Homework Help

What point of view does "A Rose for Emily" use and what are its advantages?

user profile pic

diana68 | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted June 2, 2007 at 3:06 AM via web

dislike 6 like

What point of view does "A Rose for Emily" use and what are its advantages?

11 Answers | Add Yours

user profile pic

Jamie Wheeler | College Teacher | eNotes Employee

Posted June 2, 2007 at 3:34 AM (Answer #1)

dislike 0 like

"A Rose for Emily" is told in third person limited perspective.

Here is the definition of that point-of-view and its advantages:

Third person limited could be perceived as being told from the viewpoint character. It can be used very objectively, showing what is actually happening without the filter of the protagonist's personality, which can allow the author to reveal information that the protagonist doesn't know or realize. (*as in the case here, where the protagonist does not know until the end what the consequences of his, and the town's, actions have been)

However, some authors use an even narrower and more subjective perspective, as though the viewpoint character were narrating the story; this is dramatically very similar to the first person, allowing in-depth revelation of the protagonist's personality, but uses third-person grammar. Some writers will shift perspective from one viewpoint character to another.

Sources:

user profile pic

bmadnick | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Senior Educator

Posted June 2, 2007 at 3:52 AM (Answer #2)

dislike 0 like

The point of view for this story is different than most, representing Faulkner's unique style of telling a story. It is told in first person, meaning the narrator is a character in the story, but we never know the narrator's name. He speaks for the community, and in that sense, he can be considered the main character. He shows sympathy for Emily, but he's also clever and humorous as he tells his story. He puts the pieces of the story together and brings it to a shocking climax. He also shows sympathy for the town of Jefferson and feels the people of the town are unable to control their reactions.

The story is told by the narrator through a series of flashbacks that cover almost fifty years. He flashes back and forth through the events in Emily's life and the town of Jefferson. These events are related, but we don't get the clues in the order that the events occurred. What does this add to the story? The last scene in the story is powerful and shocking. By telling it in this way, the impact on the reader is great. Stop and think how the story would have affected you if it had been told in the usual beginning-to-end style. This type of narration is one reason why Faulkner's work is still read today.

user profile pic

ms-mcgregor | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted October 5, 2008 at 12:07 PM (Answer #2)

dislike 0 like

From a narrative point of view, a townsperson is unable to see the events as Emily sees them. If Emily told the story, she would have to reveal the murder of Homer and her subsequent behavior towards him. A townsperson is able to present the clues for the reader and allow the reader to draw his/her own conclusions before discovering the shocking ending. Since our imagination is often more graphic that the real description of events, the horror of the story is heightened by allowing us to discover the truth at the same time as the rest of the town. It also allows the author to show the town and the Southern values of the town instead of those of Emily, whose mind is obviously twisted.

user profile pic

catharinek | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Adjunct Educator

Posted October 6, 2008 at 12:22 PM (Answer #3)

dislike 0 like

Faulkner writes about the South, and the enablers the townspeople become. While it is true that if Emily told the story the reader would not be surrounded by the mystery and gothic quality that the unnamed narrator creates, the unnamed narrator helps the reader understand the town's hand in Homer's murder.

The narrator is able to tell the story as the "town" knows it. What the town knows is that Emily's father ran off all of her suitors for selfish reasons. The reader also learns that Emily buys arsenic from the pharmacist and won't tell him why she wants it. Then the narrator explains the terrible stench coming from the house not long after Homer disappears. Finally, when the townspeople open the door, no one is truly shocked at what they find. This shows that the town had a good idea all along about what happened to Homer. In a sense, the town enables Emily's crime. This idea of knowing and not speaking is a part of Southern Gothic. If Faulkner had Emily tell the story, the reader would not have seen this or understood how the town is also a characater in the story.

user profile pic

pmiranda2857 | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted October 7, 2008 at 2:56 PM (Answer #4)

dislike 0 like

The narrator has more information about Miss Emily, her father and the town that the main character would ever reveal to the reader.

When a main character is the narrator, the story is told from a particular perspective, in this case, we would probably be even more sympathetic towards Emily than we are through the narrator's version.

We certainly would get to know Miss Emily's heart better.  The story does not give us insight into her thinking, only that we assume she murdered Homer Barron so that he would never leave her.  We don't get to hear Emily's thoughts through the narrator, that would be a nice touch. 

