Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

"A Rose for Emily"

PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 8:00:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
To anyone who has read a work of William Faulkner, the grotesque mystery is no stranger. As layer upon layer of the story is peeled away, a new horror is revealed. This is especially true in "A Rose for Emily". On the surface, it is the story of woman in her derangement, finally cumulating in the death of her lover at her own hand. On analysis, it becomes the story of a town in decay, the dying gasp of the old southern aristocracy. But when one delves deeper, the grotesque and twisted horrors of human nature manifested in the characters becomes painfully apparent. From the obvious murder to deep rooted Noblise Oblige, even to revelations of necrophelia, the genius of Faulkner has concealed innumerable mysteries within the folds of these five pages.

But I assert that these layers are naught but the concealment, red herring rather, hiding and distracting from the real Easter egg of the tale.

I assert that hidden under all these twists and subliminals, lies the unearthed truth of the death of Homer Barron.

I assert that while Emily Greirson may have been the willing hand of the murder, the true culprit, the real murderer, was in fact the narrator himself, even possibly, the entire town of Jefferson, Mississippi!

I hope at least one person on this site would be interested in discussing my viewpoint on the story.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 8:04:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The heading caught my eyes lol
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
XLAV
Posts: 13,702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 8:10:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 8:00:55 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:

I assert that hidden under all these twists and subliminals, lies the unearthed truth of the death of Homer Barron.

I assert that while Emily Greirson may have been the willing hand of the murder, the true culprit, the real murderer, was in fact the narrator himself, even possibly, the entire town of Jefferson, Mississippi!

Can you elaborate why would the narrator, or possibly the entire town of Jefferson, want to kill Homer Barron? What made you believe they were the real murderer(s)?
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 8:37:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 8:10:36 AM, XLAV wrote:
At 2/20/2014 8:00:55 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:

I assert that hidden under all these twists and subliminals, lies the unearthed truth of the death of Homer Barron.

I assert that while Emily Greirson may have been the willing hand of the murder, the true culprit, the real murderer, was in fact the narrator himself, even possibly, the entire town of Jefferson, Mississippi!

Can you elaborate why would the narrator, or possibly the entire town of Jefferson, want to kill Homer Barron? What made you believe they were the real murderer(s)?

Emily Greirson was the towns last great remnant of the Old South, before the civil war and Reconstruction. When Homer Barron, a Yankee and a "Day Laborer" moved into the town as a construction foreman and began courting Emily Greirson, the townspeople were more than miffed. Yet that was not the turning point, the motivation for murder. It was when Mr. Barron declared himself "not a marrying man" and "that he likes boys", and once "he began chasing after the young" construction workers (mind you that this is occurring immediately after he civil war, in a highly aristocratic town in the Deep South). That this proud society's final "monument" of the Old Order, the Gentile Generation, this proud and high woman, the last of Greirson family, would be wooed and courted by, and even have an affair with, a homosexual, was unthinkable. Therein lay the townspeople's motivation for murder.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
XLAV
Posts: 13,702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 3:24:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 8:37:19 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Emily Greirson was the towns last great remnant of the Old South, before the civil war and Reconstruction. When Homer Barron, a Yankee and a "Day Laborer" moved into the town as a construction foreman and began courting Emily Greirson, the townspeople were more than miffed. Yet that was not the turning point, the motivation for murder. It was when Mr. Barron declared himself "not a marrying man" and "that he likes boys", and once "he began chasing after the young" construction workers (mind you that this is occurring immediately after he civil war, in a highly aristocratic town in the Deep South). That this proud society's final "monument" of the Old Order, the Gentile Generation, this proud and high woman, the last of Greirson family, would be wooed and courted by, and even have an affair with, a homosexual, was unthinkable. Therein lay the townspeople's motivation for murder.

The motivation is acceptable but what did they do to that makes them the real murderers? How did they contribute in Homer Barron's murder?
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,738
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 8:01:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 8:00:55 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
To anyone who has read a work of William Faulkner, the grotesque mystery is no stranger. As layer upon layer of the story is peeled away, a new horror is revealed. This is especially true in "A Rose for Emily". On the surface, it is the story of woman in her derangement, finally cumulating in the death of her lover at her own hand. On analysis, it becomes the story of a town in decay, the dying gasp of the old southern aristocracy. But when one delves deeper, the grotesque and twisted horrors of human nature manifested in the characters becomes painfully apparent. From the obvious murder to deep rooted Noblise Oblige, even to revelations of necrophelia, the genius of Faulkner has concealed innumerable mysteries within the folds of these five pages.

But I assert that these layers are naught but the concealment, red herring rather, hiding and distracting from the real Easter egg of the tale.

