Grierson's Isolation

In the story “A Rose for Emily”, by William Faulkner, he chooses to narrate his story in third person rather than the main character being the narrator. The story begins at the main character, Emily Grierson’s funeral making us believe that her characteristics are being estimated by the people in her town. The narrator explains how Emily was isolated from the world because of her now dead father, that led her to become an impervious person; unaffected by traumatic events. Not long after the death of her father, Emily started dating, Homer Barren which was thought to be a replacement for her father. That was concluded from the isolated world her father made her live while he was alive, which did not involve any other men in her life. She was

a character that did not quite make sense from her actions.
Emily Grierson displayed many different characteristics in Faulker’s story, “A Rose for Emily”. Some of Emily’s traits were more dominant and stood out in her actions more than her other traits. Emily was looked at as impervious, for starters, she murdered Homer, her current boyfriend, in what looks like no solid reason. However, it was not disclosed if he was planning to break up with her the last time he entered her home. Which still was hardly a reason to kill someone. She wanted to be loved, but she had grown up with a selfish father who did not find any man worthy of his daughter’s love. According to Polk, this may have led to Emily getting intimate feelings for her father which was not furthered explained. She later tried out the “womanhood” she never experienced because of her isolated life by dating Homer; which ended poorly seeing as she kills her boyfriend and returns to the life her dead father had wanted for her, a lonely aloof life. She still was able to live with herself and was not affected by her unreasonable actions. She did not seem to be affected by being alone with Homer’s dead body for all those years from the eyes of her neighbors and fellow townspeople. Emily spent years in her home alone, leaving only to teach painting lessons. She had left her house with the knowledge of a dead man in her bed and had not shown any emotions pertaining towards that.
         Emily showed characteristics of an impervious person from her actions when her father died. Emily did not believe he had died for awhile. “Emily’s subsequent behavior clearly shows that the death of her father was a piece of reality disavowed by her ego” (Scherting 4). In other words, her ego was imperviousness and seeing as she could not let herself believe her father had died. When her neighbors came to her door to give their support she told them her father was not dead (Faulker 175). She was so caught on by her ability not to be affected by traumaticed events that most of her actions did not make much sense. Emily eventually ‘broke down’ and buried her father. However, “Faulker’s use of the phrase “broke down” does not mean that Emily consciously acknowledged the reality of her father’s death; on the contrary, her breakdown signaled a retreat from the reality into the defenses of her own psyche (Scherting 4). This was proven because of her father’s death, Emily was sick for awhile, also she became defensive when people tried to support her through it, she did not want anyone’s help (Scherting 4). Emily’s actions after her father’s death had showed how impervious she was as she never had emotionally broken down, or accepted the death of her father. She buried him yet Emily could not put him behind her, she believed her father was not dead but taken from her. Which lead to her wanting to replace her father with Homer Barren.
Emily’s relationship with Homer Barren was linked to her desire to be with her father.

Homer was in place of her father, but seeing that Emily ended up taking his life she had been impervious to any true feelings for the guy. She wanted to almost “redo” what had happened with her father. However, this time she would be able to keep the body seeing as nobody would know Homer was her in house. Her relationship with Homer had reflected her relationship with her father. For example, “Like her father, he carries a “Whip in a yellow glove” when they ride through the streets during their “courtship” (Polk 82). There is tiny details that remind her of her father, she is not affected by the fact that it is not her father, but rather Homer Barren. Emily did not want to give up her father’s body but the authorities had forced her too. Eventually after killing Homer, she kept the body. This was significant because she had wanted to keep her father’s body orginally. As stated in the story, there was evidence that Emily had been laying next to Homer’s body in bed by the imprint in the pillow. This was “the extent to her Oedipal dream” (Polk 82). In other words, her sexual desires of her father from being raised that way. Homer Barren was known to be also a father-surrogate (Polk 82). After her father’s death she is able to keep Homer’s body at least unlike her father’s body and she is able to somewhat “consummates” the Opedipal dream she had (Polk 82). She shows she is impervious by being able to keep the body upstairs in the bedroom all those years. She was not affected by the knowledge at all. The relationship with Homer Barren had been reflected with her relationship with her father. “Those who attended Emily’s funeral some forty years after Homer’s death saw a crayon portrait of her father “musing profoundly” over her coffin” (402) There was another reference to the painting as the people entering her bedroom saw Homer’s remains, Faulker described the skull confronting the

people with a “profound and fleshless grin” (402). The reference of the paitining coming up is “that the spirit of Mr. Grierson so preoccupied Emily’s distorted universe that it dominated the personal identity of Homer Barron” (403). In other words, Emily was impervious of the fact that Homer Barron was not actually her father, but her distorted mind had taken the idea over.

In Faulker’s story “Burning Barn”, he basically explains people loosing their connection to society and for what it stands for. Connecting his story, “A Rose for Emily” is extremely easy seeing as Emily lived a disconnected life from society as well. Emily displays violence in her story by killing her boyfriend, while Abner Snopes displays violence by ‘burning barns’. Abner has moments where he Is complex and mysterious. For example, _______. Abner and Emily were both in stories that were third person narratives. When they mention Abner saying something about race, it can be concluded that we do not know his view on race. Both characters murder people because they no longer feel accepted into society as a whole. For starters, both are outsiders in their communities in which they live in. Abner and Emily are both independent characters and live their life how they want to live it. They both like to control their life as well. Emily refuses to pay her taxes on her home and kills her boyfriend in order to keep him with her always. Abner burns down a barn because of people he had not agreed with. At the end of both of their lives, they both die unhappy people.

In conclusion, Emily Grerison was an unreachable character. She lived such an isolated life that she was unable to tell her story through her own words. She came across as an impervious person from her actions. Which had a lot to do with the relationships she obtained throughout her life. However, the number reminded small, they were stil a big impact.