A Rose For Emily (Plot and Plot Devices)

William Faulkner’s short story “A Rose for Emily” is an excellent example of a non-linear narrative.  Beginning with the passing of Emily, the narrator recounts events that have transpired during the course of her adult life.  Emily’s father passed away when she was around thirty-years-old, and the event caused her to have a minor mental breakdown.  She recovered and soon became interested in a man named Homer Barron, a day laborer from the North (the story is set in the post-Civil War south).  Everyone in town is soon gossiping about this courtship, with many speculating that their relationship has become physically intimate, which for a lady of Miss Emily’s station would be dishonorable.  Several of Emily’s relations soon visit, supposedly to aid her in tying Homer in matrimonial bonds.   While mostly implied by the narrator, the audience infers that Emily and Homer had a protagonist-antagonist relationship with this subject, with most of the arguing occurring behind closed doors.  This causes Homer to leave town, but he returns shortly thereafter, only to disappear again for good.  This second vanishing sends Emily into a self-imposed seclusion, with the townsfolk rarely catching sight of her.  It is only after her funeral that the shocking yet satisfying truth is revealed:  Emily had killed Homer, keeping his body in her upstairs bedroom, where Emily would occasionally lay beside him.  This reveals the extent of Emily’s internal crisis.  The breakdown she suffered following the death of her father revealed that she had trouble letting go.  Homer’s brief desertion magnified this problem, and when he returned Emily made sure he’d never leave her again.  This action is foreshadowed near the end of Part III, when the narrator recounts how Emily purchased arsenic, intimidating the druggist in the process.  When I read the story for the first time in sixth-grade I overlooked this detail but re-reading with foreknowledge of the twist ending it was easy to spot.  Based on Faulkner’s wording, it’s clear the narrator is familiar with Emily, although he never knew her personally; likely he heard the recounted stories from older relatives.  I find it interesting that he remains anonymous despite his familiarity, as none of the prose betrays a specific connection.  In that light, the narrator is the town’s personification, recounting its history in a semi-omnipotent manner.  He knows much, but like everyone else, he didn’t see the truth behind the window.