I assert that hidden under all these twists and subliminals, lies the unearthed truth of the death of Homer Barron.

I assert that while Emily Greirson may have been the willing hand of the murder, the true culprit, the real murderer, was in fact the narrator himself, even possibly, the entire town of Jefferson, Mississippi!


I hope at least one person on this site would be interested in discussing my viewpoint on the story.

I was actually terrified when I read this story, but I can add to the discussion. I did read below, but I felt like replying here :P

I think we have to analyze it psychologically as well, and when we do that we also get motive from Emily. Her motive comes from a conditioning process.

If I remember right, her dad hated change and even refused to let any other man into Emily's life because he was the only one she needed. Then when he died, it was so deep into her mindset that he was the only man she needed that she kept his dead body at her house until the city came and hauled it away.

That kind of sets the stage for future motive when she "marries" Homer and buys the arsenic. So far the story is lining up. She buys the poison to kill him. Why?

She felt like she needed some man in her life, and since her dad was gone, it had to be Homer. He was the only one stupid enough (and single enough) to marry her.

She killed him with the poison and kept his body at the house sometimes even staying up talking to him. She put his arms in a position so that when she lay down she would by lying in his arms.... And dead person juices.

So far the psychology of it lines up perfectly, and an outside killer would be unnecessary to the story.

Based on the psychological conditioning she received growing up and the fact that she was probably extremely obsessive compulsive about it, I think we have our killer.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
TheWarrior
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 11:46:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 8:01:48 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/20/2014 8:00:55 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
To anyone who has read a work of William Faulkner, the grotesque mystery is no stranger. As layer upon layer of the story is peeled away, a new horror is revealed. This is especially true in "A Rose for Emily". On the surface, it is the story of woman in her derangement, finally cumulating in the death of her lover at her own hand. On analysis, it becomes the story of a town in decay, the dying gasp of the old southern aristocracy. But when one delves deeper, the grotesque and twisted horrors of human nature manifested in the characters becomes painfully apparent. From the obvious murder to deep rooted Noblise Oblige, even to revelations of necrophelia, the genius of Faulkner has concealed innumerable mysteries within the folds of these five pages.

But I assert that these layers are naught but the concealment, red herring rather, hiding and distracting from the real Easter egg of the tale.

I assert that hidden under all these twists and subliminals, lies the unearthed truth of the death of Homer Barron.

I assert that while Emily Greirson may have been the willing hand of the murder, the true culprit, the real murderer, was in fact the narrator himself, even possibly, the entire town of Jefferson, Mississippi!


I hope at least one person on this site would be interested in discussing my viewpoint on the story.

I was actually terrified when I read this story, but I can add to the discussion. I did read below, but I felt like replying here :P

I think we have to analyze it psychologically as well, and when we do that we also get motive from Emily. Her motive comes from a conditioning process.

If I remember right, her dad hated change and even refused to let any other man into Emily's life because he was the only one she needed. Then when he died, it was so deep into her mindset that he was the only man she needed that she kept his dead body at her house until the city came and hauled it away.

That kind of sets the stage for future motive when she "marries" Homer and buys the arsenic. So far the story is lining up. She buys the poison to kill him. Why?

She felt like she needed some man in her life, and since her dad was gone, it had to be Homer. He was the only one stupid enough (and single enough) to marry her.

She killed him with the poison and kept his body at the house sometimes even staying up talking to him. She put his arms in a position so that when she lay down she would by lying in his arms.... And dead person juices.

So far the psychology of it lines up perfectly, and an outside killer would be unnecessary to the story.

Based on the psychological conditioning she received growing up and the fact that she was probably extremely obsessive compulsive about it, I think we have our killer.

I agree.
https://docs.google.com...
Lead Enforcer of the DDO Revolutionary Party
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 3:23:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 8:01:48 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/20/2014 8:00:55 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
To anyone who has read a work of William Faulkner, the grotesque mystery is no stranger. As layer upon layer of the story is peeled away, a new horror is revealed. This is especially true in "A Rose for Emily". On the surface, it is the story of woman in her derangement, finally cumulating in the death of her lover at her own hand. On analysis, it becomes the story of a town in decay, the dying gasp of the old southern aristocracy. But when one delves deeper, the grotesque and twisted horrors of human nature manifested in the characters becomes painfully apparent. From the obvious murder to deep rooted Noblise Oblige, even to revelations of necrophelia, the genius of Faulkner has concealed innumerable mysteries within the folds of these five pages.

But I assert that these layers are naught but the concealment, red herring rather, hiding and distracting from the real Easter egg of the tale.

I assert that hidden under all these twists and subliminals, lies the unearthed truth of the death of Homer Barron.

