Do we as the reader need to distinguish between “the story” (i.e Faulkner, or even the reader) and the narrative voice?
The question you’re asking revolves around a movement in the mid-twentieth century called New Criticism. John Barth’s essay “Death of the Author” deeply explains why we should separate the creator from their work. However, this point of view is highly debated in the world of literary theory/criticism, because there is no finite answer to the question, “Can you separate the creation from its creator?” We do not need to make these distinctions, but when evaluating literature, it can be helpful to separate the work from its author at one point and conjoin the work to its author at another point.
To answer your other questions, I will separate William Faulkner (the flesh and blood person) from the implied narrator, because when reading “A Rose for Emily” without other material we do not hold sufficient evidence to link the narrator’s opinions with Faulkner’s.
Is the reader obliged to evaluate the narrator’s values and those of the society he represents? If so, how?
There are many different ways to evaluate this. One can be looking at how the narrator responds to the actions of the society, and another can be determining the values of the society based on the narrator’s words.
For instance, in section #1 when referring to Emily’s family tax exemptions the narrator says, “Only a man of Colonel Sartoris' generation and thought could have invented it, and only a woman could have believed it.” Because the narrator only ever refers to himself in the collective plural “we,” it is possible to believe that the entire town relies on old fashioned gender normative roles, or the implied narrator is just misogynistic. Though, you should note that when contemplating this implied narrator, the story is split into five sections the same way a traditional obituary is written.
Analyze the treatment of societal values in “A Rose for Emily.”
Most of the societal values in “A Rose for Emily” come from antebellum values adapting in a postbellum America. The concept of nobility, or at least an American brand of it defined by wealth and prejudice, is very important to the story. In section three “noblesse oblige” is a concept brought up twice in one sentence as something the Grierson family, because of their history in the community, should indulge in. This sense of nobility arises frequently throughout the story even in the lowest of moments. The narrator, after Emily’s father’s death and his earlier falling out with the other Griersons in Alabama says, “She carried her head high enough--even when we believed that she was fallen. It was as if she demanded more than ever the recognition of her dignity as the last Grierson; as if it had wanted that touch of earthiness to reaffirm her imperviousness.”
Does “A Rose for Emily” ultimately affirm the values of Jefferson society?
No, it does not. It attempts to paint a tragic portrait of a southern lady decaying in her own home due to her heritage and loss of nobility. In many ways, it shows us how the culture of Jefferson has failed this woman.
Does the story describe them objectively and noncommittally, treat them ironically or critically, nostalgically or with some combination of these?
As this story is a work of fiction set in Yoknapatawpha County, and after we have separated the author from his work, a combination of any could be argued. Ultimately, it depends on what parts of the story you are looking at. But as a general whole, it takes a critical approach to the values in Jefferson and the south at large.
There does appear to be a discrepancy between the values of the people in the town and Faulkner's views. Some of the passages describing Jefferson values are quite satirical, such as when the former mayor Colonel Sartoris is described as "he who fathered the edict that no Negro woman should appear on the streets without an apron."
The people of the town don't even seem to remember Emily—and by extension, the Old South she represents—with much love. People viewed the Griersons as snobs, though they did pity Emily, who was dominated by her father. They do not dislike her, and they perceive her with the limited but adequate reverence younger people would give to an established part of the town's history. Her death inspires more curiosity than grief.
However, Faulkner does mock how no one wanted to offend Emily while she was alive. The townspeople do not arrest her for refusing to pay her taxes, even though she was never given an exemption, as she so claims. When the bad smell emerges from her home, no one wants to confront her about it—even though the smell is from the rotting corpse of Emily's murdered victim, her lover Homer. They sprinkle lime in her cellar, content that the smell has gone away and not bothering with examining the cause.
So what does all this say about the values of Jefferson's townspeople? While they may not adhere strictly to the values of the Old South, represented by Emily Grierson, they do still hold these outmoded values with enough reverence to allow her to break actual laws and literally get away with murder. This can be viewed as satirical and suggests that Faulkner is criticizing these skewed values.
No comments:
Post a Comment