sensations. Miss Emily’s mind was bad enough to produce awful scenarios such as killing Homer. Humans like Emily Grierner is what the rest of the population is scared of, individuals with no hesitation of causing harm to innocent people invading peaceful settings. Miss Emily’s mentality is exceedingly possessive, so persistent always ending getting the prize.

It’s` well known that tragedy followed Miss Emily, contrasting different interpretations creates various views of a very mysterious character. Miss Emily will always be marked as the negative character in this short story. All the actions regarding Emily are mainly viewed by two separate kind of views, this is because Miss Emily knows how to hide from society by only representing one face, but all that hiding is what has really has been tearing up the personality of Emily. It is very immature the way a very privileged and powerful young Emily has done, such catastrophes that no many regular human beings have heard before. Emily grows personally thought the whole short story, but not necessarily in a good sense. This character secretly becomes into kind of a serial killer, who amazingly doesn’t realize the magnitude of the reactions.

Some of these consequences will be soon transformed into a kind of karma vigor, against Miss Emily which later in the short story dies. These characters serve as an example of how dangerous are the violent and controlling minds, since sometimes civilians are not interested in what it’s happening around them. Civilizations without repulsive minds such as Miss Emily is the key for coexisting between healthy human minds. The moment that something impure with obscure feelings such as Miss Emily’s mind is the moment everything changes. Miss Emily is that classic image of destruction and worst habits towards the townspeople which will still be existing but with different faces. Emily’s darkest thoughts will continue to be recreated in large amount of times because life has always different type of mentality’s, that psychologists are still trying to understand until this day, Miss Emily’s mind would surely be one to study with alertness.

Works Cited

· Perry, Menakhem. “Literary Dynamics: How the Order of a Text Creates Its Meanings [With an Analysis of Faulkner's ‘A Rose for Emily’].” Poetics Today, vol. 1, no. 1/2, 1979, pp. 35–361. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1772040.

· Nebeker, Helen E. “Emily's Rose of Love: Thematic Implications of Point of View in Faulkner's ‘A Rose for Emily.’” The Bulletin of the Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association, vol. 24, no. 1, 1970, pp. 3–13. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1346461.