Some thoughts on "A Rose for Emily"

Here are some of my thoughts on Emily. Feel free to ask any questions, to disagree or comment on this post.

Emily is a victim and a murderer. Emily is a pathetic victim who fails to do anything positive with her life. Even though she was victimized, she did have options and could’ve shown some gumption towards bettering her life even under limited circumstances. She had an option to make her life relatively tolerable instead of her almost deliberate attempt at self sabotage. The evil manner in which she plots Homer’s murder is sufficient evidence to suppose that she’s demented and cannot seem to help it because she is decidedly stubborn. Her upbringing and her general stifled existence has snapped something vital in her and has triggered some sort of a destructive mechanism within her.

On the one hand she seems to have run amuck with her murderous intentions and on the other she seems to have her faculties intact, although only for the wrong purpose (the manner in which she plots Homer’s murder definitely requires some acumen).I couldn’t help wondering – if only she had put her formidable faculties to better use, the title would be befitting her. The title evokes a completely different sensation in comparison to the story itself.

I think Emily’s perception of herself is terribly distorted and is not ground in reality. Emily’s confused, abused and shaken mental world is in dangerous conflict with the reality of her situation. It is a sorry state of affairs and she sadly doesn't have any solid example of a figure she could emulate for the better. Still it's no justification for her callous irreverence for human life including her own.

Emily as a victim: The American society celebrates the individual but the individual is still part of a whole – society, a web that’s connected. The individual and society are interdependent since the individual is to a certain extent a product of that society, and society reflects the collective psyche of those individuals. I think that even though the father is directly responsible for Emily’s stifled existence to begin with, it is sanctioned by society. In this story, society seems to take interest in Emily’s plight and also seems to somewhat care for her well-being. But then, it is also unwittingly judgmental of her. She is portrayed as one who neither belongs nor is a total outcast. Instead she’s somewhere in between and her own sense of herself or lack of it rather gets in the way of a harmonious interdependence between the individual and society. She persists in being a separate entity and alienates society for she’s not skilled to be a part of it.

As for loss, Emily never truly found much to lose. Her world is rendered empty by her unfortunate circumstances and by her own defiance and inability to rectify that situation. She does not even try to acquire anything positive and when she does find a glimmer of hope in Homer, she kills it. I’m not sure but I think Faulkner is portraying the repercussions and dire consequences of the lack of a positive structure in an individual’s life. Perhaps even that Emily is aware of her blighted existence but does not seek the sympathy of society in defiance for she holds it responsible for her having had no real chance at a decent life to begin with. She feels justified in revolting against society.

Comments from other instructors:

Skylar says, “Emily is a murderer, but I think there is still room to pity her. Although her personal tragedy does not excuse murder, she is still a victim of the others in her life. Her father caged her, turning away the suitors who may have rescued her from her solitude. Her other family members had to be persuaded to come to her aid, and when they arrived, they proved more harmful than helpful. Homer, whether gay or not, openly courted Emily. He doomed her to the status of a fallen woman (though she, too, could've given in to the rules of her culture and avoided that title). The women of the town, along with its men, allowed her to fall into complete isolation.

Like the "girls" of Banks' and Hemingway's stories, Emily has only a limited control over her own life. Many of her important decisions are made by others. In Bank's story, the girl allows her mother to make the life-altering decisions, while in Hemingway's story, the girl allows the views of her American lover to control her life. Emily has to deal with societal judgement and her father's influence. The biggest difference with "A Rose for Emily" is Emily ability to make choices that are her own. Unfortunately, those choices include the murder of the man who was going to leave her. Emily didn't need her mother to make an appointment or pick up the arsenic. She didn't need a man to choose her poison or even tell her what would be a good drink. In a disturbing way, Emily proved capable of making big decisions for herself and living with the consequences (quite literally).

Michelle says, “The purpose of the story exists to show the ability of both a person and a culture's ability to enslave. Faulkner stated in the interview that the story comments on human nature and not much more, yet it does do more.

The reader sees the enslavement of Emily by her father and ultimately,by herself. Even though she 'craves' companionship, love and a family; she enslaves herself by not allowing herself to evolve with the times.

The final image of the single hair on the pillow, is as Faulkner says in his interview, the most concrete image in the entire story. I liked the pity and emotion that it envokes. Emily, as enslaved to her longing for a family and husband, felt the only way to have one was to kill and Keep Homer. The image of her sleeping next to a decaying corpse was sad, yet capsulated the entire purpose of the story.

Chris said, “Emily is enslaved by her own ideals of what society expects of her. She is unable to accept social change and progression. By being unable to fulfill the requirements that she believes is expected of her, she secludes herself. Homer was her last chance and when she couldn't mold him into her husband, she killed him. It's as though she becomes enslaved to her own psychosis. She made Homer her family, even in death. Judging by the hair on the pillow, she slept with him, with his corpse.

Robin said, "She enslaved herself by refusing to accept progress, social change, personal hygiene. She was spoiled and overindulged, but as an adult it was her responsibility to break out of that. Emily represents the South with her traditional values; she is unwilling to accept change and that's why she lives such a pathetic life. Take her servant, for example, he hightailed it out of there as soon as he could. And poor Homer never saw what was coming. He was a Northerner with a more progressive approach to life and the unyielding Emily, used to getting her own way, probably didn't like that he didn't want to settle down with antiquated values, morals and way of life.
I've always questioned the title "A Rose for Emily." What does that mean? Apparently Faulkner meant a rose for her, like you would present any lady. In other words, we can't fault her for the way she was raised, so we honor who she was. I don't buy that and I've always tried, unsuccessfully, to find a better meaning for that title.

As for whether society is to blame for her situation, it doesn't appear that the townspeople are to blame for Emily's demise. The father is more to blame for oppressing Emily and alienating her from society. She never developed any social skills, so it was difficult for her to be involved in the community. She created a world within her home and created her own rules, hence her not paying taxes.
The townspeople, on the contrary to the question, tried to reason with her about her taxes but eventually let it go -- out of compassion. If they had been against her or had not understood her, they gotten the money by throwing her out of her home. After her father's death, the townspeople pitied her and said "she had become humanized" (393). People called on her during the funeral. Then they were excited about her relationship with Homer and they were shocked at the discovery at the end of the story. If Emily had reached out to the townspeople, she could have reintroduced herself to society; it was her responsibility to overcome her past and step into the future. She choose not to do that.