In the two articles discussing and debating what Williams Faulkner's “ A Rose for Emily” Sullivan and Nebeker both have stated their deeper opinion on the story. Nebeker believes that the narrator’s point of view has been misleading, on the other hand, Sullivan believes that the narrator has more meaning to the story than critics shall think. Sullivan and Nebeker both have interesting theories, but Sullivans is easier to follow and more realistic and a stronger component.
As Sullivan said, “I propose to demonstrate that we cannot understand Emily Grierson until we have understood the narrator” (Sullivan, 160). This quote is the beginning clarify the mysterious view of the narrator and who he precisely is. I agree with Sullivan on the point …show more content…
In the story, the narrator switched from our to we to them and makes it complicated to suggest who the narrator is and what he is meaning. When he uses the word “we” it changes it to who is we as Nebeker said, “why is this we separated from they who” (Nebeker, 5) is the meaning the town? But why constantly change we to them? He is often just grouping many groups together, but not singling him out. The Narrator is in each section introducing the we who is “were not pleased, but vindicated when she reached thirty and was still single” (Nebeker, 5) and he then says that “ our whole town” but is he not just meaning him? The narrative continues to say we and is chronological “if not a social peer group” ( Nebeker, 13). Continuing on, “We” meaning we are the group who new Miss Emily before the idea that has become perceived and the “they” group of is another generation. Nebeker is focused on the point of view and letting us see that the way he switched the pronouns repeatedly make it strange and confusing making us never know what he means or who is who? Is the narrator a male or female? A child or adult? Never knowing keeps readers guessing. Nebeker suggests that the “we” is old and the “they” is new and the “us” is the old lover (Nebeker, 11). The horror of her death left the impression on every one of the “people of the present”
Nebeker and Sullivan
As Sullivan said, “I propose to demonstrate that we cannot understand Emily Grierson until we have understood the narrator” (Sullivan, 160). This quote is the beginning clarify the mysterious view of the narrator and who he precisely is. I agree with Sullivan on the point …show more content…
In the story, the narrator switched from our to we to them and makes it complicated to suggest who the narrator is and what he is meaning. When he uses the word “we” it changes it to who is we as Nebeker said, “why is this we separated from they who” (Nebeker, 5) is the meaning the town? But why constantly change we to them? He is often just grouping many groups together, but not singling him out. The Narrator is in each section introducing the we who is “were not pleased, but vindicated when she reached thirty and was still single” (Nebeker, 5) and he then says that “ our whole town” but is he not just meaning him? The narrative continues to say we and is chronological “if not a social peer group” ( Nebeker, 13). Continuing on, “We” meaning we are the group who new Miss Emily before the idea that has become perceived and the “they” group of is another generation. Nebeker is focused on the point of view and letting us see that the way he switched the pronouns repeatedly make it strange and confusing making us never know what he means or who is who? Is the narrator a male or female? A child or adult? Never knowing keeps readers guessing. Nebeker suggests that the “we” is old and the “they” is new and the “us” is the old lover (Nebeker, 11). The horror of her death left the impression on every one of the “people of the present”
Nebeker and Sullivan