![]() When Emily sees the men sprinkling lime around her house in order to conceal the odor rather than confront her, she must have had many emotions. ![]() With Emily as the storyteller we would finally know what she had done or given Tobe to ensure her actions never came to light in the small town.Įmily would most likely have discussed her view on the people of the town. Tobe is with Emily on a day-to-day basis and must have known of Emily’s actions concerning both her father and Homer. From Emily’s point of view we would have intimate knowledge of her feelings towards Homer.Īnother character we might have gained more insight into if Emily were telling the story is her servant, Tobe. When Emily buys the men’s outfit and toiletry set, the townspeople assume it is for their marriage, but when Homer disappears, no questions are really asked. The reader is aware that the town thinks Homer is far beneath Emily in social stature, but they apparently have no idea as to Emily and Homer’s actual relationship. The reader would most likely have found out how and when Emily decided to kill Homer. If Emily had been telling the story, the reader would have learned what happened during the time between Emily’s father’s death and when she finally decides to hand over his body three days later. The story seems to be told from the view point of multiple people, or at least by a single person who knew of multiple people’s opinions on Emily’s antics. While the story is told in first person, it is not the traditional first person view of a single narrator. ![]() Enjoy eNotes ad-free and cancel anytime.įaulkner is known for being adept at describing both small towns and interpersonal relationships, and “A Rose for Emily” illustrates both. Start your subscription to unlock this answer and thousands more. The reader would have gained some insight into Emily’s behavior, but would have lost the outside perspective of the town’s people. William Faulkner’s story “A Rose for Emily” would have been very different had it been told by Emily herself. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |