Significant of time in "A Rose for Emily"
![]()
In “A Rose for Emily,” it was confusing for any new readers to understand what was going on. I was confused myself. Time was the main confusion in the story. The narrator, which was the third person, began telling the story with conclusion instead of the introduction. It was quite an experience to read it at first. I believe the narrator’s main purpose was to have the readers getting more involved with the story. By knowing the conclusion first, readers would be forced into different thoughts of the story: Who was Emily? Why did she die? They would have felt sorry for Emily. Then the narrator would surprise the readers that Emily was not the victim of the story, but the murderer in the story. I was shocked when I found out that the reason she killed Homer was so that he could stayed by her side forever.
In “A Rose for Emily,” it was confusing for any new readers to understand what was going on. I was confused myself. Time was the main confusion in the story. The narrator, which was the third person, began telling the story with conclusion instead of the introduction. It was quite an experience to read it at first. I believe the narrator’s main purpose was to have the readers getting more involved with the story. By knowing the conclusion first, readers would be forced into different thoughts of the story: Who was Emily? Why did she die? They would have felt sorry for Emily. Then the narrator would surprise the readers that Emily was not the victim of the story, but the murderer in the story. I was shocked when I found out that the reason she killed Homer was so that he could stayed by her side forever. 
I agree on the fact that the time disorganization was due to captivate and catch the reader's attention in order for them to read the whole story. I also agree on the fact that the conclusion in the beginning makes you wonder what happened and why. What other examples can suggest that the mess of time was vital for this story?
ReplyDeleteI wasn't so surprised when i read that She had killed Homer Barron. Clues like the smell and the rat poison gave it away. Eventhough they were mixed up in the way it was wriiten. It was suspenseful and a great way to tell the story.
ReplyDeleteI believe the story was told in a first person point of view, but it was told by an outsider, a villager from the town. I also do not agree that there was much surprise to deal with her killing Homer to have him forever. After reading how stuck in the past she was and the fact that they smelled something rotting coming from her house and Homer was last seen going into her house, it was pretty obvious that she had kept Homer in her house, dead. It is a strange story, though. Do you think anything would have changed if the townspeople tried to stand up against her arrogance?
ReplyDeleteShe was a victim though. She had been taken her youth from her father. I do not state that she was right in killing him, but she was never taught any better. Emily had always been taught that she could get what she wants--due to her class. The one thing that could never have was a man to love her. Finally when she was able to have one, he possibly was going to leave. Emily would have nothing of it, so in this sense i do not think that she is an evil person. I believe that she had a rough upbringing and this affected her decisions.
ReplyDeleteThis was not a murder mystery. If you were shocked you were not paying attention.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Emily was a victim in the same way an abused child who grows up to be a rapist is a victim.