A rose for emily a point of view essay is a type of writing that tries to give a realistic depiction of the events, actions, or thoughts in a story. A rose for emily point of view essay is a very popular type of essay because it gives readers a fresh perspective on a book they have already read. This can be done by switching points-of-view between characters or even including an omniscient narrator who knows everything about the plot and can share this information with their audience.
The concept of point of view is one of the most important aspects when it comes to analyzing and comprehending works of literature. It influences the reader’s perception of the tale, based on how the narrator regards the themes and circumstances described. There are a number of types of p.o.v. Some rely on who is telling the narrative (first, second, or third-person viewpoint); others are determined by how aware the narrator is (omniscient or limited omniscient point of view).
Prices start at $12
Prices start at $11
Prices start at $14
Prices start at $12
In “A Rose for Emily,” William Faulkner’s short story, the essay explores the notion of perspective in “A Rose for Emily.” It’s an odd example of a first-person limited omniscient viewpoint, as it will be shown later in this essay. On one hand, the narrator’s point of view draws readers closer to the events he is describing on the other.
Importance of Point of View in A Rose for Emily
Throughout the whole narrative, the narrator is in first person plural: ‘we’ is a pronoun used by Faulkner to emphasize that the events are related by an eye-witness or a large group of eye-witnesses (28–34). This ‘we’ is a composite portrait of the town society and, as such, narrates not just Miss Grierson’s tale but also that of several eras. The narrator’s collective personality shows through phrases like “our entire town went to her funeral,” “we were not pleased exactly,” “as is our custom,” “we imagined” , etc. (Faulkner 28–30, 31).
Such statements, combined with the composite image’s confident predictions of Miss Grierson’s personal life, give the impression of a know-all (or omniscient) narrator who is farseeing enough to prepare for the future course of events. The collective reaction to each event in Miss Grierson’s life has a tone that implies that the pronoun “we” may be used to represent the community of town gossips who want everything done their way and are enraged if things go out of their hands.
The collective narrator’s authority, which should appear trustworthy and encourage the readers’ confidence, is shaken by the revelation that he is a merely town gossip who spreads rumors only for entertainment. As a result of this, the narrator’s suspicious nature as a gossip casts doubt on his judgment of Miss Grierson’s behaviors as strange and noncompliant.
Furthermore, in the brief tale, several small elements build upon the mystery of the narrator’s personality. Faulkner provides phrases such as “people” and “our town’s people believed,” for example, in most of his ‘we’ statements (30). And now there is a question: why does Faulk on utilize the term “people” rather than the conventional “we”? Why are we seeing a literary technique that makes things appear jumbled? The obvious answer is that this is done to set off the narrator from the rest of the crowd.
Finally, the last sequence of breaking into Miss Grierson’s secret chamber adds to the contrast. For one thing, the narrator says, “Already we knew that there was one room in that area above stairs which no one had seen in forty years,” implying that he or she has been involved in Miss Grierson’s mystery for some time (Faulkner 34) — how on earth did they know about it? In such light, the narrator appears to be someone who has been privy to Miss Grierson’s secret.
Another point is that the narrator switches to the pronoun “they” in the scene of breaking into a place: “They held the funeral on the second day,” “They waited until Miss Emily was properly buried” (Faulkner 34). Despite the return of the usual ‘we’ shortly after, this abrupt transformation of narrator’s position with regard to town people cannot be overlooked.
In “A Rose for Emily,” the issue of narrator point of view was addressed in this study paper. The strange first-person narrator, who appears to represent the community society outwardly, fascinates by knowing intimate details and casual opposition to the rest of the people. In conclusion, because it implies that Miss Grierson shouldn’t be judged like gossipers and necessitates a more in-depth understanding as a distinct person, this has a significant influence on readers’ opinions of her.
In Faulkner’s novella “A Rose for Emily,” the author employs a viewpoint that isn’t often seen in literature. The narrator uses first-person plural narration to tell the story through the perspective of an unnamed character. Although the narrative is told from a first-person standpoint, the narrator frequently substitutes pronouns such as “they” and “she” for third-person ones like “he” and “she.”
Through an unusual, yet clever manipulation of point of view, Faulkner was able to have a significant influence on how readers perceive and analyze Ms. Emily Grierson. The pronouns and language utilized by the narrator, who represents the thoughts of the community as a whole, demonstrated how alone she felt.
In “A Rose for Emily,” William Faulkner employs point of view in a unique way to express the dying values, traditions, and customs of the Old South. The narrator uses an omniscient first-person narration in “A Rose for Emily” to convey the events from the perspective of the townspeople, which is one approach by which Faulkner influences the point of view within the tale.
The narrator exhibits information about Emily to the readers in a gossip-like manner, with only little bits and pieces of information given. When the townspeople discuss the reason as to why Ms. Grierson went and obtained arsenic, for example, an example is when they say things like “‘She will commit suicide'” (Faulkner 35). There’s also the instance when Ms. Grierson is seen embracing Homer Barron intimately.