I assert that while Emily Greirson may have been the willing hand of the murder, the true culprit, the real murderer, was in fact the narrator himself, even possibly, the entire town of Jefferson, Mississippi!


I hope at least one person on this site would be interested in discussing my viewpoint on the story.

I was actually terrified when I read this story, but I can add to the discussion. I did read below, but I felt like replying here :P

I think we have to analyze it psychologically as well, and when we do that we also get motive from Emily. Her motive comes from a conditioning process.

If I remember right, her dad hated change and even refused to let any other man into Emily's life because he was the only one she needed. Then when he died, it was so deep into her mindset that he was the only man she needed that she kept his dead body at her house until the city came and hauled it away.

That kind of sets the stage for future motive when she "marries" Homer and buys the arsenic. So far the story is lining up. She buys the poison to kill him. Why?

She felt like she needed some man in her life, and since her dad was gone, it had to be Homer. He was the only one stupid enough (and single enough) to marry her.

She killed him with the poison and kept his body at the house sometimes even staying up talking to him. She put his arms in a position so that when she lay down she would by lying in his arms.... And dead person juices.

So far the psychology of it lines up perfectly, and an outside killer would be unnecessary to the story.

Based on the psychological conditioning she received growing up and the fact that she was probably extremely obsessive compulsive about it, I think we have our killer.

Right, and this is the exact conclusion the narrator wants the reader to come to. Taking into consideration the genius of Faulkner, there is a deeper "Easter Egg" to be found, and numerous point arise when analyzing the narrator himself, as a person. We must remember that the story is narrated in first person limited, not omniscient.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,738
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 12:29:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 3:23:48 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/21/2014 8:01:48 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/20/2014 8:00:55 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
To anyone who has read a work of William Faulkner, the grotesque mystery is no stranger. As layer upon layer of the story is peeled away, a new horror is revealed. This is especially true in "A Rose for Emily". On the surface, it is the story of woman in her derangement, finally cumulating in the death of her lover at her own hand. On analysis, it becomes the story of a town in decay, the dying gasp of the old southern aristocracy. But when one delves deeper, the grotesque and twisted horrors of human nature manifested in the characters becomes painfully apparent. From the obvious murder to deep rooted Noblise Oblige, even to revelations of necrophelia, the genius of Faulkner has concealed innumerable mysteries within the folds of these five pages.

But I assert that these layers are naught but the concealment, red herring rather, hiding and distracting from the real Easter egg of the tale.

I assert that hidden under all these twists and subliminals, lies the unearthed truth of the death of Homer Barron.

I assert that while Emily Greirson may have been the willing hand of the murder, the true culprit, the real murderer, was in fact the narrator himself, even possibly, the entire town of Jefferson, Mississippi!


I hope at least one person on this site would be interested in discussing my viewpoint on the story.

I was actually terrified when I read this story, but I can add to the discussion. I did read below, but I felt like replying here :P

I think we have to analyze it psychologically as well, and when we do that we also get motive from Emily. Her motive comes from a conditioning process.

If I remember right, her dad hated change and even refused to let any other man into Emily's life because he was the only one she needed. Then when he died, it was so deep into her mindset that he was the only man she needed that she kept his dead body at her house until the city came and hauled it away.

That kind of sets the stage for future motive when she "marries" Homer and buys the arsenic. So far the story is lining up. She buys the poison to kill him. Why?

She felt like she needed some man in her life, and since her dad was gone, it had to be Homer. He was the only one stupid enough (and single enough) to marry her.

She killed him with the poison and kept his body at the house sometimes even staying up talking to him. She put his arms in a position so that when she lay down she would by lying in his arms.... And dead person juices.

So far the psychology of it lines up perfectly, and an outside killer would be unnecessary to the story.

Based on the psychological conditioning she received growing up and the fact that she was probably extremely obsessive compulsive about it, I think we have our killer.

Right, and this is the exact conclusion the narrator wants the reader to come to. Taking into consideration the genius of Faulkner, there is a deeper "Easter Egg" to be found, and numerous point arise when analyzing the narrator himself, as a person. We must remember that the story is narrated in first person limited, not omniscient.

That's true. Maybe I'm just too much of a skeptic XD like I don't really see too much of a reason within the story to believe Emily wasn't the killer. To me it would be kind of anti-climatic for her not to be. Although, I guess it would still be cool, because if stories get more complex as I think about them and then arrive at a conclusion like you did I feel special and it makes the story even better for me, but I'm just not getting much of that. Maybe you could elaborate a little more on some of your thought process to help me out.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
XLAV
Posts: 13,702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 8:25:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 8:08:59 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
I've never read this work by Faulkner. I'll have to check it out at the library.
You can read the whole story on the internet.

It's a brilliant short story and I recommend everyone to read it.