The three famous yet unique short stories that will be referenced are, “A Rose for Emily”, “Cathedral” and “Miss Brill”. Each story has a different point of view. “A Rose for Emily” has a first-person plural view. It is plural, because the narrator represents the townspeople; he says things such as “we” and “they”. This story is mysterious all the way to the very end. “Cathedral” is a conventional first-person piece that is meant to combat the misconception of the blind. Finally, “Miss Brill” is told in third person limited, which allows access into Miss Brill’s mind through an outside narrator’s description. In each respective story, the point of view has an enormous effect on how I personally perceive each short story.
In “A Rose …show more content…
I do not know if the narrator has attended all of the events he or she talks about, or if it is through secondhand accounts, or if it is all simply gossip. For example, when Emily continues not to pay her taxes and a few townspeople enter her house, “They called a special meeting of the Board of Alderman.” (Faulkner par. 5). “They” implies the narrator does not find this information on his or her own and instead is told this information. The use of third person, leads me to question the validity of this information. On the other hand, the use of the word “we” suggests the narrator is actually involved in the event taking place. The limited point of view of the narrator is what contributes to all of the intentional plot holes. I have no idea what the characters are thinking since the narrator is not omniscient. The story is basically a timeline, and Faulkner does this because he wants me to interpret the events, not the characters themselves. This is what makes the story interesting to me. I love the mystery aspect of the story and it allows me to better understand the meaning of the story.
If I knew what Miss Emily is thinking throughout the story, there would be no suspense and the story would be very boring. For example, if I had known exactly why Emily was buying the poison, it would be meaningless to read the rest of the story since I would already know the conclusion. I will never know why exactly she poisons Homer, …show more content…
He observes Robert’s actions with wonder. While reading the narrators interpretation of Robert, it makes it seem like he is abnormal and even unhuman. The narrator thinks Robert is some kind of an alien since he has no conception of what he can and cannot do. As he begins talking to Robert the narrator gradually realizes Robert is just like him. As the narrator begins to understand this, so do I. It’s as if I am going through the transformation with him. At the end, when Robert assists the narrator draw the cathedral as his eyes are closed, the narrator explains his bewilderment of the experience which in return, makes it more realistic. If this story was written in third person, the end of the story would not have had such an effect on me. Being told about Robert’s and the narrators hands moving together by a third-person witness, would reduce my experience of the moment. A first-person narrator allows me to have the same experience as the narrator by having my mind move with the narrator’s mind while his hand moves together with
In “A Rose …show more content…
I do not know if the narrator has attended all of the events he or she talks about, or if it is through secondhand accounts, or if it is all simply gossip. For example, when Emily continues not to pay her taxes and a few townspeople enter her house, “They called a special meeting of the Board of Alderman.” (Faulkner par. 5). “They” implies the narrator does not find this information on his or her own and instead is told this information. The use of third person, leads me to question the validity of this information. On the other hand, the use of the word “we” suggests the narrator is actually involved in the event taking place. The limited point of view of the narrator is what contributes to all of the intentional plot holes. I have no idea what the characters are thinking since the narrator is not omniscient. The story is basically a timeline, and Faulkner does this because he wants me to interpret the events, not the characters themselves. This is what makes the story interesting to me. I love the mystery aspect of the story and it allows me to better understand the meaning of the story.
If I knew what Miss Emily is thinking throughout the story, there would be no suspense and the story would be very boring. For example, if I had known exactly why Emily was buying the poison, it would be meaningless to read the rest of the story since I would already know the conclusion. I will never know why exactly she poisons Homer, …show more content…
He observes Robert’s actions with wonder. While reading the narrators interpretation of Robert, it makes it seem like he is abnormal and even unhuman. The narrator thinks Robert is some kind of an alien since he has no conception of what he can and cannot do. As he begins talking to Robert the narrator gradually realizes Robert is just like him. As the narrator begins to understand this, so do I. It’s as if I am going through the transformation with him. At the end, when Robert assists the narrator draw the cathedral as his eyes are closed, the narrator explains his bewilderment of the experience which in return, makes it more realistic. If this story was written in third person, the end of the story would not have had such an effect on me. Being told about Robert’s and the narrators hands moving together by a third-person witness, would reduce my experience of the moment. A first-person narrator allows me to have the same experience as the narrator by having my mind move with the narrator’s mind while his hand moves together with