Grierson’s life is used to symbolize Southern aristocracy. When she attempted to purchase poison from the druggist, she had an air of superiority about her that indicated her presumed authority, which was demonstrated when the druggist complied with her demands and provided her with the poison (35). Another example is when Emily remits the taxes being levied on her by the younger generation (33). The population recognizes Grierson’s aristocratic status. That is why they are hesitant to defy her wishes. Also, since the narrative was told from the viewpoint of the townspeople, we see the concept of a slow deterioration in customs associated with “the Old South.”
From Emily’s perspective, she may still believe that the “Old South” customs are still in effect and are not declining at all, since she is unwilling to accept change. As a result, she suffers an early death as she is unable to adapt to the changes in the younger generations. However, when Ms. Grierson passes away, so do her traditions and customs, implying the demise of Southern aristocracy in town and the beginning of transformation for future generations.
If the story “A Rose for Emily” by William Faulkner was written from the perspective of Miss Emily, it would be significantly different. Her aims and feelings would be more apparent, and because of this, the tale’s conclusion may not come as such a surprise. In addition, Miss Emily would be less alienated from the reader, and she would be easier to comprehend in terms that the townspeople could not.
“In my work as a voiceover artist, I’ve discovered that telling stories from the perspective of someone who doesn’t exist is challenging. However, being able to tell a tale from the unique viewpoint of an elderly woman would provide infinite possibilities for expression and emotion. In this poem, there’s no narrator—just a hundred voices screaming at once.”.
There are several more examples of the townspeople making assumptions about Miss Emily, who is a complete recluse and communicates to no one. There’s almost a curtain between Miss Emily and the rest of the village throughout the story. It is only somewhat lowered at the conclusion of the tale, when the murder and body are discovered. Nobody knows exactly what Miss Emily feels or thinks.
The reader only sees her actions, and this is not enough to infer most of her emotions. However, if the narrative was written in the first person point of view of Miss Emily, at its very essence, the reader would be informed about every feeling that passed through her mind. They’d be able to comprehend her and maybe why she did the things she did, like staying confined within the walls of her house for most of life.
By establishing certain conventions, the author not only raises the stakes but also makes the conclusion more predictable. The reader’s initial response may now be resignation rather than shock, horror, or disgust. The conclusion would be less surprising and unsettling. Miss Emily’s character is easier to comprehend in this story since it is written in third person. Msn Emily’s personality is better understood by reading third person because of this tale’s third person narrative.
In terms of literature, is it important to have a point of view and narration? Is it really essential for us to be knowledgeable in order to discover what is the proper and honorable option and what is the undesirable choice? Can we be held accountable for our actions towards one another without understanding what is morally acceptable in society?
The book’s author, John D. Voelker, also raises the issue of whether or not a person should be held responsible for the death of their child or discovering a cryptic monument from a grief-stricken woman. In “A Rose for Emily,” on the other hand, are the townspeople to blame for what became of Emily Grierson? Is it perhaps the young boy who sits in a dim, dreary and mildew-infested cellar solely so that people above may enjoy a utopia like environment on Griersons property?
As the plot continues, the tone towards Miss. Emily shifts from disinterest to compassion, implying that instead of the townspeople narrating events about her, it is someone who has invested more deeply in her wellbeing than someone who is merely concerned with her social standing who is telling the tale. It depicts Emily’s difficulties in her rather terrible life, including when she refused to pay taxes required by law or when she was so overcome with grief that she clung to her father’s dead body.
The writer of the novel based on The Slave Narrative, Matilda Devereux, referred to Tobe as “her former slave.” According to Matilda Devereux’s biographer, the narrator was her previous servant Tobe. The novelist appears to have written that way because she thought that Grierson was not a trustworthy character. While a collaborative narrating tone seems to be the ideal fit for the piece experts frequently argue that the narrator is her former employee Tobe.
Correspondingly, Miss Grierson is frequently addressed as “Miss Emily” throughout the book, suggesting that Tobe may be the narrator. Personal attachment levels rose throughout the story as it drew to a conclusion and there were just a few people who Miss Emily Grierson let into.
In a beautiful utopia, “The Ones Who Walk Away from the Omelas” takes place. The name comes from the Greek mythological figure of Oenomaus, who was known for his cruelty and bloodthirstiness. In this idealistic society, everything seems to be perfect. A picturesque landscape, music ringing down the narrow lanes, and a free of obligations to any major authority define the Omelas as a passionate and intuitive culture. In A Rose for Emily, too, similar types of narration appear in both literary works.
The Narrator appears to have comprehensive knowledge of the history surrounding the Omelas and their society’s foundation. In this case, only because the narrator isn’t considered a primary character, but rather an informative voice who expands on the context and society of the Omelas.