But the essence of horror would be minimized if Miss Emily told the story, we would see the whole experience through her eyes, she would probably rationalize her behavior.  

user profile pic

kwoo1213 | College Teacher | (Level 2) Educator

Posted October 8, 2008 at 12:34 AM (Answer #5)

dislike 0 like

The narrator is not judgmental towards Miss Emily, which is essential to the meaning of this story.  While the narrator does report what OTHERS say about Miss Emily, he does not pass judgment on her.  He reserves that for the reader to do.  By using this narrator, Faulkner is able to evoke sympathy for Miss Emily.

user profile pic

tdot-teacher | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Adjunct Educator

Posted October 12, 2008 at 6:12 AM (Answer #6)

dislike 0 like

The unnamed narrator achieves two purposes. First, it allows Faulkner to establish the townspeople as the "collective" through which the reader learns about this enigma named Miss Emily. If Faulkner established a particular narrator (either first- or third- person) who is defined, much of the narrative quality would be lost because the perspective would be significantly limited. If nothing else, the reader is meant to sympathize with Miss Emily, and limiting the narrative voice would significantly hinder this purpose. Second, having the narrator unnamed allows the reader the opportunity to enjoy the perspective of the townspeople who all attempt to understand Miss Emily without quite capturing the entire truth. As readers, we are left with bits and pieces of her life, told piecemeal in a non-chronological order, quite similar to the way in which the townspeople of Jefferson must approach her.

user profile pic

Susan Hurn | College Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted January 16, 2009 at 6:19 PM (Answer #7)

dislike 0 like

The narrator has more information about Miss Emily, her father and the town that the main character would ever reveal to the reader.

When a main character is the narrator, the story is told from a particular perspective, in this case, we would probably be even more sympathetic towards Emily than we are through the narrator's version.

We certainly would get to know Miss Emily's heart better.  The story does not give us insight into her thinking, only that we assume she murdered Homer Barron so that he would never leave her.  We don't get to hear Emily's thoughts through the narrator, that would be a nice touch. 

But the essence of horror would be minimized if Miss Emily told the story, we would see the whole experience through her eyes, she would probably rationalize her behavior.  

The point of view of a story is the most important decision a writer makes. It determines which story is told. Emily's version of the events would be quite different from someone else's version. Any person in the town would tell the story from his own experiences with Emily and his own attitudes toward her. By choosing a narrator who is not a part of the town, Faulker is able to achieve several things.

He can characterize the town in addition to developing Emily's character. The town itself becomes a character in the story. This says a lot about the nature of the small Southern town as Faulkner saw it: not a collection of independent individuals, but as a unified force of culture and tradition (group think).

By using the objective narrator, Faulkner is able to maintain the suspense of the story. The reader doesn't learn the story all at once because the narrator did not learn it that way.

Faulkner's narrator tells the story in a disjointed way, not in chronological order. He gives the reader clues, out of order. As the reader starts putting the clues together, a growing sense of horror develops.

Finally, Faulkner's narrator, as an outsider, is nonjudgmental. This makes it possible to preserve the possibility that the reader can develop some sympathy for Emily, despite her terrible act.

user profile pic

ask996 | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Senior Educator

Posted April 22, 2010 at 3:50 PM (Answer #8)

dislike 0 like

Great points everyone’s made about the third person narrator. Having complete freedom to look into the story and construct our own meaning is one of the things that makes the story so fascinating. Imagine what a different story it would be if Emily told it. We either wouldn’t know the truth (because she would hide it), or we’d be so unnerved by her admissions that we would have no sympathy for her. Faulkner crafted wisely so our empathy could remain intact.

user profile pic

lfawley | College Teacher | (Level 1) Associate Educator

Posted April 22, 2010 at 3:55 PM (Answer #9)

dislike 0 like

I agree with the above poster as the narrator allows each and every one of us, as readers, to be a member of the town in a way. Faulkner makes you feel as though you have just moved to town and you are getting the inside scoop on the skeletons in the town's closet. I think this perspective allows us, as readers, the freedom to make our own determinations about both the town and about Emily. The fact that the story becomes a bit of a horror tale makes it even more interesting because we are left wondering why we were made priivy to all of this in the first place.

user profile pic

luvnie92 | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted January 26, 2011 at 4:14 AM (Answer #10)

dislike 0 like

what a bout the the protoganist of emily in part 4?

Join to answer this question

Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.

Join eNotes