A rich and complex chronology is not enough to make a wonderful tale; rather, it must have an effective narrative point of view. Most critics incorrectly believe the narrator, who speaks as though representing the entire town with “we,” to be young, impressionable, and male; however, when you look closer, you’ll see that the narrator isn’t young and is never referred to as a guy or a female.
By looking at the tone of the lines spoken by this “we” individual, who changes his or her mind about Miss Emily in specific portions of the narrative, the narrator’s personality is better understood. Consider how the opening sentence of the tale and why citizens attended Miss Emily’s funeral: “. . . they [went] through a sort of veneration for a fallen monument.” Is it possible that the narrator is implying that townspeople view Miss Emily with respect?
What was the fate of the men who loved her? What has Miss Emily done to deserve being referred to as a “monument”? Once we figure out she poisoned her lover and then slept with his dead body for an unseeable amount of time, we wonder how the narrator can still feel anything for her. And why does the narrator believe it is important to tell us about Miss Emily’s tale?
The narrator generally sympathizes with Miss Emily, never condemning her behavior. The narrator is frequently unreservedly and reluctantly admiring of her capacity to utilize her high-class demeanor to combat the members of the city council or acquire poison. The narrator also praises her upper-class distance, notably in her distaste for such basic issues as paying taxes or mingling with common people.
Despite the fact that the narrator does not condemn Miss Emily for her Homeromania, he expresses his disappointment that the Griersons “held themselves a little too high.” Even this remark is tempered: recalling when Miss Emily and her father rode through town in an aristocratically dismissive manner, the narrator reluctantly admits, “We had long considered them to be a tableau,” which means they were too artistic for the everyday world.
At age 30, Miss Emily will be a spinster because the narrator tells us that her lover has been “disgraced,” which is another way of saying she’s been cast off. We’re not pleased exactly, but we’re vindicated. When Mr. Braddon passes away, the narrator’s ambivalent feelings are obvious: “At last [we] could pity Miss Emily.” Sweet Briar citizens rejoice at her poverty; as a result of her improved financial situation, she becomes “humanized.”
The narrator now pities her once more, this time as she refuses to bury her father straight away after he passes away: “We recalled all the young men her father had driven away, and we knew that without anything else, she would have to cling to what had robbed her. People will do so.” The phrase “cling” implies that she will cling to Homer’s dead body.
With the reappearance of Homer, the narrator’s tone becomes irritated. The narrator is “glad” that Miss Emily has a love interest, but this joy swiftly fades as she considers the notion of a Northerner assuming to be an equal of Miss Emily, a Southern, aristocratic lady. The narrator can’t fathom how low she’d stoop by becoming personally involved with a typical Yankee day laborer. In other words, while being polite and kind to Homer, Miss Emily should not become sexually intimate with him.
The narrator’s attitude about Miss Emily and Homer’s affair changes when the town thinks she is having an affair. The narrator proudly notes that “even though we thought she had fallen,” Miss Emily “maintained her head high enough — even when we believed she was guilty.” The narrator is proud to perceive the self-assuredness with which he/she faces adversity. These are the attitudes of Southern aristocracy, who upheld their heads high, confronted evil with courage, rose above the common people.
When Miss Emily requests poison from the druggist, she does so with the same haughty disdain with which she previously routed the aldermen. When the druggist inquires as to why she wants poison, she simply looks at him “her head tilted back in order to look him eye for eye,” until he wraps up the poison for her. To inquire about someone’s intentions was considered an improper intrusion into one’s privacy in Southern culture at the time.
We begin to doubt a society that allows individuals in high places of society, respect, and authority to flout the law when we learn that Miss Emily’s aristocratic haughtiness inspired the narrator’s awe. We wonder about the narrator’s principles. Who, then, is this narrator who claims to represent the town yet withdraws from it? The narrator has both positive and negative opinions of Miss Emily, as well as outside viewpoints — especially in Section IV, when we first learn about many aspects of her life.
The narrator is initially young, easily influenced, and very impressed by Miss Emily’s haughty, aristocracy lifestyle in the beginning of the narrative; later in Section IV, this person appears to be as old as Mrs. Price and has recounted all of Miss Emily’s significant achievements throughout her life; and finally, toward the conclusion of the tale, when he has grown older with her, the narrator gives her a “rose” compassionately and sympathetically telling her strange and macabre tale.
By using the “we” narrator, Faulkner establishes a bond between readers and his narrative. The narrator sees Miss Emily as a fallen monument, but also as a lady who is beyond reproach, who is too good for the common people, and who maintains a certain distance from them.
The narrator, on the other hand, clearly adores her — Grierson evokes a particular sort of aristocratic conduct — yet the people despise her arrogance and elitism; they want to put her on a pedestal above everyone else while also wanting to see her brought down in disgrace. Nonetheless, the community, including the new council members, pays homage and obedience to her. She is part of the Old South aristocracy, which implies she enjoys special advantages.